An NCO is a senior enlisted man. There is no NCO or senior enlisted man, they are the same thing. I think you meant "a sqaud is lead by an NCO or a senior private". Anyone who is not commissioned is enlisted, unless they hold a warrant. In commonwealth armies a warrant officer is still not commissioned and still messes with seargents. (Senior NCOs).
Agreed absolutely fascinating, especially got to the example of how the elimination of an MG position fits into the much larger objective of creating a continuous beachhead at army level. I always knew that the smaller unit actions strung together create the entirety of a campaign but to see the connections laid out this is a real eye-opener.
What's also worth noting is that "Corps" can also be used as the title of a whole arm; such as the Infantry Corps, Armoured Corps, Artillery Corps, Corps of Engineers etc. This is usually the case with an army that's just not big enough to have operational use for a corps. So, they use it for administration instead.
While that might be the case at the creation of those units, that could also just be due to tradition. Don't those sort of institutions still exist in the british army? They still have the royal engineers corps, royal marines, etc.
I'm glad you used Easy Company as an actual example. Having watched the entire Band of Brothers series and heard interviews from some of the soldiers in those units, including Winters himself, this is a big help!
This is a great rule of thumb! People really tend to not realize the true scale of these operations and how important structure is to function. There’s some difference between countries and branches obviously, this very well describes the WWII layout of army units. It can get really peculiar when traditional titles interfere with legitimate representation of a units strength, origin, and mission set. It’s one reason that multinational commands can be so difficult. In what’s slowly becoming my signature comment on this channel I’ll share some more modern (and American) points on the subject. The example I’ll offer here is of the American marine corps infantry (up to the battalion level) First example is the squad, USMC squads are a 13 man squad (sometimes with additional attachments) or 12 strong in the 3 man team examples (this is seldom seen beyond LCR’s and the Recon community). This brings the average platoon to a strength of 40-60 men depending on readiness and attachments. Attachments may consist of machine gun teams/ squads, mortar teams/ squads, a combat engineer team, AA missile teams, etc. Many of these assets exist at a company level. For example, the engineers are attached upon a unit deploying in a ratio of one squad per company (meaning one team per platoon). Engineers are often attached to their platoon directly for operations but are a part of the weapons platoon. The weapons platoon also consists of mortars, machine guns, and FIST sections. Moving on to the battalion you have three line companies, a headquarters and service company, a weapons company, snipers, and often attached artillery batteries. The weapons company retains heavy assets such as CAAT, anti-armor missile sections, heavy machine guns, scouts/ snipers, 81mm mortars, etc. So the numbers actually balloon out quite a bit. However as we all well know the numbers in combat often see units well under strength and lacking certain key assets. As we can see attached and detached assets can very quickly spoil our nice tables and layouts haha
Thanks for commenting, your insights are always appreciated. The USMC does indeed offer some interesting examples of small unit organization throughout its history. Its early adoption of a 3 fireteam squad layout in WWII strikes me as particularly innovative. Not only does this streamline command for the squadleader as he essentially commands 3 equal subunits, but it also makes much better use of the BAR. Every 4 men fireteam having its own BAR unburdens the weapon from having to fill the sole squad LMG role like in the regular infantry and instead places it in the Light Automatic Rifle role that it was originally designed for. Often in photographs you see it used from the shoulder and with the bipod removed, almost like a heavy assault rifle. A downside would be the inability to sustain losses, as a 4 men fireteam would quickly lose its combat effectiveness with even a single casualty. Still, it is evident from subsequent infantry organization post-war that a symmetric fireteam layout has its merits.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours I think compared to the marine recon team layout/ future USMC organization of two five man teams with a SL and ASL has a lot of advantages in sustaining casualties, particularly in the long term. Teams retain more combat effectiveness despite losses, teams can act more independently, more specialized roles can be assigned per team (again enabling autonomy), and it reduces burden of command somewhat. The disadvantages are manpower reduction, increased training for proficiency, lack of combat reserve, and some other stuff. Overall it’s a matter of picking what traits are most desired. Frankly, increased autonomy is very handy. In my experience teams range from 3-5 man teams. Usually a squad is reinforced with an engineer, adding at least one extra man to one team. The squads also are often accompanied by a machine gun team from the weapons platoon (or an MG squad attached to the platoon). The three man team is somewhat anemic particular for sustained operations. I prefer the five man team for this. However in combat I find the four man is easier to control while retaining much of its combat power. A trend I’m seeing more often is attaching two corpsmen to a platoon, reducing the strain on CLS, TCCC, and Valkyrie trained marines to conduct CUF. However in the historic perspective the four man team was heavily reliant on the BAR, teams were rarely ever supplied according to T/O manuals. Starting the pacific campaign with Vickers guns and 1903 Springfields truly showed the state of the Corps. The eventual progression to greater firepower (M1 carbines, grease guns, M1 Garands, M1919, M1919 Stinger (informal modification), etc) really complimented the USMC layout. Almost like the budding Sturmzug of the German army, it was the right direction but needed improvement. I think an unsung advantage of the three team layout was that starting with 13 men created many options not available to more common 9 and 10 man squads. For example a 13 man marine squad can sustain 30% casualties, rapidly consolidate into two teams, and continue with the effectiveness of its counterparts. It also allows the squad leader to maintain a reserve. This can simply be a combat power reserve, an aid & litter team, a TSE/ SSE team, or other task-oriented yet mission dependent organizations. The marine corps had a very unique development in the late 19th and early 20th Century regarding its involvement in and development of “Small Wars” tactics. Really interesting to me. (As a side note I really don’t like the three man fireteam standardization they tried to push not too long ago. Just about every unit I know of ignored it, stuck with four man. Not sure how this new 10 man squad will be received by the greater marine corps, though I think it has much more promise)
The topic of fireteams and your mention of 'Small Wars' brings to mind the use of four-man 'sticks' by the Rhodesian Security Forces as covered in this video: ua-cam.com/video/B3CVQe_m1yE/v-deo.html There were some unique factors involved that make it difficult to compare the Rhodesian experience to other conflicts, but I nonetheless find it a fascinating case to study. While the size limit of four men per stick was heavily influenced by the limited capacity of the Rhodesian helicopters, it also had its tactical merits. Generally speaking, four men seems to be the preferred size for the smallest infantry unit in most cases.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Yes! I thought the exact same thing as I watched the video. There’s many comparisons to be made between the Rhodesian and American desires for firepower. The lighter M249 (FN Mini-Me) allowed for similar suppressive effects within close range as the significantly heavier M240 (FN MAG). There’s a component of ammunition standardization wherein the FAL and M240 take 7.62x51 and the M16/M4 and M249 take 5.56x45. However the M249 allows for more flexibility in that it can be fed by magazines as well as belts. The desired effect of overwhelming firepower provided to the smallest unit while enabling fire and maneuver really does show. Much of this ties into machine gun theory, how much suppression is psychologically effective upon the enemy. The idea of overwhelming firepower is hard to appreciate until you’ve experienced that type of event. The four man team does seem to be preferred. I believe as warfare continues to advance this will allow for more tactical flexibility such as operating drones, and AA/AT roles. The lightweight nature of the Rhodesian air assault units was pretty impressive to me. While the idea of body armor as a mission dependent item is entering the western sphere at the SF level it’s yet to meet the general infantry. The ability to carry extra ammunition and move with such speed on the battlefield must have been incredible. I can imagine the sheer chaos the SUL’s had to manage and the panic of the forces under assault. However I also see the vulnerability of their armament and strategy in other scenarios. (Didn’t stop me from teaching it to my boys to offer perspective!)
The rule of four when it comes to leadership…. Four is the ideal number where a “first among equal” can be acknowledged, a second place of whats left , and if both first and second place are eliminated either 3&4 are close enough in experience and knowledge to mutually cooperate with each other for their mutual survival , OR 4 will be so much greener than 3 that 4 will instinctively put their trust in 3. That being said the purpose of the four man team is to perform a specific task and if attrition makes accomplishing that task impossible, to work together to survive and escape
Squad, enough for 1 man, but big enough to have an impact 5:30 platoon, 3 squads, small hq officer 6:35 company, 3 platoons, Special wepons eg anti tank, exsplosive, morter and surply led by captin or major 7:55 batalion, 3 companies, 1 heavy wepon, 1 suport (transport, reapers, surplys) Lieutenant cereal 9:04 reginent (American, German) 3 battalions 2 companies (anti tank ect) 10:25 brigade, (British) Conbined arms, the batalions can be changed (tank, infantry ect) brigader/colonel 12:25 division major general 3 regemts 3 batalion different types Conbined arms 14:20 corp Lieutenant general, large hq, 2-5 divsons, given or lose division depending on mission. They use special technology but only when necessary.. (units are moved between corps depending on wherr needed) 17:50 2-3 courps, 100,000+ men, general. Assignees units Then army group, comands a theater, general ir feild Marshall, comands multiple armys sometimes multiple countries
WW2 infantry battalions (at least for USA) also had "battalion aid stations" which included a medical element. The name suggests that they were organic to the battalion, though they might have been attached from division.
Excellent video! Thank you for putting this information together. I am sharing this video with our newly hired civilians as an excellent starting point to learn Army Organization.
I find it interesting how this can possibly be used in a school setting. The number of soldiers in a platoon is similar to the number of students in an average classroom (20-40). This could make the teacher be equated to a lieutenant. If they handle an entire grade with multiple sections, they can be equated to a captain. Since students already naturally form little cliques of their own consisting of 5 to 10 people, can schools utilize this behaviour to their advantage? Instead of just one class president and some class officers, who in my experience I barely even know since they are always from another clique apart from mine, maybe the classroom can be split into 5-9 people "squads" (students group themselves of course, not teacher assigned) where they elect their own leader (corporal), who they actually know on a personal level, to represent them to the class president (sergeant), who then reports to the teacher. This way, individual students who are struggling can be addressed by their corporals who can report the problems to the teacher, so the teacher doesnt have to get overwhelmed by all 30-80 students and their own problems and woes. Conversely, if the teacher is having a hard time reaching the student, ( maybe due to the nature of online classes) the teacher can just go to the corporal or the sergeant and go "hey, can you tell x that he's failing english and to answer his damn emails or something. Maybe he'll listen to his friends and actually get his head out of his ass." This, of course, is assuming the students cooperate with the system instead of bumming around and electing whoever, as those little shits are liable to do.
That is a very good idea! In the scouts we are divided up into sixes with the sixer being the leader or most senior who is responsible for the squads cohesion. The sixer reports to the scout master. The squad will. have diverse members with different strengths and weaknesses so the squad is only as strong as its weakest member. This fosters taking care of each other in the squad to ensure success. Competition between squads is encouraged as well as all squads working together.
I know someone who was a career corporal in the Canadian Air Force (whatever it's properly called) and that was pretty much his job -- tutoring cadets, and keeping track of how they were doing.
Ok, so here is looking at this analogy from a different angle: In today's Germany, soldiers and high school teachers are on the same pay scale, as they are both government employees. So it is easy to compare: The lowest high school teacher rank "Studienrat" is paid the same salary as a Captain in the army. The next higher rank, "Oberstudienrat" already gets a Major's salary, the next level "Studiendirektor" (which could be roughly called a deputy principal) is equal to a Lieutenant Colonel, and the principal of a high school, i.e. an "Oberstudiendirektor", gets paid the same as a full Colonel. From that point of view, one could say that in Germany teachers are paid quite generously. And they certainly have more vacation time than a soldier...
I was pondering this very subject the other day, but since I too lazy to Google it I just said meh.....so I'm glad you came along on my scroll. Now I have a greater understanding of the definitions. Thanks.
British regiments were recruiting and training organisations. Each regiment being made up of multiple battalions. These could be regular battalions or reserve battalions. The battalions of a regiment were not deployed together but attached individually to different brigades for combat. Regiments were commanded by Colonels, brigades by brigadier generals. In this way even if there were devastating casualties in battle, the regimental structure remained intact to regenerate new battalions.
Thanks for commenting. In this video I brought up the Commonwealth regimental system to contrast the different uses of 'regiment', but it's an interesting subject that deserves a more thorough explanation. I plan to make a follow-up video covering the Commonwealth regimental system in more detail.
that was an excellent break down of army structure from a macro to a micro level, and the example you used really help distinguish the different objectives at different levels
Something worth noting. In the US army cavalry, we still use the term troop to refer to a company sized unit, and the term regiment for us means battalion
There's one thing that surpried me. That the division in the exemple is named 101 airborne division. This would indicate that there are at least 100 other arborne divisions but i guess that it the 101th division and it's an airborne division not the 101th division of the airborne variaty. Or the U.S. has a massive army but i didn't heard of this many airborne divisions. Same goes for the regiments.
I haven’t thought about this stuff since the 80’s! Very well explained. Who knew that being a Private in the US Army would be such a pinnacle of my life? I would give all that I have to go back to that time.
As someone who has spent his entire career in the Navy and knows his way around maritime operations, the Army way has always been foreign to me. Great video! An easy way to determine how all the different rank and organisational levels align together! Have you considered a video on breaking down a Command Staff (HQ) at these different levels and/or how Naval/Air forces work (particularly in the WWII Era but also Modern works for Naval Strike Group tactics)?
It can get really confusing with some of the terminology. In WW2 the USSR fielded tank 'corps' that were the size of smallish German or American divisions so when you read or hear of accounts of some battles and they mention multiple Soviet tank 'corps' participating it usually isn't as many tanks as you might think since it might take three of these tank 'corps' to equal the strength of a German Panzer 'corps'. Soviet 'armies' were often correspondingly smaller as well. For instance, on 1 January, 1945, the Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army had two 'corps', but, since these 'corps' were really more division sized elements, this army was really more akin to a German corps tactically speaking. This also leads into some of the notions of the Germans being defeated mainly by being numerically overwhelmed. If you read an account of an action and it says three Soviet 'corps' attacked one German 'corps' the impression is that the Germans would be greatly outnumbered when in reality that often wasn't the case (hypothetically assuming all these formations were at full strength anyway). The Soviets also called army groups 'fronts', making them equivalent in size and function to a German or American army group. So when you hear '1st Ukrainian Front', think '1st Ukrainian Army Group' for reference. In the WW2 Japanese Army, an 'army' was the equivalent of a Western 'corps', an 'area army' was the equivalent to a Western 'army' and a 'general army' was the equivalent to a Western 'army group' or Soviet 'front'. So, if you see an action where a Japanese 'army' fought an American 'army' these were actually vastly different organizations.
Your videos are great. Very informative and well put together. Not to sound weird, but you also have a very soothing voice. You'd probably make reading the phone book sound interesting.
i learned all this just from reading constantly and connecting dots but its amazing that someone has actually made a vid about this will educate a lot of ppl on these sort of things and your dutch the accent is just powerful
Another thing: generally, the company is the smallest unit which can be self-sustaining in the short run. Historically (say, WW1 through Vietnam and Korea) an infantry company would have its own cooks and mess hall, its own supply room, its own armorer. The heavy weapons platoon's mortars would give it limited organic fire support. The only external personnel required for (short term) combat would be medical personnel. Modern US Army infantry companies don't have their own cooks, and two supply personnel rather than the WW2 one, Otherwise, it's much the same.
My Grandfather was a platoon leader in Vietnam and think he said he had usually 37-48 men in his platoon! They would repel from helicopter and he was a badass
Sooo amazing. I can listen to and watch tactics and organization all day. Although it’s useless knowledge to me since I’m sure no one will be asking me to command a fire team let alone a Corp.
My uncle was with the 3Armour, 33 Armour (Spear Head) Division. My research shows that his units has been detach and attach from parent units to parent units as needed. One note of difference that at the brigade level they were refer to Combat Command.
Thank you for sharing! The US armored divisions did indeed use a very flexible structure of brigade-sized 'Combat Commands' (usually 'A' and 'B', sometimes a third called 'C' or 'R' for reserve). These combat commands were composed of battalion-sized 'Task Forces' of mixed infantry and tank companies. The US armored division will get its own episode in the future. I'm especially looking forward to covering the 7th armored at the battle of Overloon, which is an upcoming battlefield tour on this channel.
I wish there was a way to get players in the war gaming community to watch this. most have no concept of what you've cleanly laid out. yet, they try to simulate a battle or skirmish without the fundamentals of military theory. then they complain when the strategy doesn't work for the forces deployed. very frustrating to watch
Note: the British Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is a regiment of 2 Battalions, one regular (1st Fusiliers) and one reserve (5th Fusiliers). in practice, however, the RRF forms part of the Queen's Division as follows: Colonel Commandant ("honorary or ceremonial title relating to a [...] corps"): LtGen Douglas Chalmers 1st Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire) RESERVE 3rd Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire) RESERVE 4th Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire) 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers - RESERVE 5th Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers 1st and 2nd Battalions, Royal Anglian Regiment - RESERVE 3rd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment 1st Battalion Duke of Lancasters Regiment 1st Battalion Mercian Regiment 3rd Battalion Ranger Regiment Royal Gibraltar Regiment (Previously: Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire) (PWRR); Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (RRF); Royal Anglian Regiment (R ANGLIAN)) The inevitable result of this, in my estimation, is that the commander of the Queen's Division has greater, direct command over the individual Battalions.
The video made the general statement that British regiments consist of only one battalion, and you gave a counterexample. My understanding is that one battalion is more typical in peacetime than in wartime. So in a peacetime British Army, a smaller number of soldiers are carrying on the heritage associated with the name of a regiment. So in the wake of WWII, the US Army completely disbanded many entire divisions and regiments, while the British Army inactivated many battalions, making the regiments smaller, and reorganized them into divisions.
Manstein mentioned that as Corp commander, he had only the HQ+signals, and was constantly visiting division commanders (don't recall if he visited lower units). Then as Army commander, he had too many administrative duties - HQ, supply, hospitals, legal. In WWI, the Germany army did not have army groups. All seven western front Armies (+1 Eastern front?) reported to von Moltke. The lack of coordination allowed a gap between 1st and 2nd Army to develop. Hence the Army Group was to have better coordination between armies
Thanks! Right now the channel is mostly focused on ground warfare, but I do plan to cover some air combat in the future. When that time comes I'll be sure to make a video similar to this one to get everyone up to speed on the basics.
Artillery (usually) has 4 gun-systems in every platoon,with 2 or 3 platoons per battery. That makes 8-12 artillery pieces per battery in stead of the stated 4.
A regiment in BRITAIN is not typically a single battalion, some are now due to cuts but they should be multiple batallion unit. Ceremonially units retain regimental title for history A British regiment usually has single focus like light infantry, mechanised infantry etc so a brigade will be combined specialties such as the air assault brigade being made up of the parachute regiment and supporting units from royal engineers, RLC, and any vehicles needed
A polite suggestion. The font you are using is a little hard to see if you have low vision. It would be a lot more accessible if it was a little thicker. Amazing content, thank you.
I was in the 101st in the 90's (B co. 1 (Battalion)/187inf Rakkassans) and pre-9/11 the 101st only had 3 infantry regiments (187 inf, 502nd inf and 327 inf). Right before the Iraq deployments the army changed things up and created regimental combat teams, essentially putting all of the support personnel inside of the infantry regiment for quicker deployment to a combat zone as opposed to before 9/11 when support units inside of the division were separate entities and just attached to the infantry as needed, kinda like sub-contractors. Post 9/11 the 101st went to 4 regimental combat teams/4 infantry regiments if you will to get ready to deploy to war, basically. Becuase to be very clear EVERYTHING in a division is set up to support the warfighter (infantryman), EVERYTHING. They are the tip of the spear of the division and thats what strikes the enemy. Atleast that's how it is in a light infantry division (101st, 82nd, 10th mountain, 25th infantry), I cant speak for an armored division or cavalry division. As far as to what the infantry squad grunts life consists of and how he views the bigger elements above him? People need to understand that above the company level (even inside your own battalion), you could really care less nor dont even really have contact with other companies that much, they might as well be in a whole other division, your "world" is your company and actually, your platoon. Your squad is like your brothers, other squads inside your platoon are like your 1st cousins and other platoons are like your 2nd and 3rd cousins or occasional friends you hang out with and see from time to time but arent all that tight with. If that makes any sense to people. Good video though, i think you do a good job breaking it down for the layman/regular person.
Some times the terminology is changed to be more effective in combat, compared to in training. Sometimes it is used to confuse the enemies intelligence.
Thank you for the explanations! Very helpful. Interesting, to me, is to note that Col. Sink gave command of 2nd Bn to Capt. Winters in October 1944. Winters wasn't promoted to major until Feb 1945! So here's a man with company commander rank running an entire battalion! And where did Lt. Col. Strayer go? Also, and unrelated, the formation at West Point, the USMA, is a brigade, comprising 2 or 3 regiments.
Thanks. This video helps me. I haven’t ever been in the military but I am interested in recent military history and I have always been curious to know what each of these terms mean.
I really enjoyed the explanation on how the army goal of linking the divisional beachheads was planned and executed on the different layers of the army organization. It was very detailed. Will be there more videos like this or do you know a channel who does this?
If you liked that example then I would suggest my "Private Webster's War" trilogy where I follow Easy Company of the 101st Airborne through Operation Market Garden and place the experiences of a single paratrooper within the bigger tactical and operational picture. Check it out here: ua-cam.com/play/PLXlQirTQHAXNrSaoLctZ1q70Z_7ME0poT.html&si=3HZPh3DFZpDzyFdL
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours I had already watched it. It was very informative, but not exactly what i was looking for. I was more looking for a description on how overall strategic decisions are implemented by the commanders on each unit level. In this example there where multiple levels of decision: 1. Both armies had to link up - so one of the divisions of the corps gets the task to faciliate that by capturing Carentan 2. The task is delegated to the division which uses its regiments, which then uses it battalions to actually perform the mission. So i was looking for some more detailed description on that level of combat (regimental and batallion), because on this level it seems that terrain starts to play an overall significant role in planning, as well as unit communication/coordination. For instance in this example first a hill was captured from which carentan was then attacked from the south. I guess it would be even more interessting of the regiments/battallions would have encountered more resistance during the initial phase of encircling the town, i.e. how does combat on this level happen if there is already a fully manned frontline? My guess would be that if there would be some videos that first layout the plans of the commanders, maybe on each side, and then describe how they try to achieve their goal and various, maybe changing, subgoals along the way.
I think I see what you're looking for. At the moment what comes closest is the second half of my most recent video on the A30 Challenger tank where I reconstruct the battle for Son. This includes everything from individual tanks up to battalion and regimental/brigade level and also looks closely at the key terrain features that shaped the battle. Other than that I will keep the subject in mind for a future video. Thanks for the suggestion!
Love a discussion in English with a Dutch accent using American terminology to talk about something that was largely defined by the French and British :)
I'm not sure your description of UK/Commonwealth Regiments is quite right. Most single Battalion Regiments were amalgamated in by the Childers Reforms in 1881. (But like everything British there were exceptions to the rule.) Around the turn of the 20th century the Territorial System was formed; each Regiment having two regular Battalions and one or two Volunteer Reserve Battalions - similar to the US Regiment. A lot of the confusion stems from the Battalions of a Regiment seldom being deployed together in the same formation. A UK Brigade would consist of 3 Battalion sized units -similar to the US Regiment - but those Battalions forming the Brigade would be from 3 different Regiments. For example, in 1939 The Bedfordshire and Hertforshire Regiment consisted of 3 Battalions: The 1st Battalion was in Egypt as part of the 14th Infantry Brigade (8th Inf Div), the 2nd Battalion was in France with the BEF in the 10th Infantry Brigade (4th Inf Div), Whilst the 5th Battalion - the recently mobilised Volunteer Reserve - was part of the newly forming 55th Infantry Brigade in the UK. This might seem chaotic, but there is a reasoning to it. Due to the territorial basis of the regimental system, Regiments recruited from quite a small geographical area, so sending each Battalion to different corners of the empire reduced the risk of them all being wiped out in a catastrophic defeat and the detrimental impact that would have to a very localised population back home. In the example above, the 5th Battalion, Bedfordshire and Hertforshire Regiment, ended up in Singapore. Most that survived the battle and surrender died building the Burma Railroad.
Thanks for commenting David. I really appreciate your input. In the video I only briefly mention the Commonwealth regimental system, mostly to caution viewers against confusing the 'tactical regiment' (of the US for example) with the more 'ceremonial regiment' of the Commonwealth. Your comment describes the territorial origins of the regimental system and the tactical employment in brigades very well. Thank you for that. I plan to cover the regimental system in more detail in a future video, perhaps in preparation for a battlefield tour series on Arnhem that I'm planning. Your example of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment will surely prove useful for this.
This is fabulous, and excellently presented. I still find it really difficult to understand how they select the targets they select. Like why Caranten, or even the beaches that were selected.
There are many things that go into selecting a certain beach for an amphibious invasion. The level of defenses for one. Also, things like tides, currents, coral reefs, etc. The landings at Inchon had to timed precisely for those reasons. If the beach had really rough terrain (mountains, swamps) behind it it might not be suitable because it wouldn't do any good to take a beach if it was almost impossible to move inland from it. Rough terrain behind the beach might also make the area much easier to defend, like at Gallipoli. A lot of high ground behind the beach also means the enemy can shoot down on you or place artillery there which would then give it more range, like at Iwo Jima. You also have to look at how close your invasion beach is to where you're coming from. The closer they are together, the faster you can move men and supplies to the invasion sites and remove casualties from it. There is also the proximity to good port facilities. If you can capture a beach near a large port that you can take quickly you increase the amount of men and supplies you can deliver greatly as it is much faster to pull troop and supply ships up to actual docks than it is having to take it to the beach on landing craft. So it might be worth it to take a beach that was more heavily defended, even though casualties will be higher, that is close to a large port and has nice, flat ground behind it than one that's less well defended, with a mountain range behind it and 50 miles from a sizeable port. It's less well defended for a reason. As far as geographical locations, like cities or hills, it's mainly because they confer some tactical or strategic advantage. Again, a port city might be a priority target because having it is a strategic advantage. Places are often selected because they are a communications or road nexus. If a number of roads or railroads converge there, it is very advantageous to have that location. Not just so you can use it, but so the enemy can't. There also may be a large airfield or natural resource or something like an airplane plant or supply dump there that you want to use yourself or deny to the enemy. Terrain is often selected too because of the advantages it gives. Having a high area means you can observe the surrounding area making it much more difficult for the enemy to move. If you can see it, you can often control it with air power or artillery. Some terrain, like mountain passes or heavy forests, are also much easier to defend. If you can take a mountain pass, you could defend it with smaller units against much larger units.
Something to note about British/Commonwealth regiments which seems to be overlooked here, and goes some way to explaining why a lot of “regiments” were just battalions, is that these regiments are very often geographical in nature. For example, the modern “Mercian” regiment primarily recruits from regions that were (very long ago) part of the Kingdom of Mercia. So a lot of these regiments have feudal ancestry. Today that means that a regiment will change size depending on the need of the army at the time. Then these regiments provide battalions to Brigades (British, Allied or NATO if modern) like building blocks for the combined arms nature of a brigade. I don’t think this is too dissimilar from modern US regiments?
Thanks for the feedback. More people have commented on this as it is a subject that is left under-explored in this video. Detailing the different usages of both 'regiment' and 'brigade' and how these evolved post-WWII is a topic that deserves its own future video.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Of course. I didn't think you were wrong about anything, but I wanted to add a bit of extra context as well. I look forwards to seeing a follow up video on Regiments and Brigades.
Although the Corps in reference to the Marine Corps is a ceremonial title, the Marines Corps is indeed a Corps that consists of 4 divisions (6 in WWII).
One of the biggest changes from WW2 to today is the designation of a “headquarters Platoon” on the company level and a Headquarters company on the battalion level. These headquarters units contain both the command staff of the greater element and alot of the specialized elements and the support elements occasionally assigned to one of the lesser units. Cooks for example used to be assigned to the company level by default and then by command consolidated at the battalion level. Cooks are now assigned by default to a single team to the battalion Headquarters company and then only parceled out to the company level when necessary
If anyone is wondering a typical infantry squad breaks now like this. With every position filled you will have a squad leader e-6 Staff Sergeant and two fire teams Alpha and Bravo. Alpha team leader e-5 Sergeant is typically the senior position and the bravo team leader same rank is the less experienced. In each fire team you will have two riflemen, a grenadier, and an automatic machine gunner. Last is a squad level RTO filling a typical squad to twelve but it never happens in reality. The 40mm launcher 203 or 320 is often carried by the team leader usually from lack of experience from the joes. Your most experienced joe usually the senior specialist e-4 is humping the saw m-249. That gives the team leader confidence he knows what to do and how to employ the team's deadliest weapon. Also, in an infantry platoon there is always the "weapons squad" and this is led by the most senior staff sergeant. They get the lovely nickname of WSL or the weasel but they are anything but. Your weapons squad has two gun teams rather than fire teams. A typical gun team has the leader "assistant gunner" is most senior usually a senior specialist or cherry e-5. The gunner for the 240b/l whatever infantry is carrying nowadays is your strongest Joe 26.7lbs unloaded gets tiring fast. The final unique position for the gun team is the ammo bearer or ammo bitch. Add two riflemen and that's a standard gun team but you'll never get that. You will be lucky if you get an AB (ammo bitch) to help carry spare barrels and other misc equipment for the hog. The weapons squad has a unique way they operate as well due to the absolute necessity of those two guns. Assistant gunner feeds, directs, corrects, breaks belts, changes barrels, sets up the tripod, basically does everything except shoot but everything is a team effort. A gun team learns everything in and out functioning like two parts of a clock. Additionally, your PSG (platoon sergeant e-7) as well as your platoon medic (e-1 to e-4) are never far from the gun teams. The CCP (causality collection point) is typically close to where the SBF (support by fire the gun teams) is set up as it's generally safe. PSG will help doc out with 9 lines and medical interventions. You can see why the WSL needs to be senior because if one of those guns goes down that is a game changer for fire superiority. Nothing is more terrifying than the weasel screaming at you to get your gun up. Different units do different shit so nothing is absolute standard. I played opfor during 2/75 annual airfield seizure and their team leaders carry the saws. Fucking weird man but I also kind of get it. Oh, adding this I was 11b not 11c so I don't know how mortar teams are organized but I believe it's similar to a gun team. However, they carry the tube, baseplate, and mortars while in training but on deployment we'd have a mortar team attached to the platoon and they hung out with the HQ section. Ah shit hq section (head quarters) PL platoon leader O-1/O-3, PSG, doc, RTO (e-1/e-4 the Joe with the highest asvab typically lucky me), FO forward observer (e-1/e5), and any attachments like mortars fet (female engagement team) ect ect. This applies to the army in more recent post 9/11.
In my combat engineer unit we had sections which excist out of 2 squad's. I guess it is not common in infantry but there is something inbetween squad and platoon.
Good point. Thanks for bringing it up. I had originally planned to include the section-level in the video, but ultimately decided against it. (You can see the gap in the symbology as we go from one dot for the squad to three for the platoon, skipping the two-dot section). Sections are typically used in the more specialized supporting arms or for crew-served weapons/vehicles. They are less common in the infantry which serves as the guideline for the video. (It may also cause confusion with the Commonwealth terminology where 'section' is the equivalent to the squad).
Just a question from a simple amateur : the subdivision of a SQUAD should't be a SECTION and then a subdivision of a SECTION , a TEAM ? ( At least, based in the average of WW2 different country armies?) Excelent video!😌👍👍
A 'section' commonly refers to a unit larger than a squad but smaller than a platoon. It's not very common so I didn't include it in the video (you may have noticed we went from one dot for the squad straight to three dots for the platoon, that's because the section is between them and identified by two dots). One thing to look out for is that the British refer to their squads as 'sections', which may add to the confusion.
The marine corps is actually a corps size. Modern US Army Corps' also tend to have brigade sized support units. Engineers, MPs, signal, chemical, and intelligence. There are also battalions for like air defense Artillery
I just saw this video and liked your description of the easy company command structure as a fan of band of brothers. Could you do breakdowns for other recently familiar commands such as black hawk down and the famous Vietnam battle led by Lt General Harold Moore (Colonel at the time of the battle) depicted in the movie We Were Soldiers. Both battles have interesting commands that included combined arms and in Somalia international contributions.
A field Army in the United States can be made up of both US Army and Marine Corps units and commanded by a General of either branch. We do this because it allows for the field Army commander to be flexible in his maneuver as the Marines practice seizing beaches so it makes sense to have a separate Infantry division of Marines to spearhead that and create a foothold for the field Army to send a Corps with Infantry division leading that and leap frogging over the Marines and push out far enough that artillery can be brought ashore to support the armor as they support the Infantry as they push out to their assigned objectives.
@@garygeorge9648 I spent my entire young life serving in the Army as an Infantry soldier and NCO. I am very aware that the Army put more boots on sand than the Marines in WWII, which would equate to ever. However, the Marines have 3 Infantry divisions who train to seize beaches like the 82nd trains to seize airports. We don't fight the last war, or we shouldn't. We fight the next war. If we were forced to fight another major conflict the hope it's not a case where we have to go ashore in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and France in the same time and space where we have to do the same in the East Pacific as we were on our Island hoping campaign. I also spent 7 years in the 25th Infantry division and know the history of why we were called Tropic Lightning. It was because the Marines were on our right and left flank as we took the center of the battle space to become the main effort during Guadalcanal. The Marines able to witness the boldness and speed with which our forefathers fought during that campaign impressed upon the Marine Corps leaders present that they better light a fire under their Marines as the 25th was fight through the enemy so fast it was "like lightning" and the devil dogs were struggling to keep up and maintain their battle cohesion with the friendly unit to their left/right in order to keep the Japanese from maneuvering small units between adjacent forces and being able to attack our flanks as the fight continued to roll forward. The plan now, because we have the ability to provide air dominance in any given battle space, how we have been able to develop airborne forces and sound doctrine to seize air fields and have done so in every major conflict except desert storm since WWII and have the resources to put boots on the ground using the world's largest logistics air mobility command, is to attack to seize a country that isn't land locked at two or more locations and a few false attacks in order to put that countries defenses in a bind. We want to force them into a no win situation where they are equally screwed. Having the Marines now focused on the literal water ways and developing the new amphibious armored vehicles that can hold 30 angry Marines as it rumbles up on the beach to cover while the Army is dropping two brigades of the 82nd division and the 75th Ranger Regiment onto their countries two or three largest airports make for a very long day. That's why I said the Marines are mixed in with an Army group and why the general chosen by the joint cheifs to command those Army groups can be an Army or Marine Corps general or 4 Star commissioned officer for those reading this who are confused as to why the highest rank you can attain in our military is called a single word designation of general.
A two person team is as small as you can get while still having mutual support. In WWII the US called them 'buddy teams'. They're on such a small and improvised scale that they usually don't register as a distinct level of organization, instead being a way in which a team/squad can deploy it's manpower.
New to the channel? Watch the first Battlefield Tour: ua-cam.com/video/CkVC0R53c54/v-deo.html
An NCO is a senior enlisted man. There is no NCO or senior enlisted man, they are the same thing. I think you meant "a sqaud is lead by an NCO or a senior private". Anyone who is not commissioned is enlisted, unless they hold a warrant. In commonwealth armies a warrant officer is still not commissioned and still messes with seargents. (Senior NCOs).
Loved the video, but could you maybe segment the timestamps per unit type?
Agreed absolutely fascinating, especially got to the example of how the elimination of an MG position fits into the much larger objective of creating a continuous beachhead at army level. I always knew that the smaller unit actions strung together create the entirety of a campaign but to see the connections laid out this is a real eye-opener.
What's also worth noting is that "Corps" can also be used as the title of a whole arm; such as the Infantry Corps, Armoured Corps, Artillery Corps, Corps of Engineers etc. This is usually the case with an army that's just not big enough to have operational use for a corps. So, they use it for administration instead.
While that might be the case at the creation of those units, that could also just be due to tradition. Don't those sort of institutions still exist in the british army? They still have the royal engineers corps, royal marines, etc.
Yeah the U.S. Marine Corps is a great example
He already said that
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 no, marine corps is the size of a corps.
@@CubeInspectorIdk, isn't the Marine Corps too big to be a Corps? They have like 150k men.
This channel is criminally underrated.
Thank you!
The amount of views is still relatively small, but the many encouraging comments make up for it.
Just like war crimes in Yugoslavia?
@@awesomemydog5569 I'm assuming that you're trying to be edgy.
Just trying to piss people off
@@awesomemydog5569 Stick to edgy. You'll get more mileage that way.
From a serving Hellenic Army infantry officer: exceptionally well researched and presented - bravo!
Thank you!
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours - You’re most welcome, mate! 👍
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Yup, I just saw this video to better understand my documenteries and it helped a ton! You are criminally underated.
I'm glad you used Easy Company as an actual example. Having watched the entire Band of Brothers series and heard interviews from some of the soldiers in those units, including Winters himself, this is a big help!
Good to hear!
Be sure to check out my Webster's War battlefield tour if you like Band of Brothers.
cool
Super helpful video to a non-military person who enjoys a bit of history. Easy company example was great.
So many years I've heard these organizational terms used, never having understood them, until now. Thank you.
The example is so juicy that I keep coming back tothis video!
You made a video on a topic everyone talks about but no one ever bothers to explain. You my friend are a saint.
Thank you very much!
Excellent video. Specially liked the linking of all the concepts at the end, with the example of the Easy Company. Great work!
the priests of this site way more like like new
This is a great rule of thumb! People really tend to not realize the true scale of these operations and how important structure is to function.
There’s some difference between countries and branches obviously, this very well describes the WWII layout of army units. It can get really peculiar when traditional titles interfere with legitimate representation of a units strength, origin, and mission set. It’s one reason that multinational commands can be so difficult.
In what’s slowly becoming my signature comment on this channel I’ll share some more modern (and American) points on the subject. The example I’ll offer here is of the American marine corps infantry (up to the battalion level)
First example is the squad, USMC squads are a 13 man squad (sometimes with additional attachments) or 12 strong in the 3 man team examples (this is seldom seen beyond LCR’s and the Recon community). This brings the average platoon to a strength of 40-60 men depending on readiness and attachments. Attachments may consist of machine gun teams/ squads, mortar teams/ squads, a combat engineer team, AA missile teams, etc.
Many of these assets exist at a company level. For example, the engineers are attached upon a unit deploying in a ratio of one squad per company (meaning one team per platoon). Engineers are often attached to their platoon directly for operations but are a part of the weapons platoon. The weapons platoon also consists of mortars, machine guns, and FIST sections.
Moving on to the battalion you have three line companies, a headquarters and service company, a weapons company, snipers, and often attached artillery batteries. The weapons company retains heavy assets such as CAAT, anti-armor missile sections, heavy machine guns, scouts/ snipers, 81mm mortars, etc. So the numbers actually balloon out quite a bit.
However as we all well know the numbers in combat often see units well under strength and lacking certain key assets. As we can see attached and detached assets can very quickly spoil our nice tables and layouts haha
Thanks for commenting, your insights are always appreciated.
The USMC does indeed offer some interesting examples of small unit organization throughout its history.
Its early adoption of a 3 fireteam squad layout in WWII strikes me as particularly innovative.
Not only does this streamline command for the squadleader as he essentially commands 3 equal subunits, but it also makes much better use of the BAR.
Every 4 men fireteam having its own BAR unburdens the weapon from having to fill the sole squad LMG role like in the regular infantry and instead places it in the Light Automatic Rifle role that it was originally designed for. Often in photographs you see it used from the shoulder and with the bipod removed, almost like a heavy assault rifle.
A downside would be the inability to sustain losses, as a 4 men fireteam would quickly lose its combat effectiveness with even a single casualty.
Still, it is evident from subsequent infantry organization post-war that a symmetric fireteam layout has its merits.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours I think compared to the marine recon team layout/ future USMC organization of two five man teams with a SL and ASL has a lot of advantages in sustaining casualties, particularly in the long term. Teams retain more combat effectiveness despite losses, teams can act more independently, more specialized roles can be assigned per team (again enabling autonomy), and it reduces burden of command somewhat. The disadvantages are manpower reduction, increased training for proficiency, lack of combat reserve, and some other stuff. Overall it’s a matter of picking what traits are most desired. Frankly, increased autonomy is very handy.
In my experience teams range from 3-5 man teams. Usually a squad is reinforced with an engineer, adding at least one extra man to one team. The squads also are often accompanied by a machine gun team from the weapons platoon (or an MG squad attached to the platoon).
The three man team is somewhat anemic particular for sustained operations. I prefer the five man team for this. However in combat I find the four man is easier to control while retaining much of its combat power.
A trend I’m seeing more often is attaching two corpsmen to a platoon, reducing the strain on CLS, TCCC, and Valkyrie trained marines to conduct CUF.
However in the historic perspective the four man team was heavily reliant on the BAR, teams were rarely ever supplied according to T/O manuals. Starting the pacific campaign with Vickers guns and 1903 Springfields truly showed the state of the Corps. The eventual progression to greater firepower (M1 carbines, grease guns, M1 Garands, M1919, M1919 Stinger (informal modification), etc) really complimented the USMC layout. Almost like the budding Sturmzug of the German army, it was the right direction but needed improvement.
I think an unsung advantage of the three team layout was that starting with 13 men created many options not available to more common 9 and 10 man squads. For example a 13 man marine squad can sustain 30% casualties, rapidly consolidate into two teams, and continue with the effectiveness of its counterparts. It also allows the squad leader to maintain a reserve. This can simply be a combat power reserve, an aid & litter team, a TSE/ SSE team, or other task-oriented yet mission dependent organizations.
The marine corps had a very unique development in the late 19th and early 20th Century regarding its involvement in and development of “Small Wars” tactics. Really interesting to me.
(As a side note I really don’t like the three man fireteam standardization they tried to push not too long ago. Just about every unit I know of ignored it, stuck with four man. Not sure how this new 10 man squad will be received by the greater marine corps, though I think it has much more promise)
The topic of fireteams and your mention of 'Small Wars' brings to mind the use of four-man 'sticks' by the Rhodesian Security Forces as covered in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/B3CVQe_m1yE/v-deo.html
There were some unique factors involved that make it difficult to compare the Rhodesian experience to other conflicts, but I nonetheless find it a fascinating case to study.
While the size limit of four men per stick was heavily influenced by the limited capacity of the Rhodesian helicopters, it also had its tactical merits.
Generally speaking, four men seems to be the preferred size for the smallest infantry unit in most cases.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Yes! I thought the exact same thing as I watched the video. There’s many comparisons to be made between the Rhodesian and American desires for firepower. The lighter M249 (FN Mini-Me) allowed for similar suppressive effects within close range as the significantly heavier M240 (FN MAG). There’s a component of ammunition standardization wherein the FAL and M240 take 7.62x51 and the M16/M4 and M249 take 5.56x45. However the M249 allows for more flexibility in that it can be fed by magazines as well as belts. The desired effect of overwhelming firepower provided to the smallest unit while enabling fire and maneuver really does show.
Much of this ties into machine gun theory, how much suppression is psychologically effective upon the enemy. The idea of overwhelming firepower is hard to appreciate until you’ve experienced that type of event.
The four man team does seem to be preferred. I believe as warfare continues to advance this will allow for more tactical flexibility such as operating drones, and AA/AT roles.
The lightweight nature of the Rhodesian air assault units was pretty impressive to me. While the idea of body armor as a mission dependent item is entering the western sphere at the SF level it’s yet to meet the general infantry. The ability to carry extra ammunition and move with such speed on the battlefield must have been incredible. I can imagine the sheer chaos the SUL’s had to manage and the panic of the forces under assault. However I also see the vulnerability of their armament and strategy in other scenarios. (Didn’t stop me from teaching it to my boys to offer perspective!)
The rule of four when it comes to leadership….
Four is the ideal number where a “first among equal” can be acknowledged, a second place of whats left , and if both first and second place are eliminated either 3&4 are close enough in experience and knowledge to mutually cooperate with each other for their mutual survival , OR 4 will be so much greener than 3 that 4 will instinctively put their trust in 3.
That being said the purpose of the four man team is to perform a specific task and if attrition makes accomplishing that task impossible, to work together to survive and escape
Squad, enough for 1 man, but big enough to have an impact
5:30 platoon, 3 squads, small hq officer
6:35 company, 3 platoons,
Special wepons eg anti tank, exsplosive, morter and surply led by captin or major
7:55 batalion, 3 companies, 1 heavy wepon, 1 suport (transport, reapers, surplys)
Lieutenant cereal
9:04 reginent (American, German)
3 battalions 2 companies (anti tank ect)
10:25 brigade, (British) Conbined arms, the batalions can be changed (tank, infantry ect) brigader/colonel
12:25 division major general
3 regemts 3 batalion different types Conbined arms
14:20 corp Lieutenant general, large hq, 2-5 divsons, given or lose division depending on mission.
They use special technology but only when necessary.. (units are moved between corps depending on wherr needed)
17:50 2-3 courps, 100,000+ men, general. Assignees units
Then army group, comands a theater, general ir feild Marshall, comands multiple armys sometimes multiple countries
WW2 infantry battalions (at least for USA) also had "battalion aid stations" which included a medical element. The name suggests that they were organic to the battalion, though they might have been attached from division.
Excellent video! Thank you for putting this information together. I am sharing this video with our newly hired civilians as an excellent starting point to learn Army Organization.
Doesn't it have its own explanation ? I find that incredible. It could be tailored to its own peculiarites.
The clarification of Regiment and Brigade alone makes this video worthwhile.
I find it interesting how this can possibly be used in a school setting. The number of soldiers in a platoon is similar to the number of students in an average classroom (20-40). This could make the teacher be equated to a lieutenant. If they handle an entire grade with multiple sections, they can be equated to a captain.
Since students already naturally form little cliques of their own consisting of 5 to 10 people, can schools utilize this behaviour to their advantage? Instead of just one class president and some class officers, who in my experience I barely even know since they are always from another clique apart from mine, maybe the classroom can be split into 5-9 people "squads" (students group themselves of course, not teacher assigned) where they elect their own leader (corporal), who they actually know on a personal level, to represent them to the class president (sergeant), who then reports to the teacher.
This way, individual students who are struggling can be addressed by their corporals who can report the problems to the teacher, so the teacher doesnt have to get overwhelmed by all 30-80 students and their own problems and woes. Conversely, if the teacher is having a hard time reaching the student, ( maybe due to the nature of online classes) the teacher can just go to the corporal or the sergeant and go "hey, can you tell x that he's failing english and to answer his damn emails or something. Maybe he'll listen to his friends and actually get his head out of his ass."
This, of course, is assuming the students cooperate with the system instead of bumming around and electing whoever, as those little shits are liable to do.
I guess that makes me as a single introvert, a specialized commando 😂
That is a very good idea!
In the scouts we are divided up into sixes with the sixer being the leader or most senior who is responsible for the squads cohesion.
The sixer reports to the scout master.
The squad will. have diverse members with different strengths and weaknesses so the squad is only as strong as its weakest member.
This fosters taking care of each other in the squad to ensure success.
Competition between squads is encouraged as well as all squads working together.
I know someone who was a career corporal in the Canadian Air Force (whatever it's properly called) and that was pretty much his job -- tutoring cadets, and keeping track of how they were doing.
Ok, so here is looking at this analogy from a different angle: In today's Germany, soldiers and high school teachers are on the same pay scale, as they are both government employees. So it is easy to compare: The lowest high school teacher rank "Studienrat" is paid the same salary as a Captain in the army. The next higher rank, "Oberstudienrat" already gets a Major's salary, the next level "Studiendirektor" (which could be roughly called a deputy principal) is equal to a Lieutenant Colonel, and the principal of a high school, i.e. an "Oberstudiendirektor", gets paid the same as a full Colonel. From that point of view, one could say that in Germany teachers are paid quite generously. And they certainly have more vacation time than a soldier...
@@cloudchaser966 I think it's about the same in America. Excellent analogy, thank you.
I read a lot of WWII stories and this helps alot to understand things better!
This presentation is really impressive and well thought out.
Much appreciated!
Thank you!
Best explanation. Very clear and to the point
Thanks!
This was a great explanation to Army Organisation, the real-life link was brilliant to really help understand it all! Great work!!
I was pondering this very subject the other day, but since I too lazy to Google it I just said meh.....so I'm glad you came along on my scroll. Now I have a greater understanding of the definitions. Thanks.
British regiments were recruiting and training organisations. Each regiment being made up of multiple battalions. These could be regular battalions or reserve battalions. The battalions of a regiment were not deployed together but attached individually to different brigades for combat. Regiments were commanded by Colonels, brigades by brigadier generals. In this way even if there were devastating casualties in battle, the regimental structure remained intact to regenerate new battalions.
Thanks for commenting.
In this video I brought up the Commonwealth regimental system to contrast the different uses of 'regiment', but it's an interesting subject that deserves a more thorough explanation.
I plan to make a follow-up video covering the Commonwealth regimental system in more detail.
@20:00 is the best part of the video, with a very concise explanation, of unit command
Please keep doing this kind of videos i have been looking for that since a while ago. Thank you so much. Subscribed
that was an excellent break down of army structure from a macro to a micro level, and the example you used really help distinguish the different objectives at different levels
Something worth noting. In the US army cavalry, we still use the term troop to refer to a company sized unit, and the term regiment for us means battalion
There's one thing that surpried me. That the division in the exemple is named 101 airborne division. This would indicate that there are at least 100 other arborne divisions but i guess that it the 101th division and it's an airborne division not the 101th division of the airborne variaty. Or the U.S. has a massive army but i didn't heard of this many airborne divisions. Same goes for the regiments.
I haven’t thought about this stuff since the 80’s! Very well explained. Who knew that being a Private in the US Army would be such a pinnacle of my life? I would give all that I have to go back to that time.
That was an outstanding job of explaining this organization.
Thank you!
As someone who has spent his entire career in the Navy and knows his way around maritime operations, the Army way has always been foreign to me. Great video! An easy way to determine how all the different rank and organisational levels align together!
Have you considered a video on breaking down a Command Staff (HQ) at these different levels and/or how Naval/Air forces work (particularly in the WWII Era but also Modern works for Naval Strike Group tactics)?
Thank you!
Right now my videos are focused primarily on ground warfare, but I do plan to include the Air Force in future content.
When i join military history handbook i get a new experience
Phenomenal work ! You sir deserve a guard of honor
New sub here, this is an outstanding explanation and video. Ty very much!
Thanks. I've been confused about some of these terms for many years
Nice summary. Reading a lot of books and watching video's describing battle orders in WW2 it provides an excellent overview of the units.
Excellent video. I always wondered about the way the units worked from platoon level on up. Now I know. Thanks for sharing.
It can get really confusing with some of the terminology. In WW2 the USSR fielded tank 'corps' that were the size of smallish German or American divisions so when you read or hear of accounts of some battles and they mention multiple Soviet tank 'corps' participating it usually isn't as many tanks as you might think since it might take three of these tank 'corps' to equal the strength of a German Panzer 'corps'. Soviet 'armies' were often correspondingly smaller as well. For instance, on 1 January, 1945, the Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army had two 'corps', but, since these 'corps' were really more division sized elements, this army was really more akin to a German corps tactically speaking. This also leads into some of the notions of the Germans being defeated mainly by being numerically overwhelmed. If you read an account of an action and it says three Soviet 'corps' attacked one German 'corps' the impression is that the Germans would be greatly outnumbered when in reality that often wasn't the case (hypothetically assuming all these formations were at full strength anyway). The Soviets also called army groups 'fronts', making them equivalent in size and function to a German or American army group. So when you hear '1st Ukrainian Front', think '1st Ukrainian Army Group' for reference. In the WW2 Japanese Army, an 'army' was the equivalent of a Western 'corps', an 'area army' was the equivalent to a Western 'army' and a 'general army' was the equivalent to a Western 'army group' or Soviet 'front'. So, if you see an action where a Japanese 'army' fought an American 'army' these were actually vastly different organizations.
I would love to see a video covering airforce and navy organizations.
this is great, and very helpful. thank you for creating this
Great class! Thanks!
Very well laid out and explained with both detail and brevity. Excellent video!
Your videos are great. Very informative and well put together. Not to sound weird, but you also have a very soothing voice. You'd probably make reading the phone book sound interesting.
Thank you for the compliments!
Excellent video, really interesting!
Thanks, that was great, it is just what I have been struggling to understand.
The example is awesome
I first found your channel from your Fireforce video. Excellent videos, all around. Well done.
Same here.
Incredible content! Thanks for giving us this detailed knowledge!
i learned all this just from reading constantly and connecting dots but its amazing that someone has actually made a vid about this will educate a lot of ppl on these sort of things and
your dutch the accent is just powerful
Very underrated channel!
In WWII, US Army Divisions occupied a 12-mile front, or "divisions" that were marked on a map, and each mark separated it from its adjacent Division.
Brilliant explanation. Thank you!
Another thing: generally, the company is the smallest unit which can be self-sustaining in the short run. Historically (say, WW1 through Vietnam and Korea) an infantry company would have its own cooks and mess hall, its own supply room, its own armorer. The heavy weapons platoon's mortars would give it limited organic fire support. The only external personnel required for (short term) combat would be medical personnel.
Modern US Army infantry companies don't have their own cooks, and two supply personnel rather than the WW2 one, Otherwise, it's much the same.
I knew it before. Nice to hear your explanation.
My Grandfather was a platoon leader in Vietnam and think he said he had usually 37-48 men in his platoon! They would repel from helicopter and he was a badass
Man this is superb content. Keep it up!
Hi 👋
Sooo amazing. I can listen to and watch tactics and organization all day. Although it’s useless knowledge to me since I’m sure no one will be asking me to command a fire team let alone a Corp.
My uncle was with the 3Armour, 33 Armour (Spear Head) Division. My research shows that his units has been detach and attach from parent units to parent units as needed. One note of difference that at the brigade level they were refer to Combat Command.
Thank you for sharing! The US armored divisions did indeed use a very flexible structure of brigade-sized 'Combat Commands' (usually 'A' and 'B', sometimes a third called 'C' or 'R' for reserve). These combat commands were composed of battalion-sized 'Task Forces' of mixed infantry and tank companies.
The US armored division will get its own episode in the future. I'm especially looking forward to covering the 7th armored at the battle of Overloon, which is an upcoming battlefield tour on this channel.
@@DigitalBattlefieldToursYou know your history well. In fact my uncle was part of the Reserved unit Combat C and the reserved regiment.
@@robertn2 hey 👋
I wish there was a way to get players in the war gaming community to watch this. most have no concept of what you've cleanly laid out. yet, they try to simulate a battle or skirmish without the fundamentals of military theory. then they complain when the strategy doesn't work for the forces deployed.
very frustrating to watch
Exactly! That is precisely the goal of this series: cover the often overlooked fundamentals.
Note: the British Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is a regiment of 2 Battalions, one regular (1st Fusiliers) and one reserve (5th Fusiliers). in practice, however, the RRF forms part of the Queen's Division as follows:
Colonel Commandant ("honorary or ceremonial title relating to a [...] corps"): LtGen Douglas Chalmers
1st Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire)
RESERVE 3rd Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire)
RESERVE 4th Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire)
1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
- RESERVE 5th Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
1st and 2nd Battalions, Royal Anglian Regiment
- RESERVE 3rd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment
1st Battalion Duke of Lancasters Regiment
1st Battalion Mercian Regiment
3rd Battalion Ranger Regiment
Royal Gibraltar Regiment
(Previously:
Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire) (PWRR);
Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (RRF);
Royal Anglian Regiment (R ANGLIAN))
The inevitable result of this, in my estimation, is that the commander of the Queen's Division has greater, direct command over the individual Battalions.
The video made the general statement that British regiments consist of only one battalion, and you gave a counterexample. My understanding is that one battalion is more typical in peacetime than in wartime. So in a peacetime British Army, a smaller number of soldiers are carrying on the heritage associated with the name of a regiment. So in the wake of WWII, the US Army completely disbanded many entire divisions and regiments, while the British Army inactivated many battalions, making the regiments smaller, and reorganized them into divisions.
Manstein mentioned that as Corp commander, he had only the HQ+signals, and was constantly visiting division commanders (don't recall if he visited lower units).
Then as Army commander, he had too many administrative duties - HQ, supply, hospitals, legal.
In WWI, the Germany army did not have army groups. All seven western front Armies (+1 Eastern front?) reported to von Moltke. The lack of coordination allowed a gap between 1st and 2nd Army to develop.
Hence the Army Group was to have better coordination between armies
Love the vid. You spoke of navy and Air force. Any plans to make a similar video about that? Air and naval groupings?
Thanks!
Right now the channel is mostly focused on ground warfare, but I do plan to cover some air combat in the future. When that time comes I'll be sure to make a video similar to this one to get everyone up to speed on the basics.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours thanks for replying. I'm a fan of the channel. Look forward to future videos.
Artillery (usually) has 4 gun-systems in every platoon,with 2 or 3 platoons per battery. That makes 8-12 artillery pieces per battery in stead of the stated 4.
A regiment in BRITAIN is not typically a single battalion, some are now due to cuts but they should be multiple batallion unit.
Ceremonially units retain regimental title for history
A British regiment usually has single focus like light infantry, mechanised infantry etc so a brigade will be combined specialties such as the air assault brigade being made up of the parachute regiment and supporting units from royal engineers, RLC, and any vehicles needed
Outstanding Video!
Thank you!
the creators of tcw needed this in 2008 😂 great explanation
A polite suggestion. The font you are using is a little hard to see if you have low vision. It would be a lot more accessible if it was a little thicker.
Amazing content, thank you.
Thank you for the feedback.
This video uses a slightly outdated visual style, hopefully you find my more recent productions easier to see.
I was in the 101st in the 90's (B co. 1 (Battalion)/187inf Rakkassans) and pre-9/11 the 101st only had 3 infantry regiments (187 inf, 502nd inf and 327 inf).
Right before the Iraq deployments the army changed things up and created regimental combat teams, essentially putting all of the support personnel inside of the infantry regiment for quicker deployment to a combat zone as opposed to before 9/11 when support units inside of the division were separate entities and just attached to the infantry as needed, kinda like sub-contractors.
Post 9/11 the 101st went to 4 regimental combat teams/4 infantry regiments if you will to get ready to deploy to war, basically.
Becuase to be very clear EVERYTHING in a division is set up to support the warfighter (infantryman), EVERYTHING.
They are the tip of the spear of the division and thats what strikes the enemy.
Atleast that's how it is in a light infantry division (101st, 82nd, 10th mountain, 25th infantry), I cant speak for an armored division or cavalry division.
As far as to what the infantry squad grunts life consists of and how he views the bigger elements above him?
People need to understand that above the company level (even inside your own battalion), you could really care less nor dont even really have contact with other companies that much, they might as well be in a whole other division, your "world" is your company and actually, your platoon.
Your squad is like your brothers, other squads inside your platoon are like your 1st cousins and other platoons are like your 2nd and 3rd cousins or occasional friends you hang out with and see from time to time but arent all that tight with.
If that makes any sense to people.
Good video though, i think you do a good job breaking it down for the layman/regular person.
Some times the terminology is changed to be more effective in combat, compared to in training. Sometimes it is used to confuse the enemies intelligence.
I served 3 yrs active and never bothered to learn unit info above battalion level. I learned more today than in those 3 yrs..😅
Would love to see one of these for air force and navy organizational structure
Very well done!
Thank you!
Thank you for the explanations! Very helpful.
Interesting, to me, is to note that Col. Sink gave command of 2nd Bn to Capt. Winters in October 1944.
Winters wasn't promoted to major until Feb 1945!
So here's a man with company commander rank running an entire battalion!
And where did Lt. Col. Strayer go?
Also, and unrelated, the formation at West Point, the USMA, is a brigade, comprising 2 or 3 regiments.
Thanks. This video helps me. I haven’t ever been in the military but I am interested in recent military history and I have always been curious to know what each of these terms mean.
Thank you!!!
I really enjoyed the explanation on how the army goal of linking the divisional beachheads was planned and executed on the different layers of the army organization. It was very detailed. Will be there more videos like this or do you know a channel who does this?
If you liked that example then I would suggest my "Private Webster's War" trilogy where I follow Easy Company of the 101st Airborne through Operation Market Garden and place the experiences of a single paratrooper within the bigger tactical and operational picture. Check it out here: ua-cam.com/play/PLXlQirTQHAXNrSaoLctZ1q70Z_7ME0poT.html&si=3HZPh3DFZpDzyFdL
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours I had already watched it. It was very informative, but not exactly what i was looking for. I was more looking for a description on how overall strategic decisions are implemented by the commanders on each unit level. In this example there where multiple levels of decision:
1. Both armies had to link up - so one of the divisions of the corps gets the task to faciliate that by capturing Carentan
2. The task is delegated to the division which uses its regiments, which then uses it battalions to actually perform the mission.
So i was looking for some more detailed description on that level of combat (regimental and batallion), because on this level it seems that terrain starts to play an overall significant role in planning, as well as unit communication/coordination. For instance in this example first a hill was captured from which carentan was then attacked from the south. I guess it would be even more interessting of the regiments/battallions would have encountered more resistance during the initial phase of encircling the town, i.e. how does combat on this level happen if there is already a fully manned frontline?
My guess would be that if there would be some videos that first layout the plans of the commanders, maybe on each side, and then describe how they try to achieve their goal and various, maybe changing, subgoals along the way.
I think I see what you're looking for.
At the moment what comes closest is the second half of my most recent video on the A30 Challenger tank where I reconstruct the battle for Son. This includes everything from individual tanks up to battalion and regimental/brigade level and also looks closely at the key terrain features that shaped the battle.
Other than that I will keep the subject in mind for a future video. Thanks for the suggestion!
Great video!
Love a discussion in English with a Dutch accent using American terminology to talk about something that was largely defined by the French and British :)
Love this video. You explained it beautifully, especially the easy company example. Please keep making videos.
I'm not sure your description of UK/Commonwealth Regiments is quite right. Most single Battalion Regiments were amalgamated in by the Childers Reforms in 1881. (But like everything British there were exceptions to the rule.) Around the turn of the 20th century the Territorial System was formed; each Regiment having two regular Battalions and one or two Volunteer Reserve Battalions - similar to the US Regiment.
A lot of the confusion stems from the Battalions of a Regiment seldom being deployed together in the same formation. A UK Brigade would consist of 3 Battalion sized units -similar to the US Regiment - but those Battalions forming the Brigade would be from 3 different Regiments.
For example, in 1939 The Bedfordshire and Hertforshire Regiment consisted of 3 Battalions: The 1st Battalion was in Egypt as part of the 14th Infantry Brigade (8th Inf Div), the 2nd Battalion was in France with the BEF in the 10th Infantry Brigade (4th Inf Div), Whilst the 5th Battalion - the recently mobilised Volunteer Reserve - was part of the newly forming 55th Infantry Brigade in the UK.
This might seem chaotic, but there is a reasoning to it. Due to the territorial basis of the regimental system, Regiments recruited from quite a small geographical area, so sending each Battalion to different corners of the empire reduced the risk of them all being wiped out in a catastrophic defeat and the detrimental impact that would have to a very localised population back home. In the example above, the 5th Battalion, Bedfordshire and Hertforshire Regiment, ended up in Singapore. Most that survived the battle and surrender died building the Burma Railroad.
Thanks for commenting David. I really appreciate your input.
In the video I only briefly mention the Commonwealth regimental system, mostly to caution viewers against confusing the 'tactical regiment' (of the US for example) with the more 'ceremonial regiment' of the Commonwealth.
Your comment describes the territorial origins of the regimental system and the tactical employment in brigades very well. Thank you for that.
I plan to cover the regimental system in more detail in a future video, perhaps in preparation for a battlefield tour series on Arnhem that I'm planning. Your example of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment will surely prove useful for this.
very well done
Shea
This is fabulous, and excellently presented. I still find it really difficult to understand how they select the targets they select. Like why Caranten, or even the beaches that were selected.
There are many things that go into selecting a certain beach for an amphibious invasion. The level of defenses for one. Also, things like tides, currents, coral reefs, etc. The landings at Inchon had to timed precisely for those reasons. If the beach had really rough terrain (mountains, swamps) behind it it might not be suitable because it wouldn't do any good to take a beach if it was almost impossible to move inland from it. Rough terrain behind the beach might also make the area much easier to defend, like at Gallipoli. A lot of high ground behind the beach also means the enemy can shoot down on you or place artillery there which would then give it more range, like at Iwo Jima. You also have to look at how close your invasion beach is to where you're coming from. The closer they are together, the faster you can move men and supplies to the invasion sites and remove casualties from it. There is also the proximity to good port facilities. If you can capture a beach near a large port that you can take quickly you increase the amount of men and supplies you can deliver greatly as it is much faster to pull troop and supply ships up to actual docks than it is having to take it to the beach on landing craft. So it might be worth it to take a beach that was more heavily defended, even though casualties will be higher, that is close to a large port and has nice, flat ground behind it than one that's less well defended, with a mountain range behind it and 50 miles from a sizeable port. It's less well defended for a reason. As far as geographical locations, like cities or hills, it's mainly because they confer some tactical or strategic advantage. Again, a port city might be a priority target because having it is a strategic advantage. Places are often selected because they are a communications or road nexus. If a number of roads or railroads converge there, it is very advantageous to have that location. Not just so you can use it, but so the enemy can't. There also may be a large airfield or natural resource or something like an airplane plant or supply dump there that you want to use yourself or deny to the enemy. Terrain is often selected too because of the advantages it gives. Having a high area means you can observe the surrounding area making it much more difficult for the enemy to move. If you can see it, you can often control it with air power or artillery. Some terrain, like mountain passes or heavy forests, are also much easier to defend. If you can take a mountain pass, you could defend it with smaller units against much larger units.
Something to note about British/Commonwealth regiments which seems to be overlooked here, and goes some way to explaining why a lot of “regiments” were just battalions, is that these regiments are very often geographical in nature.
For example, the modern “Mercian” regiment primarily recruits from regions that were (very long ago) part of the Kingdom of Mercia. So a lot of these regiments have feudal ancestry. Today that means that a regiment will change size depending on the need of the army at the time.
Then these regiments provide battalions to Brigades (British, Allied or NATO if modern) like building blocks for the combined arms nature of a brigade.
I don’t think this is too dissimilar from modern US regiments?
Thanks for the feedback. More people have commented on this as it is a subject that is left under-explored in this video.
Detailing the different usages of both 'regiment' and 'brigade' and how these evolved post-WWII is a topic that deserves its own future video.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Of course. I didn't think you were wrong about anything, but I wanted to add a bit of extra context as well. I look forwards to seeing a follow up video on Regiments and Brigades.
Thank you for this well researched video. Is there an actual book called the Military History Handbook or is this just the name of the series ?
Its the name of this series.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Thanks for the reply
It's all based off of a Roman Legion (5,000 men). They could also be flexible and used specialty units ( (Calvery, Siege, Supply, Engineering).
You need to add 'Squadron' to alternate Battalion and "Troop' to alternate with Company. These are used in the Cavalry, a US Army ground combat unit.
Amazing job !!! Really ….. 👍👍👍
Although the Corps in reference to the Marine Corps is a ceremonial title, the Marines Corps is indeed a Corps that consists of 4 divisions (6 in WWII).
One of the biggest changes from WW2 to today is the designation of a “headquarters Platoon” on the company level and a Headquarters company on the battalion level. These headquarters units contain both the command staff of the greater element and alot of the specialized elements and the support elements occasionally assigned to one of the lesser units.
Cooks for example used to be assigned to the company level by default and then by command consolidated at the battalion level. Cooks are now assigned by default to a single team to the battalion Headquarters company and then only parceled out to the company level when necessary
He meet
Nicely stated
If anyone is wondering a typical infantry squad breaks now like this. With every position filled you will have a squad leader e-6 Staff Sergeant and two fire teams Alpha and Bravo. Alpha team leader e-5 Sergeant is typically the senior position and the bravo team leader same rank is the less experienced. In each fire team you will have two riflemen, a grenadier, and an automatic machine gunner. Last is a squad level RTO filling a typical squad to twelve but it never happens in reality. The 40mm launcher 203 or 320 is often carried by the team leader usually from lack of experience from the joes. Your most experienced joe usually the senior specialist e-4 is humping the saw m-249. That gives the team leader confidence he knows what to do and how to employ the team's deadliest weapon. Also, in an infantry platoon there is always the "weapons squad" and this is led by the most senior staff sergeant. They get the lovely nickname of WSL or the weasel but they are anything but. Your weapons squad has two gun teams rather than fire teams. A typical gun team has the leader "assistant gunner" is most senior usually a senior specialist or cherry e-5. The gunner for the 240b/l whatever infantry is carrying nowadays is your strongest Joe 26.7lbs unloaded gets tiring fast. The final unique position for the gun team is the ammo bearer or ammo bitch. Add two riflemen and that's a standard gun team but you'll never get that. You will be lucky if you get an AB (ammo bitch) to help carry spare barrels and other misc equipment for the hog. The weapons squad has a unique way they operate as well due to the absolute necessity of those two guns. Assistant gunner feeds, directs, corrects, breaks belts, changes barrels, sets up the tripod, basically does everything except shoot but everything is a team effort. A gun team learns everything in and out functioning like two parts of a clock. Additionally, your PSG (platoon sergeant e-7) as well as your platoon medic (e-1 to e-4) are never far from the gun teams. The CCP (causality collection point) is typically close to where the SBF (support by fire the gun teams) is set up as it's generally safe. PSG will help doc out with 9 lines and medical interventions. You can see why the WSL needs to be senior because if one of those guns goes down that is a game changer for fire superiority. Nothing is more terrifying than the weasel screaming at you to get your gun up. Different units do different shit so nothing is absolute standard. I played opfor during 2/75 annual airfield seizure and their team leaders carry the saws. Fucking weird man but I also kind of get it.
Oh, adding this I was 11b not 11c so I don't know how mortar teams are organized but I believe it's similar to a gun team. However, they carry the tube, baseplate, and mortars while in training but on deployment we'd have a mortar team attached to the platoon and they hung out with the HQ section. Ah shit hq section (head quarters) PL platoon leader O-1/O-3, PSG, doc, RTO (e-1/e-4 the Joe with the highest asvab typically lucky me), FO forward observer (e-1/e5), and any attachments like mortars fet (female engagement team) ect ect. This applies to the army in more recent post 9/11.
In my combat engineer unit we had sections which excist out of 2 squad's. I guess it is not common in infantry but there is something inbetween squad and platoon.
Good point. Thanks for bringing it up.
I had originally planned to include the section-level in the video, but ultimately decided against it.
(You can see the gap in the symbology as we go from one dot for the squad to three for the platoon, skipping the two-dot section).
Sections are typically used in the more specialized supporting arms or for crew-served weapons/vehicles. They are less common in the infantry which serves as the guideline for the video. (It may also cause confusion with the Commonwealth terminology where 'section' is the equivalent to the squad).
Excellent
Amazing.. Buddy ty
Just a question from a simple amateur : the subdivision of a SQUAD should't be a SECTION and then a subdivision of a SECTION , a TEAM ? ( At least, based in the average of WW2 different country armies?) Excelent video!😌👍👍
A 'section' commonly refers to a unit larger than a squad but smaller than a platoon. It's not very common so I didn't include it in the video (you may have noticed we went from one dot for the squad straight to three dots for the platoon, that's because the section is between them and identified by two dots).
One thing to look out for is that the British refer to their squads as 'sections', which may add to the confusion.
Top tier content
Thank you!
Great vid
Yuppie
@@HannahRoot55young, urban, and professional
@@ritchie9030 Where are you from ? Howdy 👋 from Indianapolis. What social media you got. ? 😎
The marine corps is actually a corps size.
Modern US Army Corps' also tend to have brigade sized support units. Engineers, MPs, signal, chemical, and intelligence. There are also battalions for like air defense Artillery
I just saw this video and liked your description of the easy company command structure as a fan of band of brothers. Could you do breakdowns for other recently familiar commands such as black hawk down and the famous Vietnam battle led by Lt General Harold Moore (Colonel at the time of the battle) depicted in the movie We Were Soldiers. Both battles have interesting commands that included combined arms and in Somalia international contributions.
A field Army in the United States can be made up of both US Army and Marine Corps units and commanded by a General of either branch.
We do this because it allows for the field Army commander to be flexible in his maneuver as the Marines practice seizing beaches so it makes sense to have a separate Infantry division of Marines to spearhead that and create a foothold for the field Army to send a Corps with Infantry division leading that and leap frogging over the Marines and push out far enough that artillery can be brought ashore to support the armor as they support the Infantry as they push out to their assigned objectives.
You do know the Army made more beach landings in WWII than the Marines.
@@garygeorge9648 I spent my entire young life serving in the Army as an Infantry soldier and NCO. I am very aware that the Army put more boots on sand than the Marines in WWII, which would equate to ever. However, the Marines have 3 Infantry divisions who train to seize beaches like the 82nd trains to seize airports.
We don't fight the last war, or we shouldn't. We fight the next war. If we were forced to fight another major conflict the hope it's not a case where we have to go ashore in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and France in the same time and space where we have to do the same in the East Pacific as we were on our Island hoping campaign.
I also spent 7 years in the 25th Infantry division and know the history of why we were called Tropic Lightning. It was because the Marines were on our right and left flank as we took the center of the battle space to become the main effort during Guadalcanal. The Marines able to witness the boldness and speed with which our forefathers fought during that campaign impressed upon the Marine Corps leaders present that they better light a fire under their Marines as the 25th was fight through the enemy so fast it was "like lightning" and the devil dogs were struggling to keep up and maintain their battle cohesion with the friendly unit to their left/right in order to keep the Japanese from maneuvering small units between adjacent forces and being able to attack our flanks as the fight continued to roll forward.
The plan now, because we have the ability to provide air dominance in any given battle space, how we have been able to develop airborne forces and sound doctrine to seize air fields and have done so in every major conflict except desert storm since WWII and have the resources to put boots on the ground using the world's largest logistics air mobility command, is to attack to seize a country that isn't land locked at two or more locations and a few false attacks in order to put that countries defenses in a bind. We want to force them into a no win situation where they are equally screwed.
Having the Marines now focused on the literal water ways and developing the new amphibious armored vehicles that can hold 30 angry Marines as it rumbles up on the beach to cover while the Army is dropping two brigades of the 82nd division and the 75th Ranger Regiment onto their countries two or three largest airports make for a very long day.
That's why I said the Marines are mixed in with an Army group and why the general chosen by the joint cheifs to command those Army groups can be an Army or Marine Corps general or 4 Star commissioned officer for those reading this who are confused as to why the highest rank you can attain in our military is called a single word designation of general.
@@robertmosher7418 mosher
great video,i really enjoyed it
btw,I am going crazy trying to place your accent..If you don't mind,what region are you from?
Just a word of advice, if you want the actual content skip to 4:13
We had it broken all the way down to “fire team partner” as a two person team.
A two person team is as small as you can get while still having mutual support.
In WWII the US called them 'buddy teams'.
They're on such a small and improvised scale that they usually don't register as a distinct level of organization, instead being a way in which a team/squad can deploy it's manpower.
Can you do one for the Navy ?