Re: Divided by the common division
- From: "a425couple" <a425couple@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:28:28 -0500
"Michael Kuettner" <Michael.Kuettner@xxxxxx> wrote in message ...
Hello !
Hello, hmmm, might help me form better answers,
if I knew where gmx.at was at?
I have a <ahem> simple question.
If your tongue was not so delightfully and self admitedly
in your cheek, , someone could mentally chastise you
for your "simple question". (grin back atchyou!)
We often read "Germany attacked the <USSR> with <mumble> divisions.
The USSR fielded <mumble> divisions". How was a division defined in WWII in the Allied and Axis countries ?
First, are you more concerned with the actual sizes
of all for WWII organizations,
or are you more concerned with the theory
of organization, medieval to WWII, to modern?
Was there an underlying military doctrine like : "An infantry division must be large enough to conquer and hold x square-miles" ?
Nothing like that = size of land.
(obvious example - one reinforced platoon can hold
a lot more desert land than jungle land).
Or a traditionalist view like "There are at least x battailons to a division. If we got some left, we'll attch them, too." ?
Or a definition like "The divisional headquarters consist of one general. He commands 3 colonels. Each colonel commands 10 captains. Ech captain commands 10 lieutenants.
And so on". Cheers, Michael Kuettner
Those two above 'views' have a lot in common
(and a lot of validness).
Sub point - although even in the same country, same
branch (i.e. Army) there can be variance of more than 2.
But certain sizes work.
Sub point - even though each country can name their
units (i.e. fire team, squad, platoon, company, battalion,
regiment, division, corps, army) differently,
from your one view pov, you call them same as yours.
Sub point - is is just acknowledged and understood
that for example a IJA division (even if at full strength)
was smaller/lighter than a USA division.
Recall that all countries with military organizations allowed
them to do quite a bit of interacting during peacetime.
Official liasions & various 'schools' etc. Relationships.
Mentoring.
(i.e. the British/UK Royal Navy had a large influence
on the Imperial Japanese Navy)
(so, even in far off China, under the republic, did
not have to start off with a "clean sheet").
Sub point - but even with a "clean sheet"
certain sizes work.
Span of control.
OK, so we have a Captain (with his HQ), how many
maneuver elements are we going to give him?
2 - maybe, done some times & places
3 or 4 most common.
5 or more = rare.
You might consider grabbing a good encylopedia
and perhaps under "Military", or better "Military Personnel"
you can find a good background.
Note things like the creation of officers goes back
to Biblical times (Deut. 1:15)
Our titles "Captain" and "Sergeant" (and duties related)
have clear lineage from latin, esp medieval times.
More titles, and corresponding units they commanded
came from period when feudalism was dying and power
of central states developing.
.
- References:
- Divided by the common division
- From: Michael Kuettner
- Divided by the common division
- Prev by Date: Re: US eval of Sten
- Next by Date: Re: Airforce Deserters
- Previous by thread: Re: Divided by the common division
- Next by thread: Re: Divided by the common division
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|