# US Army "Regimental" System



## Briar (2 Jul 2001)

As for the US Army, they pretty much have gone to a "regimental system". And as for naming the divisions, brigades, and regiments after famous generals: well thats news to me. I don‘t recall a General Blackhorse or Col. Bloody Bucket anywhere in US history. The US has found that regiments have proven to be extremely versatile and as self- sufficient units, can be "plugged in" as needed. If a division needs more artillery, a brigade can be added on with no real effect on organization. And since it is self-sufficient, it will not burden the existing organization. One error is that when a man joins the army, he does just that: joins the ARMY. Most of the time he will not have a say in where or what unit he will be placed. An esprit-di-corps is then established from that unit. Unlike joining a regiment where the traditions are already in play. This can help or hinder an army. It fosters tradition, pride, and an esprit-di-corps, but can hurt it as well. (During WW1, one regiment was able to muster over 50 battalions, while others were hard pressed for 3.) I also met a WW2 vet that had tried to enlist in PPCLI in 1937. He passed all the testing, but was not accepted due to his height. (Regimental orders wanted men 6‘ and over.) So he went on to join the Winnipeg Rifles and served gallantly in NW Europe. Many US National Guard units are looked down upon by regular army, but many of them are filled to over capacity. That should tell the brass hats to pay attention and to take notes. I wish the US Army would also look at Canadian Reserves and the UK Territorials. There are lessons to be learned from them as well.


----------

