Author Topic: Re: Numbering of Units  (Read 1117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Numbering of Units
« on: September 21, 2002, 15:48:00 »
Posted by "Lawson" <kplawson@csolve.net> on Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:52:15 -0800
Brian:
        Sorry but the County Regimental Titles were in effect until
mobilization of 1914. Minister of Militia Sam Hughes stepped into change
the administration as mobilization was just beginning threw out plans
and proceeded to Number Battalions. All led to the confusion of the
Units sent overseas their condition upon arrival in Great Britain
subsequent reorganization and retraining.
This is well documented at the time and a great deal has been written
upon the subject. Sufficient to say numbering was not satisfactory to
the then Canadian Army as can been seen by the numbered cap badges with
names. Recruiting posters had both numbers and names. Unit Identity is a
strong sense of the military forces organized on the Anglo/German
system. Numbering came from the French when they invented the age
conscription
  Clyde am I right so far ?
 Of course this the opinion, I was trained during Leadership training,
but I suggest that importance of identity to battle units was also
established by the SHAPE study on German moral that was prepared shortly
after cease fire 1945.
 This should be obvious from other historical points of view, the
majority of good professional military forces have always been very
strong on this type of identity.
  Of course if you deal with a largely conscript force or the military
is micro managed by civil service ease of understanding is gained by
numbering, but the majority of loosing armies in the past two hundred
years used numbering systems. Do we really want to adopt a loosing
system when we in fact have a perfectly good, historically proven and
effective system in being. "If it is not broke don‘t fix it."
NIL SINE LABORE
Keith
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Brian Walford
  To: Army Digest
  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:17 AM
  Subject: Numbering of Units
  Before you all get up in arms about numbering of units in the
‘American‘ system, read a bit of history.
  Canada, until after WWI, used the numbering system for their
battalions, with names attached afterword i.e- 2nd Bn Rifles Queen‘s
Own, 9th Bn Rifles Voltigeurs, 15th Bn Argyll Light Infantry, 65th
Rifles Mount Royal, etc, etc.
  So you may go to a numbered unit system but I think you will still see
Regimental Identities remain.
  Arte et Marte
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Brian:
 Sorry but
the
County Regimental Titles were in effect until mobilization of 1914.
Minister of
Militia Sam Hughes stepped into change the administration as
mobilization was
just beginning threw out plans and proceeded to Number Battalions. All
led to
the confusion of the Units sent overseas their condition upon arrival in
Great
Britain subsequent reorganization and retraining.
This is well documented at the time and a great deal
has been
written upon the subject. Sufficient to say numbering was not
satisfactory to
the then Canadian Army as can been seen by the numbered cap badges with
names.
Recruiting posters had both numbers and names. Unit Identity is a strong
sense
of the military forces organized on the Anglo/German system. Numbering
came from
the French when they invented the age conscription
 Clyde am I right so far ?
Of course this the opinion, I was
trainedduring
Leadership training, but I suggest that importance of identity to battle
units
was also established by the SHAPE study on German moral that was
prepared
shortly after cease fire 1945.
This should be obvious from other historical
points of
view, the majority of good professional military forces have always been
very
strong on this type of identity.
 Of course if you deal with a largely
conscript force or
the military is micro managed by civil service ease of understanding is
gained
by numbering, but the majority of loosing armies in the past two hundred
years
used numbering systems. Do we really want to adopt a loosing system when
we in
fact have a perfectly good, historically proven and effective system in
being.
"If itis not broke don‘t fix it."
NIL SINE LABORE
Keith
  ----- Original Message -----
  From:
  Brian
Walford
 
  To: Army
  Digest
  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000
6:17
  AM
  Subject: Numbering of
Units
 
  Before you all get up in arms about
numbering of
  units in the ‘American‘ system, read a bit of history.
  Canada, until after WWI, used the
numbering
  system for their battalions, with names attached afterword i.e- 2nd
Bn Rifles
  Queen‘s Own, 9th Bn Rifles Voltigeurs, 15th Bn Argyll Light
Infantry,
  65th Rifles Mount Royal, etc, etc.
  So you may go to a numbered unit
system but I
  think you will still see Regimental Identities remain.
 
  Arte et
Marte
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Numbering of Units
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2002, 15:50:00 »
Posted by Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:52:34 -0800
Good point, Brian.
The Brits used a numbering system from about the mid 1700s until 1881.By
that time names, as supplementary titles, had crept in semi-officially
at least in most cases. And surprizingly, when the Brit. infantry was
forced to give up the numbers they howled in protest! One regiment that
still exists today, and has escaped the massive amalagamations is still
know largely by its number: the 22nd or Cheshire Regiment.for the
purists, sorry, my ref. books on Brit badges, etc. are all down the
street on loan so I can‘t be more precise on dates.
However, I still like the idea of geographical names and/or names that
imply more than a mere number. In WW1 Ottawa, under Sam Hughes,
virtually did away with the regimental system for the creation of the
Canadian Expeditionery Force and used meaningless numbers. Some
creations did have numbers that, with what must have been some lobbying
efforts, matched their local unit and units that were given credit for
their raising, but these numbers tied back to numbers. For example the
72nd Battn, CEF, was raised by the 72nd Seaforth Highlanders of Canada.
The prewar numerals were "dropped" in 1920 again with a bit of a howl
in Canada. The 72 is further, an interesting numeral, adopted by the
Vancouver Seaforths with a number that matched the Imperial Seaforths.
The one thing the numerals did was denote seniority - but today it
should be effectiveness provided a level playing field that should
counts.
Numbers or not the "quill drivers" love the numbers, it makes their job
so much easier, the worry is that we will have the amalgamation of
perhaps 3-4 small units now of really one or two coy size formed into
one bigger unit that will, in the space of a very few years, become just
one small unit with future cutbacks.
Actually, I don‘t think it is/was ‘the American System‘. I think the
Yanks modelled it on the Prussian Army.Not that the Brits didn‘t steal
a lot of good ideas from the Prussians, oh no.
> Brian Walford wrote:
>
> Before you all get up in arms about numbering of units in the
> ‘American‘ system, read a bit of history.
> Canada, until after WWI, used the numbering system for their
> battalions, with names attached afterword i.e- 2nd Bn Rifles Queen‘s
> Own, 9th Bn Rifles Voltigeurs, 15th Bn Argyll Light Infantry, 65th
> Rifles Mount Royal, etc, etc.
> So you may go to a numbered unit system but I think you will still see
> Regimental Identities remain.
>
> Arte et Marte
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Numbering of Units
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2002, 15:50:00 »
Posted by Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:36:32 -0800
Brian, Clyde knows more than I, but I agree with your premise.
Interesting that the pencil jockies of WW2 didn‘t refer to various units
by their exotic longwinded names as they might say, but gave each unit
a Serial Number that was probably unknown to everyone in the fighting
unit except the battalion clerks back at B Echeon. They would send
supplies and live bodies back and forth to Serial 1170A to pick one at
random and never to just the 11th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal
Canadian Artillery, fighting and dying as part of the 2nd Canadian Div.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.