Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown

At 09:37 AM 10/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Here is a question, how is the Army of the Confederation organized?
Does it
>use a version of the British Regimental system?? How do American and
>Canadian units fall into this. The U.S. does use a Regimental system of
its
>own, but our regiments are numbered (with nicknames). I wonder how this
>would work...
>
>Typical U.S. Regiments:
>16th Infantry (dates back to the Civil War) Regular
>34th Armor (WWII) Regular
>7th Cavalry (At least Civil War) Regular
>
>
>Would Infantry Regiments be assigned a region and given a 'local' name:
>
>16th Infantry- say in North Alabama and Tennessee- The Nashville and
>Knoxville Rifles??
>34th Armor: 34th Royal Tank Regiment??
>7th Cavalry: Her Majesty's American Cavalry Regiment? Or... The Garry
Owen
>Dragoons!
>
>What do ya'll think??
>

In the British (Commonwealth) army during WWI, battalions from
Australia,
Canada, India, etc. were often given numbers and assigned to line
divisions.  Later, when the Canadians formed their own divisions and
corps,
they still used numbered battalions.  These battalions were formed from
a
core of traditional "regiments" which, in Canada/Britian/Australia etc
usually had a name.  So, you might have ended up with 416th Battalion
(The
Toronto Scottish) or some such	- I just made that up by the way, no
offense meant to anyone in the TorScots.

I was tossing about some ideas for developing further the Army of the
New
Anglian Confederation (I'm a SGII player primarily, and haven't read DS
or
the other books yet - so forgive me if I miss something already covered
in
the histories...), and figured that using a system like that would work
well to keep both the histories/traditions of the regiments alive, and
give
them a coherent feeling across the whole Confederation.

For example, I'm painting up a unit of NAC troops which I'm calling the
123rd Battalion, Royal New Anglian Light Infantry (The Queen's Own
Rifles
of Canada).
It's a long name, but that is quite common if you look at real
British/commonwealth military history.	The QOR are a reserve regement
here
in Toronto, though they have a proud history dating back to the Riel
Rebellion, The Fienian Raids (those darned Irish - trying to take over
Canada on the sly), and the Boer War, plus WWI, WWII, etc.  Like I said
-
it keeps the traditions, but gives a coherent feel to the Army.  Why not
have "7th Cavalry Regiment (The Gary Owen Dragoons)"...

The British Regimental system has a lot going for it from a
history/tradition/morale point of view, and they've certainly won their
fair share of wars, but the Americans are no slouches when it comes to
winning wars
either.  Canada presently uses a modified version of the British system.
Australia does too.  In Canada, a Regiment of infantry is three
battalions
(Regular force, the reserve regiments are only one nominal battalion,
most
are actually a reinforced company in size), and a regiment of Armour,
Engineers, Artillery, etc. is one battalion.  The British have a number
of
one battalion infantry regiments, but have been going through a long
process of consolidating, creating "super-regiments" with multiple
battalions.  "The Parachute Regiment" has three battalions, for example.
British armoured regiments are all one battalion in size.  

I would suggest a system something like this:

Armoured Regiments:  would be 1 battalion size, numbered (with name)
ie:  347th Armour (The Fort Garry Horse)

Infantry Regiments:  would be 1 or 3 battalions in size, numbered (with
name)
ie:  123rd Battalion, RNALI (The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada)

Artillery Regiments:  would be 1 battalion in size, numbered 
ie:  34th Regiment, Royal New Anglian Horse Artillery

(A note:  There is a historical difference between "Artillery" and
"Horse
Artillery" regiments - the Horse units were the more mobile ones with
lighter guns...  In modern parlance, "Horse Artillery" units would be
largely self-propelled, lighter equipment.  "Artillery" units would be
heavier, sometimes reserve formations, but equipped with the really big
stuff ie 200mm, MLRS batteries, etc. etc.)

And so on.  Brigades and Divisions would be numbered formations, drawn
from
the available Regiments.  In Canada, we do not have any normally formed
Divisions (though there is a HQ unit for 1 Canadian Division - it has no
assigned forces, or perhaps I should say it has ALL the forces, 'cause
the
regular Canadian army all together makes up about one modern mechanized
division).  Brigades are the largest formation we keep fully staffed,
etc.
However, our army is structured for operations within a larger
Division/Corps level system - we would plug our forces into larger NATO
or
other allied formations in wartime.  The Australian Army is
experimenting
with developing units that are Brigade sized, but structured with a much
higher capability for independent operations - they have huge areas in
the
North to cover, and not many troops to do it with, so they are designing
a
system where the largest formations regularly fielded will be Brigades.
This works with the assumption that modern war is too deadly for big
formations (too easy to nuke, etc) and that because individual troopers
and
tanks are becoming very powerful, the force densities needed on the
ground
in a given area of conflict will be much lower than they have needed to
be
traditionally.	Individual troopers now carry hundreds of rounds of
ammo,
grenade launchers, unguided rockets, etc. etc.	A WWI trooper carried
maybe
50 or 80 rounds of ammo if he was lucky, and a rifle with bayonet -
maybe a
sharpened entrenching tool if he felt mean.  With modern communications,
tactical mobility and the availability of accurate supporting fire, a
single squad of infantiers can put out the firepower of a WWII platoon
or
company.  Give them another couple hundred years to develop, and
extrapolate this further.  The ultimate example of this is Heinlein's
Starship Troopers, where a single platoon of CAP Troopers took on a
whole
planet (the Skinnies) - each trooper covered dozens of square
kilometres,
and carried nukes.  The armies of the Stargrunt universe should be
somewhere in the middle.  You still need plenty of grunts on the ground
to
do the real foot slogging work, but not the mass numbers seen in WWII. 
If
this assumption holds true, I figure the new Australian Army model for
organization makes a lot of sense.  Keep the regular organizations at
the
Brigade and Battle Group size (for those who don't know, a Battle Group
would be, for example, an Infantry Battalion reinforced with a Squadron
-
that's a company in British/Canadian/Australian terms - of tanks, some
engineers, some signals troops, and artillery / air defense support -
you
would get two or three Battle Groups out of each Brigade).  For
particularly large actions, Divisions could be formed, but these would
be
more of an ad hoc unit with a command structure and support elements
added
rather than a formation kept around all the time...

To get a bit more specific:

Mechanized Brigade

2 or 3 Battalions Infantry (from one Regiment)
1 Regiment Armour (one battalion)
1 Regiment Artillery (this might include air defense, or the AD troops
could be a separate unit)
1 Service Battalion (the logistics support)
1 Signals Squadron (company size unit providing EW, Comms, etc)
1 HQ, with attached police, intelligence, operations staff, etc etc
1 reinforced squadron of Engineers (maybe 2 companies worth)
1 Field Ambulance (hey, not quite a MASH, but close in size)

The service battalion would be larger than a regular battalion, and
provided with field workshops, etc. so they can do independent support
of
the heavy equipment in the Brigade, as well as all the normal service
duties and carrying all the food, ammo, etc. etc.  

did I miss anything?  Oh - air support?  Maybe attach a Composite
Squadron
of VTOL transports and gunships, as well as a Remote Sensing unit which
would control RPVs, recce / commo sattellite launches, etc.

This hasn't really addressed the whole question of the "Regimental
Family"
- in the British/Canadian tradition, when you start your career in a
regiment, it becomes your home for the rest of your career.  Re-badging
to
another regiment is a BIG DEAL.  Even General Staff officers who are no
longer technically part of their regiment will feel a strong afiliation
for
it, and are expected to work as advocates for their regiment.  In
Canada,
there are jokes made (not too loudly) about the "Van Doos Mafia" - the
Royal 22nd Regiment (La Vingt-Deuxieme Regiment Royale du Canada, or
something like that) presently has a lot of high ranking general staff
officers, who are seen (by people who aren't VanDoos) to be looking out
for
their own...  This "Regimental Family" system has its' detractors, but
it
certainly encourages an esprit de corps that is lacking in many other
militaries'.  The kind of tradition that develops in this system is a
great
morale booster.  People are very proud of their "family" and will fight
hard to defend its' honour, etc.  Well, some of the time.  We do tend to
get rather complacent with extensive periods of peace, but that is
another
issue.	

Anyway, there's my two-cents worth.  Thoughts, anybody?