Which I am sure many of you will on reading this. But I can remember plenty of heated arguments in this forum on small matters of detail, and here is another. The new V 1.03 ORBATS..terrific stuff, wonderful new units, the compiler/s fully deserve our thanks and congratulations. But there are a couple of errors of terminology. Go to a May '45 US orbat and open it up...everything is a FORMATION. Not so. In US and Brit useage, a Battalion or equivalent is a UNIT. below that, companies, platoons, sections are SUB-UNITS. Formations are aggregates of units and/or sub units, hence they start at Regiment/Brigade level. (We need not bother with Commands, - a theatre level term)
I think this deserves correction.
The '45 Brits have a section for Brigades, but it is empty, all the Brigades are in with the Regiments. Now I acknowledge the difference( if any) between a REGT and a BDE can be argued about for ever, noting especially the British history of the Regiment being the spiritual home of the soldier, as for instance the 4th Duke of Bottomshire's Own Royal North South East West Midlands Fusiliers, Cooks and Bottlewashers with a history going back to 1194, whereas the BDE is normally the functional formation. But if they're called REGT or BDE, why not group 'em under those available headings.
But I'm just an old sailor man, albeit one who believes the devil is in the detail.
K K Rossokolski Wrote:Which I am sure many of you will on reading this. But I can remember plenty of heated arguments in this forum on small matters of detail, and here is another. The new V 1.03 ORBATS..terrific stuff, wonderful new units, the compiler/s fully deserve our thanks and congratulations. But there are a couple of errors of terminology.
Please tell me what they are so I can correct them!
K K Rossokolski Wrote:Go to a May '45 US orbat and open it up...everything is a FORMATION. Not so. In US and Brit useage, a Battalion or equivalent is a UNIT. below that, companies, platoons, sections are SUB-UNITS. Formations are aggregates of units and/or sub units, hence they start at Regiment/Brigade level. (We need not bother with Commands, - a theatre level term)
I think this deserves correction.
The US Army in late 44 and 45 was built around Combat Commands. Usually Combat Command A, Combat Command B and Combat Command R (Reserve).
In the 45 order of battle you'll notice that there are "Combat Command A, Combat Command B and Combat Command R headquarter units. These are 1 SP HQ's.
This allows the scenario designer to create historical Combat Commands and have them function as Combat Commands in game.
Traditionally structured units are still available in the Order of Battle as "Campaign Formations" at the bottom of the Division listing. Additionally, the original Talonsoft formations are there for those that prefer them.
K K Rossokolski Wrote:The '45 Brits have a section for Brigades, but it is empty, all the Brigades are in with the Regiments. Now I acknowledge the difference( if any) between a REGT and a BDE can be argued about for ever, noting especially the British history of the Regiment being the spiritual home of the soldier, as for instance the 4th Duke of Bottomshire's Own Royal North South East West Midlands Fusiliers, Cooks and Bottlewashers with a history going back to 1194, whereas the BDE is normally the functional formation. But if they're called REGT or BDE, why not group 'em under those available headings.
But I'm just an old sailor man, albeit one who believes the devil is in the detail.
The British haven't been touched yet. They will be for 1.04 or 1.05, as with the Japanese, the French, etc.
Jason Petho
I am well aware of the role of of Combat Commands. This has nothing to do with traditional structures or non-traditional structures, nor their roles and functions.
I am merely raising an issue of incorrect terminology, or classification if you will, of organisational levels. The '45 (there may be others) Orbat for the US categorizes all organisational levels as Formations. As I described in my earlier post, this is not correct. The basis is the Unit ...Bn level. Below that, sub-units ...e.g a Coy. Above that, formations, eg a Div, or CC. Above that Command eg Pacific Command, SEA Command ...not really relevant to our game.
Strictly speaking, subunits do not have Commanders, they have Officers Commanding, although useage has erased this distinction.
Briefly, then
Sub-units...Section/Squad
Platoon
Company (or equivalent)
Unit...........Battalion (or equivalent)
Formations...Regiment/Brigade
Division
Corps
Army
Army Group
Combat Commands, very size variable, are Formations.
Commands...High level strategic combinations, often comprising more than one service. The Allied Expeditionary Force, formed to invade Europe, was the largest in history
The key distinction is the fact that Units and below are esentially homogeneous in nature eg Infantry battalion.
K K Rossokolski Wrote:I am well aware of the role of of Combat Commands. This has nothing to do with traditional structures or non-traditional structures, nor their roles and functions.
I am merely raising an issue of incorrect terminology, or classification if you will, of organisational levels. The '45 (there may be others) Orbat for the US categorizes all organisational levels as Formations. As I described in my earlier post, this is not correct. The basis is the Unit ...Bn level. Below that, sub-units ...e.g a Coy. Above that, formations, eg a Div, or CC. Above that Command eg Pacific Command, SEA Command ...not really relevant to our game.
Strictly speaking, subunits do not have Commanders, they have Officers Commanding, although useage has erased this distinction.
Briefly, then
Sub-units...Section/Squad
Platoon
Company (or equivalent)
Unit...........Battalion (or equivalent)
Formations...Regiment/Brigade
Division
Corps
Army
Army Group
Combat Commands, very size variable, are Formations.
Commands...High level strategic combinations, often comprising more than one service. The Allied Expeditionary Force, formed to invade Europe, was the largest in history
The key distinction is the fact that Units and below are esentially homogeneous in nature eg Infantry battalion.
Ahh, OK. Thank you, that makes sense!!
I will correct the terminology for the 1.03 UPDATE fix when it is released.
Jason Petho
Prime example of the developers listening and making changes you need.