It blows my mind how big units were in WW1. From a modern British perspective, 227 men in a rifle company is enormous - today most of our rifle companies are half that size or smaller.
It’s quite frankly ridiculous how much modern warfare and the fall of the British empire has reduced their army. They had 75 infantry divisions of 18,000 men each in WW1 (Not even counting cavalry, armor, marines, or Commonwealth / empire divisions). That’s an army of 1.35 million infantry! The modern British army has 4 divisions *overall* . People forget in our age of modern warfare that for most of human history the best organizational strategy was just to have more guns and men than the other guy.
Glad (and pleasantly surprised) to find this in the archives of your channel. I'm just about to start a reading of Robin Prior & Trevor Wilson's analysis of the Somme, and this has been supremely helpful. Thank you again!
@Military History Visualized Good video. I have noticed that you mentioned in this vid and one or two others that the British didn't field 'Regiments' and refer to 'Battalions'. This is correct. There is a reason why there is a difference and it's a difference of terms or names as well as organisation. In the British Army the Regiment is the administrative and 'Historical' unit and is usually based in and named by a geographical area, eg; Worcestershire. Recruitment is usually drawn from a geographical area as well. This is how is has been done historically for over 300 years. Nowadays many British Regiments have been amalgamated, for example; The Princess of Wales Royal Regiment today is an amalgamation of the Queens Regiment and the Hampshire Regiment. The Battalions within that Regiment still maintain and keep the original Colours and observe the historical traditions of their Regiments. A British Regiment is made up of Battalions. Some Regiments have one Battalion, some two and some have three or more. At times of war, more Battalions are 'raised' (added) for the Regiment. For example, in the 2nd World War the 1st 'Grenadier Guards' Regiment eventually had 5 Battalions, with one of the Battalions being a training battalion. (they may have even had six Battalions at some point, maybe someone could correct me as I may not remember exactly) Comparing the German to the British organisation and names I'll use a historical start point from the Napoleonic '100 Days' campaign in 1815, the last campaign of that conflict as it turned out. I know technically the 'German Army' was actually the Prussian Army at this time, but I won't get too bogged down with historical nationalities as the people involved were basically the same. (Also, the German Army of WWI still had a very 'Prussian' flavour to it's command personnel and military character.) The British Infantry Division of the '100 Days' period had roughly 7,500 personnel and consisted of: 3x Infantry Brigades. 2x Batteries of Artillery. Each Brigade consisted of four Battalions. Each Battery consisted of 6 guns, 5x 9 pounder and 1x 5.5 inch Howitzer. In total there would be 12 Infantry Battalions and 12 Guns. (One or two divisions varied from this basic setup, but most were organised in this way) The Prussian Divisions were organised in a different way, and there wasn't one set way either. What the British called a Brigade the Prussians called a Regiment. What the British called a Division the Prussians called a Brigade. The Prussians organised their divisions in a few ways. One way was 2, 3 or more Infantry Brigades (Prussian 'Regiments'), plus a few squadrons of light cavalry and 2 batteries of Artillery, each battery consisting of 8 guns. The Infantry Brigades varied, some consisted of 2, 3 or more Battalions of 'Line' infantry. Within this division setup there were some small units of usually 2 small battalions of light infantry or 'Jaegers' grouped together. The two Artillery batteries usually consisted of: 6x 6 pounders and 2x 5.5 inch Howitzers in each battery for a total of 16 guns. Another way Prussian Divisions were organised was 2, 3 or more 'brigades' (regiments) of 'line' infantry. Some with Artillery batteries, and some without. It wasn't really a 'standardized' set up. Going forward to WWI the British kept the same Brigade setup of 4 Battalions per Brigade and 3 Brigades per Division. (of course there were variants to this, I am speaking of a basic or standard setup) Of course there was more manpower and the equipment was very different from 1815 but the main organising principle was the same. By WWI the now German army (not 'Prussian') was a whole lot more modernized and the German Army went for a more standardized approach. The naming difference can confuse some people. The British field Battalions, not Regiments. It is not often that the British Army fields two or more Battalions from one Regiment during the same battle. (Of course this did happen, at the battle of Waterloo 3 Battalions from the '95th Regiment' of 'Rifles' fought there and during 'Market Garden' in 1944, 3 Battalions from the Parachute Regiment were deployed for the operation, but they fought separate 'battles' because they had different objectives) Operationally a British battalion may be a similar size to another countries' regiment but they function in the same way from a basic operational perspective. Looking at the British Army historically, it was nearly always very small but it was a full time professional army. It was usually required to perform colonial operations and mass recruitment was never really required or desired. Unlike the 18th and 19th century powers like France or Russia for example, conscription was alien to the British national character was never really undertaken until the 20th century. A Battalion was sent on operations, not the Regiment to which it belongs.
You know what the hardest part of researching a British infantry division is? Finding out approximate numbers of roles below battalion/battery level in everything except the infantry brigades. For infantry brigades you get spreadsheets of everything down to how much ammunition and pairs of socks every enlisted man is expected to carry, but when you reach the artillery the sources get hazier and hazier with the numbers. Eventually you reach such cryptic units as the "Field Ambulances" where you can only glean that there's more than one ambulance involved.
Great video, just a quick comment regarding the artillery "brigades." Although they were called brigades they're weren't the actual size of a brigade most armies use today or even back then. It's better to think of a WWI British artillery brigade more as a battalion.
Yeah, British Regiments are quite something. They changed a lot over the years. They even confuse me. A while back (18th century) they had several batalions and were let by a Colonel who raised the regiment and named it after him, then they changed the naming system to numbers, then at a certain point, and I can't figure out exactly when, they switched to the Prussian professional system, abolished colonelcy based on patronage, and the CO of the regiment became a Lt.Col. Complicated stuff.
It is best to think of the British infantry regiment as a purely administrative unit. It is a parent organisation for one or more tactical battalions (commanded by Lt Cols) based around a recruiting area or a function (eg the Rifle regiments). It is relatively rare for battalions of the same regiment to be brigaded together and historically not uncommon for battalions to serve in not just different brigades or divisions but separate theatres. The numbering of line regiments was something that came with the move to professionalism in the 18th century and ended (under protest) with the Cardwell and Childers reforms of of 1870 and 1881. I wouldn't say they went to anything like a Prussian system though at any point. The idea of the regimental colonel having a command role had largely disappeared by the time of Marlborough but they remained an administrative and figurehead role as they do to this day and potential officers for regiments will still often be interviewed by the Colonel as part of their application process. Colonels have for a long time been selected from amongst senior (general) officers who began their careers in a regiment (eg as a general Wellington was Col. of the 33rd (West Riding) Regiment in which he had commanded a bn in India) . Neither Colonels nor Lt Cols ever command infantry "regiments" in the British infantry because there is no such tactical formation. However Lt Cols do command regiments in the cavalry/armoured corps, the Royal Artillery and the other corps because the term "regiment" is used to describe the equivalent level formation to an infantry battalion.
MaxRavenclaw I feel like a regiment is just a name and a history a battalion attaches themselves to. For example it was rare for 2 battalions of infantry to fight within the same brigade during the napoleonic wars, and I believed that is true to this day
Mr Camoron it’s because nowadays the British army isn’t large enough to field combat divisions on its own, although in the event of a major European war Britain could in theory deploy three: one made up entirely of British regulars; one a mix of British regulars, reserves and some Royal Marines; and a third largely made up of Dutch and Danish regulars with British support troops - that would be Britain’s 1st Corps, although we would retain the majority of the Royal Marines, about half the reserves and all of the army training staff and begin the process of raising more men; we would also have to get some of our military equipment out of mothballs (realistically the service that would suffer the most from a large scale war is the Royal Navy)
Is there a reason why half the men at 2:15 have no helmet or is that merely a fluke from generating them? Very clear video as always, I love the simple layout.
There is a good book about the fighters of the Luftwaffe 1935-1945 by Herbert Ringlstetter . Its more about the Technical aspects of those Fighters than combat history. But it has some nice Photos and Stats. If you wanna have its called "Jagdflugzeuge der deutschen Luftwaffe 1935-1945 " He made also a book about German bomber and night fighter with very good Infos.
I think in war or peace you have mixing and matching of units. The Corp and Army level have support units that could be added or taken away. An Artillery unit could be detached from one division to support another. I could see the prewar English detaching a brigade and sending it off to garrison duty out in the empire.
+TheShatteredSword thank you! Yes, but the source material is almost non-existent or not available. Trying to get my hands on the following: British General Staff, ed. Handbook of the French Army, 1914. Battery Press: Nashville, 2002. British General Staff, ed. French Trench Warfare, 1917-1918: A Reference Manual. Battery Press: Nashville, 2002. If those books are similar to the handbooks on the German Army, I just need about 5-10 pages to get the numbers and structure.
2:58 is there any difference between these extra pioneers and the already existing "engineers", or are you simply using a different term for the same type of infantry? Just like in German, in Finnish we also call them pioneers, but to my understanding this is mostly synonymous with the Anglo-Saxon "engineer".
+FulmenTheFinn the terms engineers and pioneers are a pain in the ass, as far as I know usually engineers are combat engineers and pioneers are more building / maintenance guys, but considering that the British often don't use regiments etc. and the US Handbook on the British Army from 1943 notes that many terms are the same but used differently... CLUSTERFUCK... but back to the WW1 division, I think I read in one of the sources that those pioneers were skilled civilians and were used for mining operations etc. but not 100 % sure, because I am still laying the foundations.
+Military History Visualized Ah, ok. Sounds like frustrating work going through all that material. Hope you get a contract with TH-cam eventually so you could get at least some money out of this. Thx for the fast reply.
In todays terminology "pioneers" are infantry with very basic engineering skills and are the battalion level as part of support company. Ex Australian Army Reservist.
They help dig in rifle companies, provide boats for small river crossings, basic engineering tasks like obstacle clearing, booby trap clearing etc etc.
@@erichvonmanstein1952 yes really the british were only matched in professionalism by probably germany but other than that no other country had fielded highly trained soldiers since britain was a small nation so rarely had conscripts like every other nation
man look at what the Australians did with their infantry structures and tactics once the Australians formed their own independent corp in 1918. Also General Monash you may find interesting.
Hey, I'm a bit messed up right now. I like all these structures and organisations stuff and I'm still a teen now but I don't know if there's a career choice that incorporates all these into a job?
maybe, probably WW2, but WW1 as you can see on the view count is sadly mostly ignored. Note that this video was even promoted by the Great War Channel.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized The Royal Artillery used the term 'brigade', as the term 'regiment' and 'battalion' were considered too "cavalry" and "infantry" (respectively) and the RA was a separate branch from the two unlike the other support services. From 1932, they became 'regiments' (battalion equivalents still) though.
@@Coldstreamer17 finally some explanation for this madness; I remember there was also something in WW2 that was "off" not sure if it was artillery or something else.
@@Coldstreamer17 when the Germans, Soviets and Americans use terminology for their units that matches each other, but the British don't, then I call that "off".
Even the German army acknowledged going into ww1 the British army was the best trained equipped and organised all lessons learned from the boer war the only real time a professional army as been given the resources to make it self truly prepared for anything except ww1 which multiplied everything 10 fold which no one could envision the irony is these lessons have still not been learned (Si vis pacem para bellum)
can someone please link me a video explaining the differences and organization of the terms: brigade, division, company, regiment, battalion, squadron and so on
Almost seem like some sources cannot tell the difference between brigade and battalion... Or otherwise some level of this must be to confuse the enemy, because I have a hard time believing the British had to so many brigadiers (1 star generals), that they could throw 7 in each division... Something is just severely off about this, but as the British had local units (people from the same town would serve together) to begin with then the division layout might have been different from division to division? (They later scraped the idea of local units, as when a unit charged into no mans land and was destroyed by MG fire, then a whole village might have lost all their men in one day) But still a template of 7 brigades in a division makes no sense to me, but the British were never much for an army at home (Indian army was the main British army) unless in a time of war, so maybe they just had too many high ranking officers trained for India, and therefore called battalions/regiments for brigades to fit with the rank of the officer leading them early on.
+bloodlazio the rank was according to the size of the unit, not the name of it. The British have a similar issue with their World War 2 units and there I used the US Army Handbook on the British Forces as source and discussed it with others. Historical reason, the base unit was the battalion for the British.
Military History Visualized Only and Mostly German and US military structures around the internet. We want to know British, France, Italy, Japan, USSR. military stucture division regiment battalion company paltoon squad!!!
It blows my mind how big units were in WW1. From a modern British perspective, 227 men in a rifle company is enormous - today most of our rifle companies are half that size or smaller.
It’s quite frankly ridiculous how much modern warfare and the fall of the British empire has reduced their army. They had 75 infantry divisions of 18,000 men each in WW1 (Not even counting cavalry, armor, marines, or Commonwealth / empire divisions). That’s an army of 1.35 million infantry! The modern British army has 4 divisions *overall* . People forget in our age of modern warfare that for most of human history the best organizational strategy was just to have more guns and men than the other guy.
Glad (and pleasantly surprised) to find this in the archives of your channel. I'm just about to start a reading of Robin Prior & Trevor Wilson's analysis of the Somme, and this has been supremely helpful. Thank you again!
@Military History Visualized
Good video.
I have noticed that you mentioned in this vid and one or two others that the British didn't field 'Regiments' and refer to 'Battalions'.
This is correct.
There is a reason why there is a difference and it's a difference of terms or names as well as organisation.
In the British Army the Regiment is the administrative and 'Historical' unit and is usually based in and named by a geographical area, eg; Worcestershire.
Recruitment is usually drawn from a geographical area as well.
This is how is has been done historically for over 300 years.
Nowadays many British Regiments have been amalgamated, for example;
The Princess of Wales Royal Regiment today is an amalgamation of the Queens Regiment and the Hampshire Regiment.
The Battalions within that Regiment still maintain and keep the original Colours and observe the historical traditions of their Regiments.
A British Regiment is made up of Battalions.
Some Regiments have one Battalion, some two and some have three or more.
At times of war, more Battalions are 'raised' (added) for the Regiment.
For example, in the 2nd World War the 1st 'Grenadier Guards' Regiment eventually had 5 Battalions, with one of the Battalions being a training battalion.
(they may have even had six Battalions at some point, maybe someone could correct me as I may not remember exactly)
Comparing the German to the British organisation and names I'll use a historical start point from the Napoleonic '100 Days' campaign in 1815, the last campaign of that conflict as it turned out.
I know technically the 'German Army' was actually the Prussian Army at this time, but I won't get too bogged down with historical nationalities as the people involved were basically the same. (Also, the German Army of WWI still had a very 'Prussian' flavour to it's command personnel and military character.)
The British Infantry Division of the '100 Days' period had roughly 7,500 personnel and consisted of:
3x Infantry Brigades.
2x Batteries of Artillery.
Each Brigade consisted of four Battalions.
Each Battery consisted of 6 guns, 5x 9 pounder and 1x 5.5 inch Howitzer.
In total there would be 12 Infantry Battalions and 12 Guns.
(One or two divisions varied from this basic setup, but most were organised in this way)
The Prussian Divisions were organised in a different way, and there wasn't one set way either.
What the British called a Brigade the Prussians called a Regiment.
What the British called a Division the Prussians called a Brigade.
The Prussians organised their divisions in a few ways.
One way was 2, 3 or more Infantry Brigades (Prussian 'Regiments'), plus a few squadrons of light cavalry and 2 batteries of Artillery, each battery consisting of 8 guns.
The Infantry Brigades varied, some consisted of 2, 3 or more Battalions of 'Line' infantry.
Within this division setup there were some small units of usually 2 small battalions of light infantry or 'Jaegers' grouped together.
The two Artillery batteries usually consisted of:
6x 6 pounders and 2x 5.5 inch Howitzers in each battery for a total of 16 guns.
Another way Prussian Divisions were organised was 2, 3 or more 'brigades' (regiments) of 'line' infantry.
Some with Artillery batteries, and some without.
It wasn't really a 'standardized' set up.
Going forward to WWI the British kept the same Brigade setup of 4 Battalions per Brigade and 3 Brigades per Division.
(of course there were variants to this, I am speaking of a basic or standard setup)
Of course there was more manpower and the equipment was very different from 1815 but the main organising principle was the same.
By WWI the now German army (not 'Prussian') was a whole lot more modernized and the German Army went for a more standardized approach.
The naming difference can confuse some people.
The British field Battalions, not Regiments.
It is not often that the British Army fields two or more Battalions from one Regiment during the same battle.
(Of course this did happen, at the battle of Waterloo 3 Battalions from the '95th Regiment' of 'Rifles' fought there and during 'Market Garden' in 1944, 3 Battalions from the Parachute Regiment were deployed for the operation, but they fought separate 'battles' because they had different objectives)
Operationally a British battalion may be a similar size to another countries' regiment but they function in the same way from a basic operational perspective.
Looking at the British Army historically, it was nearly always very small but it was a full time professional army.
It was usually required to perform colonial operations and mass recruitment was never really required or desired.
Unlike the 18th and 19th century powers like France or Russia for example, conscription was alien to the British national character was never really undertaken until the 20th century.
A Battalion was sent on operations, not the Regiment to which it belongs.
I always watch till the very end for the metal outro. Nice touch, Military History Visualized.
After covering the First World War, can you cover the 2nd? The Great War sent me here! Love your work.
+junyi goh thank you, actually most of my content is from the Second World War, I have only done 3 videos on the First.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized he meant on this subject i think
I say this every video but thanks!
+ryap1 thank you :)
You know what the hardest part of researching a British infantry division is? Finding out approximate numbers of roles below battalion/battery level in everything except the infantry brigades. For infantry brigades you get spreadsheets of everything down to how much ammunition and pairs of socks every enlisted man is expected to carry, but when you reach the artillery the sources get hazier and hazier with the numbers. Eventually you reach such cryptic units as the "Field Ambulances" where you can only glean that there's more than one ambulance involved.
This is just what I needed aswell :D Thanks! :D
Always look forward to the new ones. Thank you.
I'm from the great War squad. Thanks Indy.
I love your content man!
+randomperson8000 thank you!
Yes. YES. [Squire voice] Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
Great video, just a quick comment regarding the artillery "brigades." Although they were called brigades they're weren't the actual size of a brigade most armies use today or even back then. It's better to think of a WWI British artillery brigade more as a battalion.
Yeah, British Regiments are quite something. They changed a lot over the years. They even confuse me. A while back (18th century) they had several batalions and were let by a Colonel who raised the regiment and named it after him, then they changed the naming system to numbers, then at a certain point, and I can't figure out exactly when, they switched to the Prussian professional system, abolished colonelcy based on patronage, and the CO of the regiment became a Lt.Col. Complicated stuff.
It is best to think of the British infantry regiment as a purely administrative unit. It is a parent organisation for one or more tactical battalions (commanded by Lt Cols) based around a recruiting area or a function (eg the Rifle regiments). It is relatively rare for battalions of the same regiment to be brigaded together and historically not uncommon for battalions to serve in not just different brigades or divisions but separate theatres.
The numbering of line regiments was something that came with the move to professionalism in the 18th century and ended (under protest) with the Cardwell and Childers reforms of of 1870 and 1881.
I wouldn't say they went to anything like a Prussian system though at any point. The idea of the regimental colonel having a command role had largely disappeared by the time of Marlborough but they remained an administrative and figurehead role as they do to this day and potential officers for regiments will still often be interviewed by the Colonel as part of their application process. Colonels have for a long time been selected from amongst senior (general) officers who began their careers in a regiment (eg as a general Wellington was Col. of the 33rd (West Riding) Regiment in which he had commanded a bn in India) .
Neither Colonels nor Lt Cols ever command infantry "regiments" in the British infantry because there is no such tactical formation. However Lt Cols do command regiments in the cavalry/armoured corps, the Royal Artillery and the other corps because the term "regiment" is used to describe the equivalent level formation to an infantry battalion.
MaxRavenclaw I feel like a regiment is just a name and a history a battalion attaches themselves to. For example it was rare for 2 battalions of infantry to fight within the same brigade during the napoleonic wars, and I believed that is true to this day
Mr Camoron it’s because nowadays the British army isn’t large enough to field combat divisions on its own, although in the event of a major European war Britain could in theory deploy three: one made up entirely of British regulars; one a mix of British regulars, reserves and some Royal Marines; and a third largely made up of Dutch and Danish regulars with British support troops - that would be Britain’s 1st Corps, although we would retain the majority of the Royal Marines, about half the reserves and all of the army training staff and begin the process of raising more men; we would also have to get some of our military equipment out of mothballs (realistically the service that would suffer the most from a large scale war is the Royal Navy)
enjoy your work - now subscribed
+Paul Cate thank you, welcome to my channel!
Is there a reason why half the men at 2:15 have no helmet or is that merely a fluke from generating them?
Very clear video as always, I love the simple layout.
PowerPoint Fail, it merged the body with the helmets.
thank you!
There is a good book about the fighters of the Luftwaffe 1935-1945 by Herbert Ringlstetter . Its more about the Technical aspects of those Fighters than combat history. But it has some nice Photos and Stats. If you wanna have its called "Jagdflugzeuge der deutschen Luftwaffe 1935-1945 " He made also a book about German bomber and night fighter with very good Infos.
+jimbo 0112 thx, sadly my local library doesn't have it.
I think in war or peace you have mixing and matching of units. The Corp and Army level have support units that could be added or taken away. An Artillery unit could be detached from one division to support another. I could see the prewar English detaching a brigade and sending it off to garrison duty out in the empire.
I also say this every Video but again, fantastic Video. Do you plan to do one for the French?
+TheShatteredSword thank you! Yes, but the source material is almost non-existent or not available. Trying to get my hands on the following: British General Staff, ed. Handbook of the French Army, 1914. Battery Press: Nashville, 2002. British General Staff, ed. French Trench Warfare, 1917-1918: A Reference Manual. Battery Press: Nashville, 2002. If those books are similar to the handbooks on the German Army, I just need about 5-10 pages to get the numbers and structure.
+Military History Visualized this website contains loads of info www.151ril.com/content/history
2:58 is there any difference between these extra pioneers and the already existing "engineers", or are you simply using a different term for the same type of infantry? Just like in German, in Finnish we also call them pioneers, but to my understanding this is mostly synonymous with the Anglo-Saxon "engineer".
+FulmenTheFinn the terms engineers and pioneers are a pain in the ass, as far as I know usually engineers are combat engineers and pioneers are more building / maintenance guys, but considering that the British often don't use regiments etc. and the US Handbook on the British Army from 1943 notes that many terms are the same but used differently... CLUSTERFUCK... but back to the WW1 division, I think I read in one of the sources that those pioneers were skilled civilians and were used for mining operations etc. but not 100 % sure, because I am still laying the foundations.
+Military History Visualized Ah, ok. Sounds like frustrating work going through all that material. Hope you get a contract with TH-cam eventually so you could get at least some money out of this.
Thx for the fast reply.
In todays terminology "pioneers" are infantry with very basic engineering skills and are the battalion level as part of support company. Ex Australian Army Reservist.
They help dig in rifle companies, provide boats for small river crossings, basic engineering tasks like obstacle clearing, booby trap clearing etc etc.
Assault Pioneers.
The British infantry was always the best
+Great Jamie
...and still is.
Great Jamie Not really.
@@erichvonmanstein1952 yes really the british were only matched in professionalism by probably germany but other than that no other country had fielded highly trained soldiers since britain was a small nation so rarely had conscripts like every other nation
@Tom Sanders second boer war napoleonic wars world war one world war two falklands war afghanistan and iraq war
Indy.
:)
Can you do a video on the British tanks in WW1?
man look at what the Australians did with their infantry structures and tactics once the Australians formed their own independent corp in 1918. Also General Monash you may find interesting.
Could you do a video showing the WW2 Marine Division organization versus today's organization? How have they changed?
new sub,, also have you done a video on the soviet airforce stratergy and tactics for in air and use of planes over that massive front..
welcome to the channel. I only did a small video on the soviet air force's in 1941/1942 th-cam.com/video/hAf-pNXEimI/w-d-xo.html
Hey, I'm a bit messed up right now. I like all these structures and organisations stuff and I'm still a teen now but I don't know if there's a career choice that incorporates all these into a job?
18,000 men and 24 machine guns. Low odds that you’d even get to see more than one before you died.
Ah.....do you have any ideea about romanian artillery in WWII and what tanks they had? :)
+Avadhut Kasinadhuni not yet, but I have copies about it
Can i get the ww2 version?
Will you ever make a video for a Russian division?
maybe, probably WW2, but WW1 as you can see on the view count is sadly mostly ignored. Note that this video was even promoted by the Great War Channel.
An artillery 'brigade' is actually a battalion at this time, you're incorrect in assuming them as 'brigades'.
I know that they were battalion sized, but called brigades.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized The Royal Artillery used the term 'brigade', as the term 'regiment' and 'battalion' were considered too "cavalry" and "infantry" (respectively) and the RA was a separate branch from the two unlike the other support services. From 1932, they became 'regiments' (battalion equivalents still) though.
@@Coldstreamer17 finally some explanation for this madness; I remember there was also something in WW2 that was "off" not sure if it was artillery or something else.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized "off"?
@@Coldstreamer17 when the Germans, Soviets and Americans use terminology for their units that matches each other, but the British don't, then I call that "off".
Friend, can you do a video on a Romanian Infantry Division in WWI/WWII? :D
+Avadhut Kasinadhuni WW2 division is definitely planned I have copies of a good source, WW1 right now is unlikely.
+Military History Visualized Wunderbar!!!!
Even the German army acknowledged going into ww1 the British army was the best trained equipped and organised all lessons learned from the boer war the only real time a professional army as been given the resources to make it self truly prepared for anything except ww1 which multiplied everything 10 fold which no one could envision the irony is these lessons have still not been learned (Si vis pacem para bellum)
make a panzer III stugg vid pliz :D
you are awesome Btw !
+Henri Knackstedt A what? A Pz.III vid or a StuG III vid?
+Henri Knackstedt thank you, yeah, Panzer videos are coming for sure, right now I am working on a plane video although.
HAHA sorry, stugg vidio would be nice.
(I said stug since it is built on a panzer 3(mix up))
can someone please link me a video explaining the differences and organization of the terms: brigade, division, company, regiment, battalion, squadron and so on
th-cam.com/video/YgLU5ncAE9M/w-d-xo.html
at the end of the video
Almost seem like some sources cannot tell the difference between brigade and battalion... Or otherwise some level of this must be to confuse the enemy, because I have a hard time believing the British had to so many brigadiers (1 star generals), that they could throw 7 in each division... Something is just severely off about this, but as the British had local units (people from the same town would serve together) to begin with then the division layout might have been different from division to division? (They later scraped the idea of local units, as when a unit charged into no mans land and was destroyed by MG fire, then a whole village might have lost all their men in one day)
But still a template of 7 brigades in a division makes no sense to me, but the British were never much for an army at home (Indian army was the main British army) unless in a time of war, so maybe they just had too many high ranking officers trained for India, and therefore called battalions/regiments for brigades to fit with the rank of the officer leading them early on.
+bloodlazio the rank was according to the size of the unit, not the name of it. The British have a similar issue with their World War 2 units and there I used the US Army Handbook on the British Forces as source and discussed it with others. Historical reason, the base unit was the battalion for the British.
You left only french division
+flecisum yeah, but I have real troubles finding proper sources on them.
no ww2???
No, cause nobody watches them.
Military History Visualized Only and Mostly German and US military structures around the internet. We want to know British, France, Italy, Japan, USSR. military stucture division regiment battalion company paltoon squad!!!
Look at the view numbers
Viz komentery bei Hans Gruber
Please türkish language
Oha la,şaşırdım Türkler böyle kanalları izler miydi ?