What's new

Combat and Battle Formation

Yes, please :)
 
You're an absolutely brilliant poster, Austerlitz, I hope you'd help jhang and sir Joe. I thoroghouly enjoyed your post. What do you think of the military giude?
I'm still not sure as to the extent of this military guide,because each military has different organizational systems and also ranks.But a basic outline can very well be made.I would definitely try and add to whatever joe and jhungary come up with.
But note that military organization of armies are slowly switching to modular briagde structure to face modern assymetrical threats,from the elaborate corps and divisions of ww2.I have some solid data on the organization of armies of ww2.
On current forces ,pros like jhungary will be better informed by far.
 
.
Well, modern military structure are different between country, some are politically motivated, while some derived from the need of their country

I am pretty much familiarised with the US and commonwealth structure as well as Nordic country, other than that it's a whole new ball game

And I am going dark in the next two days and I will talk more when I come back
 
. .
@AUSTERLITZ @jhungary @Joe Shearer

We're basically doing this for the Commonwealth template of military arrangement. As far as I've read the US model resembles it closely with only minor differences, though I could be wrong.

Aus, it would be great to have a technical piece on the evolution of the military organistation as well, in due time but that's something I believe we should be discussing.

So all set guys?
 
.
The first rudimentary general staff of sorts was created by frederick of prussia.It was really expanded to a large scale organization by napoleon in france.And was perfected and given its modernized form again by the prussians[later germans] under von moltke.

Napoleon established the first permanent CORPS - a permanent all arms formation of infantry,cavalry and artillery and its own staff.All armies would follow and expand on this.
A corps[headed by LT general] usually consisted of infantry Divisions[10,000-15,000 men],plus artillery brigades,armoured brigades-maybe even armoured divisions.2-3,4 brigades may make up a division[headed by major general].
Each brigade[brigadier general] has regiments[~2500 men headed by colonel] which again consist of battalions[Lt colonel].Battalions again have companies[100+ men by major or captain] which are divided into platoons[30~men of second lieutnant],again subdivided into sections[8-13 men by corporal or sergeant]-this is usually the conventional lowest unit.But the fireteam[4 men] has now taken its place for COIN ops.A section has 1-2 LMGs,1 anti-armour RPG soldier at least,plus perhaps one MANPAADS.Others assault rifles.
Each level has assorted support elements.Battlions have heavy weapons company[mortars,HMGs]
Regiments have integrated batteries of infantry support guns[light artillery].
They also have engineering ,recon and supply elements attatched.

Multiple corps may be organized into armies,or theatres- based on geographic defense[as in indo-pak].
This is just a absolutely skeletal base description of the hierarchy.Will expand when i have time.Jhungary and joe will know better here.
 
Last edited:
.
So @jhungary seeing that you've served as an APC Commander & then an Infantry Platoon Commander & later as a Ranger so a question if I may :

In the Pakistan Army the Officers appear to be circulated between different arms within the Army especially at higher posts for example you might find a career Special Services Operative heading a Paramilitary Arm of the Pakistan Army as its Director General as a Major General likewise you may find a Cavalry Commander serving as the Director General of the Intelligence Agency again as a Major General & there are other such examples too !

My question is - How prudent is that ? Isn't it better for those Arms to be headed by men who've (a) had the opportunity of serving between different Arms to get a deeper understanding of the Army as a whole till say the rank of a Colonel & then later on (b) they get to pick & stick with one single Arm so that when the time & the opportunity comes to be the head of that particular Arm (say the Armoured Corp) at the rank of a Major General they had the opportunity of understanding the ins & outs, the nuances, the dynamics (everything) of the particular Arm over a 10-15 year period as a dedicated (say !) Cavalry Commander !

Likewise for anyone aspiring to be the Chief of the Army or the Vice Chief of the Army or Chairman Joint Chief of Staff - They are thoroughly grilled & groomed for the job so that we don't end up with a Chief whose a Cavalry Commander or a Special Services Commander or an Artillery Commander first & then a Chief of the Army as a whole which is to say hes not skewed towards one side in terms of his understanding & appreciation of how & where every Arm of the Army fits in the grand scheme of War !

What do you think ? :what:

Thanks, much obliged if you could answer it for me ! :)

You too @Joe Shearer if you can I'd appreciate it ! :)
 
.
The german army had a curious practice in this regard.All officers regardless of branch had to recieve basic infantry training.
 
.
The first rudimentary general staff of sorts was created by frederick of prussia.It was really expanded to a large scale organization by napoleon in france.And was perfected and given its modernized form again by the prussians[later germans] under von moltke.

Napoleon established the first permanent CORPS - a permanent all arms formation of infantry,cavalry and artillery and its own staff.All armies would follow and expand on this.
A corps[headed by LT general] usually consisted of infantry Divisions[10,000-15,000 men],plus artillery brigades,armoured brigades-maybe even armoured divisions.2-3,4 brigades may make up a division[headed by major general].
Each brigade[brigadier general] has regiments[~2500 men headed by colonel] which again consist of battalions[Lt colonel].Battalions again have companies[100+ men by major or captain] which are divided into platoons[30~men of second lieutnant],again subdivided into sections[8-13 men by corporal or sergeant]-this is usually the conventional lowest unit.But the fireteam[4 men] has now taken its place for COIN ops.A section has 1-2 LMGs,1 anti-armour RPG soldier at least,plus perhaps one MANPAADS.Others assault rifles.
Each level has assorted support elements.Battlions have heavy weapons company[mortars,HMGs]
Regiments have integrated batteries of infantry support guns[light artillery].
They also have engineering ,recon and supply elements attatched.

Multiple corps may be organized into armies,or theatres- based on geographic defense[as in indo-pak].
This is just a absolutely skeletal base description of the hierarchy.Will expand when i have time.Jhungary and joe will know better here.


Not that anyone knows better here - @jhungary and @AUSTERLITZ have shown us more than enough evidence of their grip over matters military - but one or two things about @AUSTERLITZ' account above caused a moment of surprise.

In the British Army - by extension, in south Asian armies today - infantry regiments did not fight as combat units, infantry battalions did. There were cavalry and artillery regiments, sometimes, in a typical order of battle. A brigade of the sort described above is presumably a purely infantry brigade, in which case, it would have three infantry battalions, about 1500 men, and support units; the support units increase with the next step, to division level, where three brigades and accompanying units make between 10,000 to 15,000 men, which implies brigades at strengths of 3,500 to 5,000 men. A detailed explanation will be best of course with an open order of battle in front.

Purely infantry brigade aside, there are armoured and artillery brigades, special purpose animals whose composition will be described in the next step.
So @jhungary seeing that you've served as an APC Commander & then an Infantry Platoon Commander & later as a Ranger so a question if I may :

In the Pakistan Army the Officers appear to be circulated between different arms within the Army especially at higher posts for example you might find a career Special Services Operative heading a Paramilitary Arm of the Pakistan Army as its Director General as a Major General likewise you may find a Cavalry Commander serving as the Director General of the Intelligence Agency again as a Major General & there are other such examples too !

My question is - How prudent is that ? Isn't it better for those Arms to be headed by men who've (a) had the opportunity of serving between different Arms to get a deeper understanding of the Army as a whole till say the rank of a Colonel & then later on (b) they get to pick & stick with one single Arm so that when the time & the opportunity comes to be the head of that particular Arm (say the Armoured Corp) at the rank of a Major General they had the opportunity of understanding the ins & outs, the nuances, the dynamics (everything) of the particular Arm over a 10-15 year period as a dedicated (say !) Cavalry Commander !

Likewise for anyone aspiring to be the Chief of the Army or the Vice Chief of the Army or Chairman Joint Chief of Staff - They are thoroughly grilled & groomed for the job so that we don't end up with a Chief whose a Cavalry Commander or a Special Services Commander or an Artillery Commander first & then a Chief of the Army as a whole which is to say hes not skewed towards one side in terms of his understanding & appreciation of how & where every Arm of the Army fits in the grand scheme of War !

What do you think ? :what:

Thanks, much obliged if you could answer it for me ! :)

You too @Joe Shearer if you can I'd appreciate it ! :)

I agree, the career progression of general officers determines some aspects of their higher command ability and competence. It would be interesting to follow the career graph of some of the successful generals, of, say, WWII, or the Korean War (restricted to the UN forces), or some of the generals on either side of India-Pakistan conflicts. Maybe in a day or two; I have to produce some seventy odd Process Guides, an enriched resume which will qualify me for redesignation as full Professor under UGC norms, and prepare for several history lectures.

I will be watching this for the excellent replies that @jhungary and @AUSTERLITZ are bound to come up with, and shall slink away as unobtrusively as possible if their contributions are above a certain attainable level.
 
.
Yeah i didn't give the regiment on british army lines,rather german.In british army/our armies as well battlalions are main maneuvre unit.Regiments serve as a organizational entity.
 
.
Yes, please :)
 
You're an absolutely brilliant poster, Austerlitz, I hope you'd help jhang and sir Joe. I thoroghouly enjoyed your post. What do you think of the military giude?

Hi there

This is my take on Military Structure, i created another post for it because it is quite long and i got into quite deep.

Bear in mind i wrote this after a 2 days of work and basically burned out, if the language is a bit odd, then please do correct them at will .

This is as far as i can remember and i will update that thread as i can't finish them all yesterday :)

MIlitary Structure
 
.
So @jhungary seeing that you've served as an APC Commander & then an Infantry Platoon Commander & later as a Ranger so a question if I may :

In the Pakistan Army the Officers appear to be circulated between different arms within the Army especially at higher posts for example you might find a career Special Services Operative heading a Paramilitary Arm of the Pakistan Army as its Director General as a Major General likewise you may find a Cavalry Commander serving as the Director General of the Intelligence Agency again as a Major General & there are other such examples too !

My question is - How prudent is that ? Isn't it better for those Arms to be headed by men who've (a) had the opportunity of serving between different Arms to get a deeper understanding of the Army as a whole till say the rank of a Colonel & then later on (b) they get to pick & stick with one single Arm so that when the time & the opportunity comes to be the head of that particular Arm (say the Armoured Corp) at the rank of a Major General they had the opportunity of understanding the ins & outs, the nuances, the dynamics (everything) of the particular Arm over a 10-15 year period as a dedicated (say !) Cavalry Commander !

Likewise for anyone aspiring to be the Chief of the Army or the Vice Chief of the Army or Chairman Joint Chief of Staff - They are thoroughly grilled & groomed for the job so that we don't end up with a Chief whose a Cavalry Commander or a Special Services Commander or an Artillery Commander first & then a Chief of the Army as a whole which is to say hes not skewed towards one side in terms of his understanding & appreciation of how & where every Arm of the Army fits in the grand scheme of War !

What do you think ? :what:

Thanks, much obliged if you could answer it for me ! :)

You too @Joe Shearer if you can I'd appreciate it ! :)

Usually when you are talking about position above Colonel, they are straightly Administation position, they do not require as much ins and outs of actually performing those task, most likely they are only for show.

Leadership on that field is no where as important as management skill to put it.

However, commander like this are usually groomed, by groomed i mean they are traditionally connect to the higher up on the generation before. Most of them have similar background, they almost always attended USMA. There are two reason behind this, 1.) You have to be really motivated to get in USMA instead of OCS in the first place. 2.) They taught a different course in USMA then in other institution.

And basically, the higher in rank you go, you are doing pretty much the same job with everybody. In the Military we have an old saying, as you progress in rank, you do less with better pay. Say if you command an infantry platoon, the different is larger and easier to see if you have a different background. Say the different between a Cavalrymen and an Infantrymen background. They taught you different tactics and different stragety in both course. Then when you progress thryu the rank, to Captain and command a whole commany,yes, maybe the different is still large enough to see, but when you talk about in Battalion level, Division level, Corp level or Command Level. The actual contribution is not as much as you as a platoon leader or Company commander. By then you need to widen your vision and you can no longer focus on a single thing yet.

That is why you are seeing command structure have commander coming from all over the place.

Of course you can say yeah commander with local background have advantage with commander who was transferred from another branch, but as the rank goes up and responsibility goes up, the different is actually going down.

Fact to the point is, places are limited, you need to know someone to get in, it does not matter how you do what you do, important things is you know someone. :)

By the way, i was never Army Ranger, i passed the course but they decided to send me else where. indeed I got a ranger tab but those bastard think i am better serve running erran for a female general. I thought i must have pissed off somebody, i don't know.

But man, you got to love the way you salute a woman everyday when you bring her the morning coffee, wait, i did that everyday with my wife......
 
.
Then when you progress thryu the rank, to Captain and command a whole commany,yes, maybe the different is still large enough to see, but when you talk about in Battalion level, Division level, Corp level or Command Level. The actual contribution is not as much as you as a platoon leader or Company commander. By then you need to widen your vision and you can no longer focus on a single thing yet.
From what I can tell of the US and British military, the two ranks that keep both running, solves most problems, get most things done, take the most heat, and receives the least recognition: Captains and Mst Sergeants. For the USAF, the flyers are excluded because all of them have to be officers anyway.
 
.
Yep,the germans considered the NCOs[non commisioned officers] to be the core fabric of the army.Without capable low level leadership armies are crap quality.
This has been true from older times-the heart of the roman legions were the 60 odd centurions,not the higher tribunes/officers.
 
.
jhung, it's wonderful, thank you so much! I really appreciate it. You went through the trouble of doing both US and Commonwealth systems.

Hi there

This is my take on Military Structure, i created another post for it because it is quite long and i got into quite deep.

Bear in mind i wrote this after a 2 days of work and basically burned out, if the language is a bit odd, then please do correct them at will .

This is as far as i can remember and i will update that thread as i can't finish them all yesterday :)

MIlitary Structure
 
.
From what I can tell of the US and British military, the two ranks that keep both running, solves most problems, get most things done, take the most heat, and receives the least recognition: Captains and Mst Sergeants. For the USAF, the flyers are excluded because all of them have to be officers anyway.

I would have to say 1 or 2 LT and First Sergeant for the Army, Captain seldom around these day for front line action, most action company faced are broken into Platoon, be that ground patrol or assault. Company, althought small (still 180 men on ground) is majoritily used to defend statistic position when operate as a whole and they almost never ever happened.

And you are right about the NCO, but Master Sergeant were seldom and hard to come by, and mostly grounded to Administative duty, the position you are referring to is the Company FIrst Sergeant, which held the rank First Sergeant, same paygrade as MSgt. But higher in Command authority. MSgt is more professional side of the rank.

Yep,the germans considered the NCOs[non commisioned officers] to be the core fabric of the army.Without capable low level leadership armies are crap quality.
This has been true from older times-the heart of the roman legions were the 60 odd centurions,not the higher tribunes/officers.

I don't know is that i said to you or somebody else. Senior NCO is act as a mentor to Junior Officer, while Junior Officer serves as a Motivation side. Senior NCO in effect is the brain that carry the whole platoon while the 2LT is the glue that stick the platoon together. This is best best analogy i can think of...
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom