Com-Central.net

- bsmart

No problem, So are we going to see any good pictures from this trip?

Bob,
Just home now. Nope, was only in Berlin with no extra time (though there is now something called the "Allied Museum"...don't know what's up with that). Gotta' get with Jens one of these days and do Muenster, but not for a while, though.

D.

Despite being basically (IMHO) one big monument to German militarism, Berlin actually doesnt have much in the way of military museums. There is however apparently the Luftwaffe museum there (wingie-thingies):
www.luftwaffenmuseum.d...dex_en.htm

Neil

- Neil_Baumgardner

Despite being basically (IMHO) one big monument to German militarism...
Neil

Neil,
So, in that respect, it's pretty much my impression of the IWM-London.

D.

- Doug_Kibbey

- Neil_Baumgardner

Despite being basically (IMHO) one big monument to German militarism...
Neil

Neil,
So, in that respect, it's pretty much my impression of the IWM-London.

D.

Yeah, but I'm not referring to a museum - I'm referring to the city. While London has the Nelson column and the cenotaph, at least it also has statues of famous prime ministers like Churchill.

Lets see, Berlin has the Siegessäule (victory column), Brandenburg Gate (a victory arch), the Bismarck memorial (complete with an atlas showing Germany's world power status at the end of the 19th century and a woman with a slain panther underfoot, symbolizing the suppression of sedition by the state), and statues of Moltke, von Roon, Frederick the Great, Blucher, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Yorck. No statues of prime ministers or other civil leaders that I am aware of... Closest thing is the Neue Wache, which used to be a guard house, but is now the Central Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany.

www.theberlinobserver....saeule.htm

I guess Berlin just strikes me as an odd contradiction, being the capital of one of the most pacifistic states in Europe, but filled with war memorials...

Neil

- Neil_Baumgardner

I guess Berlin just strikes me as an odd contradiction, being the capital of one of the most pacifistic states in Europe, but filled with war memorials...

Neil

As an associate of mine said in 1990

"A Unified Germany is the biggest threat to peace that Europe ever has"

Maybe 'modern' Germany is trying to overcome that perception. But then again it's been less than 20 years so far

- bsmart

As an associate of mine said in 1990

"A Unified Germany is the biggest threat to peace that Europe ever has"

We've gone pretty far OT... But I cant say I agree with that either. In fact, I'd posit that an enforced seperation of the two Germanies would probably have been a greater threat to peace... The resentment that it would have caused, especially in an economically depressed east... The same us (Germans) vs the world (US, UK, France & USSR/Russia) mentality... Calls for Anschluss... Sound familiar?

IMO, getting a unified Germany - and this is the critical part - into NATO was one of the best diplomatic achievements of the post-WWII era. Even Gorbachev realized that a Germany outside of NATO or the Warsaw Pact (albeit falling apart) would have forced the country to reconsider the old security dilemma. Bringing a unified Germany into NATO meant its security was tied with other European countries. And thankfully most Germans today believe this (albeit quite possibly to a fault). This was also helped when NATO expanded to include Poland, so that Germany didnt have to worry about a potentially unstable/unsecured zone to its east.

Maybe 'modern' Germany is trying to overcome that perception. But then again it's been less than 20 years so far

Yeah, I am not really concerned about the state of Germany today at least. I just think that Berlin has certain contradictions as its capital... I just wonder what happens when they're several generations removed from the horrors of WWII and there are still all these monuments around...

Neil

Hi Folks!

- Doug_Kibbey

- bsmart

- Doug_Kibbey

At least everyone understood what you meant in the context mentioned by Bob (though I wonder, from afar, if he meant "Combat Command" as opposed to "Combat Team").

I chose my words with care

Bob...
As I figgered you would...I'm just not home (or in-country) at the moment and couldn't check my own sources to see if CC or CT was the more precise term. Not that it seems to matter much these days, anyway. Thanks to your clarification, I don't have to do any checking!

As I understand it, the Infanty, during the triangular reset, started using the term Combat Team, were the Armored Divisions used the term Combat Command which I think lasted until the Pentomic Ear (1956-1960). After the Army went through the ROAD reset, three Brigades were standard in all divisions, but units under their control came and went just like they did during the triangle set up. "the Combat Command was the parent of the modern brigade." (Note that is in reference to the ROAD brigades).

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Ref: Evolution and Endurance: The U.S. Amry Division in the Twentieth Century by Richard W. Kedzior

www.rand.org/publicati...MR/MR1211/

[quote="Neil_Baumgardner"]

- bsmart

I just think that Berlin has certain contradictions as its capital... I just wonder what happens when they're several generations removed from the horrors of WWII and there are still all these monuments around...

Neil

Well, in addition to the abovementioned monuments, they still preserve the Kaiser Wilhelm Kirche (just around the corner from my usual hotel), which can be construed as a monument to what can happen when things get out of hand. Maybe it's a self-as-victim thing for some, but I hope it continues to be preserved. Somebody might be motivated to ask themselves, "I wonder what happened here?"

Thats very true... That is a good reminder...

Neil

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

I don't think you're going to slide on it that easy I can't agree that the army 'assumed' the unit was a division.

Bob, you missed my point, I was thinking a Marine wrote that report using stand WW II Marine terms for an Army unit. When I read it I used Marine terms for the Marine units and converted the Army unit into standard WW II and post terms for divisions.

- bsmart

I've read and heard of many references to units that were Regiments and not Divisons. In fact historically I think most references were to Regiments

I think you are correct up until 1939. After that the Army started dropping the term Regiment which had been the primary combat unit and using the division which had started becoming the primary combat unit. After WWII the Regiment was replaced by the Brigade and complete regiments started to be taken apart.

If you look at the history of the Marines, they almost always id a division as a division. For example the 1st Division is normally written as 1st Marine Division or for short as the 1st MarDiv. Regiments which they still use are almost always id by the number and the title Marines. For example the 13th Regiment is always written as the 13th Marines which by the way is an artillery regiment.

- bsmart

If I say 7th Cav I'll bet you think of the unit that went with Custer to Little Big Horn. That was The 7th Cavalry Regiment.

I agree because in the case of the 7th Cav, there never was a 7th Cav Division therefor no point of confussion.

- bsmart

The Old Guard is the 3rd Infantry that's the 3rd Infantry Regiment not Division.

The one exception to the rule and always a point of confussion unless one adds the terms "Old Guard" or "Regiment" or "ID". The Old Guard if I understand correctly is the last and only full INFANTRY Regiment in the Army.

- bsmart

When Divisions were first created as a standing organizational unit early in the 20th Century the were simply Divisions It was the 1st Division, 29th Division, etc. The 'Infantry' designater did not come until just before WWII, at about the same time they went from Square Divisions (2 Brigades of 2 Regiments each) to Triangular Divisions ....

Up to this point I agree, but when I was thinking the 147th was a Division and not just a regiment, I was thinking in terms that came into use after Triangular Divisions were started and standard terms for regiments that were not part of a division were written as 147th Infantry Regiments or as 147th Infantry (Seperate).

Hope this clears up my muddy and confuzed thinking about Army Regiments (WWII and post) and Army Divisions.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

[quote="Roy_A_Lingle"]Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

I don't think you're going to slide on it that easy I can't agree that the army 'assumed' the unit was a division.

Bob, you missed my point, I was thinking a Marine wrote that report using stand WW II Marine terms for an Army unit. When I read it I used Marine terms for the Marine units and converted the Army unit into standard WW II and post terms for divisions.

- bsmart

I've read and heard of many references to units that were Regiments and not Divisons. In fact historically I think most references were to Regiments

I think you are correct up until 1939. After that the Army started dropping the term Regiment which had been the primary combat unit and using the division which had started becoming the primary combat unit. After WWII the Regiment was replaced by the Brigade and complete regiments started to be taken apart.
[quote]

But I think Bob's point is correct, even today. If an average US Army soldier says he is with the 1st Infantry, he most liikely means he is in a battalion of the 1st Infantry Regiment. I more commonly hear "1st ID" as shorthand for 1st Infantry Division, rather than "1st Infantry." Frankly, I cant remember any instance of hearing someone say "X Infantry" and mean a division...

Neil

Hi Neil! Hi Folks!

- Neil_Baumgardner

But I think Bob's point is correct, even today. If an average US Army soldier says he is with the 1st Infantry, he most liikely means he is in a battalion of the 1st Infantry Regiment.

I disgree sir. Not counting the Old Guard, the regiment has almost no meaning after the ROAD reset. I spent four years in an infantry battalion and we always used the term 1st Bn of the 30th Infantry or 3rd ID when talking about our unit. We never used the term 30th Infantry by itself because no one would know which battalion we were with. It was the battalion, not the regiment we were a part of. When learning and teaching history of the unit, it was focused on the battalion and the division histories. Never the Regiment or the Brigade histories.

- Neil_Baumgardner

I more commonly hear "1st ID" as shorthand for 1st Infantry Division, rather than "1st Infantry." Frankly, I cant remember any instance of hearing someone say "X Infantry" and mean a division...

I agree with "hearing someone say", but I am thinking about terms I remember being used in written accounts after the start of WW II and up until the late 1960s or so when people started getting lazy and cutting short just about everything. For example the 1st Infantry became 1st ID and things like M-48 tank became M48 tank.

I guess I am still knee deep in mud with this one.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

- Neil_Baumgardner

But I think Bob's point is correct, even today. If an average US Army soldier says he is with the 1st Infantry, he most liikely means he is in a battalion of the 1st Infantry Regiment. I more commonly hear "1st ID" as shorthand for 1st Infantry Division, rather than "1st Infantry." Frankly, I cant remember any instance of hearing someone say "X Infantry" and mean a division...

Neil

Most soldiers will identify themselves using the two or three (or four) digit number that specifies their battalion/regiment. For example, if a Soldier was in 1st Battalion, 77th Infantry Regiment, he would say he is in 1-77 and pronounce it as "One-Seven-Seven".

I agree that someone in an infantry division would say they were in 3rd ID or 4th ID (versus 3rd Infantry or 4th Infantry), but if someone said they were in 1st Armor or 1st Cav, they would definitely be referring to 1st Armor Division or 1st Cavalry Division and not to the 1st Armor Regiment or 1st Cavalry Regiment.

Hi Roy, everyone,
I have to agree with Roy that I've never heard anyone refer to their battalion sized unit as 1st Infantry or so forth, The norm since I've been in has been 1st ID, 3rd AD, 1st CAV, 4ID and etc when it comes to divisions. Seperate brigades were always just mentioned by their number, like 197th, 194th, 177th, 172nd and so forth. Everyone I worked with pretty much knew who they were and what they were. The only exception to the battalion rule was Korea. But then they were refered to as 1st and 2nd Tank (or Duece Tank), not 72nd Armor. As far as unit history we learned the Battalion's, so 1-72 would be different than 2-72's because 1-72 drew theirs from A Company, 72nd Armor and 2-72's was B Company. That was a simpler one, others like 63rd were originally the 745th Tank Destoyer Battalion, so it could get quite confusing. Doesn't help when you PCS every 2 years. To this day I dread some one asking me about my units history, mostly because my memory is a jumble of different history's mixed together from various Tank/Cavalry/Infantry units.

Just my 2 bits in this thread.

Joe D

Agree with Roy also, though must add to Joe's comments that units like the 199th, 326th and 327th usually had "Infantry" (or Light Infantry, where applicable) attached.

I never heard anyone actually say "regiment" when referring to Cav units like the 17th or 11th. It was taken as given.

Referring to Rob's statements....in the OLD days (meaning VN era), soldiers usually extended that shorthand out to statements like "4th of the 77th" or "1st of the 326th", or whatever, rather than 4-77 or four-seven-seven.