Brigade versus Regiment

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi:

I'm hoping either Mike S or Mike M can educate me on this one. When and why did the US Army go from the regiment to the brigade as the building block of the division? I know that brigades existed in the Civil War, usually made up of two or more regiments. It seems that as US army formations increased in size, the need for more flexible units grew. There are examples of brigades in use in WWII, but generally the regiment was the primary unit. At this point in time, only the Marines and the Armored Cavalry use the regiment as a primary unit. Is there a reason for this? Thanks for any details.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Ed,

Not sure I provide that much illumination. I believe brigades are larger units capable of independent action. After WWII, the Army tried Regimental Combat Teams or RCTs where the basic three battalion infantry regiment was given organic artillery support and it's own tanks to provide a flexible, combined arms fighting group. The post Korea "ROAD" division organisation adpoted that concept with three brigades replacing the regiments where tank and infantry battlions could be cross attached as neccessary and operate on idenpendent missions for the division. In rhe US Army, a brigade and regiment would be the same size in terms of manpower. The three cav regiments, the 11th, the 2nd, and the 3rd where tank heavy organizations in the 70 and 80s with almost as many tanks as a regular division. A regimental cav squadron would have the same three cay troops as a divisional cav squadron, but each regimental squadron woul have an additional tank company and a 155mm SP battery. The regiments were extremely powerful organizatioins, but lacked the organic divisional maintenance support for stamina.

[old_pop2000]

Hi:

I'm hoping either Mike S or Mike M can educate me on this one. When and why did the US Army go from the regiment to the brigade as the building block of the division? I know that brigades existed in the Civil War, usually made up of two or more regiments. It seems that as US army formations increased in size, the need for more flexible units grew. There are examples of brigades in use in WWII, but generally the regiment was the primary unit. At this point in time, only the Marines and the Armored Cavalry use the regiment as a primary unit. Is there a reason for this? Thanks for any details.

The brigade came into effect, as a part of reorganization from a square division establishment consisting of two brigades of two regiments, to the triangular consisting of three brigades. This change occurred just before our entrance into WWII. Armored division used the concept of the combat command, there being three in each division. Each was a self-contained unit of maneuver.

I would suspect that simplicity and tactical flexibility were the main reasons although for traditions sake, regiments are still in existance.

I have provided a link to an excellent article at the Army Command and General Staff College, Combined Arms Research Library entitled "Toward Combined Arms Warfare:A Survey of 20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization". This article was written in 1984 but does provide explanations and reasons for the organizational structure.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/House/House.asp#Chapter%20Six.

My apologies to our army forum members, I was simply attempting to provide a preliminary answer to Ed's question. You are the subject matter experts.

Enjoy and let's continue this excellent thread

[Mike Malanaphy]

HI Dennis,

Not a problem, my experience is starting to be of Civil War vintage. : ) Interesting article. I was intrigued about his discussion of the "Actice Defense" doctrine of the late 70's, early 80s. Thje Nato role was entirely defensvie in nature and war plans had ossified since the early 50s'. Active Defense was spurred by the circumstances we found ourselves in of fighting at a numerical disadvantge. German experience against the Soviets and more recent Israeli experiences pointed out the need for a a flexible defensive doctrine that avoided enemt strenghts and sought to use limited offensive action against the attacker. Typically, we hoped to have a troop or squadron flank the lead echelon so they could attach from the flanks or rear as the first echelon was engaged. The units would then withdraw back through or lines to "recock" for the next echelon. Of course, that concept was fraught with danger because of your lack of abilty to see behinmd enemy lines. But it offered an alternative to being hammered in place or the use of WMD.

There were several attampts at forming "combined arms" battalions in the 70s and 80s, but none came to fruition. I'm not really sure why unless it was turf battles between the infantry and armor branches.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Not sure I provide that much illumination. I believe brigades are larger units capable of independent action. After WWII, the Army tried Regimental Combat Teams or RCTs where the basic three battalion infantry regiment was given organic artillery support and it's own tanks to provide a flexible, combined arms fighting group. The post Korea "ROAD" division organisation adpoted that concept with three brigades replacing the regiments where tank and infantry battlions could be cross attached as neccessary and operate on idenpendent missions for the division. In rhe US Army, a brigade and regiment would be the same size in terms of manpower. The three cav regiments, the 11th, the 2nd, and the 3rd where tank heavy organizations in the 70 and 80s with almost as many tanks as a regular division. A regimental cav squadron would have the same three cay troops as a divisional cav squadron, but each regimental squadron woul have an additional tank company and a 155mm SP battery. The regiments were extremely powerful organizatioins, but lacked the organic divisional maintenance support for stamina.

Thanks Mike!

[Ed Rotondaro]

The brigade came into effect, as a part of reorganization from a square division establishment consisting of two brigades of two regiments, to the triangular consisting of three brigades. This change occurred just before our entrance into WWII. Armored division used the concept of the combat command, there being three in each division. Each was a self-contained unit of maneuver.

I would suspect that simplicity and tactical flexibility were the main reasons although for traditions sake, regiments are still in existance.

I have provided a link to an excellent article at the Army Command and General Staff College, Combined Arms Research Library entitled "Toward Combined Arms Warfare:A Survey of 20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization". This article was written in 1984 but does provide explanations and reasons for the organizational structure.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/House/House.asp#Chapter%20Six.

My apologies to our army forum members, I was simply attempting to provide a preliminary answer to Ed's question. You are the subject matter experts.

Enjoy and let's continue this excellent thread

Dennis:

Thanks for the link. I was aware that the Army switched from the square division to the triangle formation (gaining extra divisions in the process), but was not aware that they used brigades for this. At least the infantry divisions still were organized with regiments, but they were evolving into the modern brigade structure. I think the combat commands of the armored divisions pointed out the effectiveness of the brigade with all its supporting arms under one command. I'm still getting up to speed on the forums (I wasn't getting any email notifications of threads, etc.) so my replies are just catching up with you guys. When is your cruise again?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Thanks for the link. I was aware that the Army switched from the square division to the triangle formation (gaining extra divisions in the process), but was not aware that they used brigades for this. At least the infantry divisions still were organized with regiments, but they were evolving into the modern brigade structure. I think the combat commands of the armored divisions pointed out the effectiveness of the brigade with all its supporting arms under one command. I'm still getting up to speed on the forums (I wasn't getting any email notifications of threads, etc.) so my replies are just catching up with you guys. When is your cruise again?
We will be cruising in April up the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Not sure about the date. We fly up one day ahead, then the cruise line takes us to the ship. I get my first jet boat ride near the end of the trip.

[Ed Rotondaro]

We will be cruising in April up the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Not sure about the date. We fly up one day ahead, then the cruise line takes us to the ship. I get my first jet boat ride near the end of the trip.

Dennis:

Lucky man. My boss was on a cruise with her family this past week. I can't wait for the details (and for her to straighten out a couple of minor problems that arose in her absence LOL!)