Are regiments in the US army derived it the same manner as regiments elsewere? I mean are they origionally tied to a specific location and a church parrish? Did the regiments of the civil war return to their homes and just de-mobilise or kept on in service as part of the National Guard? It is my understanding that the Nat-Guard is a state run and owned institution, were these Regiments then seconded to federal service to become the forerunners of the US Army to be later expanded during the WW's to become brigades and divisions?

hey there,

 

The USA has no equivalent RCT org.

 

Keith

Yes but the Generals left the window wide open to insurgency. It was my idea of 9 armored humvee brigades back by two  of Styrkers and three brigade equivalent Air Assault brigades that was turned into the ops plan that worked. The Army was not prepared fully for the extent of internal hatred that was unleashed once the Iraqis started vying for power.

Hey There,

The armored humvee was not meant to stop IEDs just reduce there effectiveness. I mainly wanted armored humvees to protect from small arms fire and provide heavy fire support. It did just that

 

Sincerely,

 

Keith

The RCT equiv. org? It is my understanding that a RCT is a regiment with permenantly attatched combat enablers. In Tom Clancy's " Armoured Cav" it shows an order of battle that is centred around an armoured unit. I understand that, what I am curious to know ( as a bit of a history nerd) is more the founding details of the "older" units.  Example: the 1st Cav Div, was this the 1 Cav Regt which, over the generations, grew into the Div it is today. Or, are there still today, regiments with specific roots and history in service?, eg. The Kings Dragoon Guards/ The Austrailian Light Horse or R22Re (the Van Doos, Quebec manned and based)? I hope that I am asking this question clearly.

Dave.

By USA do you mean United States Army, or United States of America?

If the former, then you might be correct, havent done the research to be sure, however if you mean the latter then the United States Marine Corps would beg to differ!!!!  They most certainly have Regimental Combat Teams (RCT)!!!!

Ah Yes I forgot to say that we have no such geographical system of units. Most British empire organization of Regiments are based on what a particular geographical area can form, thus hugh difference in size of their respective RCT. The USMC calls its units RCT but they are actually BCT which are cobbled togeather from anywhere in the USA whereas a RCT like the British use is based on every available man in town being part of it much like the oringinal US army militia which are no longer there in most States within the Union of The USA

Sincerely,

 

Keith

Thanks for the info, just wondering if you still had units in service such as those orig. US Army militia.
Dave

In the US an RCT was classically a 3 battalion infantry regiment augmented with tank, engineer, cavalry, artillery, and other units.  In the US Army the ROAD organization replaced the RCT with brigade combat teams that in theory would mix and match maneuver battalions in the same way the WWII combat commands were supposed to work.

 

 

Regiments do not have to be two battalions, a regiment is an organisation  or order. Many UK/Can/Aussie regiments are single battalions in size and composition, especially armd/arty. Some inf regiments have been scaled down or beefed up, depending on the situation.

Man - I sturred up a hornet's nest.

 

Some explaination on a couple of topics -

 

The 9mm vs. .45 debate has raged for years.  The overall effectiveness of the 9mm is nice but no where near the .45 in action.  While JFKY claims that it requires more training - perhaps to shoot a larger caliber - it seemed to have served over a million soldiers without causing much of a disturbance in the force.  The .45 is easy enough to use, field, strip and keep in operation even under horrible conditions.  The SF folks swear by them and have modified the 1911 with a built laser in the handle for low light targeting - a very nice feature.

 

The main element is overall stopping power - the high velocity 9mm goes through its target.  The .45 at 800 feet per second - terminates within the target - giving up all its energy.  The repeated demonstrations of damage caused by the slower slug/larger caliber vs. punching a hole through someone with the 2600 ft/sec 9mm is enough to convince.  While it is my opinion only - I have shot both and found little difference except at longer ranges - something not really valid in actual combat.  The .45 should be re-introduced and eventually replace the 9mm.

 

The .50 cal is in reference to the larger machine gun (ma deuce) not the sniper rifle.  Snipers should select their own preference and the .50 is useful but not always the weapon of choice for every combat condition and for good reason.  The M-2 needs to be either updated or replaced outright - either way more are needed in varioius positions.  The repeated Army attempts have yeilded little more than video and a few development models.  Updated - with advanced electronic rounds - a 21st century M-2 could set the standard for years to come.

The M-1911 has a fearsome REPUTATION, millions used it, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ISSUED PISTOL... there were few complaints, because pistols are used slightly more than bayonets in modern combat.  In short, it's what we had and we never really used it, so no one complained.  In the hands of SF troops it IS all you claim, but they practice constantly and may use the weapon in a combat role.  Most people with pistols DON'T train constantly, and to do so would be a waste of resources, and they will almost never fire the thing in combat.   The 9mm and it's associated pistols perform that role quite well.

 

The Army has tried replacing the M-2...several times, never successfully.  Product IMPROVEMENTS may be the answer.  The .50 caliber with a Quick Change Barrel, seems to be the most popular.  But right now, the M-2 is the best weapon laying around...the latest "replacement" (M312), according to SP, was panned by the troops, as having too low a rate of fire.  So, until someone can produce a 20 kilogram 12.7 mm X 99mm that fires 500 RPM, looks like the M-2 is what we have.

 

And why do we need to replace the M-2?  What role is being left unfilled by the M-2?  What would be the characteristics of a successful replacement?  Please elaborate....