I think this topic needs a thread of its own for discussion, not bolted on to other threads. Fighting, assault, support, specialised? if you don't agree with any of the terms above, what do you think fits best to describe the various roles carried out by specialist units, infantry, armour, etc, etc (and why?). Perhaps roles within units, such as HQ coys & support platoons, could be considered along with RA, RE, RCS, REME, RAOC, RAMC, RASC, PC, Recce ... and so on.
What seems an easy categorization is a little more complicated, all battle formations undergo a training - combat - destruction cycle and as personnel are killed and injured in combat the replacements may not be up to the same calibre in both fitness and training levels as those they are replacing. Some famous units ie Paras post Arnhem and Chindits in Burma took a lot of rebuilding post combat. Other units like armoured formations required replacement vehicles on a regular basis which would dilute the Troop - Squadron - Regiment. I would estimate that as some units became less effective through casualties they would be given time to refit and retrain or might be given a spell of L of C duties
Diane ALL fighting was an assault upon an enemy with the Infantry being the major assaulter - supported by Armour - Artillery - Sappers - signallers and minimally REME - all others being essentially non aggressive but also supportive of the assaulter… the so called specialized groups such as Commandos - SAS - Paras were essentially Infantry carrying out assaults on the enemy. On occasion the non aggressive would wander into an assault area and suffer casualties….at least that was the way it worked in my view… Cheers
My dad's unit in WW2 was an Assault Squadron Royal Engineers, formed as you know particularly for the purpose of assaulting beaches on D-Day - after the Bluecoat Operation they were re-equipped with LVT Buffaloes for the purposes of troop carrying in amphibious assaults at Walcheren, across the Rhine etc. I did read somewhere of an infantry officer referring to them as 'taxis' and being dressed down in no uncertain terms by an RE officer. When he was recalled to the colours in 1950, in 55 Field Squadron RE, he went to Korea and wrote to his anxious wife that he was a storesman, well behind the lines and not to worry, he'd met a great lot of lads on the boat (the Glosters) By the time she got the letter, he had been handed a rifle and was fighting as infantry covering the retreat after the Chinese crossed the Imjin. Apparently he wrote after that and said 'sorry'. I uppose the definition of 'fighting' depends on which way you're looking?
BrianM59 We might be wandering into a semantic exercise here with the "Assault Squadron Royal Engineers" as they did NOT assault with rifles etc but rather with mine detectors to clear the beaches and to that end they were invariably first on the beaches before the Infantry - so different context - and to be handed a rifle in an emergency such as being assaulted by three million Chinese was fairly common I would imagine………my definition of fighting is the man who shoots the other man with deliberate intent - we in Tanks usually carried Infantry into Battle - and they called us all sorts of names… Cheers
If I may add my two-pennys worth ? The Army, when it was working well, was a beautifully run organisation. It's nomenclature was pretty basic and easily understood as the following few examples show RAMC Royal Army Medical Corps RADC. Royal Army Dental Corps APC Army Pay Corps Sometimes the various Corps trained men to carry out their duties whilst being attached to various regiments, for example, a cook of the ACC (Army Catering Corps ) would be attached my own unit's BHQ as the head cook. My own first major unit was an LAA ( Light Anti Aircraft) regiment which in turn came under the RA Royal Artillery. It's role in 78 Div was strictly defensive ( e.g. Defending infantry against enemy planes) and when the Luftwaffe was no longer a threat in Italy we were soon disbanded and became reinforcements for other units. Ron
A minefield in deed. I understand the RASC were the only "rear echelon" or "support" group classified as combatant personnel. Not the same perhaps as front line assault forces but shows there is no simple line to be drawn. Brian
A piece from Swipers website re 116th LAA. Den Bosch Supporting the infantry in both direct fire, light anti-air and counter-mortar roles, the Regiment played an important role in restricting German tactical flexibility. Especially with shoots on bridges and ferries to restrict the movement of enemy re-enforcements. What followed was Captain Lever's remarkable action outlined below in the streets of s'Hertogenbosch. Captain Lever's Great Action The 27th October saw Captain Lever of D Troop was ordered to assist 6th Battalion RWF, engaging enemy who refused to be dislodged. He bought up a self-propelled Bofors gun and proceeded to fire on the enemy. He then convinced some Germans to surrender who were dug in in a factory and to do so the Germans had to find a boat and cross a canal! Finally he went over himself, taking more prisoners and a machine gun. http://53rdwelshdiv.webs.com/116lightantiaircraft.htm
Brian never heard that term before for the RASC as basically their main task was to bring supplies forward to the Corps - Divisions and sometimes Brigades thus no where near the fighting areas - however some parts of the RASC acted as Ambulance drivers as near as to the Regimental Aid Post just behind the lines - as I was when wounded but hardly Combatants… CLI there were times when everyone grabbed a rifle to offset a breakthrough or to assist the front line troops to prevent being killed or captured - as I am sure you would probably do the same… Cheers
In my efforts to stick to basics I now realise that I have left out the odd exception that proved the rule. Whilst my unit was at Cassino, those troops who's normal job was manning Bofors found themselves stretcher bearing and smoke laying. In addition, when the first landings were made over the Messina straits (on the invasion of Italy) the unit's Bofors were used to add firepower to the huge barrage of shellfire against the mainland. Ron.
dont think so. Assault Squadron REs had Churchills with petard mortars for blowing things up & killing the enemy.
Reading about the 4th Indian Divsion awhile back there was one incident in the desert, forgot date without looking it up, when the Kiwi lorry drivers (RNZASC) who had taken the Indians to the front left their lorries behind grabbed their rifles & joined in the bayonet charge on the enemy positions.
Benjamin Lewis Salomon (September 1, 1914 – July 7, 1944) was a United States Army dentist during World War II, assigned as a front-line surgeon. When the Japanese started overrunning his hospital, he stood a rear-guard action in which he had no hope of personal survival, allowing the safe evacuation of the wounded, killing 98 enemy troops before being killed during the Battle of Saipan in World War II. In 2002, Salomon posthumously received the Medal of Honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_L._Salomon
Hmm and one of the Assault sqns literally assaulted Oustrehem locks on D Day and deployed dismounted. There are also incidents when the Gunners of field artillery and even AA batteries acted as infantry. F Troop of 92 LAA claim to have fought their way to Pegasus bridge. However, these are relatively rare incidents. The casualty statistics tell the story. The Infantry formed C 15% of the army in Normandy, but took 80% of the casualties. The nine mile snipers of the artillery made up 18% of the 21 AG in Normandy, suffered 2,000 fatal casualties. However, these were disproportionately borne by the OP parties of the field regiments in the infantry Divisions and the anti tank regiments most closely engaged with enemy armour. In Normandy there were 3.5 non fatal casualties for each fatality. The C 40-50 fatalities suffered by each of the half dozen Atk Regiments with the heaviest casualties translates represents C 150-250 casualties out of a Regiment with an establishment of C 750. A soldier serving a 17 Pdr in say 2nd or 3rd Canadian Atk or 55 or 62nd Atk Regt had a one in thee or one in four chance of being a casualty. A lot has been written and broadcast about how the Sherman was outmatched by the heavier German tanks. A sherman has far higher levels of armour than an M10 let alone the 17 Pdr Gunner who has no better protection than the Gunners at Waterloo or Nery about ten Field regiments had over 20 fatalities in the Normandy campaign. Most of these were inflicted on the C 75 men in the OP and BC's parties. The chances of becoming a casualty as a member of an OP Party can be little different to that of an infantryman in a rifle company. The odds are better for the Op parties attached to armour, or with no permanent affiliation as they had less frequent exposure to the routine hazards from snipers, shells and mortars. The question of what
Sorry that I had forgotten the Churchills with the petards probably as we never saw any of those out in Italy until the last gasp then as I understand it - they never fired a shot -some of them were in the newly reformed 25th Tank/Engineer Brigade - but invariably the sappers were first in the attack to clear the way… Cheers
I'll comment on reconnaissance troops since (1) they were the subject of the original comment that formed the genesis of this thread and (2) I have more than a passing interest in recon troops. I've read the AARs of the 30th Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop (Mech) several times, before and after I wrote the book. Just a cursory read would lead me to believe that what they were doing was "fighting." Granted, I have no formal military background, but when a unit shot weapons, killed the enemy and destroyed things on a regular basis, it leads me to think they were involved in fighting at the time. The 30th Recon started the campaign in NW Europe with 154 officers and men. They lost 32 killed in action and my best count shows between 70 and 80 wounded. That is around 102-112 casualties, approximately 70% of its original strength. Regardless, it is far too high for a group that might have just wandered into the line of fire from time to time. Recon (recce) are not fighting troops? I think my friend from the 30th Recon might disagree with that assessment as would combat engineers (sappers, pioneers), but I will let someone else comment on that for now.
Owen the incident you mention re the 4th Indian Div in the desert being assisted by the KIWI truck drivers was on the way to Beda Fomm as the Kiwis were still awaiting the arrival of the main KIWI division and the excitement of a bayonet charge was too much and their discipline broke down Jeff as has been pointed out before - we did NOT have "Combat Engineers" as the US did and the sappers we had were fully recognised as invariably on the beaches first and foremost- and sometimes were involved in fighting -as were others - and our Pioneers were basically labourers who built roads and assisted generally with our sappers Cheers Cheers
Incidentally it was always ACC never RACC. In Normandy as elsewhere it was fortunate that a. the German field artillery was a shadow of its WW1 force and b. their counter-battery organisation was not very effective. RA OP casualties were exacerbated by their only being 2 OP parties for the 4 companies of a battalion, this meant frequent re-grouping involving movement around the battlefield and meeting German mines more often than they should have done.
Mapshooter I've been waiting for someone to pull me up about that :P You are, of course, quite right, it was just me being lazy and not checking up to see which corps became "Royal" Ron
