The Regimental System vs. A System of Regiments; split from Re: The Somme

[reccecrewman]

This is fantastic - the most enjoyable thread I've ever seen.  While yes, the Canadian contingent was a collection of numbered Battalions, they Regimental system was still present.  There were several Battalions that drew the bulk of their strength from Militia Units and men were for the most part placed in Battalions regionally.

On the contrary, the First World War made it obvious Canada could totally abandon the regimental system

Then why did we revert right back to the Regimental system in WWII?  Gone were the days of numbered Battalions and Regiments wore their Regimental cap badge rather than some number.

The myth of the steely eyed "colonial" citizen soldier outwitting the dastardly Hun was first put forward by Sam Hughes and is just that...a myth! It does a disservice to the professionalism that the Canadian Corp developed.

Well, they were doing something right that the rest were not.  There isn't a Corps on either side of the Western Front that had the record the Canadians had.  At no point did I say that our Corps didn't have professionalism, that developed overtime, but try and argue that it wasn't a group of bankers, farmers and school teachers that landed at St. Nazaire in 1915 when the First Division landed at France.  At best, some were Boer War vets, but the bulk were ordinary citizens that had ordinary lives back in Canada.  The first Armies in the field in France were the professional Armies of Britain, France & Germany.  Our first real test on the Western Front came at Second Ypres where they held firm against German gas attacks, then held the line where the gap was left open by retreating French forces.

I know I'm showing a lot of bias here, but I get a little hot when I feel someone is suggesting (rightly or wrongly) that men die as a learning experience for a staff officer!

My most genuine condolences to you at having to go through that ordeal.  As a soldier reading that, it disturbed me that you had to endure that.


Regards

 

[George Wallace]

This is fantastic - the most enjoyable thread I've ever seen.  While yes, the Canadian contingent was a collection of numbered Battalions, they Regimental system was still present.  There were several Battalions that drew the bulk of their strength from Militia Units and men were for the most part placed in Battalions regionally.

Then why did we revert right back to the Regimental system in WWII?  Gone were the days of numbered Battalions and Regiments wore their Regimental cap badge rather than some number.

Not all of the Canadian Contingent were 'numbered Battalions' and perhaps that would be one factor in why we returned to the Regimental system and stayed with it in WW II.  The Canadian Units in the Canadian Cavalry Brigade, all kept their Regimental Titles.  Those included the Artillery, Machine Gun, and Ambulance attachments. 

 

[ExSarge]

At no point did I say that our Corps didn't have professionalism, that developed overtime, but try and argue that it wasn't a group of bankers, farmers and school teachers that landed at St. Nazaire in 1915 when the First Division landed at France.  At best, some were Boer War vets, but the bulk were ordinary citizens that had ordinary lives back in Canada. 

First, got to agree with you this is an intersting discussion!

But! (ya gotta know when a guy starts out agreeing with you there will be a "But"!)  There were a large number of ex-British regulars n that first contingent. They were able to impart the seasoning I was referring to earlier to the recruits.

My most genuine condolences to you at having to go through that ordeal.  As a soldier reading that, it disturbed me that you had to endure that.

Condolences not necessary! Getting shot at is why I made the big bucks!  ;D
A piece of advice, when they start shooting at you, find the fat guy in the unit, and get behind him. Just don't let the bastard get skinny!
Old military expression..."Shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke!"

 

[Michael Dorosh]

This is fantastic - the most enjoyable thread I've ever seen.  While yes, the Canadian contingent was a collection of numbered Battalions, they Regimental system was still present.  There were several Battalions that drew the bulk of their strength from Militia Units and men were for the most part placed in Battalions regionally.

And most that did not.  Again, unit cohesion and the regimental system are two different things.

Then why did we revert right back to the Regimental system in WWII? 

We wanted to. It wasn't because we needed to. And technically, the CASF was in the same legal situation as the CEF - they were separate units from the Militia in Canada. We just happened to let them use their names and badges. It provided unit cohesion, but the CASF would have served just as effectively had they not. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet...

Ask the Germans, who regimental system had been just as rich as ours and the British in 1917. They did away with nearly all distinctions and honorifics in the Second World War, but from what I recall their fighting power and morale was quite good.

 

[reccecrewman]

I wasn't offeneded by that - it's smart advice.  ;D  As for the condolences, they weren't because you got shot at, they were having to be the training aid for some idiot in a helicopter with gold on.  However, that is a fact of life in the Army that we as enlisted folk are training aids to Officers.  We get used to allow them to learn how to control Platoon, then Company, then Battalion.......... so on and so forth.

Regards

 

[reccecrewman]

We wanted to. It wasn't because we needed to.

I never said we needed to either, I just happen to believe deeply in the Regimental system.  As I said earlier, men fight not for a political figure head, but for their Regiment and the other men in the Regiment.

Regards

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I never said we needed to either, I just happen to believe deeply in the Regimental system.  As I said earlier, men fight not for a political figure head, but for their Regiment and the other men in the Regiment.

Regards

Which was accomplished just as well by numbered battalions. Your belief is in unit cohesion - the Romans had it and everyone since then. The so-called Regimental System exists coincidentally with that dynamic, one doesn't exist because of the other.  By "Regimental System" I think one necessarily has to look at things outside of unit cohesion - and outside of traditions like battle honours and cap badges.  I am thinking of systems where promotion comes from within based on the a fellow's collar dogs, not his ability. Read Robert Graves for examples of how prewar Regulars in the Royal Welch Fusiliers were treated, or how the 1st and 2nd Battalions were extremely insular. Or Bidwell and Graham's quote in FIREPOWER in which a pre-WW II cavalry brigadier refused artillery support for an operation by saying "we only accept support from the Royal HORSE Artillery."  Or even in Canada, where Black Watch reinforcement officers in the Second World War expected to serve with their battalion and no others.  To my mind, Regimental System means all that.

I do like the traditions too, but accept them for what they are. I believe those that write rulebooks for wargames used to call it "chrome". Nice to have, but ultimately not entirely necessary. I also think they are far more necessary in peacetime - for recruiting and retention purposes - than in wartime, where greater imperatives are at play.