relative strength of military units

Hello to you all

Also,

Edited by Cryptic - 29-Jul-2008 at 02:40

In my time British divisions were much smaller than US ones, infantry ones numbering in round figures about 10,000 - 3 3,000 strong brigades and 1,000 divisional troops. Similarly each brigade consisted of 3 800-strong battalions plus 600 brigaded troops.

As has been pointed out, there is no 'standard'.  The organization can and does vary from nation to nation, over time as well as from unit to unit within a nation's forces.  During WWII the Germans reorganized their divisions, which resulted in fewer troops in the infantry divisions and fewer tanks in the panzer divisions.  Certain units, notably the SS for the Germans, were organized with more of everything (e.g. 5 tank platoons for SS panzer divisions vs. 4 tanks per platoon in 'regular' panzer division).  Finally, units were often not at full strength.  Sometimes they would fight well under strength for extended periods of time.  As German losses far outstripped their ability to replace their losses later in the war, all German units tended to be well under-strength.  It is important to recognize these differences, as simply saying '7 divisions' vs. '5 divisions'  does not really tell you much about the 'odds' in and of itself.

Edited by deadkenny - 29-Jul-2008 at 12:14

Originally posted by Sparten Really. Because from what I have read, the British Army seemed to add as many subunits to a higher HQ as possible until the whole logistic system broke down and only then did they raise a second higher HQ.   Hence why at one time in the Burma campaign, the 36th Irish Division controlled 37 battalions.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello to you all   This topic have been on my mind for some time I didn't find a good answer for it, what is the typical strength of a fighting military unit? Is it static or changes depending on the country. For example the Soviets fielded some 70 field armies which is enourmous while US only fielded 12 armies.    Same thing goes for the division, the SS Leibstandarte division had at one time 22 thousand men while most German divisions were about half that number.   So, what is the typical relative strength of different military units?   Al-Jassas

Flexibility is a key to a successful military. This makes unit sizes and composition ever changing for the past 70 or so years. Having served in the U.S. army i can only talk from experience with them.  Divisions within a certain Corps constantly task out their battalions, sometimes brigades, to other divisions to fill in extra needs for the area of operation. For example  In Somalia 1993, I was in the 101st but fell under the command of the 10th mountain division who were in overall command at the time but didn't have the necessary aviation assets within their division. This is still done sometimes when assembling combat brigade teams.

World War 2 units I'm sure fluctuated in strength greatly. Especially depending on the rate of causalities and the availability of replacements.

 

For some idea of the confusion surrounding all this, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Soviet_Union_1917-1945

Originally posted by Temujin   also, i don't know if that changed but don't most British regiments have a single batallion establishment anyways?

Edited by Cryptic - 31-Jul-2008 at 23:22

The single battalion establishment changed for all except the Guards units of the British army in 2006.

A Panzer Army at the start of the war and later when it came into being on the ground afer France was slightly smaller than a regular army, it was a top down process, the Germans decided what it needed and gave the troops and equipment. Later it became essentially the similar with more armour as said.