US "Guards" units

As we know some nations (e.g. Soviet Union) bestowed "Guards" title on their elite units, thus distinguishing them from "line" units. Would it be possible to have same distinction in US military? Having access to best equipment and people but also given hardest missions. They don't have to be called Guards, it can be something else that denotes their elevated status and it has to be small part of overall combat units

Maybe during ACW such title is given to units that distinguished themselves in battle and then it's carried on later?
 
Interesting concept. The problem seems to be, though, that the US military has been largely a force raised for emergencies and then more or less completely disbanded. Actually, there is one possibility - during the Civil War era, most of the units used were based on the state level - the 1st Michigan, the 2nd Maine, and so on. However, some units were proper US Army units - they were the minority by an order of magnitude, but the point remains that they existed. On the last day of the Civil War, when victory was already won, the various state units were transformed into proper units of a real national army, their state designations removed.

The POD seems to be, what if that doesn't happen? If so, it could be that the real US Army forms an elite core of the military, as a well-trained standing army, while the various state units - perhaps something like the National Guard or something - form the bulk of the US forces, but retain their identity as being associated with one state or another, and as part and parcel with that, are not part of the standing US Army. Which would, of course, mean that they would not be as well trained as the real US Army.

Hm, now I've got a vision of the 20th Maine fighting the Germans in the trenches of a Great War analogue. Could work, perhaps?

What that could also lead to is that in something like the present day, the "regular army" could fulfill a sort-of Special Forces role, while the state troops are the normal sort of troops. Or at least, the "regular army" would be better trained and equipped - the exact thing you wanted.

Of course, something like this would have another interesting dimension - the results of battle losses would be less evenly distributed, so that depending on where in the line the fighting was fiercest, men from different states would die. Could be problematic - imagine what the people of a state would have to say if, for example, one of their units got chosen for some suicidal assault. Or if the 1st Rhode Island got cut to pieces in a battle of that WWI analogue I mentioned...

Hm, well, those are my thoughts at least. What do you think about the plausibility of that scenario?
 
Interesting concept. The problem seems to be, though, that the US military has been largely a force raised for emergencies and then more or less completely disbanded. Actually, there is one possibility - during the Civil War era, most of the units used were based on the state level - the 1st Michigan, the 2nd Maine, and so on. However, some units were proper US Army units - they were the minority by an order of magnitude, but the point remains that they existed. On the last day of the Civil War, when victory was already won, the various state units were transformed into proper units of a real national army, their state designations removed.

The POD seems to be, what if that doesn't happen? If so, it could be that the real US Army forms an elite core of the military, as a well-trained standing army, while the various state units - perhaps something like the National Guard or something - form the bulk of the US forces, but retain their identity as being associated with one state or another, and as part and parcel with that, are not part of the standing US Army. Which would, of course, mean that they would not be as well trained as the real US Army.

Hm, now I've got a vision of the 20th Maine fighting the Germans in the trenches of a Great War analogue. Could work, perhaps?

That would be the opposite of what I'm asking for. you'd have bulk of armed forces with some separate identity rather then vice versa. And what you are proposing would be more of a territorial designation, similar to what British have, rather then title denoting their better status

What that could also lead to is that in something like the present day, the "regular army" could fulfill a sort-of Special Forces role, while the state troops are the normal sort of troops. Or at least, the "regular army" would be better trained and equipped - the exact thing you wanted.

Not SF, guards are general-purpose units, only better trained and equipped. and I believe such distinction already exist, or at elast it did in the past with NG units getting second-class stuff (most often one considered obsolescent by federal forces).

Of course, something like this would have another interesting dimension - the results of battle losses would be less evenly distributed, so that depending on where in the line the fighting was fiercest, men from different states would die. Could be problematic - imagine what the people of a state would have to say if, for example, one of their units got chosen for some suicidal assault. Or if the 1st Rhode Island got cut to pieces in a battle of that WWI analogue I mentioned...

Hm, well, those are my thoughts at least. What do you think about the plausibility of that scenario?

well, interesting ideas but not what I'm looking for.
 
In general I think the idea works better when you look at the 1820s US Army and then again at the post-ACW Army. Until the ACW there was a believe by many that a professional standing army, no matter how small, was not in the best interest of the US. There was a believe in the militia as the 'army of the republic'. This was a few shared by the likes of Andrew Jackson.

What would probably work to create a small professional standing US Army would be the likes of Winfield Scott becoming commanding general of the army much earlier. The US Guards, several regiments, would be dispatched to fronts to reinforce the state militias. On could consider the likes of the names of such regiments being like: The Washington Guards, the Republic Guards, the Columbia Guards, the American Guards, the Jefferson Guards.

Probably not centrally based, but the regionally. The whole system would be thrown out of whack by the ACW, but it would probably work well during the 1870s-1900s when the US Army was parred down in size.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Guards units are primarily politically reliable. Due to the (then) nature of US politics this backing of the political system is done by the National Guard (hence the name change from National Militia).
 
Of course, something like this would have another interesting dimension - the results of battle losses would be less evenly distributed, so that depending on where in the line the fighting was fiercest, men from different states would die. Could be problematic - imagine what the people of a state would have to say if, for example, one of their units got chosen for some suicidal assault. Or if the 1st Rhode Island got cut to pieces in a battle of that WWI analogue I mentioned...

This is an important point- in a worst case scenario you get something like the Pals' Battalions that the British Army raised at the start of WW1. The idea was that people from the same school or university or town would sign up en mass and be allowed to serve with their friends. The reality was that this meant that some villages or towns lost most of their young men on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. This was an incredible blow to morale and soon after the Pals Battalions were absorbed into regular units.
 
As said, National Guard. So their 'guards' are part-timers equivalent to the TA.

In the UK it's peculiar, since the Guards are still 'socially' elite (given background of their typical officer) yet no longer military elite (in the past primarily based on drilling and calibre of recruits) - since they have to give over a greater portion of their time to public duties and associated drill than the average infantry regiment.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
As said, National Guard. So their 'guards' are part-timers equivalent to the TA.

In the UK it's peculiar, since the Guards are still 'socially' elite (given background of their typical officer) yet no longer military elite (in the past primarily based on drilling and calibre of recruits) - since they have to give over a greater portion of their time to public duties and associated drill than the average infantry regiment.

No Guards are tied to the ruling group. In America this is supposidly the people, hence their Guards are the National Guard.
 
I'm sorry aktarian. What you're asking for goes against the fiber of US culture, ie: egalitarianism. 'Being special' (in any sense of the term) is limited to the education system, which is on the opposite end of society from the military. U.S. Army regulars not tough enough for you? Get your ass to the Marines. :)
 
This is an important point- in a worst case scenario you get something like the Pals' Battalions that the British Army raised at the start of WW1. The idea was that people from the same school or university or town would sign up en mass and be allowed to serve with their friends. The reality was that this meant that some villages or towns lost most of their young men on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. This was an incredible blow to morale and soon after the Pals Battalions were absorbed into regular units.

Yes, that would be bad. The same was done in Germany, actually - in my mom's hometown, there's about a good acre of graveyard filled with young men, all of them dead in 1942 - 1943 in Stalingrad. And it's not that big a town...

I've actually had a conversation with one of my history teachers about this practice as it related to the Union in the American Civil War. He was somewhat favorable towards it, on the ground that people would be more courageous if they were fighting alongside their friends and relatives. So, I guess if it's just the military aspect that you look at, he might have had a point. But when you look at the impact of such practices on the communities, then I'm definitely with you that it's a horrible idea.
 
Folks talk about "National Guard" units is not responsive to the OP.

The post is refering to the possibility of having American units with designations equivelant to the Tamanskya Guards Division.

I doubt such a desigantion would meet with a welcome as it would sound too much like the British Army's guards regiments.

If such action were to be taken, then a unit like the 3rd IR would be a good candidate.
 
we've preferred other names for our elite units.... Sharpshooters, Rangers.... I suppose 'Guards' wouldn't have been impossible... maybe the US army could have adopted it after Napoleon's Guard troops... he was immensely popular in the US at the time...
 
No Guards are tied to the ruling group. In America this is supposidly the people, hence their Guards are the National Guard.

Sorry, was a comma intended after the 'No' or not, cos it entirely changes it if not?:confused:

I assume you mean guards are tied more closely to their ruling group, which was sort of what was implied by me stating they are a social elite, therefore likely more loyal. Which I suppose they are, given they protect the sovereign and mainly stayed in the UK prior to and during much of the Napoleonic Wars (believe they only fought during the Hundred Days campaign).
 
As we know some nations (e.g. Soviet Union) bestowed "Guards" title on their elite units, thus distinguishing them from "line" units. Would it be possible to have same distinction in US military? Having access to best equipment and people but also given hardest missions. They don't have to be called Guards, it can be something else that denotes their elevated status and it has to be small part of overall combat units

Maybe during ACW such title is given to units that distinguished themselves in battle and then it's carried on later?

Perhaps 'Rangers' could be the US equaliviant? My ARW is a bit weak but I think the Ranger units were highly thought of and something of an elite.
 

MrP

Banned
Which I suppose they are, given they protect the sovereign and mainly stayed in the UK prior to and during much of the Napoleonic Wars (believe they only fought during the Hundred Days campaign).

Dunno, old boy. The Grenadiers (said he anachronistically), Coldstream and Scots Guards have all got battle honours for Barrosa in 1811, Lincelles in 1793, Nive in 1813, and a general one for the Peninsula (1808-14). In assorted number (generally two or all of the three) they were at Corunna, Fuentes d'Onoro, Salamanca, Talavera and in Egypt.* And the Guard cavalry was all over the show, of course.

From David Ascoli, A Companion to the British Army 1660-1983
 
Guards were originally the units that "guarded" the ruler, as in Rome's Praetorian Guard. When the British Army started deploying Guards in battle they became regarded as an elite.

The regional nature of the regiments in the British Army has been there for many years and has served us well. Indeed many American officers have spoken enviously of the beneficial effect on moral this has on our soldiers.
 
Rather than 'Guards', could we see a title like 'Guardians', so that they were 'Guardians of the Constitution/Rights of the States', something like that?
 
Guards were originally the units that "guarded" the ruler, as in Rome's Praetorian Guard. When the British Army started deploying Guards in battle they became regarded as an elite.

And is so in the armies of other countries.

Which would also account for the Soviet use of Guards in the Workers Paradise - feeling to belong to the elite have some effect upon the file.
 
Of course now the Guards are no longer regarded as an elite in the British Army, unless you are considering their performance in ceremonial parades. After the Peninsular war the Greenjackets were considered by some as the elite of the army. Indeed the "Black Mafia", as their officers became known as have dominated the staff at Horseguards.

Many other regiments and brigades have considered themselves to be elites within the army, of note, most recently, the airborne forces and the SAS.
 
Top