When does a Brigade become a Division?

I didn't realise but 1st Division had 3 CMF pentropic battalions as well as the 2 ARA pentropic battalions, making up the 5 battalion division.

In this case there is no need to make a division with only 1 brigade, the second brigafe can be a CMF brigade.
 
I didn't realise but 1st Division had 3 CMF pentropic battalions as well as the 2 ARA pentropic battalions, making up the 5 battalion division.

In this case there is no need to make a division with only 1 brigade, the second brigafe can be a CMF brigade.

I was going to add you can always use reserve formations. Many armies have integrated regular/reserve divisions.
 
I was going to add you can always use reserve formations. Many armies have integrated regular/reserve divisions.

Yes, biggest thing was to have combined arms Regular formation and put the RA first. Once that is done they can throw the CMF a bone. I think it would be very easy to write away the pentropic cluster.
 
I think it would be very easy to write away the pentropic cluster.

Absolutely. Similar to the thread about a stronger RAN. The Army basically followed the US. A little more separation from the US and they could have kept a more traditional structure.
 
Absolutely. Similar to the thread about a stronger RAN. The Army basically followed the US. A little more separation from the US and they could have kept a more traditional structure.

More than that they adopted it wholesale without trail or waiting for the results of the US trials less than 18 months before the US announced it was to be dropped .

It would be easy to rig up a combined arms RA formation from 1959 with the end of conscription and annouce a trail of the pentropic concept and close liaison with the US. The US would announce that the pentomic division was to be dropped in March 1961 and Australia could quietly drop the idea from then without the massive disruption it caused.
 
More than that they adopted it wholesale without trail or waiting for the results of the US trials less than 18 months before the US announced it was to be dropped .

It would be easy to rig up a combined arms RA formation from 1959 with the end of conscription and annouce a trail of the pentropic concept and close liaison with the US. The US would announce that the pentomic division was to be dropped in March 1961 and Australia could quietly drop the idea from then without the massive disruption it caused.

Yeah. You know what would be a really interested AH - a regular army similar to what we have now in personnel and force structure (not equipment obviously) before WW2.
 
Catching up on my reading here I realized this is largely or entirely taking the function of the division out of context. In western armies the Corps has been the primary tactical unit & the division usually functions within that. Without going into complex detail that shows a serious problem with the US version of the Pentomic Division. That is a single pentomic regiment is usually to small to function as a effective corps reserve, but pairing two leaves you a problem of who's in charge, and are the HQ element adequate. I know I may be getting into the deep end here, but I had a few years experience at the corps level staff & things like this jump out at me.
 
When i played Crusade in Europe on Commodore 64 a division was around 15-21 k men and for a long time i thought that every country that had divisions had divisions with those numbers. Then i learned that the Red Army divisions were about 5-7000 men and it threw me off track, becauce in Decision in the desert brigades were used and had 3 - 5000 men. And then i read about the ACW and divisions that sometimes were used instead of corps and some times part of a corp.
 
When i played Crusade in Europe on Commodore 64 a division was around 15-21 k men and for a long time i thought that every country that had divisions had divisions with those numbers. Then i learned that the Red Army divisions were about 5-7000 men and it threw me off track, becauce in Decision in the desert brigades were used and had 3 - 5000 men. And then i read about the ACW and divisions that sometimes were used instead of corps and some times part of a corp.

Re my earlier remark on the undersized Red Army infantry divisions.

When you look at actual infantry strength/firepower the typical Red Army 'division' was not much more than that in terms of infantry. The regiments functioning at the level of battalions in the US or British context. However these divisions still have a large artillery park, mortars, AT guns, 76mm & 122mm cannon. They were more like light artillery divisions with a lot of MG teams out front. The practice of bringing only divisions assigned to large attacks up to full strength meant that in practical terms true infantry divisions were a rarity and this defacto artillery division was the norm.

the other factor that undersized the Red Army infantry divine is much of the combat and service support was up one level in the army support echelon unlike the US or British divisions.
 
the other factor that undersized the Red Army infantry divine is much of the combat and service support was up one level in the army support echelon unlike the US or British divisions.

This is particularly the case in the Cold War. If one looks at the number of men called for overall in the divisional TO&Es during that time period, they seem to be around 2/3rds to 3/4ths that of their US counterparts. When one looks at the quantity of gear and "trigger-pullers" in each division though, there's very little difference.

The Soviets (and WW2 Germans for that matter) also used civilian and paramilitary services for stuff that in the US Army were handled by military support service, like railroad operations, which complicates division-slice calculations.
 
Yeah. You know what would be a really interested AH - a regular army similar to what we have now in personnel and force structure (not equipment obviously) before WW2.

I know virtually nothing about interwar Australian army, but yes, perhaps the Regulars could be like the Navy and be equipped with the heavy staff that needs to be built up in peacetime. Maybe a tank regiment, armoured cars and heavy artillery so when 2 AIF is stood up it has the heavy stauff ready to go.
 
Catching up on my reading here I realized this is largely or entirely taking the function of the division out of context. In western armies the Corps has been the primary tactical unit & the division usually functions within that. Without going into complex detail that shows a serious problem with the US version of the Pentomic Division. That is a single pentomic regiment is usually to small to function as a effective corps reserve, but pairing two leaves you a problem of who's in charge, and are the HQ element adequate. I know I may be getting into the deep end here, but I had a few years experience at the corps level staff & things like this jump out at me.

The Australian Army as whole was organised into Corps a fighting and administrative organisations, and that was the problem. The ARA didn't form its first infantry formation until 1938, a single company group with the troop of field artillery. So when the Royal Australia Regiment was established it fitted into a mostly CMF Corps structure organised to fight WW3 in the Middle East. The Korean War and the Malayan Emergency showed that the chances of Australia fighting WW3 with a full Corps were pretty low compared to a Regular Brigade or Battalion fighting a limited war. So the division was mainly about creating a Regular combined arms formation for these highly likely scenarios, however if WW3 did break out it would be part of the Corps Australia would mobilise.
 
Top