5 thoughts on “WWII Armored Division update”

  1. I should have raised the question when you originally posted, but alas, I was not on time or target…

    What is your opinion of the “troopless” headquarters of the CCs? Was it a good solution for modern warfare? Seems to have worked, but I have always wondered why post war doctrine moved away to the “battle group” concept.

    Some have drawn the evolutionary link between the combat commands and the battle groups, but there are just as many differences as similarities in my opinion.

  2. Actually, the British Army uses a battlegroup formation where permanent headquarter units assume control over a mix of units. Its sort of like Combat Command structure of the WWII US Armor division.

    For a while the U.S. Army had the pentomic battlegroup system. That however, was not a troopless HQ set up from what I know. The only thing I’ve ever read on it comes from the Hackworth book “About Face”. He did not like it because in his opinion it was too much for a commander to effect deal with. In his opinion, as I recall, the maximum number of maneuver units a commander should be controlling is 5 (at least at the battalion/regiment level).

  3. Damn, if only I had not stopped to double check something, my post would have been timely!

    Thanks for putting up the info. Also, if you ever feel the urge, could you explain how the TOC of a US Special Forces? I never got the whole group/detachment thing.

  4. Chain of command for an SF Group? Easy peasy.

    Group is roughly = Brigade,

    Each group has subordinate Battalions
    Each Battalion has companies,
    Each company is composed of operational detachments, known informally as A-Teams.

Comments are closed.