Why were battalions put into different divisions ?

[Simon Cains]

Just wondered why battalions of the same regiment were put into different divisions, so sometimes they were even based in different countries ? This must have made any overall regimental command and control very difficult, and weakened the regimental pride and traditions etc.  e.g. 10th Essex were in the 18th division, 11th Essex in 24th division, 12th Essex in 35th division etc. 

I suppose it did reduce the risk of the whole regiment being destroyed at once, so there was some nucleus to form up again.  And the extra battalions were formed piecemeal during the war, so they had to go where they were needed into the new divisions.

I am still wondering what the role of a regimental sergeant major ( such as my great-grandfather) would be, with his battalions so scattered ? 

Sorry I know very little about army traditions.  Thanks very much. 

 http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/regiments-and-corps/the-british-infantry-regiments-of-1914-1918/essex-regiment/

[johntaylor]

2 hours ago, Simon Cains said:

And the extra battalions were formed piecemeal during the war, so they had to go where they were needed into the new divisions.

Hi Simon, I'm sure you'll get much more informed answers than this, but I think you've answered your own question. The British Army was in a constant state of expansion and flux so it would have been impossible for all the battalions from a single regiment to go into the same division.

I'll look forward to hearing what others think about this, and about the RSM question.

John

[PhilB]

The title is slightly misleading. The Regimental Sergeant Major held that position in just one battalion, not the whole regiment. The other battalions had their own RSMs. 

Edited 10 July , 2023 by PhilB

[FROGSMILE]

Phil is bang on the money as usual.  It was a combination of organisation and semantics.

Before the First World War British and Imperial infantry battalions were with very few exceptions organised in eight companies.  There was just one sergeant major in a battalion, who worked with the commanding officer in battalion headquarters and he was known as The Sergeant Major.  In addition the headquarters included a quarter-master-sergeant who was deputy to the quarter-master responsible for the battalion’s logistics.  Each of the eight infantry companies had a Colour Sergeant as their senior enlisted man.

The Cavalry had chosen to organise differently in the 1890s and merged pairs of their long-standing cavalry ‘troops’ to form larger cavalry ‘squadrons’.  Each squadron had a sergeant major and quarter-master sergeant and the regiment as a whole had had a single ‘Regimental’ Sergeant Major.  This organisation of larger sub-units each with a sergeant major had also been the long standing practice of the artillery, who had proved it to be an effective organisation that was more resilient to casualties in wartime and routine absences in peacetime.

Following debate of over a decade long the regular infantry finally took the decision to organise themselves similarly just a year before the war started.  The eight companies were paired with one Colour Sergeant becoming appointed Company Sergeant Major and the other appointed Company-Quarter-Master Sergeant, thus mirror imaging the battalion headquarters arrangement and the cavalry.  As the term Regimental Sergeant Major was already familiar from the Cavalry it was a natural choice, but more importantly the man concerned was an RSM within a regiment made up from several, regular and auxiliary battalions, as well as within the battalion that he was serving in. 

Edited 10 July , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

As for Divisions, before the war the Army was split between those regular battalions serving on the ‘foreign establishment’ overseas, preeminently in India, but also some smaller colonies, and those battalions on the ‘home establishment’ in Britain and Ireland.  Overseas in India Lord Kitchener organised them in regional Divisions after the 2nd Boer War.

Back home the Army had for a long time been organised in administrative commands each based on a geographic region, Southern, Western, Ireland, Scotland, etc. and within each of these commands sat all the infantry regiment depots and headquarters since 1881.  Prior to that the depots had continually and frequently moved around in a sort of cyclic arrangement so that English regiments might recruit in Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as England over say a 10-year period.  By this means the fertile recruiting grounds of the great conurbations could be tapped into, and every regiment had a fair go.  It also led to battalions that were truly representative of all the four nations.

As with India, in the period after the 2nd Boer War it was decided to permanently establish Infantry Divisions at home matched as far as possible with the regional commands, so that in the event of war on the continent they could mobilise quickly and embark overseas, while leaving behind an administrative base that would continue to support them with reinforcements and training bases for specialised skills.

That then was the baseline, but it didn’t cater for the intensity of industrialised modern warfare, with its inherent need to move Divisions from quieter areas to temporarily, or permanently reinforce, another Corps in a hard pressed area.  In addition the well of manpower (always difficult for Britain) began to run dry and, as it became necessary to reorganise into smaller Divisions with three battalions in each brigade instead of four, further redeployments became necessary.

War is a live and writhing thing, and divisions have to match up to that and remain flexible at all times.  If all the Essex Regiment battalions had been in the same Division and that Division received disastrous casualties then it would have devastated the entire County.  Similar to the fate that befell the Pals Battalions, but writ large.  By distributing them no single regiment could be completely destroyed.

Edited 11 July , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Keith_history_buff]

To go back to the Napoleonic Wars, most line regiments of foot of the British Army were composed of a single battalion. In those instances where there was more than one battalion, I have not come across instances of the regiment's constituent elements fighting together within a larger organisation. Off the top of my head, I recall the 95th Foot had more than one battalion, and that the 5th Battalion of the 60th Foot was notable for adopting the uniform and tactics of the 95th Foot. At some point in its future, the 60th Foot would become a riflemen formation in its entirety, and became renamed the King's Royal Rifle Corps following the Childers Reforms of 1881, whereby it was typically the case that a county infantry regiment would have two battalions of regulars in peacetime, with some infantry regiments having more. The age of the infantry regiment having a single battalion came to an end at this point.

This is in contrast with European infantry regiments of 3 battalions, whereby the regiment will often be paired with another to form an infantry brigade. I presume that the use of the French reglement by Washington's Continental Army, assisted by the Marquis de Lafayette and others, has led to a similar methodology/tradition in the US Army.

[FROGSMILE]

On 10/07/2023 at 19:34, Keith_history_buff said:

To go back to the Napoleonic Wars, most line regiments of foot of the British Army were composed of a single battalion. In those instances where there was more than one battalion, I have not come across instances of the regiment's constituent elements fighting together within a larger organisation. Off the top of my head, I recall the 95th Foot had more than one battalion, and that the 5th Battalion of the 60th Foot was notable for adopting the uniform and tactics of the 95th Foot. At some point in its future, the 60th Foot would become a riflemen formation in its entirety, and became renamed the King's Royal Rifle Corps following the Childers Reforms of 1881, whereby it was typically the case that a county infantry regiment would have two battalions of regulars in peacetime, with some infantry regiments having more. The age of the infantry regiment having a single battalion came to an end at this point.

This is in contrast with European infantry regiments of 3 battalions, whereby the regiment will often be paired with another to form an infantry brigade. I presume that the use of the French reglement by Washington's Continental Army, assisted by the Marquis de Lafayette and others, has led to a similar methodology/tradition in the US Army.

You make an important point Keith, but I feel that you overstate it a little when you say “most” (line) infantry regiments comprised one battalion.  The situation changed a fair bit over the lengthy Napoleonic wars up to their end at Waterloo.  Several regiments had 3 or more battalions at various times, including The Third Foot Guards, the Royal Scots, the 60th (which had 5!)and 95th, not to mention the King’s German Legion that was a part of the British army then, and those are just the ones I can recall offhand.

Most of the other regiments up to and including the 25th Regiment had two battalions, although in many cases the 2nd Battalion was formed by using the Depot Companies as a cadre from which it could grow, plus quite a number of the others (44th 50th, etc.).  Eventually the Army reached sequentially numbered regiments of over 100, and I imagine that it was largely the higher numbers that had just a single battalion, although the situation did fluctuate at various points following several fairly short-lived peace conventions.

A big difference with the Napoleonic Wars is that there were no permanently established British Divisions organised, as there were after the 2nd Boer War, instead they were formed as and when needed and frequently disbanded at the war’s end.

Edited 15 July , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Keith_history_buff]

8 hours ago, Simon Cains said:

Just wondered why battalions of the same regiment were put into different divisions

What I meant to indicate, in a rather verbose manner, is that the decision to do this was not made in August 1914. and that it had been in operation in the British Army for a while. I didn't want to talk too much about this because it is based on my exposure to the Napoleonic Wars, which is out of scope of the GWF.

[Keith_history_buff]

The question of how many of the line regiments had one battalion or more is best answered on a Napoleonic Wars forum, and I would imagine that one of the Osprey books can adequately do this.

It would be interesting to identify which infantry regiments in 1914 were composed of more than two regular battalions.

I believe that the following county infantry regiments would be "large regiments" but do not have a source to support this assertion

'third and fourth regular battalions were added to the Northumberland Fusiliers, Warwickshire Regiment, Royal Fusiliers, King's (Liverpool Regiment), Lancashire Fusiliers, Worcestershire Regiment, Middlesex Regiment and the Manchester Regiment'

[FROGSMILE]

12 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

The question of how many of the line regiments had one battalion or more is best answered on a Napoleonic Wars forum, and I would imagine that one of the Osprey books can adequately do this.

It would be interesting to identify which infantry regiments in 1914 were composed of more than two regular battalions.

I believe that the following county infantry regiments would be "large regiments" but do not have a source to support this assertion

'third and fourth regular battalions were added to the Northumberland Fusiliers, Warwickshire Regiment, Royal Fusiliers, King's (Liverpool Regiment), Lancashire Fusiliers, Worcestershire Regiment, Middlesex Regiment and the Manchester Regiment'

Yes that’s correct.  They were each doubled in size due to the after effects of the 2nd Boer War.  Regiments were selected on the basis of their large urban populations suitable to sustain recruitment.

However, it’s important to factor In Kitchener Army battalions when making comparisons, as these were categorised as regulars and thus the direct equivalent in many respects of the extra battalions formed for numerous regiments during the Napoleonic Wars.

Edited 11 July , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[ianjonesncl]

8 hours ago, Simon Cains said:

sometimes they were even based in different countries

The Childers Reforms of 1881 I believe came up with the principle that Regiments would have one Battalion at home and one deployed overseas. So per se the Battalions would not serve together.

 

[FROGSMILE]

17 minutes ago, ianjonesncl said:

The Childers Reforms of 1881 I believe came up with the principle that Regiments would have one Battalion at home and one deployed overseas. So per se the Battalions would not serve together.

 

He came up with an organisation that could ensure that model as a permanent arrangement Ian, but it was already the common practice for the 1st to 25th Regiments, other than in the times of emergency requiring both battalions overseas.  In essence he just merged into pairs all those above the 25th, with the sole exception of the 79th for which a 2nd Battalion had to be raised a few years later.  Initially this was done by pairing single battalion regiments in a shared depot (Cardwell) and Childers then took that to the final stage of merging them within a Territorial title.

[Neil Mackenzie]

Whilst different Battalions in different Brigades/Divisions was the norm it wasn't a hard and fast rule.

The 110th Brigade in 21st Division included 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Battalions of the Leicestershire Regiment until early 1918.

Neil

 

[FROGSMILE]

10 minutes ago, Neil Mackenzie said:

Whilst different Battalions in different Brigades/Divisions was the norm it wasn't a hard and fast rule.

The 110th Brigade in 21st Division included 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Battalions of the Leicestershire Regiment until early 1918.

Neil

 

Yes, if I recall correctly that was initially and for some time the arrangement for the New Army Divisions.

[Keith_history_buff]

Some high-level info

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_1st_Division_during_the_World_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_(United_Kingdom)_Division

Quote

The 1st Division was an infantry division of the British Army that was formed and disestablished numerous times between 1809 and the present. It was raised by Lieutenant-General Arthur Wellesley for service in the Peninsular War (part of the Coalition Wars of the Napoleonic Wars). It was disestablished in 1814 but re-formed the following year for service in the War of the Seventh Coalition and fought at the Battle of Waterloo.

It was then raised as needed and served in the Crimean War, the Anglo-Zulu War, and the Second Boer War. In 1902, the British Army formed several permanent divisions, which included the 1st Division.

 It went on to fight in the First World War, made various deployments during the interwar period, and took part in the Second World War. 

On 1 April 1978, the name was again changed when the division was converted into an armoured formation and it became the 1st Armoured Division. The division formed the basis for the British contribution (Operation Granby) to the Gulf War in 1991.

one early source:
 

• Haythornthwaite, Philip (2016). Picton's Division at Waterloo. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-78159-102-4.

[kenf48]

21 hours ago, Simon Cains said:

Just wondered why battalions of the same regiment were put into different divisions, so sometimes they were even based in different countries ? This must have made any overall regimental command and control very difficult, and weakened the regimental pride and traditions etc.  e.g. 10th Essex were in the 18th division, 11th Essex in 24th division, 12th Essex in 35th division etc. 

I suppose it did reduce the risk of the whole regiment being destroyed at once, so there was some nucleus to form up again.  And the extra battalions were formed piecemeal during the war, so they had to go where they were needed into the new divisions.

 http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/regiments-and-corps/the-british-infantry-regiments-of-1914-1918/essex-regiment/

Whilst acknowledging the above discussion and reference to the Napoleonic Wars etc as far as the Great War is concerned it was relatively simple and to a certain extent you have answered your own question in that Battalion whilst not formed ‘piecemeal’ were raised at different times according to planning and circumstance.

Pre war most County regiments had two regular battalions.  One was deployed overseas, policing the Empire whilst the other remained at ‘Home’. The 3rd or Depot Battalion was the administrative hub and keeper of the regimental tradition. It also recruited to the Special Reserve who, during the war, were fed as reinforcements into the regular battalions.

The First World War saw the greatest expansion of the Army in its previous history. To take the Essex Regiment when war was declared on the 4th August 1914 the 2nd Battalion was the ‘Home’ Battalion of the Regular Army.  They were deployed to the 4th Division , the Division was held back initially but shortly deployed to France with the original BEF.

The 2nd Battalion was deployed overseas and as these regular units returned to England, often replaced by TF Battalions they were posted to the 29th Division. The Division was deployed to the ill fated Gallipoli campaign. It was a simple matter of timing and location as to the disposition of these two battalions.

On the 11th August 1914 the Army Council agreed to Kitchener’s proposals to form a New Army (K1). The proposal was six of the eight military commands (as described above) and into which the U.K. was divided was each to provide an infantry Division on the lines of those in the BEF that is to include artillery, engineers, field ambulances etc. In the Essex Regiment this was designated the 9th (Service) Battalion and was formed in the 12th (Eastern) Division i.e the first new Division in Eastern Command.

K2 battalions were envisaged initially by Kitchener as reinforcements for K1  and to bring the Special Reserve up to strength.  Such was the recruiting boom in August and September that six more Divisions were formed. A second ‘war’ Service Battalion, the 10th Essex  goes to 18th (Eastern) Division, or the second  New Army Division in Eastern Command. These men were civilians and had to be trained, officers had to be found many of whom were ‘dug-outs’. 
This system of territorial Divisions based around the commands proved impossible to maintain when the third new army ( K3) was created.  For the Essex Regiment this was the 11th (Service) Battalion which was placed in 24th Division which was raised as K3..  The logistic and administrative issues around K1 an K2 were exacerbated in K3.  Kitchener originally envisaged thirty Divisions, which soon became fifty and by the end of the war seventy Divisions.

Training and other issues meant each battalion was deployed to France at a different time.  Their only affinity to the original Essex Regiment was probably pay and their cap badge.  

Finally the 14th Battalion was a locally raised Battalion (West Ham).  Commonly referred to as the ‘Pals’ Battalions these were raised as a matter of civic pride and not taken over by the War Office until up to strength, by which time more Divisions had been created. Therefore his Battalion was placed within a Division principally made up of locally raised or 'Pals'  Battalions, i.e. 33rd Division, this was part of the Fourth New Army (originally the 5th see http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/order-of-battle-of-divisions/33rd-division/)

It also needs to be acknowledged that recruitment of each New Army was not universal, it was much slower in rural areas than the traditional industrial conurbations from which the Army had historically drawn recruits.

We have not considered the Territorial Battalions but each of the original first line Battalions of the Essex Regiment were posted to the 161st Essex Brigade in the 54th (East Anglian) Division.  This was a Territorial Division designated on the formation of the TF in 1908.  The Territorial Force was administered through the County Associations.

The Home Army went through many iterations during the war, their doings are poorly recorded but again apart from providing reinforcements their regimental affinity is scant and generally they receive little attention in published regimental histories.

After the Armistice the County regiments reverted to pre-war traditions and organisation.

 

 

[ianjonesncl]

19 hours ago, Neil Mackenzie said:

Whilst different Battalions in different Brigades/Divisions was the norm it wasn't a hard and fast rule.

A few examples in both the New Army and Territorials.

 

From the Territorial 50th (Northumbrian) Division

Northumbrian Brigade - renumbered as 149 Brigade - 4th / 5th / 6th / 7th Battalions Northumberland Fusiliers

Durham Light Infantry Brigade - renumbered as 151 Brigade - 6th / 7th / 8th / 9th Battalions Durham Light Infantry

 

From the New Army 34th Division

102 Brigade (Tyneside Scottish) - 20th / 21st / 22nd / 23rd Battalions Northumberland Fusiliers which were the 1st to 4th Battalions Tyneside Scottish

103 Brigade (Tyneside Irish) - 24th / 25th / 26th / 27th Battalions Northumberland Fusiliers which were the 1st to 4th Battalions Tyneside Irish

Edited 11 July , 2023 by ianjonesncl