Some have stated here that it’s complex issue, a minefield, but I don’t think anyone has quite grasped the nettle yet. All troops played an important and integral part in defeating the enemy, all were trained to fight when required, some died in the front line, some were decorated for their deeds there, but that’s not getting to the point. What does "fighting unit” mean to me? I’m not really sure how to define it, particularly as it was used by someone else, but to me it boils down to primary function. The unit’s principal role was to engage fully with the enemy (as infantry/armour), whether in defence or attack. By that I do not mean the exceptional or indeed routinely encountered hazards of a job in hand: that some coys etc were re-deployed as infantry when manpower was low, that some units fought when encountering enemy during the course of their main task, or that others’ roles took them right into the line. What I do mean is that they were used as assault troops when planning operations. Considering the primary function of a unit, is it to engage fully with the enemy, whether in attack or defence? Is it something else, something still more specialised? Some Corps’ roles are more easily pigeon-holed, eg as support, than others. Some have sub-divisions which point at a more specific role different from their sister units.... RE Assault squadrons were mentioned. If you take into account specific designations for units, like reconnaissance and assault, what does that signify in itself? Does it mean that they have been trained differently, above and beyond basic requirements of others in their Corps? Why then have that designation if their task is not set apart from other units? What was the point of organising, training and deploying the army in such a way if their roles are then considered as all the same? Units with specific designated roles obviously did fight the enemy. That’s surely not in dispute. What seems to be in contention is if you designate them as “fighting units” - (and I’m still not entirely comfortable with term as for some it seems to be too exclusive and finite). In my opinion it’s not just the primary role, it’s also the fact that the examples used to illustrate their commonality actually display exceptionality to their own principal role. As a result they are, and surely should be, acknowledged as remarkable. Exceptions prove the rule?
I'll put in my two pennorth worth too since I have a slight interest in Recce :wink: Passages taken from Only the Enemy in Front by Richard Doherty:- Formed in the heat of war’s furnace the Corps (Recce) had performed its role with distinction. Its regiments had not always been used for their primary function of reconnaissance but, when diverted to other tasks, they had never been found wanting. In the aftermath of war an analysis of duties performed by reconnaissance units “in the field” emerged as follows: In reconnaissance 12% In protection 9% Acting as infantry 34% Miscellaneous and concentrated 45% The experience of the Corps was reflected in the constitution of the new divisional RAC regiments charged with the task of close reconnaissance for infantry divisions which, with their tanks, were not to “be confined to reconnaissance, but will include such other tasks as are compatible with its organisation and equipment”. And so the torch had been passed on to a new generation of soldiers. The achievements of the Reconnaissance Corps reflect the wartime record of the British Army after 1940 and every campaign fought after that date included units of the Corps. In some cases those units suffered a grim fate, as did 18 Recce at Singapore, 50 Recce at Knightsbridge and 1st Airborne Squadron at Arnhem; in others they shared in the successes of victorious armies, as did 44th and 51st at El Alamein and many others, led by 56th in Tunisia, from the Mediterranean to the heart of Germany itself. As they probed forward to seek out information, or held the line as temporary infantrymen, they had always been true to that unofficial motto of the Corps which provides the title of this history: Only the Enemy in Front; Every other Beggar Behind. Lesley
It seems to me that several issues are involved here. I have always understood 'combat troops' or 'fighting troops' to mean infantry, cavalry/armor, artillery, and to some extent sappers as well. Along with these, you have the men of other services (RAMC, Sigs, REME) permanently attached to combat arms units as stretcher bearers, signallers, fitters, etc. Some combat arms units are, however, even more specialized to fulfill an assault role. The units of 79th Armd Div were entirely dedicated to assault work. I would also consider commandos, SAS, and many other 'private army' outfits in this category. A case can be made for airborne forces as assault troops, since like commandos they are designed almost entirely for short-term offensive operations. WWII British infantry battalions also had an 'assault pioneer' platoon, whose title describes its dual role.
It depends. "Assault" suggests attacking, closing with, and ultimately destroying the enemy. That was the typical job of the infantry. "Fighting" suggests involvement in some form of firing role, which is as wide as cavalry/armoured and artillery. "Support" can be fire support or service support. "Specialised" can be a technical qualification, such as engineering or signalling, or a particular role that requires intensive training, such as parachuting or air landing via glider. On a really bad day, as with the Admin Box, clerks and cooks can find themselves hunched behind a rifle, rather than over a typewriter or a stove. Anyone who the Army issues a weapon to can be considered as fighting troops, but only a relatively small number are expected to fight as their primary occupation. Generally when people who've not been required to fire a weapon in anger find themselves in a fighting or assault role it's a sign that things are not going too well. Gary
While I accept RASC were not infantry and thus not exposed to their specific risks, delivery of rations and ammunition was often to front line locations. I recall my father saying that on one occasion up in the north of Italy they had to man handle vehicles while German voices could be clearly heard over the dykes. Several entries in his unit diaries refer to rifle practice with (often) very complimentary comments on accuracy and drill so they were clearly expected to keep their hand in if only for defence. One entry refers to additional training on Bren and PIAT. There is one interesting entry to say that 20 men went up to the 'regiment' which was most likely the 70th Medium Regiment RA to 'fire and have the working of a gun explained to them' was that a 'treat' to get at Jerry for supplying so much ammunition or to see if there could be a ready supply of replacements from their own RASC platoon perhaps?
This matches quite closely to my understanding. RASC troops were trained as infantry with the intention they could defend themselves. So whilst not assault troops were there to fight if required. Brian
Brian-- NOT SO... The whole point of having the General Service Corps- which was instituted in early 1942 as Alanbrooke took over as CIGS - was to give EVERY new recruit a complete understanding of what a Rifle - Bren Gun - Grenade could do as well as march as an Infantry man - THEN - after tests to decide wherever he would be most useful to the Army either in the Infantry - Armour - Artillery - RASC etc as this initial training was to help in either defending himself or assisting the Infantry/Armour/Artillery in times of need… Cheers
Actually basic weapon handling and related matters was for unit self-defence purposes outside infantry. It was not as a substitute for infantry. There's a whole lot more to infantry training than the 'all-arms' basics. It was a bit more comprehensive in India for units preparing for Burma because the likelihood of units actually having to defend themselves was a lot higher than it was in Western theatres.
Tom not going to argue with one who was there and who's post I find most informative but now found the reference I was thinking of; its in Trux's Royal Army Service Corp Introduction. Probably an unnecessary aside anyway as not an assault force. Cheers Brian
Firstly, I want to say a big thank you to the men who sacrificed a lot during the war. They are all heroes to me. I wish people of my generation studied more about them and learned about their lives and what contributes to the development of "character." My family research has led me to look at the 15th Scottish Recce. I believe that the Recce did a lot of different jobs. I understand that my granddad who served as an ammunition corporal - drove a Humer, acted as a scout, was a sometime sniper and infantryman. The materials and the equipment that the 15th REcce they took with them included showed they served a variety of tasks. My grandad won his Military Medal when he acted as an inantry and led a section and defended C Squadrons's HQ when the German's counterattacked at Nettlekamp along with a few others from his squadron Including Albert Ward OBE MM. Incidentally, Tim Chamberlin author of "The Scottish Lion," told me that the men who served in the 15th Scottish were selected for their intelligence. The men had to be able to understand what they saw when they reported on the enemy. Were they assault troops? Not sure. Were they on the front line? Undoubtedly.
I've been meaning to look for the pages that I recalled as refering to the RASC training as infantry and here they are. This was from the diary of the 1503 Artillery Platoon (RASC) HVY from April 44. Some evidence perhaps that the RASC would be expected to fight in a defensive role if it came to it
Hutt ALL members of the British Army were expected to defend themselves against the enemy - one of the first things that FM Alanbrooke insisted upon when he took over at Christmas 1941 and so in early '42 the General Service Corps was instituted to ensure that EVERY NEW RECRUIT had six weeks Infantry training -BEFORE they were tested as to where they might end up in Infantry - Armour - Artillery - RASC - RECCE et al- sometimes non Infantrymen were subjected to extra Infantry training -- as your example shows that the Corps Commander had had enough of the sick list and wanted to smarten the unit up… Cheers
The Chindits were not meant to be an assault force and did not have the equipment to do so.When 77 Brigade in 44 were told by Stilwell they had to take Mogaung, this was a very different role to penetration behind enemy lines and disruption of communications and harassment of the enemy.
Zahonado Whether the Chindits were meant to be an assault force or not - the fact is that - " penetration behind enemy lines and disruption of communications and harassment " - seems to me to be an assault on an enemy - the only equipment needed was a gun of some sort - and I am quite sure that the Chindits had lots of those…… the Chindits were just ordinary Infantrymen with a fancy name…no doubt you would disagree with that… Cheers
I agree with Tom. Penetrating behind the enemy lines is an assault on the enemy. To harass the enemy is not just merely to annoy him or cause him trouble but is to all intents and purposes an attack on the enemy and his territory. The Chindits were fully armed and ready to attack the enemy if and when they were opposed whilst carrying out their objectives, such destroying lines of communication, ammunition/petrol dumps. They were prepared to defend themselves if and when attacked. They carried explosives in addition to personal weapons, grenades and light mortars; they were a fighting force. As part of General Breton's Airborne Army, my Battalion had trained as air-transportable infantry to be landed by Dakota aircraft behind the enemy lines. The first Operation planned was in the event of the Allied troops being held up at the River Seine and in that event the Battalion was to land at Rambouilllet near the Summer residence of the French President and attack the enemy from the rear. Joe Brown.
Oh interesting opinions there.... Of course the Chindits fought, long and hard but I thought generally troops would be more equipped with tanks and other large equipment...there was very little artillery on the ground in some areas, and not even protective stuff such as hard helmets. I am not a military expert so can only go on what I read, and the pictures I see. Had no idea it was so controversial a topic! The Chindits seemed to do a lot of hand to hand fighting, which seems medieval to me, but other units came in with flame throwers etc, equally medieval. Re the name. Seems to me they could call themselves what they want....other units also have rather less comprehensible nicknames. Foreign in origin, yes!
Zahonda AS you claim - you are not a military expert and thus no doubt much of your knowledge is gained from Hollywood - not your fault as this was their way of proving that they knew everything - this was not the case as the war was fought on many lines starting with the BEF in FRance - and beating a hasty retreat at Dunkirk owing to the fact that Germany had more of an idea of what war was all about - as they had read the British books - and we hadn't ….next was the beginning of the desert war - against Italy - which wasn't a problem as they hadn't much of a clue either ( google for Beda Fomm battle ) Wavel sent 4th Indian DIV down to Somalialand to get rid of the Italians- which they did BUT Churchill and Eden interfered by sending much of the desert Army to Greece where they were clobbered once more by the Germans and escaped ( sic ) through Crete- then the main Indian Force from Somalialand was sent to Burma- with sticks and stones really thus had to retreat to near India. The leadership of the only fighting unit we had in the desert needed changing - BUT - Churchill and his crazy ideas of strategy needed attention first - this was now the end of 1941 when the USA came in - MORE importantly - Alanbrooke took over the main strategy but had to deal with the USA who hadn't much of a clue either BUT their production was geared up to produce arms but was still short of what was needed - but enough for MOnty to start the winning of the war at El Alamein after which we never lost a battle you might note - then Sicily and Italy - BUT we started to feel shortages as ALL of the supplies were going into NWE as of D Day- and it was not until early 1945 that the Chindits stated to get enough supplies to hassle the Japanese… So really the game was all about supplies and how could we use them best….with your lot at thee bottom of the pole Cheers PS - this is NOT an opinion but facts
