"New" Unit Designation

Discussions on all aspects of China, from the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War till the end of the Chinese Civil War. Hosted by YC Chen.
Post Reply
Stephen_Rynerson
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 06:08

"New" Unit Designation

#1

Post by Stephen_Rynerson » 30 Jul 2015, 08:08

This is such a basic question that I almost feel embarrassed to ask it: when various Chinese units are referred to as "New" (e.g., the New Fourth Army) what does that designation actually mean? Obviously it doesn't just literally mean that the unit is a newly formed replacement for an old unit with the same number because it appears that there were often "New" units that existed simultaneously with another unit having the same number.

For context, my question is prompted by the fact that I've been plumbing the depths of Chinese on-line sources via Google Translate and have come to the conclusion that the force commanded by Ma Zhongying during his second invasion of Xinjiang should actually be called the "New 36th Division," not merely the "36th Division" (as all English-language sources presently refer to it), which would rectify the seeming conflict between the Ma "36th Division" still being in southern Xinjiang as of September 1937 and other sources which list a "36th Division" (part of the 78th Army) as being assigned to the defense of Nanjing at roughly the same time.

L1E1
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 16:20

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#2

Post by L1E1 » 30 Jul 2015, 14:40

The full name in Chinese is 新編第36師 (Newly Formed 36th Division).

Literally mean that the unit is newly formed and that's all. It never carry a meaning that it is a replacement of an old unit with the same number.


User avatar
alexWong
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 28 Jun 2009, 20:18
Location: Hong Kong SAR

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#3

Post by alexWong » 30 Jul 2015, 15:04

On New 36D please see "Christian Tyler. Wild West China: the taming of Xinjiang". New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 112 [2010-06-28]. ISBN 0813535336.

New 36D was under Ma Zhongying and 36D was under 宋希濂 as one of the 3 German trained and equipped forces (36D,87D and 88D) in the 5th Army

Stephen_Rynerson
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 06:08

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#4

Post by Stephen_Rynerson » 30 Jul 2015, 15:06

L1E1 wrote:The full name in Chinese is 新編第36師 (Newly Formed 36th Division).

Literally mean that the unit is newly formed and that's all. It never carry a meaning that it is a replacement of an old unit with the same number.
L1E1, thank you, but if the designation just means that a unit is newly formed, why wasn't every newly formed unit called a "New" unit? For example, the 81st Army is formed in October 1937, but it isn't referred to as the "New 81st Army," at least not in English-language sources.
Last edited by Stephen_Rynerson on 30 Jul 2015, 15:11, edited 1 time in total.

Stephen_Rynerson
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 06:08

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#5

Post by Stephen_Rynerson » 30 Jul 2015, 15:10

alexWong wrote:On New 36D please see "Christian Tyler. Wild West China: the taming of Xinjiang". New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 112 [2010-06-28]. ISBN 0813535336.

New 36D was under Ma Zhongying and 36D was under 宋希濂 as one of the 3 German trained and equipped forces (36D,87D and 88D) in the 5th Army
Thank you, Alex. I haven't picked up Tyler's book yet, as it didn't look like it added much to the existing record on Republican-era Xinjiang. Do you think would be a worthwhile book to get if I already own Andrew D.W. Forbes' Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia and most of the primary English-language sources cited therein?

L1E1
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 16:20

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#6

Post by L1E1 » 30 Jul 2015, 15:29

Stephen_Rynerson wrote:
L1E1 wrote:The full name in Chinese is 新編第36師 (Newly Formed 36th Division).

L1E1, thank you, but if the designation just means that a unit is newly formed, why wasn't every newly formed unit called a "New" unit? For example, the 81st Army is formed in October 1937, but it isn't referred to as the "New 81st Army," at least not in English-language sources.

There is no 81st Army exists before or still in service. Therefore there is no need to put "Newly Formed" to distinguish the troop.

FYI, the 36th Division is formed from the reserve regiments of the 87th and 88th Division. The 36th Division itself replaced a disbanded 36th Division.

The existing of this 36th Division make it a must to put "newly formed" to Ma's 36 Division.

Stephen_Rynerson
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 06:08

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#7

Post by Stephen_Rynerson » 01 Aug 2015, 06:32

I'm sorry, L1E1, but I am a bit confused. You previously said that the "New" designation, "[l]iterally meant that the unit is newly formed and that's all. It never carry a meaning that it is a replacement of an old unit with the same number." Your later post seems to suggest that the "New" designation was instead attached when a unit was created and there was another unit already in existence with the same number. But, assuming that your later explanation is correct, that raises the question of why the National Revolutionary Army would assign the same number to a new unit as was already assigned to an existing unit. Why not assign a unique number to a new unit rather than duplicating the number of an existing unit and then having to add "New" to its official designation?

L1E1
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 16:20

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#8

Post by L1E1 » 01 Aug 2015, 08:36

If you don't understand, please use "provisional" to replace "Newly Formed".

The number of permanent division to safeguard the country is fixed due to political and budget reason. The "Newly Formed Division" is not counted as permanent division.

Stephen_Rynerson
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 06:08

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#9

Post by Stephen_Rynerson » 01 Aug 2015, 16:02

L1E1 wrote:If you don't understand, please use "provisional" to replace "Newly Formed".

The number of permanent division to safeguard the country is fixed due to political and budget reason. The "Newly Formed Division" is not counted as permanent division.

OK, thank you, that does clarify quite a bit. It leads to yet another question though: Charles D. Pettibone's order of battle book for the Chinese military (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ud6fk ... &q&f=false) has separate sections for "New" units and "Provisional" units. Were there actual distinctions between "New" units and "Provisional" units in the National Revolutionary Army or is the use of different nomenclature simply the result of a translation choice?

L1E1
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 16:20

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#10

Post by L1E1 » 02 Aug 2015, 02:20

1) 新編師 (Newly Formed Division)
2) 暫編師 (Provisional Division)
3) 預備師 (Reserve Division)

These 3 are not Permanent Division 常備師.

Stephen_Rynerson
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 06:08

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#11

Post by Stephen_Rynerson » 04 Aug 2015, 04:40

L1E1, thank you for clarifying that this isn't merely a question of translation differences, but what were the distinctions between a "Newly Formed Division" and a "Provisional Division"?

L1E1
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 16:20

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#12

Post by L1E1 » 04 Aug 2015, 10:43

"Newly Formed Division" is a way to cheat the public in order to build another "permanent force" . Thus "Newly Formed Division" will not disband after the war.

"Provisional Division" is a temporary force that will be disband after the war.

Stephen_Rynerson
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 06:08

Re: "New" Unit Designation

#13

Post by Stephen_Rynerson » 04 Aug 2015, 15:32

Great, thank you, L1E1. Much appreciated!

Post Reply

Return to “China at War 1895-1949”