"Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: "Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

#31

Post by RichTO90 » 13 Oct 2014, 21:53

Sheldrake wrote:I can see this has provoked a lot of thought. I am not sure I have the time read it or respond.
Given that I have been exploring this particular subject in particular in depth for about 15 years and the subject of military operations research as it relates to operational effectiveness in general for about 27 years, yes it has provoked a lot of my thinking. I hope you do take the time to read and respond in depth, since I find the subject endlessly fascinating. :lol:
If I understand the logic correctly, the additional fire power that the British applied to their beach assaults was all pointless as theoretically this can have inflicted no real damage on an enemy in cover. The increased amount of fire power on the British beaches was irrelevant and no amount of additional firepower short of PGMs could have reduced the high casualties suffered by the US Army on Omaha Beach
No, I don't think you could have read or thought about my response too much, since that is not the logic of what I said or even closely related to anything I said. Rather, what you have so carefully concocted there is a giant strawman. Glad to see you are able to knock it over so easily. :lol:
Sorry, but this does now wash at all. Am I reading an American arguing that there is a maximum amount of fire power worth flinging at an enemy, as this is pretty much contradicted by the way the US has waged war over the past 100 years. ;)
Sorry, but when you are ready to actually read and think about things, then come back with an actual argument rather than a collection of strawmen, I'll be happy to go further in depth on this subject. Until then, cheers! :lol:

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: "Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

#32

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 13 Oct 2014, 23:50

The last few post have drifted far from topic. Since the subject is of interest to me may I suggest we shift the question of firepower to this thread? http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... n+Normandy


User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: "Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

#33

Post by Sheldrake » 14 Oct 2014, 09:48

Rich and Carl, Valid points,

Carl, I am sorry if I have missed any of your elegant points but I don't have the time to fully understand the nuances of your argument or engage in an in depth debate currently. Sadly I need to return to the grindstone to hit some deadlines for my own work.

Rich - agreed this had drifted way off topic - though I have tried to drag it back a couple of posts ago :)

We got to D Day from Square v Triangular because on D Day neither the British nor the US Army strictly stuck to Triangular.

The Germans who had a systematic doctrine and a national culture for orderliness were rarely systematic either. Panzer Divisions weren't particularly "Triangular" and the early infantry Brigade plus panzer brigade was far too tank heavy.

There was a demand for a true Triangular system after German infantry divisions were reduced to variations of the six battalion division. This was part of the case made by OB West in late 1943 . The addition of battalions Ost troops was intended to restore German infantry divisions rto this more balanced structure, though at the expense of diluting their capabilities with troops of uncertain enthusiasm for the cause. In practice the Germans did not used their troops in a very triangular way.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: "Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

#34

Post by RichTO90 » 14 Oct 2014, 13:38

Sheldrake wrote:Rich and Carl, Valid points,

Carl Rich, I am sorry if I have missed any of your elegant points but I don't have the time to fully understand the nuances of your argument or engage in an in depth debate currently. Sadly I need to return to the grindstone to hit some deadlines for my own work.

Rich Carl - agreed this had drifted way off topic - though I have tried to drag it back a couple of posts ago :)
Thank you, but you must be so busy with tours that you got the two of us crossed. I corrected it for you though... :lol:
We got to D Day from Square v Triangular because on D Day neither the British nor the US Army strictly stuck to Triangular.
Very much so.
The Germans who had a systematic doctrine and a national culture for orderliness were rarely systematic either. Panzer Divisions weren't particularly "Triangular" and the early infantry Brigade plus panzer brigade was far too tank heavy.
Well, they did have to make do with what they had. It was peculiar in some ways though, the early Panzer Brigade had two two-regiment battalions and the Schützen Brigade was more a collection of odd socks in some case than anything. I mean really, a two-battalion regiment plus a Kradschützen-Bataillon? Whatever were they thinking of? :lol:
There was a demand for a true Triangular system after German infantry divisions were reduced to variations of the six battalion division. This was part of the case made by OB West in late 1943 . The addition of battalions Ost troops was intended to restore German infantry divisions rto this more balanced structure, though at the expense of diluting their capabilities with troops of uncertain enthusiasm for the cause. In practice the Germans did not used their troops in a very triangular way.
Yep, it also theoretically "corsetted" the Ost-Truppen with good Deutsch...but again I think it was a case of necessity being the mother of invention. You are very correct that schematic organization could lead to schematic tactics BTW - it was endemic in American units that often used the "school" offensive and defensive tactical layouts without giving thought to the actual circumstances they were in. It led to the bloodbaths of June and July in Normandy; very much Bosquet's bon mot "C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c'est de la folie".

DocHawkeye
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 11 Feb 2014, 15:35

Re: "Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

#35

Post by DocHawkeye » 15 Oct 2014, 23:34

As far as Italian Binary formations go, didn't the Italians usually attach a Regiment of Blackshirts to the infantry divisions anyway? That would make them Triangular in practice. Given the haphazard nature of the Italian war effort though i'm sure their still plenty of problems. Like blatant political favoritism of Black Shirt troops.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: "Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

#36

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 Oct 2014, 23:57

Hypothetically the Blackshirt "Legion" could be used as a third manuver element. Mario Cervi describes (in Hollow Legions) how the battalion staff of the Blackshirts lacked training & experience. If that is correct then operating them as a separate manvuer group might not have worked. Maybe some expert can provide examples of how these battalions were actually used?

The Italian infantry divisions without the blackshirts were binary organizations, tho they were not 'square' divisions in the sense of being large formations with the extra layer of command & staff like the German & French divisions of 1914 or the US Army. This same distinction applies to divisions that have ten or more battalions grouped in four manuver elements, without the extra command layer of the 1914 style divisions. While these would be square divisions with the battalions grouped into four brigades, combat teams, regiments or whatever. My experience was a 'quad' formation was more flexible than the triangular and much more so than the binary, tho the quad was clearly more challenging for the commanders staff. I dont think some of my peers ever really grasped the nuances.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: "Square" vs "Triangular" Infantry

#37

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Oct 2014, 00:05

DocHawkeye wrote:As far as Italian Binary formations go, didn't the Italians usually attach a Regiment of Blackshirts to the infantry divisions anyway? That would make them Triangular in practice. Given the haphazard nature of the Italian war effort though i'm sure their still plenty of problems. Like blatant political favoritism of Black Shirt troops.
They were pretty scrambled. The 14 Metropolitan infantry divisions sent to the Balkans did, but the North African divisions did not; instead the Blackshirt Legions there were grouped into two divisions. In Russia they were organized into separate brigades attached to corps. And then the "Young Fascist" division went to North Africa...

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”