I recall hearing of a large US military force being completely dissolved and reassigned piecemeal to other units due to disciplinary problems during the war. Did this actually occur, and if so, was this a common way of dealing with unit-wide corruption and incompetence?
If it helps, I believe they were paratroopers.
Seems like a logical step in extreme cases. I can’t name a specific example from WWIi, but as recently as 1992 an entire Canadian Airborne regiment was disbanded in disgrace after the Somalia fiasco.
I’ve never heard of any US formation being disbanded in WW2 as punishment. It also sounds implausible for disciple to be a major problem in a paratrooper unit; they were highly disciplined units and all volunteer.
The US did disband a lot of units during WW2, but not for disciplinary or punitive reasons. The US raised far more AAA battalions than proved necessary and large numbers were disbanded.
To my knowledge the only time US airborne units were dissolved in WW2 were for administrative reasons; for example Glider Infantry Regiments were initially only 2 battalion formations, the 401st Glider Infantry Regiment was dissolved and one battalion each assigned to two other Glider Infantry Regiments to form 3 battalion regiments.
There were some “problem” units and formations, and several had their sub units taken away at times. The 90 Infantry Division comes to mind. I do not know of any which was disbanded.
The 2nd Cavalry Division was disbanded overseas and its black troops were used to form stevedore units to load and unload ships in N. African ports. I’m sure the combat troops in the disbanded cav regiments felt they were being punished.
Not to defend the presumably racist reasons for this reassignment, but at least your chances of being killed or maimed are lower as a stevedore.
Unless you worked at Port Chicago, CA Port Chicago, CA, Explosion :eek:
I believe some units were disbanded due to extreme losses and incorporated into other units, not because of disipline. Some new units were formed from replacement troops and recovered injured as well.
Ninja’d :eek:
A lot of the problem with ‘problem’ divisions was that virtually the entire US Army that fought at Normandy had never seen action before. The performance of the 90th at Normandy was less than stellar, but it grew to be one of the better US Infantry Divisions by the end of the war. Compounding the lack of experience was that Gen. Omar Bradley was sack-happy, relieving commanders left and right. He fired more divisional commanders than every other general in the US Army combined in all of WW2. Commanders didn’t get much of a chance to grow into the job and it wasn’t as if they were being replaced with more proven commanders. The 90th went through 3 divisional commanders during the relatively short Normandy campaign for example.
Ironically, if you’ve ever seen the movie Patton, Bradley is portrayed as the compassionate general while Patton is portrayed as berating and firing subordinates. In fact the opposite was the case, Patton only relieved one of his divisional commanders during the entire war, and only after giving him two previous warnings. Bradley on the other hand even fired Terry de la Mesa Allen, the commander of the 1st Infantry Division (“The Big Red One”) for disliking his command style even while admitting “none excelled the unpredictable Terry Allen in the leadership of troops.” Unsurprisingly, Omar Bradley was the chief military advisor to the film Patton and the movie was based in part on Bradley’s own memoirs, A Soldier’s Story. While it was a great movie, it is a horrible biography of the actual Gen. Patton. Bradley deeply disliked Patton personally.
I can’t really imagine that WWII draftees really had a lot of attachment to their own regiment or battalion, especially if it was one created during the war.
Seems to me that disbanding units is more of a blow to professional soldiers, especially ones who have served in that unit for a long period of time. I don’t know if it works this way in the US Army, but in other armies, soldiers will serve their entire careers in the same unit, and disbanding that unit would be a matter of horrible shame and wounded professional pride.
The draftees may or may not have had a lot of attachment to their unit designation, but they definitely had an attachment to their buddies in the unit. From everything I’ve read on the subject, your buddies are the only thing you can really count on and are who you are essentially fighting for. Getting separated from them and stuck in another unit as the FNG, strikes me as a very sadistic punishment.
Not least because the producers had managed to antagonise the Patton family and had got zero cooperation from them.
Are you thinking by any chance of the Canadian Airborne Regimentwhich, following “troubles” in Somaliaand some hazing during initiation rites, was disbanded in 1995?
One reason for that being that unlike all other powers at the time the US deliberately made each unit up from mixed geographical areas. I believe the rationale for this was that if a unit were to get wiped out in combat, the blow would not fall entirely on one community. The cost though is in low initial unit coherence and trust.
The European tradition of having units drawn from particular towns or provinces was done for administrative convenience and tradition no doubt, but meant the men felt a common bond from the start.
Is that a different one from that mentioned in post #2?
Oops! I honestly checked (but not very well, evidently) :smack:
(although the year was wrong in the other one ;))
Likely born out of painful experience from the Civil War, when the armies of both sides did have geographically-formed units that could be decimated in a single pitched battle, a la Pickett’s Charge.
This was mostly a UK tradition. Loyalty to the regiment and its historywas emphasized over pretty much all else. This is why, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Irish, Highlanders Regiments etc all proved to be such effective soldiers for the Empire, despite being composed of groups who had little love for the British. The recruitments however were from failry large areas, therefore there would be less chance disproportionate burdens falling on single communities.What you are remembering is that Pals Battalions of WWI, whereby the Army quite foolishly permitted soldiers from the same village or town to join up, with predictable results.After 1916, this was stopped.
[QUOTE=Askance]
Is that a different one from that mentioned in post #2?
[/QUOTE]
I believe it was the same one.
I know German units were province-based too, so I’m not sure your “mostly UK” is right.
In The Devil’s Brigade, the 1st Special Service unit is about to be disbanded when the mission it was formed for was cancelled. A general in Italy then called on them for an operation, & they continued from there. This unit was later spun off into Delta Force, Green Berets & I guess other secret units, so it could be said they were disbanded, but not as punishment.
Did I remember reading in The Big Red One that the 1st Infantry was disbanded after WW1, then re-activated in the early 40s?
Also, the LRRPs from Vietnam, what happened to them?
Hence the qualifier of “mostly”.:rolleyes: