Two basic organizational questions

[Billy1977]

Hello everybody, I have two questions that have been irritating me for a while now and I'm confident that someone here can put them to rest for me. They're basic, "newby" questions I admit but they're both things that I've never happened to hear the answers to and never got around to asking about until now.

1.) Why is there no rank between private (with no chevron) and corporal (with two chevrons)? It bugs my O.C.D. that there isn't a rank with a single chevron between private and corporal, like private first class. Why was it like this? It seems odd to me that it jumps right from no chevron on your sleeve to two chevrons. I've pondered this and the only explanation I can imagine is that there was no real "job" for a rank between private and corporal to perform, that there was no need for that rank or position and if it had been created it would have only caused friction in a unit and lower morale because there would be a handful of privates who have been promoted above the basic private rank and think because now they've got rank they've got some real authority and they try to boss around the basic privates and act like they're an NCO when they're not etc. That's the only reasoning I can think of as to why there was no rank between private and corporal. Am I somewhere near the mark or way off?

2.) And my other question is why was it in the U.S. Army the volunteer infantry regiments were organized into (I think) ten companies with no battalion echelon of command but the much smaller amount of professional regular Army infantry regiments that were preexisting or were formed during the war had their companies organized into battalions? (I'm not sure how it was for the C.S. Army but I think their state volunteer units had ten companies with no battalions and the small amount of professional regular C.S. Army regiments had a battalion echelon but I'm not sure). I've pondered this question as well and the best I can come up with is that maybe there was a scarcity of majors in the state volunteer units and in the professional U.S. Army there was not such a situation, instead they had enough majors to go around and enough captains in the pipeline with enough experience or seniority to be in line for promotion to major soon to command their regular battalions. Because of this presumed paucity of majors in the state volunteer forces they didn't have enough to go around to have battalions commanded by majors, instead what majors they had served in staff positions and they just had ten companies commanded by captains answering directly to the colonel commanding the regiment. Is this anywhere near the truth or am I far afield of the real answer?

Thanks a lot to whoever answers these questions.

 

[infomanpa]

What really confuses me is that I read quotes about "battalions," but I can't figure to what they are referring. I know that some units of less than 8 companies formally called themselves, battalions, but why such quotes as, "form your battalions!" where there are none??

 

[E_just_E]

1)

2) There was definitely a scarcity of officers as lots of Majors and Captains in the regular army became Generals of volunteers... The 3 (or 4 for converted heavy artillery to infantry) company battalions were a more flexible structure. But the devil is in the numbers: There were a total of 19 regular army regiments (of 3-400 soldiers each) compared to about 1460 volunteer regiments (of about 1000 soldiers each) making them really a footnote...

 

[E_just_E]

What really confuses me is that I read quotes about "battalions," but I can't figure to what they are referring. I know that some units of less than 8 companies formally called themselves, battalions, but why such quotes as, "form your battalions!" where there are none??

In the ACW era, ad hoc formations that were parts of a brigade, but not a full brigade, led by a Lt Col. were called battalions. Usually formed for specific duties

 

[GELongstreet]

Battalions are, simplified, the intermediate between company and regiment and can be either independent units, a defined part of a regiment or temporary detachments. Usually between 3 and 8 companies strong. Understrength regiments without chance (or want) of reinforcements were frequently downgraded to battalions as well; often becoming regiments again after consolidating with other units.

 

[AUG]

What really confuses me is that I read quotes about "battalions," but I can't figure to what they are referring. I know that some units of less than 8 companies formally called themselves, battalions, but why such quotes as, "form your battalions!" where there are none??

Regiments were referred to as "battalions" in the drill manuals. They were derived from French drill manuals which used the term because most European armies divided the regiment up into battalions. So even though American volunteer regiments did not typically use the battalion organization within the regiment they still used the term in the drill commands.

 

[67th Tigers]

1.) Why is there no rank between private (with no chevron) and corporal (with two chevrons)? It bugs my O.C.D. that there isn't a rank with a single chevron between private and corporal, like private first class. Why was it like this?

The insignia dates to medieval times and 2 chevrons represents someone drawing double pay (and three triple pay).

2.) And my other question is why was it in the U.S. Army the volunteer infantry regiments were organized into (I think) ten companies with no battalion echelon of command

A regiment was a battalion with enough companies to have Colors.

 

[hendrickms24]

1.) Why is there no rank between private (with no chevron) and corporal (with two chevrons)? It bugs my O.C.D. that there isn't a rank with a single chevron between private and corporal, like private first class. Why was it like this? It seems odd to me that it jumps right from no chevron on your sleeve to two chevrons. I've pondered this and the only explanation I can imagine is that there was no real "job" for a rank between private and corporal to perform, that there was no need for that rank or position and if it had been created it would have only caused friction in a unit and lower morale because there would be a handful of privates who have been promoted above the basic private rank and think because now they've got rank they've got some real authority and they try to boss around the basic privates and act like they're an NCO when they're not etc. That's the only reasoning I can think of as to why there was no rank between private and corporal. Am I somewhere near the mark or way off?

.

The British army did at the time and it was called a Chosen man. It was the like a Private first class were they earned more pay but did not have any authority. US Army did not see a use for a position and mirrored the strips off the European military. US seamed to copy the best army of Europe up to WW1. Know we tend to be the tread setter since we are the world power.

 

[novushomus]

What really confuses me is that I read quotes about "battalions," but I can't figure to what they are referring. I know that some units of less than 8 companies formally called themselves, battalions, but why such quotes as, "form your battalions!" where there are none??

In US tactical manuals, the basic element of maneuver beneath the brigade was the battalion and the terms battalion and regiment were used interchangeably (a habit that dated back to the Continental Army of the American Revolutionary War). When giving a tactical command, any formation consisting of multiple companies would be referred to as a battalion, regardless if it was a full strength regiment or not.

@AUG351 answered it exactly.

 

[major bill]

If memory serves me right there was only one rank of private until the 20th century.

 

[67th Tigers]

So, regards my last, the ranks above the private soldier in English medieval armies were:

Lancepesade ("broken spear") - rank appears in the 14th Century as 2i/c of a 20 man squad. Draws 1.5x normal pay. Evolved into corporal in the 18th century army, but the name is the original of lance corporals. Would sometimes have a single chrevron.

Ventenar ("twenty man")- commanded a 20 man squad and drew double pay. Sometimes wore two chrevrons. Would evolve into the rank of sergeant.

Centenar ("hundred man") - commanded a 100 man platoon and drew triple pay. Sometimes wore three chrevrons. The senior centenar in a company (i.e. ca. 500 men) was often given the title (not rank) of lieutenant (2i/c), and the junior one the title of ensign (and carried the Colour).

Captain ("chief") - usually a knight (or serjeant) who commanded the whole company (battalion).

 

[Billy1977]

O.K. the lack of a single-chevron rank is making more sense now, especially the part about corporal originating in medieval times with a soldier who is drawing double pay, hence two chevrons. With a private on normal pay there was no need to designate it with a chevron. So it makes sense.

 

[johan_steele]

The US Army had only the Private, Corporal, Sgt and a few specialized NCO ranks. There was no E-1 to E-9 systems as exists today and promotion in the Regular Army was quite spotty with many an enlisted man never being promoted above Private. But there was still a pecking order among Private soldiers. Men who were artisans of various types with additional duties such as Blacksmiths, Armorers etc were paid a little extra and were viewed a little higher up the food chain as were men with service stripes. It was informal but it existed.

The Regular Army Infantry Regiment was 24 Companies in 3 Battalions. The reason being that in peacetime a Regular Regiment was typically greatly spread out covering multiple posts. Ideally two Battalions would be in the field with the third posted somewhere in a relatively intact form as a training and administrative cadre. That was how some Regular Army Regiments can have very confusing battle honors as one Battalion might be with the Army of the Cumberland and another somewhere quite distant. That confused me immensely when I first started researching ACW units. Regular Army soldiers also enlisted for a greater period, 5 years instead of 3 for State Volunteers.

A Volunteer Regiment was expected to be raised on an as needed basis to fight a war. Originally those State Volunteer Regiments were also only 90 day Regiments so for those shorter term units smaller was better. It also gave State governors the ability to appoint the Colonels... and the more people that owe you favors the better.

 

[infomanpa]

The Regular Army Infantry Regiment was 24 Companies in 3 Battalions. The reason being that in peacetime a Regular Regiment was typically greatly spread out covering multiple posts.

Thanks for the information. Interesting how this has changed over the years. In WWII an infantry regiment also consisted of 3 battalions, but with a total of half the number (12) of companies.

 

[Dave Wilma]

The Regular Army Infantry Regiment was 24 Companies in 3 Battalions.

Are you sure about that Johan? How about ten or twelve companies?

 

[GELongstreet]

...The Regular Army Infantry Regiment was 24 Companies in 3 Battalions. ...

Are you sure about that Johan? How about ten or twelve companies?

If I remember correctly when the war began the regiments, at least the infantry, were all structured into 10 companies. However while the already existing regiments kept there structure the new regular infantry regiments that were created in 61 and 62 each had 3 battalions of 8 companies (so 24 per regiment).

EDIT: The new enlarged ones were the 11th to 19th regiments, including those of King's Brigade.

 

[johan_steele]

Are you sure about that Johan? How about ten or twelve companies?

Original US Army Regular Infantry Regiment was supposed to consist of either 2020 0r 2,428 officers & enlisted men in 20-24 Cos in 2-3 Battalions (either 656-807 men per Battalion) A lot depended on how successful the Regiment was in recruiting up to strength.

These units were only rarely up to strength. At Chickamauga King's Regular Brigade was less than 1500 men. An example is the 19th Infantry which fielded 1st Btn A,B,C,E,F,G & H Cos w/ A Cos of 2nd Btn. At full strength that should have been around 800 men but in reality was only just about 200 men.


Shannon, Organization & Administration of the Union Army

 

[bankerpapaw]

What really confuses me is that I read quotes about "battalions," but I can't figure to what they are referring. I know that some units of less than 8 companies formally called themselves, battalions, but why such quotes as, "form your battalions!" where there are none??

I would also like to know how many were in a brigade.

 

[johan_steele]

I would also like to know how many were in a brigade.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as an average Brigade size for the ACW, but by mid late war a Brigade was often not a whole lot more than 1500 men.

 

[DixieRifles]

he Regular Army Infantry Regiment was 24 Companies in 3 Battalions. The reason being that in peacetime a Regular Regiment was typically greatly spread out covering multiple posts. Ideally two Battalions would be in the field with the third posted somewhere in a relatively intact form as a training and administrative cadre.

24?! I didnt know that.
The British had a similar system. They had a training battalion and firmed more battalions as the demand grew for trrops in WW1 & WW2. After WW1 they learned not to commit all the regiment raised from one city or county into one battle front. In WW2 the sent the battalions to different campaigns & theaters.

Regarding the single chevron----I never thought of that. That's funny. I usually catch detail like that. I did wonder why you see 3-stripe sergeants and maybe 5 stripes BUT I cant recall seeing 4 stripes.