Talk:Regiment

Brigade of Gurkhas
Is the Brigade of Gurkhas a permanent organisational unit? The MOD web site is ambiguious: If it is then perhapses it should be mentioned as a notable exception to 'the Regiment is the largest "permanent" organisational unit'.Philip Baird Shearer 08:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The Official Website of the Brigade of Gurkhas
 * Units in the Brigade of Gurkhas


 * In actual fact, the statement in the article that "In the British Army, for most purposes, the Regiment is the largest "permanent" organisational unit" is slightly misleading. This is the case in some corps, but is not the case in the infantry, where the battalion is the largest permanent organisational unit and regiments are simply "administrative" groupings of battalions, largely these days only retained for traditional reasons. The Brigade of Gurkhas and the Brigade of Guards go one better and are administrative groupings of regiments, but they are not tactical units (since both are still collections of battalions). So the statement in the article, while a bit misleading, is technically accurate. -- Necrothesp 10:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The April 2005 version provides additional clarification in regard to tactical regiments/battalions and "administrative regiments", including detail on the scope of such administration, which is somewhat more than ceremonial. The Gurkha Brigade is (I understand from afar) an administrative "home", similar to the Administrative regiment (or, in the UK more and more, the administrative division). I also understand that the Gurkhas are tactically deployed throughout the British Army, often in company groups. Thus the Gurkha Brigade is NOT a tactical unit/formation.-- 66.130.86.231 30 April 2005

Spellings
I know that Wikipedia convention is to use British spelling conventions when discussing British/European/Commonwealth topics and American ones when discussing American topics, but what is the best practice here, where the article is concerning both relatively equally? Here, where the American topic and American spellings predominate in the first part of the article, and British topics and spellings predominate in the secon, it just looks really strange. Wouldn't British spellings throughout (since they are somewhat more universal) serve us best here?

Rlquall 21:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I realize that this answer is coming almost three years after you posed the question, but better late than never, eh? The usual policy (when the topic is neither especially US-oriented nor UK/Commonwealth-oriented) is to use the spelling conventions used by whoever first created the page--or created the first substantial body of text on the page, if it existed for a long time as a stub.
 * In this case, it appears that the first few contributors were Americans (since the information about the US military appeared before the information about the UK military), but the first really substantial expansion is British-oriented and uses "organisation." So UK spelling is appropriate for the whole article.
 * 65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes a bit of difference. I'm certainly not to respell things. I suspect each of us can figure out the others' spelling. This is a tempest in a teapot. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Civil War ref?
Re Spellings above I don't have much of a view; I get the impression english speakers on the web are used to both. The question arises though because of the American civil war paragraph, which seems a bit out of place in an opening section on 'regiments'. It also seems a rather drawn-out illustration of fluctuating numbers ... in any case noted in the preceding paragraph and itself maybe a slightly obvious point.

Hakluyt bean — Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Military Coup?
The article states that due to the regimental system England has never suffered a military coup although Oliver Cromwell came to power as the leader of the New Model Army.--Counsel 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oliver Cromwell and his supporters were members of parliament ( ie politicians ), members of the government AND serving officers at the same time when they seized power. Therefore it does not technically count as a military coup. David J James — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.j.james (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It being listed as an advantage seems weird considering old regime France was also a regimental system country. OTOH, it's true that a) the military that took over kind of sprang up overnight from the Gouvernement of Paris b) it itself was mostly the extension of a civilian movement and c) the later coups happened after that army had changed completely to a still relatively regional but not "tribal" basis of recruitment. So I don't know, I figure these details might be a cause for rejection or not. I'm still wondering. Snapdragonfly (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reorganise
This article is becoming to long and needs a rewrite. I also suggest splitting off 'regimental system', and creating entries such as 'regimental system in U.S. Army etc. 145.253.108.22 11:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. Army regiments?
Is there a list of U.S. Army regiments on wiki? I wanna find out more about the 20th inf regiment, can anyone direct me to the their page on the internet, if they have one please. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States) Sorry it took 7 years to answer your question. I guess no one read it in the intervening years, or cared to help you. :( 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Battalion Commander
'in divisional administration, a battalion commanding officer is just another officer in a chain of command; soldiers and officers are transferred in and out of divisions as required.' I find this to be a bit unclear, because the use of the battalion commander in the regimental system is not contrasted to it. I do not think that I am enough of an expert to fix this problem, however. I think that the difference is that in the British (old) regimental system, the regiment was a purely administrative tool, and for combat purposes, its battalions might be sent to different divisions or brigades? This at least is the impression I get from looking at the WWII British divisions and brigades list. In any case I think it would be nice if this point were clarified. I feel like the British system is never really discussed; the Continental system is discussed, and then it is essentially said only that the British treatment of regiments is different.

Also, it does certainly seem that the British regiment should take precedence here, not the American Civil War variant. Mad2Physicist (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

divisions (Russian: дивизион)
This translation is wrong. A division is called дивизия in Russian. Дивизион is somewhat of a historical name for a batallion used by missile troops, artillery, AFAIR airforce and some other parts of Russian armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.5.58 (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Size
Regiments vary between 1200-1500 men/soldiers, they must not be confused with brigades, brigades are larger formations, consisting of 2 or more regiments.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Platoon = 20-50 men
 * Company = 120-200 men
 * Battalion = 300-1000 men
 * Regiment = 1200-1500 men
 * Brigade = 3000-5500 men
 * Division = 10 000- 20 000 men
 * Corp = 30 000 - 100 000 men
 * Army = 100 000+

Military coup in England
"it is worth noting that the United Kingdom has never suffered a military coup." Have you never heard of Colonel Pride purging the English parliament 1648? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1648 was 59 years before the formation of the United Kingdom. 24.61.4.237 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Army Regimental Structure
Hi, I'm working on a science fiction story, and I noticed in here that it says nothing about the Spanish Army and Marine regimental structure. At what rank does a person in the Spanish Army is made commander of a regiment? Faithful15 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

US Military Modern Force Structuring Process
As an update, someone more knowledgeable than I should offer a discussion on the current US force structuring process, which has some biases in it against homogeneous units. This affects whether one wants to implement a regimental or continental structure. Once every four years, the regional combatant commanders ("purple" positions) meet to discuss existing and possible future threats in their respective regions. The military services, as the "suppliers" of trained and ready units, respond with organizational plans to provide the kinds of units that will satisfy the requirements expressed by the combatant commanders. In the Army, I know the structure to be reflected in documents called Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOEs). Changes always happen upon implementation, so a real unit operates under a Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE). For units above the battalion, the MTOE always indicates subunits of differing specialties, including combat arms and combat support, and sometimes combat service support (higher echelons where cradle to grave administration of soldiers is done). In the Army Reserve in particular, MTOEs are formulated for temporal (almost day to day) requirements and specific missions that arise for the combatant commanders. (Publishing a new MTOE is done to skirt laws prohibiting mobilization of Reserve forces except at the unit level.) The upshot of all this is that homogeneous units of any specialty (with some notable exceptions) are becoming rare. Tweedye (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)