US "Guards" units

[67th Tigers]

Sorry, was a comma intended after the 'No' or not, cos it entirely changes it if not?

I assume you mean guards are tied more closely to their ruling group, which was sort of what was implied by me stating they are a social elite, therefore likely more loyal. Which I suppose they are, given they protect the sovereign and mainly stayed in the UK prior to and during much of the Napoleonic Wars (believe they only fought during the Hundred Days campaign).

The British Guards have fought abroad in virtual every (non-Indian) war since the interregnum. Their officers were drawn mainly from the upper classes, considered to be more loyal to the Crown.

They weren't a military elite, at least until the 1830's when the Guards were all raised to Grenadier status.

Military elites had included the Fusiliers, Light Infantry, Grenadiers, Rifles etc. The US elites for most of their history were riflemen.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

The British Guards have fought abroad in virtual every (non-Indian) war since the interregnum. Their officers were drawn mainly from the upper classes, considered to be more loyal to the Crown.

They weren't a military elite, at least until the 1830's when the Guards were all raised to Grenadier status.

Military elites had included the Fusiliers, Light Infantry, Grenadiers, Rifles etc. The US elites for most of their history were riflemen.

Oh, right, thanks. I'd just assumed the Guards were considered an elite in the past because of their status - i.e. social status within the Army, role, and the fact the monarch'd want the 'best' troops guarding him.

 

[arctic warrior]

Oh, right, thanks. I'd just assumed the Guards were considered an elite in the past because of their status - i.e. social status within the Army, role, and the fact the monarch'd want the 'best' troops guarding him.

In comparison to the Danish Royal Guards Regiment that was an elite fighting unit since its being raised 1658 besides being the Monarchs guard.

Drawn from Danish speakers only, commanded in Danish to destinguish it from the rest of the army being commanded in German it fought in most of Denmarks wars.

 

[ranoncles]

The British Guards have fought abroad in virtual every (non-Indian) war since the interregnum. Their officers were drawn mainly from the upper classes, considered to be more loyal to the Crown.

They weren't a military elite, at least until the 1830's when the Guards were all raised to Grenadier status.

Military elites had included the Fusiliers, Light Infantry, Grenadiers, Rifles etc. The US elites for most of their history were riflemen.

I am sorry to say you are totally wrong.

The British foot guards were indeed an elite and have been since their inception. Besides their ceremonial and security functions, they also served in the field where their higher morale, superior quality of recruits and greater standards of training often shone in difficult battles.

However, because there were not many British guard battalions, they often just provided a single brigade and were attached to regular infantry divisions unlike continental powers who usually raised sufficient guard forces to form separate divisions and corps. That meant that the British guards did not perform as a shock or reserve formation like Napoleon's Imperial Guard.

Furthermore, all the British guards have never raised to 'grenadier' status. The 1st regiment of Foot Guards were given the honoury title of Grenadier Guards because they defeated Napoleon's Grenadier Guards at Waterloo (actually it was the Chasseurs of the Guard). That was also the reason they got bearskin caps.

None of the other guard regiments are grenadiers.

 

[67th Tigers]

I am sorry to say you are totally wrong.

The British foot guards were indeed an elite and have been since their inception. Besides their ceremonial and security functions, they also served in the field where their higher morale, superior quality of recruits and greater standards of training often shone in difficult battles.

However, because there were not many British guard battalions, they often just provided a single brigade and were attached to regular infantry divisions unlike continental powers who usually raised sufficient guard forces to form separate divisions and corps. That meant that the British guards did not perform as a shock or reserve formation like Napoleon's Imperial Guard.

Furthermore, all the British guards have never raised to 'grenadier' status. The 1st regiment of Foot Guards were given the honoury title of Grenadier Guards because they defeated Napoleon's Grenadier Guards at Waterloo (actually it was the Chasseurs of the Guard). That was also the reason they got bearskin caps.

None of the other guard regiments are grenadiers.

There was no selection for the Rank and File of the Guards, nor was there additional training. The Guards were indeed identical to the line infantry. Of course that is not so with the officers, especially with the dual rank.

All Guards were raised to Grenadier Status in the 1830's (after the 1st Guards were in ISTR 1817). This wasn't just honourary, it was a very real alteration in their status. That's why they all wear Bearskins (the distingishing headdress of a Grenadier). Prior to that they wore the same Shako as the line infantry.

Oh, and the Ceremonial functions of the Guards are comparitively new, originating in the late-Victorian period.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

I'd have assumed ceremonial and battlefield drill were largely synonymous for the Guards until the latter 19thC anyway, since the former is based on the latter.

 

[rcmcciii]

The regional nature of the regiments in the British Army has been there for many years and has served us well. Indeed many American officers have spoken enviously of the beneficial effect on moral this has on our soldiers.

They are forgetting the political Hell caused by the casualties suffered in Italy, especially at Monte Casino by the 36tth Infantry Division, Texas National Guard. Mostly drawn from small towns, there were a lot of towns really hurt. One of the reasons that Mark Clark, even though highly thought of by the Army, went no higher was the blackballl cast by the Texas Senators.

We had Divisions with higher turnover that caused no such problems, they were Regular Army like the 1st Infantry Div. This was taken to heart by the Army. During Vietnam the only two reserve component Brigade sized units called up were broken up and used as individual replacements.

 

[Berra]

Guards units are primarily politically reliable. Due to the (then) nature of US politics this backing of the political system is done by the National Guard (hence the name change from National Militia).

It strikes me that you have the same effect with the recruitment requirements at West Point and Anneapolis. And possibly the "social elite" recruitment. So say they end up in an particular type of units, say engeneering due to it's popularity at the time.

 

[The Dean]

They are forgetting the political Hell caused by the casualties suffered in Italy, especially at Monte Casino by the 36tth Infantry Division, Texas National Guard. Mostly drawn from small towns, there were a lot of towns really hurt. One of the reasons that Mark Clark, even though highly thought of by the Army, went no higher was the blackballl cast by the Texas Senators.

We had Divisions with higher turnover that caused no such problems, they were Regular Army like the 1st Infantry Div. This was taken to heart by the Army. During Vietnam the only two reserve component Brigade sized units called up were broken up and used as individual replacements.

There was a similar effect in British and I hasten to add Commonwealth counties after the first of July 1916. You only have to look at the war memorials in EVERY town in the UK to see the number of dead on that day. Yet the regionally based regimental system in the British army continued with great success and still does.

 

[burmafrd]

Mark Clark was not all that good. He was OK.

 

[ltaper]

Guards? What about other formations?

As we know some nations (e.g. Soviet Union) bestowed "Guards" title on their elite units, thus distinguishing them from "line" units. Would it be possible to have same distinction in US military? Having access to best equipment and people but also given hardest missions. They don't have to be called Guards, it can be something else that denotes their elevated status and it has to be small part of overall combat units
----------------------------------------------------------
Well if "guards" is not a dirty word, what about foreign legion? or even a few Ghurka battalions in the US army?
There's a great advantage to diminishing US battle casualties in foreign adventures, though possibly less advantage in making "ask no questions" volunteers in as citizens.
Luke

 

[rcmcciii]

Mark Clark was not all that good. He was OK.

burmafrd
I did not say I agreeed with the Army Establiishment. I agree with you.