"US 1st Cavalry Div, Pacific T/O changes" Topic

OK, so last night I'm looking back at an old query regarding the US 1st Cavalry Div and its subunit organisation during the Pacific campaign. By the time I'd finished googling, I was even more confused than when I'd started…

When it shipped out to Australia in the first half of 1943, it went without it horses, but still on the 1942 organisation with two Cav Bdes, each of two Cav Regts. I always have to kick myself to remember that, in US Cav parlance, a Squadron equals a Battalion, while a Troop equals a Company.

The Cav Regts were authorised a HQ Troop, a Service Troop and a Weapons Troop. HQ Tp included an Atk Pl and a Recon Pl, while the Weapons Tp had .30-cal HMGs and 81-mm mortars. Completing the Regt were two Cav Sqns, each of a small HQ Det and three Rifle Tps, each of three small Rifle Pls and an LMG Pl.

When 1st Cav gets to Australia, they undergo reorganisation into what some sources describe as either a Cav Div (Special) or an ‘augmented infantry division'. One of the changes involved appears to be adding a Weapons Tp to each Cav Sqn, said to be the same as found in an Inf Bn (which had 8 HMGs and 6 x 81-mm mortars). First operation for the Div appears to have been the Admiralties and there are accounts of D and H Troops taking part, so that supports the reorganisation in Australia.

Next landings for the 1st Cav appear to be in the Philippines in late 1944, for which there are several official accounts online. A couple of these give some details of the differences between Cav Regt and Inf Regt organisation, but they describe the Cav units as adhering to their 1942 structure with no Weapons Tp per Sqn. They also mention that the Cav units were still under strength from their previous actions and mustered perhaps 1500 men against an Inf Regts 3000+, which would seem to curtail the pool available to create extra Tps from.

So, has anyone out there delved into this subject and made any sense of it? Is there a detailed account available focusing on a Sqn perhaps that has references to D or H Tp, or the Weapons Tp, for the late 1944 actions? I can think of half a dozen ‘possible' amendments they could have made, but I can't seem to make any headway on what they actually did do!

Thanks,

Gary

A couple of thoughts, which I suspect will have already crossed your mind:

- Have you looked at Gordon Rottman's Osprey on "WWII U.S. Cavalry Units: Pacific Theater", or have you adressed the questions to Gordon on the TO&E Yahoo group?

- Have you considered contacting the division's command historian or museum curator? Museum contact info:

link

Ah, that may be old; try this:

link

Allen

Well I thought that the 1st Cav was considered a big Infantry Div. in WWII. Because, IIRC, the Cav TO&E was bigger than an Infantry Div., and they basically kept part of the Cav organization/designation. I'm guessing out of simplicity and tradition. I know when I was in the US ARMY, '79-'90, the Infantry units in the 1st CAV kept the Cav Regimental designations … When in reality, they were Mech Grunts like me … doubt that helps …

1st Cav in the PTO is a weaker unit than a line infantry division (say, the 6th ID for comparision). While the 6th has three regiments of three battalions (9 infantry battaltions total) the 1st Cav has 2 Brigades of two regiments, each with two squadrons (battalions) for a total of 8 battalions.

As Gary notes, part of this weakness is alleviated by the presence of the squadron and regimental weapons troops, beefing up the number of mortars and MMG avaialble (very useful when defending the beachhead at Momote airfield in the Admiralties).

IIRC, the 1st Cav was understrengh for much of the Luzon campaign.

A great reference for the Admiralties operations can be found here

link

Good to know … thanks !

Oh, don't forget that the cavalry squadron was MUCH smaller than a regular infantry battalion with around 500 men in each battalion as compared to 870ish in the infantry.

I second that Osprey book on cavalry. It's a really good book that has lots of OOB information that follows the evolution of the prewar regiments through the Pacific Campaign.

Also, the Cavalry were lacking in heavy weapons. The prewar cavalry regiment envisioned a formation of fast moving 'infantry' that could hit quickly. It didn't want to be encumbered with lots of heavy, crew served weapons. In fact, that formation worked fairly well in the jungles of the south pacific, but it was sorely lacking during the more conventional campaign in the Philippines. Although interestingly enough, the same organization worked very effectively during the 1941-1942 campaign with the 26th Cavalry (PS). Although, it may not be so much the organization as the training and élan of the Scouts!

From the Osprey "..on December 4 [1943]..adding a weapons troop for each squadron (Troops D and H); the division was redesignated the 1st Cavalry Division (Special).."

T/O 2-17 covers US Army Horse Cavalry from that period.

cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger

for Nafziger 1 April 1942 Cav OOB's: 942UQAA-942UQAK, for 30 September 1944 944UQAW-944UQBH, caution when using the Nafziger's, must cross check with other sources (which I have not found yet)

Regardless both T/O's contain legacy positions like horse holder, saddler, pack driver, what these troopers did after the transition I don't know yet, a Rifle Squad in a Cav Troop had only 8 rifleman (SL and 7 troopers)

Thanks for the replies all. I had a bit more luck on the net last night and found a couple of good links.

I can't get the first one to paste in as it was recovered via Google viewer, but a search for "D (Weapons) Troop" brings up the link. That confirms the Sqns each had a Weapons Tp, plus another one at Regt, for the Philippines campaign.

The other is actually about the 112th Cav Regt, not part of 1st Cav Div (although they were later attached).

The version I found last night was about 400 pages, but looking again I can only find a shortened version.

link

Anyway, that added a lot more meat, and mentions each Squad receiving a BAR, Thompson and M1903 for grenade launching prior to its first combat deployment. It likewise confirms the addition of Weapons Tps to each Sqn after they went to the Pacific.

I've been checking the T/Os linked above, and there are some similarities between the descriptions and the tables. There are though lots of oddities as well, as Marshal mentions plenty of personnel had redundant posts once the horses went. The 112th is quoted as having twelve 60-mm mortars, issued at varying times down to two per Tp or concentrated as a Regt 'battery'. Apparently they had no standing crews, so riflemen had to be diverted for the task.

And I thought no one could be more challenging than Airborne units! These guys were almost as complicated as an Air Landing Bn…

PS, I stepped aside from the T/O&E Group a while ago, (coming off a spectacularly poor record of getting info on my queries and no one asking anything on stuff I could answer), but if anyone signed in there wants to ask, please feel free.

Gary

I'd imagine … some of those "legacy" positions would fill slots from infantryman to cooks ! But I got some good intel here ! Thanks Boys … I was with the 101 and 2ID … but still wish I had been assigned to the 1st CAV too !

Thanks Gary, was one of them: Defending the Driniumor: Covering Force Operations in New Guinea, 1944 by Dr. Edward J. Drea? (IIRC about 112th Cav) Do you remember what/where was 400 pages?

Legion4, yeah but exactly what positions from infantry to cook? :-) That's what I want to know. No Cav? So you didn't have to paint everything in sight white&red?

Found the link, big document but not quite 400 pages after all!

link

It has lots of interesting detail sprinkled through it, like the issues of BARs and the addition of Weapons Tps to the Sqns, but still leaves plenty of questions. Sources appear a bit muddled at times, but one suggests the Regtl Weapons Tp had .50-cals in its two HMG Pls, while the Sqns had .30-cals. So did the Rifle Tps keep their authorised pair of 50s in the MG Pl, or were they bumped up to Regt? And likewise, were the Sqn level Weapons Tps organised on the Inf model, or duplicates of the Cav one, which would mean four 81-mms instead of six.

Possibly a lot of those personnel who were on strength to manage the horses found themselves retrained as weapons crews, as it doesn't seem the 112th got any new warm bodies to fill out the new elements they were authorised. No one appears to have turned up a Modified T/O from the period, so we'll probably never know.

Gary

Well Marshal, based my decade of active duty in my youth … those guys would be doing anything and everything 1SG wanted them to do …

Gary, that's a great link. I love the quote on page 7

"You can't tell me that we need another biography of some Confederate brigadier general when we don't even know how U.S. Army divisions fought in the Southwest Pacific."

I skimmed it, and found the author covered the source material well – some stuff I've never found and some I've never heard of before.

The Command Decision rules orbats (at least from a few years ago) has this division without horses. This orbat is a divisional level though.

Found another source re the Weapons Troop, penned by the Tp CO of 2d Sqn, 5th Cav Regt in early 1944 –

PDF link

He says they adopted the Inf Bn T/O for the Heavy Weapons Co, but augmented their kit with .30-cal LMGs to provide close defence for the six 81-mm mortars, which were reinforced to ten tubes by attachments from 1st Sqn and 5th Cav Weapons Tp.

Confusingly though, he says the Rifle Tps each drew an extra LMG, giving them three each, however they were already authorised four .30-cal and two .50-cal weapons for their MG Pl. Yet more shennanigans…

Gary

Wow Gary! Gotta love that interweb – all sorts of obscure data out there today I would have killed for back in '93.

That's excellent. I gamed that exact action by the 2/5 Cav defending the Momote Airfield with a scenario for Command Decision was published in the Courier about 18 years ago (18 years – when did I get OLD!) and the Cav really needed every automatic weapon they could get their hands on.