| GreenLeader | 21 Dec 2015 4:45 a.m. PST |
In the wake of the Boer War, the standard infantry battalion was reconfigured from 8 companies each of two half-companies, into four companies, each of four platoons. Unless I am missing something, this still gives 16 sub-units to a battalion – so what was the real advantage to doing this?
I am guessing it must be something to do with improving command / control – perhaps increasing the number of officers / NCOs and (hopefully) making the unit more responsive and dynamic? |
| Martin Rapier | 21 Dec 2015 4:58 a.m. PST |
It is covered in Gudmussons book on the BEF. Essentially it was a response to the problems of command and control (principally issues of span of control) on the twentieth century empty battlefield. It was actually about _reducing_ the number of subunits the battalion commander had to deal with (and giving the company commanders more subunits). The debate about dispersion vs shock and command vs control raged in all armies for some years after both the Franco Prussian and Boer Wars, and War Office only finally plumped for a four company battalion in October 1913. iirc the Indian Army was still using eight company battalions in 1914. |
GildasFacit  | 21 Dec 2015 5:01 a.m. PST |
If I remember correctly it was argued that 50ish men was a suitable size for a junior officer supported by a senior NCO to command but 100 men was too small a unit to be effective on its own. Doubling the company size reduced the number of experienced officers needed and simplified control on the battlefield. Most European powers had already moved to 250ish, the British were long overdue for the change. |
| GreenLeader | 21 Dec 2015 5:02 a.m. PST |
Martin Rapier Yes – this makes a lot of sense. I remember being told that the human brain works best with 3-4 sub units to worry about (whether this is in the military, or in business). Please can you confirm the name of Gudmusson's book? |
| Chokidar | 21 Dec 2015 5:47 a.m. PST |
..the human brain works best with the same amount of blood as it takes to operate another part of the anatomy – that apparently used by most officers to think with when it comes to military matters – never mind sub-units…. :-) |
| Martin Rapier | 21 Dec 2015 7:18 a.m. PST |
It is the one Gudmusson wrote for Osprey, 'BEF 1914-15'. It is also alluded to in Gilberts 'Command or Control, British and German Army Battle Tactics 1888-1918' although that focuses more on higher level battlefield tactics. Effective span of control is usually exercised over 3-7 sub elements, but it depends on the degree of complexity in the situation. Post 1900 battlefields are pretty complicated and confusing places. |
| GreenLeader | 21 Dec 2015 7:51 p.m. PST |
Many thanks indeed. I have Gilbert's book, and shall endeavour to find Gudmusson's one too. All the best, |
| GreenLeader | 21 Dec 2015 7:54 p.m. PST |
I have just discovered why I could not find it earlier – in case anyone is looking, his name is actually spelled: Gudmundsson |
| Blutarski | 22 Dec 2015 5:46 a.m. PST |
"I remember being told that the human brain works best with 3-4 sub units to worry about (whether this is in the military, or in business)." ….. A factor commonly disregarded by business managers. From a strictly wargaming perspective, our group's rule of thumb was that no player could <<<effectively>> command more than 6-8 maneuver elements on the table. Is this one area where tabletop wargaming actually reflects reality??? Happy holidays to all, BTW. B |
finds bridges to match the river sets.