"British tendency to mix battalions? " Topic

Something which often strikes me when I read accounts of the British army in the Boer Wars was the tendency they had to mix companies from different regiments. One will often hear of an attack carried out by 2 companies of x, 1 company of y and a half-company of z.
One would have thought that, assuming regiments x, y and z were all present, any such attack should have been carried out by men of just one.

Was this 'mixing and matching' done for a specific reason? To my mind, it can only have led to a more confused command structure and complicated the interactions between the units? Was it perhaps done to 'share the glory' between the regiments? Or was it a case of different regiments being told to keep a company or two ready in reserve, (while the rest of the unit manned defenses) and it was these reserves who were cobbled together when needed? Or were the Generals of the day just kindly thinking of we wargamers, and giving us the chance to field men from five different units in every skirmish?

(It was a similar case at Isandlwana, where the garrison left behind to man the camp was made of companies from different battalions of the same regiment.)

Basically a battalion is an administrative unit.

Combat units were selected according to the size of the task.

The C-in-C might decide that a task requires about 4 companies and requests 2 companies from this battalion and 1 company from each of another 2 battalions.

Each battalion might say send company this and company that and even suggest that a few men from other companies in that battalion also be sent to bring numbers up to scratch.

It might also be that the C-in-C favours one battalion over another if there is glory to be had or maybe he is just balancing out the tasks to keep them up to scratch.

Yes – I understand that, but it would still seem much more logical to me for all four companies (to use your example) to be from the same battalion, from a command-and-control point of view. The other battalions present could have their chance the next day, for example.

Battalions were also trained to attack as such – consider the Devons at Elandslaagte, for example, who carried out a text book battalion advance to contact.
This mixing and matching seems to have occurred (or, at least, been more prevalent) later in the war.

Maybe it was just a holdover from the 'small wars' type of fighting where doling out individual companies was more common.

If a battalions task is to hold area X, then detaching two companies for an operation means that the remaining six companies are still holding area X.

Just speculating. When it comes to the British Army, anything is possible.

Such jumbling of companies was not restricted to the British, the Prussians/Germans used to get into a terrible mess feeding forward the supports to their firing line with companies from all sorts of different regiments jumbled up together. Accounts from both the APW and FPW are replete with complaints about it.

It didn't apply to the Austrians as they used storm columns and got shot down in droves instead. But at least they didn't jumble up their companies:)

So it may just be a feature of late nineteenth century warfare and the problems inherent in the adoption of open order and the associated loss of control. Not much point in having all the companies form the same battalion if they are all fighting their own battles anyway, and if they stand close enough together to operate in a coordinated fashion, they all get shot.

Well, to quote from Bill Bryson, the American travel writer who has lived in Britain for many years – "it is often said that the British do this kind of thing because they like to confuse foreigners. I don't think the British give a f… about foreigners, they just like to confuse themselves!"

He was actually talking about out road numbering system but the point is valid in many many other circumstances as well….

Can't speak for British Boer War thinking. Generally, I've only run into three reasons:
--you ask for a few elements each because most of the outfit can't be counted on. Maybe morale, but sometimes training or equipment.
--you're afraid the losses will be horrendous, and you're trying to spread the pain rather than lose a complete unit
--you think it's going to be glorious, and everyone wants a share of the credit.

If you have a look at "A Question of Pluck", the Boer War rules in Too Fat Lardies 2016 Christmas Special, there is a good analysis of British tactics.

You may find that the mixing of companies from various battalions arises from the desire to maintain momentum when under fire. If some companies of the lead battalion go to ground, those from the support battalions would move forward through them to join those of the lead battalion which were still attacking.

Which is exactly what happened to the Prussians when they fed supports forwards.

Maybe it reduced the chances of bad press and negative chances of career advancement……much worse to lose a entire battalion than a mix of companies in one of these colonial engagements.

The unplanned / chaotic mixing of men from different battalions while in action is understandable – but that is not quite what I am asking. I am talking about plans being made which – from the very outset – involve a mixed bag of companies from different regiments. This was also the case in garrisons, which sometimes comprised a mix of companies from different battalions.

I wonder if it was partly due to the difficulty in logistics of the period (in colonial warfare) and a company which might have been detached from its battalion a few months earlier then gets attached to a different battalion as it passes through that village, for example.

There does seem to have been a tendency (as has been noted earlier) to not consider the battalion as the fighting unit, but rather the company. Colonel Keckwich, for example, was sent to garrison Kimberley with half of his battalion (ie. four companies) while the other half ultimately got brigaded with the units which fought their way to relieve him.

'Mend and make do' does seem to have been a constant theme throughout the British army of the period.

"There does seem to have been a tendency (as has been noted earlier) to not consider the battalion as the fighting unit, but rather the company."

On reflection, I agree. I think it was just a habit from decades of colonial warfare to form ad hoc forces from companies (as their parent units would often be quite dispersed anyway).

It took a proper modern war to start thinking in terms of units and formations again, although combat teams formed from random companies came ainto vogue from 1944 onwards, albeit under a somewhat different environment.

Are the units in question mounted infantry? I believe that they were raised in that manner.

No – normal infantry units. Though you are quite correct that MI units were mixed – in the Matabele War, the MI were mixed even below squadron level, with different regiments providing troops.

IIRC correctly from the AZW the bttalions available in Africa for the campaign were spread out all over the place; a couple of companies here, half a battalion there.

As they were brought together for the campaign some had further to march and didn't arrive in time for kick off, and just seem to have been posted where they were needed with no regard for which battalion they were from.
Just becaue one company is present therefore you can't assume the rest of the battalion is nearby. I think there was one battalion in Madagascar at the start of the AZW and whilst it was suppoed to be taking part but I believe only 2 companies arrived had actally arrived to invade zululand.