Difference between revisions of "Talk:British Army Hierarchies"
From Linking experiences of World War One
(Created page with "Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--~~~~") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 05:02, 3 November 2014 (PST) | Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 05:02, 3 November 2014 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think parent-child relationships in the British Army admin hierarchy will need to be as flexible as for tactical formations. Being able to skip a level in some cases will save unnecessary duplication, complication and confusion, but all levels will be needed in other cases. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is a rough example of some of the top end of the British Army: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Service: British Army | ||
| + | **Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers | ||
| + | **Regiment/Corps: Army Service Corps | ||
| + | **Arm: Artillery | ||
| + | ***Regiment/Corps: Royal Garrison Artillery | ||
| + | ***Regiment/Corps: Royal Horse and Field Artillery | ||
| + | ****Regimental identity: Royal Horse Artillery | ||
| + | ****Regimental identity: Royal Field Artillery | ||
| + | **Arm: Cavalry | ||
| + | ***Record Office: CC Cavalry Canterbury | ||
| + | ****Regiment/Corps: Corps of Dragoons | ||
| + | ****Regiment/Corps: Corps of Lancers | ||
| + | ***Record Office: CY Cavalry York | ||
| + | ****Regiment/Corps: Corps of Hussars | ||
| + | **Arm: Infantry | ||
| + | ***Record Office: F Lichfield | ||
| + | ****Regiment/Corps: Leicestershire Regiment | ||
| + | ****Regiment/Corps: Lincolnshire Regiment | ||
| + | ***Record Office: O York | ||
| + | |||
| + | It seems pointless to have the following just for the sake of representing every level: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Service: British Army | ||
| + | **Arm: Engineers | ||
| + | ***Record Office: RE Chatham | ||
| + | ****Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers | ||
| + | --[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 07:38, 7 November 2014
Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--GavinRobinson (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2014 (PST)
I think parent-child relationships in the British Army admin hierarchy will need to be as flexible as for tactical formations. Being able to skip a level in some cases will save unnecessary duplication, complication and confusion, but all levels will be needed in other cases.
This is a rough example of some of the top end of the British Army:
- Service: British Army
- Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers
- Regiment/Corps: Army Service Corps
- Arm: Artillery
- Regiment/Corps: Royal Garrison Artillery
- Regiment/Corps: Royal Horse and Field Artillery
- Regimental identity: Royal Horse Artillery
- Regimental identity: Royal Field Artillery
- Arm: Cavalry
- Record Office: CC Cavalry Canterbury
- Regiment/Corps: Corps of Dragoons
- Regiment/Corps: Corps of Lancers
- Record Office: CY Cavalry York
- Regiment/Corps: Corps of Hussars
- Record Office: CC Cavalry Canterbury
- Arm: Infantry
- Record Office: F Lichfield
- Regiment/Corps: Leicestershire Regiment
- Regiment/Corps: Lincolnshire Regiment
- Record Office: O York
- Record Office: F Lichfield
It seems pointless to have the following just for the sake of representing every level:
- Service: British Army
- Arm: Engineers
- Record Office: RE Chatham
- Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers
- Record Office: RE Chatham
- Arm: Engineers
--GavinRobinson (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (PST)
