![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The "Origin" section needs heavy revision. It speaks with certainty about Units that were hardly as well organized as is implied.
"Old wars" is terribly vague.
I am removing the line:
'In the United States Army the term brigade is used instead of the term regiment, except in the cavalry. This is because a regiment has a fixed structure, whereas a brigade can be changed to suit the mission's needs.'
because it is inaccurate, and I can't think of a better replacement for it.
In the US Army, the term brigade does _not_ replace regiment. Rather, regimental units, such as 1-77 AR (1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment), are formed into brigades. To wit, the 2nd Brigade of the US 1st Infantry Division is currently comprised of 1-77 AR, 1-18 IN, and 1-28 IN. To these core units, other units, such as military intelligence, military police, engineers, and cavalry are assigned to form the Brigade Combat Team.
It would be true to say that regiments are generally only used for heraldic purposes. While regiments do have commanders, it is usually a secondary title for the Battalion or Brigade Commander that the regiment's unit(s) belong to.
Does this currently occur in any modern army? In every instance I'm aware of, brigade commanders are either brigadiers, or colonels; further examples might be useful, or else clarifying if this only occurred historically. Alai 04:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest no more indentations? Its making things harder to read! David.j.james 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"In the armies of colonial powers, such as the British Empire, brigades frequently garrisoned isolated colonial posts, and their commanders had substantial discretion and local authority." This seems to contradict the regiment page, which says that regiments did this sort of duty. As far as I know in the British army brigades were only formed for major campaigns not garrison duty. David.j.james 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that British colonial forces were deployed by battlion with regiment being an administative unit. I would assume any garrison over a single battlion would be considered a brigade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this really belongs in the Dab, where i was going to put it under "== See also ==". They are gleaned from the first fifty Wiki-Search hits on "brigade:
Strict-sense brigades:
Non-traditional military units:
Civilian international organizations:
Music:
Other:
--
Jerzy•
t
06:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The queried expression (before editing) was "Regular Force CMBG strengths are ~4, 000 personnel." (Spacing and tilde as this--all copied and pasted). Ive made it just 4,000 but the original author might like to review it. Incidentally, I was looking at this because a WWI close relative, a (British) horse-artillery gunner/driver, was reportedly "the sole survivor of his brigade" when repatriated to Wales in early 1919. However, a few weeks later, he was killed when thrown by an unbroken horse he was riding home from a fair. Cheers Aeronian 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My sense from a recent reading of Graves's Good-Bye to All That is that at that time brigades and regiments differed in purpose in the British army. A regiment was a peace-time unit; officers and men were all permanently assigned to a regiment, the regiment was loosely geographically-based, and for officers, at least, there was a strong sense of identity with the regiment. However, at this time, regiments were not a tactical unit - individual battalions served separately, and were integrated into different brigades with battalions from other regiments. The brigade, on the other hand, was temporary, but had tactical significance - a brigade would be composed of battalions from a somewhat random assortment of regiments. I'm not really familiar with whether this is the usual procedure, though. Some of this might be better clarified in the article, I think. john k ( talk) 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that this page needs more information about other armies. It only shows brigades in western armies, and even shows brigades in Argentina and partially recognized Taiwan/Chinese Taipei/RoC, but yet doesn't show brigades in the Russian Federation or PRC. Why is this so? Di the Albanian ( talk) 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
"The typical NATO standard brigade consists of approximately 5,000 troops." I keep seeing such references to NATO standard organisations floating around Wikipedia, but I can never find an explanation or citation/link to what this actually is. Does anyone know more about it? If it isn't somehow classified information, shouldn't this standard be cited? Or if it isn't an actual written standard but just a "typical NATO brigade (of standard denomination)", the source of this analysis should be cited. Sinthorion ( talk) 11:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The "Origin" section needs heavy revision. It speaks with certainty about Units that were hardly as well organized as is implied.
"Old wars" is terribly vague.
I am removing the line:
'In the United States Army the term brigade is used instead of the term regiment, except in the cavalry. This is because a regiment has a fixed structure, whereas a brigade can be changed to suit the mission's needs.'
because it is inaccurate, and I can't think of a better replacement for it.
In the US Army, the term brigade does _not_ replace regiment. Rather, regimental units, such as 1-77 AR (1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment), are formed into brigades. To wit, the 2nd Brigade of the US 1st Infantry Division is currently comprised of 1-77 AR, 1-18 IN, and 1-28 IN. To these core units, other units, such as military intelligence, military police, engineers, and cavalry are assigned to form the Brigade Combat Team.
It would be true to say that regiments are generally only used for heraldic purposes. While regiments do have commanders, it is usually a secondary title for the Battalion or Brigade Commander that the regiment's unit(s) belong to.
Does this currently occur in any modern army? In every instance I'm aware of, brigade commanders are either brigadiers, or colonels; further examples might be useful, or else clarifying if this only occurred historically. Alai 04:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest no more indentations? Its making things harder to read! David.j.james 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"In the armies of colonial powers, such as the British Empire, brigades frequently garrisoned isolated colonial posts, and their commanders had substantial discretion and local authority." This seems to contradict the regiment page, which says that regiments did this sort of duty. As far as I know in the British army brigades were only formed for major campaigns not garrison duty. David.j.james 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that British colonial forces were deployed by battlion with regiment being an administative unit. I would assume any garrison over a single battlion would be considered a brigade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this really belongs in the Dab, where i was going to put it under "== See also ==". They are gleaned from the first fifty Wiki-Search hits on "brigade:
Strict-sense brigades:
Non-traditional military units:
Civilian international organizations:
Music:
Other:
--
Jerzy•
t
06:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The queried expression (before editing) was "Regular Force CMBG strengths are ~4, 000 personnel." (Spacing and tilde as this--all copied and pasted). Ive made it just 4,000 but the original author might like to review it. Incidentally, I was looking at this because a WWI close relative, a (British) horse-artillery gunner/driver, was reportedly "the sole survivor of his brigade" when repatriated to Wales in early 1919. However, a few weeks later, he was killed when thrown by an unbroken horse he was riding home from a fair. Cheers Aeronian 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My sense from a recent reading of Graves's Good-Bye to All That is that at that time brigades and regiments differed in purpose in the British army. A regiment was a peace-time unit; officers and men were all permanently assigned to a regiment, the regiment was loosely geographically-based, and for officers, at least, there was a strong sense of identity with the regiment. However, at this time, regiments were not a tactical unit - individual battalions served separately, and were integrated into different brigades with battalions from other regiments. The brigade, on the other hand, was temporary, but had tactical significance - a brigade would be composed of battalions from a somewhat random assortment of regiments. I'm not really familiar with whether this is the usual procedure, though. Some of this might be better clarified in the article, I think. john k ( talk) 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that this page needs more information about other armies. It only shows brigades in western armies, and even shows brigades in Argentina and partially recognized Taiwan/Chinese Taipei/RoC, but yet doesn't show brigades in the Russian Federation or PRC. Why is this so? Di the Albanian ( talk) 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
"The typical NATO standard brigade consists of approximately 5,000 troops." I keep seeing such references to NATO standard organisations floating around Wikipedia, but I can never find an explanation or citation/link to what this actually is. Does anyone know more about it? If it isn't somehow classified information, shouldn't this standard be cited? Or if it isn't an actual written standard but just a "typical NATO brigade (of standard denomination)", the source of this analysis should be cited. Sinthorion ( talk) 11:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)