What should a balanced UK armed forces look like?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Okay, further into the definitions jungle:

Even if there is/ were a Corps HQ, it does not mean that we would (or could) deploy a Corps.

AARC went through a productive transformation when it was deployed to Command a multinational division in S.Afghanistan (not that the other parts under it ever got a mention in the UK press).
- since then there have been cuts to e.g. the signals elements, so how ready it is to deploy... who knows. We will play a leading part in the N. Europe response force, though. Albeit small as a standing force, has potential to quickly grow into a real Corps

We did stand up a Corps HQ (briefly) for the Suez Op, not sure if it was more for a political balance between the participating forces rather than because of their overall number?

[marktigger]

Wahay! Someone's quoted Wikipedia.

I did not refer to the "Light Division" but a "light division" as in not as large as the usual strength of a division.

that was described as Div Minus in my day

a light division is a light role division ie not armoured or mechanised but made up of light role troops.

[necessary evil]

Wahay! Someone's quoted Wikipedia.

I did not refer to the "Light Division" but a "light division" as in not as large as the usual strength of a division.

If you check the US ´eye´ corps, you will find that they don´t even have two divisions, more like one and two thirds - unless Wikipedia has got that wrong too. I find it easier to believe that you have got it wrong, perhaps because most of the other formations come in threes, at least in the British Army anyway.

[ArmChairCivvy]

because most of the other formations come in threes, at least in the British Army anyway.

3 (the minimum for any manoeuvre with some type of uncommitted reserve) vs. a "square" formation (with 4) is an age old debate... so old that the square (I believe) relates to an ability to form a phalanx against attacks from all sides, and can then quickly transform to a "command-able" linear advance. Roman times and all that...

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Arfah is quite right. A Corps in the British Army has never really been a particularly well defined unit of measure. From my own experience it is pretty much a term that could theoretically be applied to any formation larger consisting of at least two Divisions - the 'rule of three' not being definitive.

Take the BEF in 1914 for example. We fielded two Corps each comprised of two Divisions. Admittedly they were both understrength as they had an officially mandated strength of three Divisions apiece but the term is very flexible. Hell, we hadn't operated in actual Corps sized formations in field exercises until just prior to the outbreak of the Great War, IIRC - we rarely exercised at Divisional strength either. Long story short, as with most matters of ORBAT in the British Army outside the comparatively well defined Regimental system, it was ad-hoc.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[necessary evil]

WW2: XXX CORPS was 2 Divisions + a BDE.

Which is over and above 2 Divisions. No?

A CORPS is a formation that the British Army cannot support at current strength.

Your own examples prove you wrong, since you said that a corps is three divisions. The British Army could support it in a WW3-type scenario, but it would take a while to get it together.

[necessary evil]

Arfah is quite right. A Corps in the British Army has never really been a particularly well defined unit of measure. From my own experience it is pretty much a term that could theoretically be applied to any formation larger consisting of at least two Divisions - the 'rule of three' not being definitive.

Take the BEF in 1914 for example. We fielded two Corps each comprised of two Divisions. Admittedly they were both understrength as they had an officially mandated strength of three Divisions apiece but the term is very flexible. Hell, we hadn't operated in actual Corps sized formations in field exercises until just prior to the outbreak of the Great War, IIRC - we rarely exercised at Divisional strength either. Long story short, as with most matters of ORBAT in the British Army outside the comparatively well defined Regimental system, it was ad-hoc.

Erm, if you read the thread again I think you will find that I was quite right, and that Arfah was wrong.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Erm, if you read the thread again I think you will find that I was quite right, and that Arfah was wrong.

Well whatever the case, a Corps in the British Army has traditionally been whatever the Army wants it to be at the time - two Divisions, three Divisions etc. It's not something we have ever traditionally attempted to rely on as formations go, now more than ever.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[necessary evil]

Erm, if you read the thread again I think you will find that I was quite right, and that Arfah was wrong.

Well whatever the case, a Corps in the British Army has traditionally been whatever the Army wants it to be at the time - two Divisions, three Divisions etc. It's not something we have ever traditionally attempted to rely on as formations go, now more than ever.

Yep, I agree.

[necessary evil]

WW2: XXX CORPS was 2 Divisions + a BDE.

Which is over and above 2 Divisions. No?

A CORPS is a formation that the British Army cannot support at current strength.

Your own examples prove you wrong, since you said that a corps is 3 divisions. The British Army could support it in a WW3-type scenario, but it would take a while to get it together.

Really? The Corps was under strength because,

"There was a war on"

You yourself admitted that the British Army works to the rule of three.
You then reasoned with a mention of a US formation.

The British Army is not the U.S. Army and does things differently.

You also quoted 'Wiki' - I could edit that very page to suit whatever argument I wanted to make.

I've since added that 1(BR) Corps had 4 Divisions. Which is over and above the 3 Divisions that I mentioned, earlier.

I can only conclude that the mean average stands at 3 Divisions.

Edit: WW3? Do you really think there will be 'time' available? 4 minutes to establish a Corps, ready, steady, go!

I think I debated my point enough.

Take it to pm's.

Couple of tips for you.

1. If you are going to try to be a pedant, make sure you have your facts right first.

2. Consider taking a course in basic logic.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[downsizer]

Cool, an internet dick measuring contest....that's rare

[bobp]

Is that the same a willy waving?

[arfah]

I've not had so much fun since mp.net

[necessary evil]

I think you have confused continuing to argue the point when you have obviously lost (find one definiton of a corps as three divisions, go on!) with understanding basic logic. They are quite different, believe me.

And before you accuse me of being a hypocrite again, here are the definitions that support what I claimed (that 6 brigades could potentially make up two divisions and therefore one corps):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corps

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/corps

One American and one British.

I haven´t found any that say it is three divisions yet, funny that. I´m sure you can help us out with that. I mean, you wouldn´t just have made up something like that, would you?

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[necessary evil]

Yes, it can be two, just as UnionJack and I have been saying for the last couple of pages.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[RetroSicotte]

All right, lads. Chill. No more posts on this after mine, take it to PM.