Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Of course Marc, even you must admit that a lack of understanding of military pedantry regarding unit designations is entirely understandable! You illustrate it excellently when you say : > And, to be really picky, the unit in question might have been the second > SQUADRON of the 7th Cavalry Regiment -- normally, cavalry units have > "squadrons", the same unit as a battalion, but the name is different. But > I recall that the 1st AirCav used "battalion" as the troops were infantry > despite the fancy cavalry titles. Depending on whose army you are talking about, and even within the same army one term can mean at least two different things... depending on what Corps or Arm you are talking about (there's a good one to start of with - Corps - at least two very different meanings in the British Army). Then you can have Regiments (usually a historic designation) made up of Battalions; and Regiments (merely a numeric designation) made up of Companies. You can have Companies with have both a Regimental AND a Company Sergeant Major. You can have special forces units made up of (Sabre) Squadrons (of course, from an army where Squadron = Company for the cavalry), when historically they have never come near a horse, unless you count Willis Jeeps in the N. African desert.... and so on. My point being, unless you have studied this esoterica, it sure can be confusing. tim a - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html