Forums

I can't tell you how many times people ask, what is a division, what is a battalion, how many men in a squad, etc. Well tonight I am going to give you some information on what constituted an US Army Corps. Since this site is about VI CORPS COMBAT ENGINEERS, my readers should be familiar with the framework.

=========

For the U.S. Army in World War II "the corps was the key headquarters for employing all combat elements in proper tactical combinationS."4 Situated below army and above division in the hierarchy of command, the corps consisted essentially of a commander and his staff, headquarters units, and certain organic elements. The corps controlled a varying number of divisions. While the U.S. Army World War II infantry division was standardized and usually included about fifteen thousand men, the corps, as one commander described it, was an amorphous, elastic tactical unit that "expands and contracts according to the allocation of troops from higher headquarters based on the enemy, the terrain and the contemplated missions."

Combat units moved from one corps to another at the discretion of the army commander. In addition, the corps controlled pools of non-divisional combat units, such as corps artillery, engineers, tanks, and tank destroyers, which were distributed to divisions as dictated by need and availability. As part of a multi-corps army, the corps had few administrative functions. In essence, "the corps became the key headquarters for employing all combat elements in proper tactical combinations."

Twenty-two U.S. Army corps were actively engaged in combat operations at some time during World War II. Successful corps command made a significant, yet largely unrecognized, contribution to Allied victory in World War II. Thirty-four U.S. Army general officers commanded these corps in battle. For a professional officer, corps command was the ultimate position of tactical leadership. Corps commanders who moved on to higher military positions during or after the war, such as Omar N. Bradley, George S. Patton, Jr., J. Lawton Collins, and Matthew B. Ridgway, are well known to military historians, and many have published their memoirs. However, the majority of corps commanders have evoked little historical interest. Innis P. Swift led First Corps in the Pacific for nearly a year and a half, Alvan C. Gillem led Thirteenth Corps for twenty-two months in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), and Geoffrey Keyes commanded Second Corps during twenty-one months of combat in Italy. Despite such accomplishments, these distinguished officers are relatively unknown.

Marion: Hate to tell you but most of us dogfaces didnt know what Corps, Army, or the likes we were in many times.

We were lucky to know even what other companies, batallions, or maybe regiments were around. Let alone other divisions

most times.. This was the least of our worries and could not be bothered worrying about it. This was left to the "battle planners" and the likes. Same as ammo and food supplies. Not our job. We just hoped ammo and food finally found its

way to us. Same as tank, T.D. , artillery support, Eng. support and other supporting groups. We just hoped they would be around when needed, and usually were. We just took one day at a time and hoped these "battle planners" knew what they were doing. A "big picture" or even a small picture, we didnt have most times. Just a objective to take. That was our goal for each day. Corps, Army, never entered our minds. So why should we bother with "way above dealings" over which we had no control.

Hi Joe;; I agree with your comments and as another dogface and comrade I

will abstain from adding to your comments. The only thing I will say is the

34th went in at Algiers No. Africa and went all the way to the end of that campaign then went all the way throgh the Italian campaign and as a combat unit it was never moved from one corps to another. I don't know about what the Corps planners did. Like you our interest was keeping our a--ss below ground you know how it was. I hope I didn't rile anyone. This is just one dogface talking to another combat dogface. RJR

No argument from me gentleman. I understand TOTALLY at the time that all of you had other concerns. It certainly wasn't important then and it shouldn't have been. You were simply trying to do what you had to with what you had at that point in time.

Many of my buddies have no idea what a squad or battalion was, let alone a corps, so my job as a historian is to educate all my readers. They have legitimate questions about Army organization and it is important to them to understand the fundamentals about the structure, especially where it concerns their fathers, uncles, and grandfathers.

When I was researching my father's history, it was important for me to understand where he stood in the hierachy. It helped me to understand what role he played and how his unit was associated with the BIG picture. It's basically mathematics and to understand what two and two equal. Simple as that.

When people read my articles and read my future books, it helps to have them understand the basic lingo.