Call me a pedantic old bore, but.....

[K K Rossokolski]

Which I am sure many of you will on reading this. But I can remember plenty of heated arguments in this forum on small matters of detail, and here is another. The new V 1.03 ORBATS..terrific stuff, wonderful new units, the compiler/s fully deserve our thanks and congratulations. But there are a couple of errors of terminology. Go to a May '45 US orbat and open it up...everything is a FORMATION. Not so. In US and Brit useage, a Battalion or equivalent is a UNIT. below that, companies, platoons, sections are SUB-UNITS. Formations are aggregates of units and/or sub units, hence they start at Regiment/Brigade level. (We need not bother with Commands, - a theatre level term)

I think this deserves correction.

The '45 Brits have a section for Brigades, but it is empty, all the Brigades are in with the Regiments. Now I acknowledge the difference( if any) between a REGT and a BDE can be argued about for ever, noting especially the British history of the Regiment being the spiritual home of the soldier, as for instance the 4th Duke of Bottomshire's Own Royal North South East West Midlands Fusiliers, Cooks and Bottlewashers with a history going back to 1194, whereas the BDE is normally the functional formation. But if they're called REGT or BDE, why not group 'em under those available headings.

But I'm just an old sailor man, albeit one who believes the devil is in the detail.