Divisioni binaria

[Francoquarter]

The binary division were not a news of the Ordinamento Pariani, they born in the Ordinamento Baistrocchi in 1934, see the 31a divisione Caprera

 

[jwsleser]

The binary division were not a news of the Ordinamento Pariani, they born in the Ordinamento Baistrocchi in 1934, see the 31a divisione Caprera

I believe this is incorrect. The XXX brigata (later renamed as the XXXI brigata) that formed the infantry component of the 31ª d.f. «Caprera» had three infantry regiments, 45º, 46º, and the 59º. See L'Esercito italiano verso il 2000, vol.2, tomo I, pp.175, 206.

L'esercito italiano tra la 1ª e 2ª guerra mondiale Capitolo V (p.123) with the specifics of the Ordinamento Pariani starting on p.130. Also see allegato 32.

Pista! Jeff

 

[Francoquarter]

the 30a divisione in the 1926 Ordinamento was on 45°, 46° and 59°in the Ordinamento Baistrocchi (1934) the 30a was on 46° and 60° and the 31a was on 45° and 59°

 

[jwsleser]

What is your source? I provided mine.

The divisone ternaria was established under the Ordinamento 1926. The divisione binaria was established under the Ordinamento 1938. The Ordinamento 1934 didn't make any basic changes to the structure of the divisions.

Where are you getting your information? Your information doesn't match any information found in the USSME sources.

Pista! Jeff

 

[jwsleser]

Francoquarter

I am wondering if we are disagreeing because of language.

If you are stating that the R.E. experimented with a division that possessed only two-regiments (binaria) during the Ethiopian War, that is true.

If you are stating that the d. binaria was developed because the Ordinamento 1934 created the d. binaria, that is not true.

The following is a good description of the transition. From La campagna italio-etiopica (1935–1936), tomo I, pp.449–450.

From an organizational point of view, Badoglio himself, on the basis of his personal African experience, judged the ternary division too heavy and not very manoeuvrable, at least in that operational theatre. Thus, with the tactical arrangement sponsored by Pariani, the introduction of the binary division would be reached, which would not have represented a simple organic change but a radical modification of the functions of the divisional unit, which lost its ability to maneuver to transform itself into a column of impact and penetration, thus allowing the maneuver to become a specific prerogative of the army (long-range manoeuvre) and of the army corps (small-range manoeuvre).

During the Ethiopian campaign, first two and then three divisions (Assetta, Cosseria and Metauro) had been sent to Libya, all on only two infantry regiments, in order to make them more easily transportable. These GG.UU., however not tested in combat, had proved to be leaner and more manoeuvrable and Pariani believed that the solution to the problem lay in that entirely occasional expedient. As Dorello Ferrari observes, the adoption of the ternary order of 1926 was not created so much from considerations of a tactical nature as from a problem of economy of forces, because it was calculated that the Italian defensive needs involved a minimum of thirty divisions, 19 against France and 10 against Yugoslavia, and on the other hand budgetary requirements did not allow for the formation of more than 90 infantry and grenadier regiments, i.e. three for each division. It was therefore the tactical needs that were paradoxically related to the structural limits, and not vice versa. The first binary divisions appeared in 1934, when the unit stationed in Sardinia at the 30% [manning], was split into two lighter divisions, Sabauda (later reverted to ternary when sent to A.O.) and Caprera. Between the summer and November of 1935 the needs of the mobilization for the I'A.O. and the motorisation of two divisions (Po and Trento) led to the transformation or establishment of another seven binary divisions, the number of which would be reduced to four in 1936. The definitive and generalized adoption of the binary system would take place during 1937 for the concomitant effect of several factors but not as a consequence - as has often been stated - of alleged lessons from the Ethiopian war, during which the binary-ordered divisions sent to A.O. (Cosseria and Assietta) were not actually employed. Instead, there were three decisive factors, two of a strategic and financial nature and one of a tactical nature. The first two were summed up in the opposite need to increase the number of units for reasons of image and international strategic balance, and at the same time not to increase too much the balanced force and the infantry regiments, given that at that moment the Army was busy getting the government to approve a ten-year modernization and expansion plan which would in practice have involved doubling the annual budget from 2.5 to 5 billion. The tactical factor was given by the need to make the divisions more suitable for conducting the war of movement established by the 1935 Directives. The project would have been started in July 1937, and a first G.U. of this type it was tested, even if with incomplete personnel, during the Great Maneuvers in Sicily carried out in the same year (497).

As one can read, the change was an experiment and not a change written into the ordinamento. The fact that the Sabauda was transformed back to a d. ternaria before being sent to A.O. clearly indicates that this wasn't a change driven by the ordinamento (note Pariani's phrase 'occasional expedient'). The d binaria authorized under the Ordinamento 1938 made sweeping changes in the division, including changes in the artillery, engineers and other units within the divisions.

Pista! Jeff

 

[Francoquarter]

i've not a specific source but in common knowledge, that the 30a and 31a divisione in the 1934 Baistrocchi law were on 2 rgt
but if you check in your source* for the 31a it's listed that in 1934 was on 59° and 45°, in the 30a divisione text there is no indication on the 1934 structure but 59&45 can not stay in two division in the same time

* or so is reported in the old edition "L'esercito e i suoi corpi"

 

[jwsleser]

L'esercito e i suoi corpi vol.3, tomo I p.128 states the 31ª d.f. «Calabria» in 1934 had the 45º and the 59ª rgt. f.

P.249 states the 30ª d.f. «Sabauda» in 1934 had the 46º and the 60º rgt. f., and the 3º rgt. bers. The division in 1926 did previously have the 45º, 46º, and 59º rgt., but that changed in 1934.

Again I must point out that the Ordinamento 1934 didn't change the structure of the d. fanteria., it only dictated the assignment of regiments due to budgetary constraints. All the divisions were intended to be d. ternaria, the manning of divisions with fewer regiments was purely a cost saving move. The first draft of the organization for the new d. binaria was developed in July 1937 (L'esercito italiano tra la 1ª e 2ª guerra mondiale, all.28). The meeting discussing the d. binaria by the S.M.R.E. was held in Nov 1937 (ibid, all.29). The divisione binaria with the structure we are all familiar with wasn't created until the Ordinamento 1938.

Up until then, a two-regiment division was an occasional expediency but not doctrinal according to an ordinamento.

Pista! Jeff

 

[Francoquarter]

ok we can call it an occasional expediency but not doctrinal

i don't think that the 3° Bersaglieri was in the 30a in the peacetime structure

 

[jwsleser]

Agreed.

Yes you are correct. The 3º rgt. bers. was added when the division was mobilized for deployment to A.O.