During World War I several American Expeditionary Force units functioned as part of the British army -- that is, used British equipment and were under the overall [senior]command of British generals. Please identify these AEF units as precisely as you can.

I'm also interested in the replies you will get. Other than training for newer units, at times attached to British units during those periods, I thought all AEF divisions were equiped and fought alongside or with French Corps and Armies.

During the first world war although we did function as a part of the synergy of the allied forces,we were not at any time under direct command of either the French or English. That was Pershing's demand + Wilson complied.Damned thorough judgement I might add.I would commend to reading "The Guns Of August" by Tuchman;"To The Last Man", by Sharra; "His Time in Hell" by Jackson,ad nauseum. For good reading as well I would recommend the 2 volumes by Mc Bride,"A Rifleman went to war" + "The Emmagees". I might also add to your query about obtaining a subscription to Military History Quarterly. (I am in no waqy associated but I find an excellent source of researched data.)Best bof luck; feel free to write back.

quote:

Originally posted by Norman Conquest:
During the first world war although we did function as a part of the synergy of the allied forces,we were not at any time under direct command of either the French or English. That was Pershing's demand + Wilson complied.Damned thorough judgement I might add.I would commend to reading "The Guns Of August" by Tuchman;"To The Last Man", by Sharra; "His Time in Hell" by Jackson,ad nauseum. For good reading as well I would recommend the 2 volumes by Mc Bride,"A Rifleman went to war" + "The Emmagees". I might also add to your query about obtaining a subscription to Military History Quarterly. (I am in no waqy associated but I find an excellent source of researched data.)Best bof luck; feel free to write back.

Yes and no. AEF troops were never directly attached to either British or French forces (except for the initial training phases upon arrival). However, positioning of American divisions was decided by Petain for the most part and as a function of the needs assessments done by his staff. Divisional attack orders were made by the French, and for the most part were obeyed, except for the taking of Sedan which pissed of the French highly and for which the US shouldn't really be proud since since it wasn't really necessary and was a dangerous manoeuver.

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
During World War I several American Expeditionary Force units functioned as part of the British army -- that is, used British equipment and were under the overall [senior]command of British generals. Please identify these AEF units as precisely as you can.

British Australian. There, fixed it for you.

Seriously, the only time that I am aware of was the Battle of Hamel when an AEF unit fought alongside the Australians under the direct command of Sir John Monash.

Of course, the battle could well have been considered a training evolution by Gen Pershing... Who knows?
Either way, they did well.

Until May 1918, AEF was used mainly to reinforce the French. By July 1918, AEF was more independant and beginning in September 1918 AEF was battle hardened and the French were more in a support role in the AEF zone.

Unfortunately, Pershing did not like the new tactics used by the French mainly based on fire and movement. At a time the Allied sustained lighter casualty rate than during the 3 first years of the conflict, Pershing insisted on costly frontal attacks.

Some or all of AEF's Second Corps functioned as I wrote. I have no idea whether this was the extent of AEF subordination to BEF. Here is a brief, partial quote from the 27th New York division's 107th Infantry Regiment's (O'Ryan's Roughnecks) web site.

Extent of this subordination is my query.

The 27th Division arrived in France equipped with the US Rifle, .30 Cal. Model 1917. It was probably with some trepidation that the men, who had trained and become familiar with this weapon, turned them in* upon being assigned to serve with the British Army. They need not have worried. The replacement was one of the finest military bolt action rifles ever produced, the British service rifle, The Short Lee-Enfield Mark III*. The Mark III was accepted into service with the British Army on January 26, 1907. The Mark III*, introduced in January 1916 was the same rifle with minor design changes intended to speed and simplify wartime production. . . .

History is history;truth is truth;regardless of how impalatable ones own personal views might be.

Here is some additional information I have found, which would seem to support the thesis that US Army Divisions spent initial periods in training with British or French Divisions and were then on their own.

___________________________________________

Called into federal service on July.15, 1917, the Twenty-seventh Division hastily recruited to greater personnel strength and, late In August, concentrated at Camp Wadsworth, near Spartanburg, S. C., for intensive training. In the Spring of 1918 the movement toward embarkation camps began. The advance detachment Ieft Hoboken May 2 and arrived at Brest, France, May 10. Late In June the list units of theTwenty-seventh Division had arrived safely overseas.

Until July 24 the division was in the final stages of Intensive training under British mentors, ln Picardy and Flanders. On July 25 the Empire Statemen, less the artillery and the 102d Supply Train, participated in the occupation of the Dickebusch Lake and Scherpenberg sectors in Flanders. A few days more than a month later the operation merged into the Ypres-Lys action, and then, from Aug. 19 to Sept.3, the division was on its own.

The great Somme "push," lasting from Sept. 24 to Oct. 1, saw the 27th in some severe fighting along the St.Quentin Canal Tunnel, one of the out-lying strong points of the supposedly impregnable Hindenburg line.Rehabilitation of the 27th was necessary at the conclusion of this first phase of the Somme "Push," and the New Yorkers moved back Into reserve on Oct. 1. Six days later the Twenty-Seventh Division was back into action again, moving by easy stages toward Busigny on the heels of the retiring Germans.

There was no further rest for theNew Yorkers until late in October. In the meantime they, with the British ,forces and the Thirtieth Division,American Expeditionary Forces, had accomplished the supposedly impossible by cracking the vaunted Hindenburg line wide open.

The 52d Field Art. Brigade and the 102d- Ammunition Train of the New York Division had not gone with the rest of the Twenty-seventh Division t othe British front in Flanders. They had moved up on Oct. 28, to the support of the Seventy-ninth Division In the Argonne.

Meanwhile the Twenty-seventh Division units which had seen heavy action in Flanders, had also moved back to an area near the French seaport of Brest. Commanders of the Twenty-seventh Division included Maj. Gen. John P.O'Ryan, Brig. Gen. Charles L. Phillips (ad interim), and Brlg. Gen. Palmer E.Pierce (ad Interim) --- only three commanding officers, and two of those serving only for Ad Interim periods.


_______________________________________________

It would appear that the 30th Division also trained with the British and there is mention of the 27th in this account:

http://home.nc.rr.com/oldhickory/page3.htm

Thanks for all the addition input.Good to see there are others as interested as me in the great war.