Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

For what it is worth - if I was after translation for clarity I would use "corps" for modern Western readers. For histocial gamers I prefer the "flavor" of a literal translation: it is essentially a form of chrome, but it also helps players immerse in the game. Gamers pretty much know the term "army" was used all over Asia for "corps" - and anyway the term "corps" is pretty sloppy even in the West - see the Berisian Corps down in NEI for example - and we have others in RHS. I use the term used because it "sounds good" and it is respectful of actual usage. If we needed to communicate to modern non-specialists we should indeed us the term corps however.

FF Liu was formerly an officer in the Chinese nationalist forces in both staff and combat assignments. He was wounded twice during World War II, and decorated "for conspicuous gallantry in action." He came to the United States and received his doctorate at Princeton University. He is the author of A Military History of Modern China 1924-1949, Princeton University Press, 1956. He provides the following chart on page 127, note the use of Group Armies and Armies before November 1938. After 1938 the Army no longer exists. In the narrative he states that the basic field organization for a tactical unit was the division the strategic unit was the corps.

In addition in Hsu's History of the Sino Japanese War 1937-1945 as this to say on page 288. Hsu describes a military conference called by Generalisimo Chiang. "Based on the above-mentioned opinions (of the conference), our government proceeded to reorganize command agencies and to abolish the army and division subordinated brigade headquarters. The corps was used as a strategic unit in order to reduce the number of command levels and achieve flexibility. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Careful examination of the material indicates that - by the CHS/RHS standard - we should indeed be using the term "Group Army" - because we use the name a unit has AT THE TIME it appears - not some rename in 1944.
Note also how the Group Army seems to be replaced by Corps in 1944 - but has a corps between it and the division before that. It is difficult to reconcile that with the actual organizations in the field at any time - as if there is an entirely additional layer of command which gets eliminated. Note how scholars go directly from War Area to a list of jun and divisions and independent brigades - there appears to be no additional layer between. Possibly we are seeing a form of administrative vice operational command organization here???