(Private) Marching Columns for Bakke and Walt
Ed Tyler errancy@infidels.org
Wed, 26 May 1999 07:22:58 -0500 (00927739378, 4.1.19990526071548.00c507e0@pop.truman.edu)
At 07:29 AM 5/26/99 -0400, Mark L. Bakke wrote:
>> Joe Alward:
>>
>> I'll try once again to show that you're wrong. I will begin with
definitions
>> from the Army's own manuals:
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> Definition of "Column":
>>
>> (US ARMY) Formation in which elements are placed one directly behind the
>> other.
>
>BAKKE
>I don't know where you got this, but *all* formations include elements
>which are placed one behind the other. This should be plainly obvious.
>Troops at attention are in "line formation". In this formation, the
>elements are "lines" which consist of soldiers standing abreast with
>each line placed one directly behind the other for as many lines as are
>required.
>Troops prepared for marching are in "column formation". In this
>formation, the elements are "columns" which consist of soldiers standing
>abreast with each column placed one directly behind the other for as
>many lines as are required.
>Can this be made any simpler for you?
>
>
>> Consider Till's horde of Hebrews, marching 200 abreast. According to the
>> U.S. Army, these 200 persons are NOT in a "column", as you claim, Mark,
>> because being in a marching column, elements must be ONE BEHIND THE OTHER.
>
>BAKKE
>According to the US Army, these 200 men *are* an element called a
>"column". Furthermore, each element is placed one behind the other.
>What's so difficult about this?
>
>> Thus, Mark, the following marching formation consists of four columns
>> abreast, marching toward the top of this post. Each column consists of
eight
>> men, ONE BEHIND THE OTHER. The men labeled "1" are in the first column, et
>> cetera.
>>
>> 1 2 3 4
>> 1 2 3 4
>> 1 2 3 4
>> 1 2 3 4
>> 1 2 3 4
>> 1 2 3 4
>> 1 2 3 4
>> 1 2 3 4
>
>BAKKE
>Nope. Each "1-2-3-4" in your diagram is an element called a column.
>They are a "column" no matter if they are marching or not. At attention
>(i.e., in "line" formation), each of the 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s would be
>individual elements of a collective element called a "line" or "rank".
>The sum total of these troops would comprise an element called a
>"platoon" which would be made up of four elements called "squads". In
>this case, a "line" and a "squad" would be the same. The squad leaders,
>stationed at the far right of their respective squads, collectively
>comprise the first column.
>Now, let's say that the platoon is being prepared to march. All troops
>would first execute a right face. After doing so, 1st squad is *still*
>1st squad, 2nd squad is still 2nd squad, etc. even though they are now
>in "column" formation. The squad leaders are at the head of their
>squads and STILL comprise the first column. Each individual squad
>element is one behind the other and the sum total comprises a "file".
>Therefore, the 1st squad is also the 1st file.
>
>> The front four marching men, labeled 1 2 3 4, constitute the first "rank";
>> the second rank is directly behind them, and so on. The front four does NOT
>> represent a "column", as you said, it's a "rank".
>
>No, it isn't, Joe. Go back to line formation. If a platoon in line
>formation is being prepared for inspection, they must first be
>positioned with extra space between each line to give the inspecting
>officer room to walk between them. The command to do this is "Open
>Ranks, March". By your definition of a "rank", the formation would not
>open up front to back, it would spread out side to side. This is most
>definitely *not* what happens.
>
>> Definition of "rank":
>> (US ARMY) A line that is one element in depth.
>> Source(s) FM 22-5, DRILL AND CEREMONIES
>
>BAKKE
>This is exactly correct. I'm amazed that you can't put 2 and 2 together
>here. In line formation, 1st squad would form a "rank" that is exactly
>one element deep since all troops in the squad would be standing
>abreast.
>
>> What do you think, Mark? Do you still believe Till's Hebrews were marching
>> 200 abreast in 15,000 columns? Or do you now agree that there were marching
>> in ranks of 200, and behind each of these 200 men were columns of 15,000 men
>> each?
>
>BAKKE
>Nothing has changed, Joe. Till was right. I am right. Even the Army
>is right if you can understand what the regulations are saying and
>understand what the commands mean. The only person wrong here is you,
>Joe.
Ed
Aside from concurring with what you say, Mark, I wanted to add that
"column" is also a more generic term signifying a moving body of troops in
general (probably derived from the fact that troops generally move in
column and deploy into line or echelon formations to close with and engage
the enemy). Hence the term "5th column" for underground or insurgent forces.
I suspect that the English term "column" is the translators' choice and
that the Hebrew doesn't necessarily designate what you and I would know as
"column formation," but I haven't had the chance to look it up. Just got
back from Baton Rouge LA, which will be my home starting the fall semester.
Maybe Joe Crea can enlighten on this?