Formation and Organization
The 5.Garde-Infanterie-Division was formed on January 1, 1917 and began organizing itself over the next two months. It received the headquarters of the 2nd Guards Infantry Brigade (2. Garde-Infanterie-Brigade) along with the 3rd Foot Guards (3.Garde-Regiment zu Fuß) from the 1.Garde-Infanterie-Division, the 3rd Guards Grenadiers (Garde-Grenadier-Regiment Nr. 3) from the 2nd Guards Infantry Division, and the 20th Infantry Regiment (Infanterie-Regiment Graf Tauentzien von Wittenberg (3. Brandenburgisches) Nr. 20) from the 212th Infantry Division. For artillery, a field artillery brigade headquarters was formed, but converted in February 1917 to a Guards Artillery Commander (Garde-Artillerie-Kommandeur Nr. 5). The 4th Guards Field Artillery (Garde-Feldartillerie-Regiment Nr. 4) was transferred to the division from the 2nd Guards Infantry Division. An engineer battalion, Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 100, was formed by the Garde-Pionier-Bataillon. The 5th Guards Infantry Division's Order of Battle on June 5, 1917 was as follows:
- Stab/2.Garde-Inf.Brig.
- 3.Garde-Regiment zu Fuß
- Garde-Grenadier-Regiment Nr.3
- Infanterie-Regiment Graf Tauentzien von Wittenberg (3.Brandenburgisches) Nr.20
- 1.Esk./Garde-Ulanen-Regiment Nr.2
- Garde-Artillerie-Kommandeur Nr.5
- Garde-Feldartillerie-Regiment Nr.4 (2 cannon battalions, 1 light field howitzer battalion; each battalion of 3 batteries with four guns)
- Pionier-Bataillon Nr.100
- 4.Komp./Garde-Pionier-Bataillon
- 1.Res.Komp./Garde-Pionier-Bataillon
- Garde-Minenwerfer-Kompanie Nr.9
- Garde-Fernsprech-Abteilung Nr.5
Read more about this topic: 5th Guards Infantry Division (German Empire)
Famous quotes containing the words formation and/or organization:
“It is because the body is a machine that education is possible. Education is the formation of habits, a superinducing of an artificial organisation upon the natural organisation of the body.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895)
“Unless a group of workers know their work is under surveillance, that they are being rated as fairly as human beings, with the fallibility that goes with human judgment, can rate them, and that at least an attempt is made to measure their worth to an organization in relative terms, they are likely to sink back on length of service as the sole reason for retention and promotion.”
—Mary Barnett Gilson (1877–?)