British Army Manpower Shortages
bil...@uwindsor.ca
which became accute in 1944 but I have never read an explanation for it. Was
it simply that Britain was stretched far too thin maintaining fronts in
Western Europe, Italy and Asia with navy and air forces in all sectors? Or
was there more to it than that?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Tom &/or Arlene Adkins
>
> I have read on several occasions that the British army had manpower shortages
> which became accute in 1944 but I have never read an explanation for it. Was
> it simply that Britain was stretched far too thin maintaining fronts in
> Western Europe, Italy and Asia with navy and air forces in all sectors? Or
> was there more to it than that?
I don't know how else to put it - they ran out of manpower.
That is, all available men, capable of military service, were already in
military service. They called up 45 year old men towards end of the war
- an act of almost desperation on par with Germany's.
Tom
--
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys. ;-)
cam...@istar.ca
>
> I have read on several occasions that the British army had manpower shortages
> which became accute in 1944 but I have never read an explanation for it. Was
> it simply that Britain was stretched far too thin maintaining fronts in
> Western Europe, Italy and Asia with navy and air forces in all sectors? Or
> was there more to it than that?
There might be a demographic angle, too (I'm just speculating here!):
WW1 would have reduced the number of Britons available to father the
generation that provided the WW2 soldiers. Smaller manpower pool +
long war = shortages.
Martin Rapier
>
>bil...@uwindsor.ca wrote:
>> I have read on several occasions that the British army had manpower
shortages
>> which became accute in 1944 but I have never read an explanation for it.
Was
>> it simply that Britain was stretched far too thin maintaining fronts in
>> Western Europe, Italy and Asia with navy and air forces in all sectors? Or
>> was there more to it than that?
>
>I don't know how else to put it - they ran out of manpower.
In the 1940s the population of Britain was only around 50 million. The Royal
Navy, Merchant Navy and Royal Air Force absorbed millions of men, the Army
millions more, and the only other men left (massively supplemented by women)
were working in essential war industries.
The availability of new classes of conscripts failed to keep pace with losses
suffered fighting in the Far East, the Med and NW Europe - as the infantry
suffered the bulk of the losses, then it was those units which became more and
more understrength. During the course of the war, 30,000+ merchant navy
sailors died, 70,000 (?) in Bomber Command alone and tens of thousands in the
other arms of service. I can't remember total UK war dead for WWII - 500,000?
It wasn't as bad as WWI, but it still couldn't be shrugged off.
So, basically, there just weren't enough people left to go around. Both
Germany and Russia were suffering similar shortages by 1944/45.
One thing that confuses me more is that British units who had been fighting
for five years were 'war weary', whilst German units that had been fighting
for five years were 'veteran'. Maybe it is a difference in replacement systems
again....
Cheers
Martin
--
Martin Rapier, Database Administrator
Corporate Information & Computing Services.
University of Sheffield Tel 0114 222 1137
The opinions expressed here may be those of my employer, or they may not.
http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>In the 1940s the population of Britain was only around 50 million.
Germany had about 80 millions.
>
>I can't remember total UK war dead for WWII - 500,000?
Less than 500,000. On the other hand Germany lost 4,000,000 soldiers.
And British had "shortages" although they had Canadians, Australians,
Indians and New Zealanders to fight in their armed forces throughout
the conflict.
I think it had more with logistical tail of Commonwealth forces,
something that even Churchill complained during the war.
Drax
for reply, delete NOSPAM from my e-mail address
Daniel
Were not some superfluous AA Artillery units converted to infantry in NW
Europe (though retaining the unit title) ? And similarly Armoured AA
Artillery units disbanded to provide personnel for other arms ?
Cheers
Daniel
bil...@uwindsor.ca
Daniel <Danielr.@au1.ibm.com> wrote:
> Drazen Kramaric wrote:
>
> > On 1 Sep 1998 12:17:11 -0700, M.Ra...@sheffield.ac.uk (Martin Rapier)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In the 1940s the population of Britain was only around 50 million.
> >
> > Germany had about 80 millions.
> > >
> > >I can't remember total UK war dead for WWII - 500,000?
> >
> > Less than 500,000. On the other hand Germany lost 4,000,000 soldiers.
This figure for German war dead is higher than I have seen elsewhere.
> >
> > And British had "shortages" although they had Canadians, Australians,
> > Indians and New Zealanders to fight in their armed forces throughout
> > the conflict.
The total population of Canada, Australia and New Zealand in 1940 would have
been around 20 million so the German population would still have been much
greater than the British population.
India has a vast population but Britain's ability to tap into was limited.
> >
> > I think it had more with logistical tail of Commonwealth forces,
> > something that even Churchill complained during the war.
I don't know what logistical tail you are referring to and the question was
about British manpower shortages not Commonwealth manpower shortages which
also existed.
> Were not some superfluous AA Artillery units converted to infantry in NW
> Europe (though retaining the unit title) ? And similarly Armoured AA
> Artillery units disbanded to provide personnel for other arms ?
>
Good questions. I have read such conversions were planned but haven't read
that they were implemented. Does anyone have some info on this?
mike muth
> There might be a demographic angle, too (I'm just speculating here!):
> WW1 would have reduced the number of Britons available to father the
> generation that provided the WW2 soldiers. Smaller manpower pool +
> long war = shortages.
This affected France as well. One of the incentives for building the
Maqinot line was the projected manpower shortage.
Logistics were a major factor in the manpower shortage for the UK. In
_The Valiant Years_ Churchill writes that the divisional slice was
42,000 men. This "slice" consisted of the division itself plus the
logistical tail needed to sustain the division. Given a nominal
divisional strength of 18,000 men (which, IIRC, is what WC used in this
calculation), this means that for each man in the division, there were
1.33 men supporting it. Then, you can compound this by remembering that
only a bit more than half of that division were actual combat arms
types. For each man at the sharp end, you wind up with 3 more behind
him.
Canada had manpower problems as well. OTOH, Australia and NZ did not
experience the same manpower shortages. But then, these countries
contributed less to the logisitical tail and a higher proportion to the
combat units. Throw in shorter distances to the front, a high
proportion of men under arms, and a much smaller military-industrial
effort and you see why these two countries suffered fewer manpower
problems. Still Australia did break from previous practice and send
conscripts into combat.
A major failure for Britain was the inability to mobilize more of
India's population. The Indian units committed to the fighting
generally fought well. The only exception I can think of would be the
9th Division in Malaya and that was due primarily to a failure to
adequately train the unit. Of course, the defection of a fair number of
Sikh's and other Indians in Malaya and Burma may have contributed to a
reluctance to arm more Indian troops.
Another drain on British manpower was the need to maintain civil defense
organizations and military units in the British Isles. This is where
Germany reaped the only real benefits from the V-weapons and continuing
(although increasingly infrequent) air raids.
Mike
bil...@uwindsor.ca
cam...@istar.ca wrote:
> bil...@uwindsor.ca wrote:
> > I have read on several occasions that the British army had manpower
> > shortages which became accute in 1944 but I have never read an
> > explanation for it. Was it simply that Britain was stretched far too
> > thin maintaining fronts in Western Europe, Italy and Asia with navy
> > and air forces in all sectors? Or was there more to it than that?
> There might be a demographic angle, too (I'm just speculating here!):
> WW1 would have reduced the number of Britons available to father the
> generation that provided the WW2 soldiers. Smaller manpower pool +
> long war = shortages.
That cuts both ways. The Germans lost more men in WWI than the British
did. I did read that the German birth rate was much higher than the
French birth rate between the wars but have read nothing on the British
birthrate. Also, the number of boys in relation to girls born after WWI
increased but I think it affected all countries.
Martin Rapier
{snip}
>> There might be a demographic angle, too (I'm just speculating here!):
>> WW1 would have reduced the number of Britons available to father the
>> generation that provided the WW2 soldiers. Smaller manpower pool +
>> long war = shortages.
>That cuts both ways. The Germans lost more men in WWI than the British
>did. I did read that the German birth rate was much higher than the
>French birth rate between the wars but have read nothing on the British
>birthrate. Also, the number of boys in relation to girls born after WWI
>increased but I think it affected all countries.
The French birth rate was extremely low after WWI due the massive casualties
sustained. Germany had a larger population than either Britian or France, and
it grew much faster than the Frenhc in the inter war years.
Britian had a population of 47 million and mobilised every available man for
the war - however suporting a two ocean Navy and a massive strategic bombing
campaign (which consumed 30% of Britains total war output) only left 3.8
million men for service in the Army, of these some 2.75 million served abroad.
Compared to the 12 million of so troops mobilised by Germany, this is pretty
small potatos. Interestingly the USA 'only' mobilised 7 million men for
service in the Army, of which 5 million served abroad, out of a much more
massive population. (I've been reading that John Ellis again...)
Louis Capdeboscq
> >> WW1 would have reduced the number of Britons available to father the
> >> generation that provided the WW2 soldiers. Smaller manpower pool +
> >> long war = shortages.
That happened to all the countries involved in WW1, but the important thing
was how fast they could recover.
> >That cuts both ways. The Germans lost more men in WWI than the British
> >did.
In relative terms they only lost a little more. France and Russia lost
really many in relative terms.
> >I did read that the German birth rate was much higher than the
> >French birth rate between the wars but have read nothing on the British
> >birthrate.
The British birthrate was between the French (very low) and the German
(still high). What mattered was that German population was larger than the
British.
> >Also, the number of boys in relation to girls born after WWI
> >increased but I think it affected all countries.
Not relevant.
> The French birth rate was extremely low after WWI due the massive casualties
> sustained. Germany had a larger population than either Britian or France, and
> it grew much faster than the Frenhc in the inter war years.
There are two different issues there. First is demographic growth: French
growth had been low since Napoleon. Had the French population grown at the
same rate as in England and Germany during the 19th century, France would
have had a population of 100+ million at the turn of the century (instead
of a little under 40). So Germany had a larger, and faster growing,
population than England and especially France.
Second is the matter of WW1 casualties. The problem is that when 25% of the
men of military age are dead (as was the case in France), you have a huge
drop in the birth rate. That problem increases 20 years later (1918 + 22
years = ?) since at that time you have very few young men. The question of
relative (and not absolute) losses is therefore crucial, and in that
respect Germany suffered less than France. Britain was about the same. In
1940, the Germans and the French mobilized roughly the same number of men
to fight on their border (3.5 million), but the Germans achieved that
number by mobilizing 7 classes of 500,000 men each, while the French had to
mobilize 15 classes of 240,000 men each.
> Britian had a population of 47 million and mobilised every available man for
> the war - however suporting a two ocean Navy and a massive strategic bombing
> campaign (which consumed 30% of Britains total war output) only left 3.8
> million men for service in the Army, of these some 2.75 million served abroad.
> Compared to the 12 million of so troops mobilised by Germany, this is pretty
> small potatos. Interestingly the USA 'only' mobilised 7 million men for
> service in the Army, of which 5 million served abroad, out of a much more
> massive population. (I've been reading that John Ellis again...)
This is interesting, I thought the US had mobilized over 12 million total.
You're comparing total numbers of mobilized troops for Britain and Germany
with troops mobilized in the Army for the US. If you have the time, could
you please give us a quick breakdown of the numbers mobilized in the
different service branches ?
John Campbell
<snip>
>> Were not some superfluous AA Artillery units converted to infantry in NW
>> Europe (though retaining the unit title) ? And similarly Armoured AA
>> Artillery units disbanded to provide personnel for other arms ?
>>
>Good questions. I have read such conversions were planned but haven't read
>that they were implemented. Does anyone have some info on this?
Some time ago I read a book (AA?) by the UK AA commander (Gen Pile).
Before the war several Territorial units became AA units but retained
part of the name. I think one was the Post Office Rifles (AA). Throughout
the latter part of the war there was a constant pressure to reduce the
numbers in the AA. This was achieved with some reduction in the numbers
but mainly by transfer of individuals to other units and Corps and
replacement with women and less fit individuals. Some (many?) units were
virtually all female by 1944, generally one gorilla was kept to start the
generators (now thats a posting).
Regards
JC
Rick Beach
> > Europe (though retaining the unit title) ? And similarly Armoured AA
> > Artillery units disbanded to provide personnel for other arms ?
> >
> Good questions. I have read such conversions were planned but haven't read
> that they were implemented. Does anyone have some info on this?
In July 1944 in Italy a new Canadian infantry brigade was formed and
one of the battalions was created from scratch from two anti-aircraft
batteries. The battalion was nicknamed the Slaughterhouse Battalion by
some veterans because their first time in action was expected "to be a
slaughter. Four years on the guns and now they're infantry."
Rick
efr...@mocha.memphis.edu
>> >That cuts both ways. The Germans lost more men in WWI than the British
> In relative terms they only lost a little more. France and Russia lost
> really many in relative terms
I think you are mistaken as to Russia. In WW One
their casualties were -smaller- in proportion to
their population than Germany's. (I could be wrong,
but that's what I recall. There has been a tendency
to project the horrendous Soviet losses in 1941-45
backwards to WWI.)
>> Compared to the 12 million of so troops mobilised by Germany, this is pretty
>> small potatos. Interestingly the USA 'only' mobilised 7 million men for
>> service in the Army, of which 5 million served abroad, out of a much more
>> massive population. (I've been reading that John Ellis again...)
Good man.
> could you please give us a quick breakdown of the numbers mobilized in the
> different service branches ?
> different service branches ?
Robert Goralski's _WWII Almanac_ gives the following
figures (I'm citing 1945 only)
Army (incl. USAF) Navy Marines total
8,267,958 3,380,817 474,680 12,123,455
Of course, these are numbers in uniform in 1945, not the
total who -ever- wore uniform in the period late 1941-late
1945, which I seem to recall as being closer 14.5 mil.
Ed Frank
Dilbert
> Were not some superfluous AA Artillery units converted to infantry in NW
>Europe (though retaining the unit title) ? And similarly Armoured AA
>Artillery units disbanded to provide personnel for other arms ?
I read in a history of the British Army ("We shall Shock Them" I think was the
title) that a number of U.K. based infantry divisions were disbanded
to provide reinforcements for the divisions fighting in N.W. Europe.
If anyone is interested in more details I can dig out the book.
Martin Rapier
{snip}
>> Were not some superfluous AA Artillery units converted to infantry in NW
>> Europe (though retaining the unit title) ? And similarly Armoured AA
>> Artillery units disbanded to provide personnel for other arms ?
>>
>Good questions. I have read such conversions were planned but haven't read
>that they were implemented. Does anyone have some info on this?
I thought it was done on a more ad-hoc basis. Commonly the battalion AT
platoons were disbanded to produce infantry replacements, superfluous AA units
were disbanded and in the most famous case, a whole division (50th?) was
broken up for replacements. This happened to a lesser extent in the amoured
forces too, after being virtually destroyed during Epsom, 147 RAC was
amalgamated with another I tank regiment (154??) as a composite squadron.
Martin Rapier
says...
{snip}
>> campaign (which consumed 30% of Britains total war output) only left 3.8
>> million men for service in the Army, of these some 2.75 million served
abroad.
pretty
>> small potatos. Interestingly the USA 'only' mobilised 7 million men for
>> service in the Army, of which 5 million served abroad, out of a much more
>
>> massive population. (I've been reading that John Ellis again...)
>
I think it did in total - for service in the _Army_ it only mobilised 7
million (the rest being Navy and airforce). Britain only mobilised 3.8 million
for the Army, and AFAIK Germany mobilised 12 million for the Army.
The breakdowns for other services aren't given unfortunately, but the Royal
Navy and Royal Airforce absorbed vast numbers of men.
Chris Manteuffel
Rapier) wrote:
>
> I think it did in total - for service in the _Army_ it only mobilised 7
>million (the rest being Navy and airforce). Britain only mobilised 3.8 million
>for the Army, and AFAIK Germany mobilised 12 million for the Army.
The USArmy ran the air force at this point. Do the numbers include
them or not? They were run by the same people until the Key West
Agreement of 1947, which created a separate US Air Force, and drew the
dividing line between what the airforce controlls and what the army
controls.
Chris Manteuffel
Joseph Major
: In article <6t8qqi$ft4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, Danielr.@au1.ibm.com says...
: > Were not some superfluous AA Artillery units converted to infantry in NW
: >Europe (though retaining the unit title) ? And similarly Armoured AA
: >Artillery units disbanded to provide personnel for other arms ?
A number of Royal Artillery Infantry units were created in the
winter of 1944 from surplus AA Artillerymen. Most were used as line of
communications troops, but some were formed into combatant brigades.
Similarly, three battalions of Royal Marines were formed from
surplus landing craft crews and organized into a brigade.
This was because of the troop shortage. (Other remedies included
breaking up the 59th and then the 50th Divisions for replacements and
transfering the 5th Division from Italy.)
The British Official History of the NW Europe Campaign has an
O.O.B. of the 21st Army Group that lists these units.
Joseph T Major
Millsbomb
(Martin Rapier) writes:
>Britian had a population of 47 million and mobilised every available man for
>the war - however suporting a two ocean Navy and a massive strategic bombing
>campaign (which consumed 30% of Britains total war output) only left 3.8
>million men for service in the Army, of these some 2.75 million served
>abroad.
>Compared to the 12 million of so troops mobilised by Germany, this is pretty
>small potatos. Interestingly the USA 'only' mobilised 7 million men for
>service in the Army, of which 5 million served abroad, out of a much more
>massive population. (I've been reading that John Ellis again...)
>
>Cheers
>Martin
Hello,
Could it be that the large numbers of German troops, had someting to
do with most of their battlefields could be reached by land, apart from the
DAK of course.
How many were actually German, what about the other nationals that thought they
were joining the winning side, to name just a few;
23rd SS Panzer Div ( Dutch ).
27th SS Pz/Gr ( Flemish/Belgen )
28th SS Pz/Gr ( Waloon/Belgen )
34th SS Pz/Gr ( French )
35th SS Pz/Gr ( Dutch )
And think of the savings in manpower, with almost no Navy, a tiny Airforce and
not much of those two later in the war. The age range of call-up for the
German Army was wider than either the UK or USA.
Bob.
When first under fire an' your wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful your livin', an trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Drazen Kramaric
> Could it be that the large numbers of German troops, had someting to>do with most of their battlefields could be reached by land, apart from the
>DAK of course.
Or extremely big logistical tail Allied divisions dragged. Churchill
complained about that during the war.
>How many were actually German, what about the other nationals that thought they>were joining the winning side, to name just a few;
>23rd SS Panzer Div ( Dutch ).
Wasn't panzer.
>27th SS Pz/Gr ( Flemish/Belgen )
>28th SS Pz/Gr ( Waloon/Belgen )
>34th SS Pz/Gr ( French )
>35th SS Pz/Gr ( Dutch )
All in all less than 100000 effectives throughout the war.
>And think of the savings in manpower, with almost no Navy,
Only uboat force had 40000 men total and there were surface fleet,
many small boats, coast artillery...
>a tiny Airforce
Tiny airforce?
>The age range of call-up for the German Army was wider than either the UK or USA.
Well, nobody forbade British parliament nor US Congress to increase
the age range.
TGS1000
>Well, nobody forbade British parliament nor US Congress to increase
>the age range.
Also, initially married men with children were exempt from the draft. Was this
the case in the UK?
Tom Smithdeal
Martin Rapier
says...
As both my grandfathers and numerous great-uncles were married, had children,
and were conscripted quite early in the war, I suspect that did not apply in
the UK.
Rob Davis
> Also, initially married men with children were exempt from the draft. Was this
> the case in the UK?
No.
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489
abuse@localhost, postmaster@localhost
peter hughes
<tgs...@aol.com> writes
>>Well, nobody forbade British parliament nor US Congress to increase
>>the age range.
>Also, initially married men with children were exempt from the draft.
>Was this the case in the UK?
I've always wondered why in WW1 the British army on the western front
was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
struggling to put 15 divisions in the same theatre.
--
peter hughes
Gary J. Mac Donald
> I've always wondered why in WW1 the British army on the western front
> was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
> struggling to put 15 divisions in the same theatre.
I can suggest several reasons why this might have been the case.
1. More men required for the longer "tail" required to support the
guys at the "sharp end".
2. Many many more taken up in the RAF.
3. Many more taken up around the world in covering various
possessions. Look at the vast numbers on ration strength in North Africa
(especially compared to the small numbers who were in combat).
4. Vastly more needed in AA units.
5. It is an aspect of the march of technology that as the centuries
pass it has taken more and more behind the scenes to support those in the
front lines.
GaryJ
--
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ar075
To build a community we must be able to communicate freely.
cam...@istar.ca
> I've always wondered why in WW1 the British army on the western front
> was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
> struggling to put 15 divisions in the same theatre.
Two guesses, un-backed by hard numbers:
1. Troops committed to Italy, Burma/India.
2. All the boys who would have been fighting age by 1944, but were never
born because their potential fathers died in 1914-1918.
bil...@uwindsor.ca
peter hughes <pe...@kirt1huws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <19980928225145...@ng116.aol.com>, TGS1000
> <tgs...@aol.com> writes
>
> >>Well, nobody forbade British parliament nor US Congress to increase
> >>the age range.
>
> >Also, initially married men with children were exempt from the draft.
> >Was this the case in the UK?
>
> was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
> struggling to put 15 divisions in the same theatre.
I'm not sure of the whole story either which is why I originally posted
the question. A few differences from WWI and WWII are worth noting though:
1) WWI- France was the only campaign once the Dardanelles campaign was
dropped. Palestine was a side show.
WWII- Italy and the Far East were major commitments of manpower
2) WWI- Britain counted all Empire troops under its command as British
WWII- the Canadian Army was a separate army and other Commonwealth troops
were committed elsewhere
3) WWI- the RFC was sizable but pilots flew in one and two seaters,
WWII- The RAF was huge and crews often numbered up to 8.
But I would still like to see a more in depth analysis. Any suggested
reading?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
peter hughes
>peter hughes wrote:
>
>> I've always wondered why in WW1 the British army on the western front
>> was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
>> struggling to put 15 divisions in the same theatre.
>Two guesses, un-backed by hard numbers:
>1. Troops committed to Italy, Burma/India.
>2. All the boys who would have been fighting age by 1944, but were never
>born because their potential fathers died in 1914-1918.
What about the germans then?
--
peter hughes
casita
Zealand, South Africa and undivided India lost 1,114,775 men in WW1 and
580,083 in WW2. They simply started running out of cannon fodder. To
picture 1,000,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen," imagine them moving in one
continuous column, four abreast. It would stretch from Canberra to
Melbourne in Australia. It would take these 1, 000, 000 men, still four
abreast, 84 hours to march past the Cenotaph in London."
peter hughes wr
peter hughes
writes
>ch past the Cenotaph in London.
than the brits in ww1 and were still able to field a large army in ww2.
In relative terms given a population of say 45 million with 22.5 million
men 1 million dead would be made up by mother nature within a
generation.
--
peter hughes
cam...@istar.ca
>
> In article <6vtttu$6...@dgs.dgsys.com>, cam...@istar.ca writes
> >peter hughes wrote:
> >
> >> was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
>
> >Two guesses, un-backed by hard numbers:
> >1. Troops committed to Italy, Burma/India.
> >2. All the boys who would have been fighting age by 1944, but were never
> >born because their potential fathers died in 1914-1918.
>
> What about the germans then?
> --
> peter hughes
I think Germany had a larger population from which to draw, but
eventually they started to run out of manpower as well - hence their
extensive use of non-Germans in German uniforms, and the steady
separation of their upper and lower age limits for conscription.
ses...@my-dejanews.com
>I've always wondered why in WW1 the British army on the western front
>was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
>struggling to p
According to "The Oxford illustrated history of the British army" (1994)
the British army eventually had 48 divisions (35 infantry, eleven armored
and two airborne divisions). The book is not totally clear (in my opinion)
on the question of whether the divisions of the Indian army and the
dominion armies are included in this number, but i got the impression that
the divisions mentioned were British. Somebody probably has more accurate
information on the subject, including the forces of the dominions (Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) and the Indian army.
Martin Rapier
pe...@kirt1huws.demon.co.uk says...
>In article <6vtttu$6...@dgs.dgsys.com>, cam...@istar.ca writes
>>peter hughes wrote:
>>
>>> I've always wondered why in WW1 the British army on the western front
>>> was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
>>> struggling to put 15 divisions in the same theatre.
>
>>Two guesses, un-backed by hard numbers:
>>1. Troops committed to Italy, Burma/India.
>>2. All the boys who would have been fighting age by 1944, but were never
>>born because their potential fathers died in 1914-1918.
>
>What about the germans then?
1) The RAF in WWII absorbed masses of men, the RFC did not in WWI
2) Britain mobilised nearly 4 million men and women to serve in the Army alone
in WWII - however WWII British and US formations had a much much larger
logistical tail than WWI formations, so the actual number of formations in the
field per x000 men was smaller. From my dim memory of Ellis's 'The Sharp End
of War' I think the ratio was 10:1 (or even 25:1??) between rear area and
combat troops in WWII in Western Armies.
4) Both the US and British Army had a relatively low division count, yet also
had large numbers of non-divisional combat formations at Corps and Army level
(artillery, AA, engineer, armoured etc formations) which whilst they did not
contribute to divisional counts, did boost combat performance considerably.
The attachment of these assets made even ordinary Allied infantry divisions
_all_ the equivalent of PanzerGrenadier Divs (as they could be fully motorised
and have attached armoured battalions/brigades), and Allied units were
generally kept much close to TO&E strengths than German or Russian formations.
5) The country most affected by low birth rates was France.
6) Division counts do not equate to strength, by this measure the Chinese had
the biggest army in WWII, but as most of their 'divisions' only had a couple
of thousand men....
Louis Capdeboscq
The British population in 1914 was 45 million, and they lost a little under
a million in WWI, casualties from Empire troops included (I don't have the
number of "true" British losses).
The German population was 65 million in 1914 and they lost 1.8 million.
The French population was 39 million and they lost 1.4 million.
What you forget is that "mother nature" can't make up losses if the genitors
are dead. Kill a million British, and mother nature makes it up after a
while. Take that million targetting specifically adult males in age of
procreating (it could have been female, as long as you target a specific
sex), and it's much harder.
Also, remember that during WWII Germany was able to recruit troops from all
over Europe (in effect you'd have to compate WWI Germany + Austria-Hungary
with WWII Germany) and, more importantly, to use most of occupied Europe's
manpower as slave labor, which allowed the Germans to conscript more of
their people.
peter hughes
<Louis.Ca...@wanadoo.fr> writes
>pAlso, remember that during WWII Germany was able to recruit troops from all
>over Europe (in effect you'd have to compate WWI Germany + Austria-Hungary
>with WWII Germany) and, more importantly, to use most of occupied Europe's
>manpower as slave labor, which allowed the Germans to conscript more of
>their people.
>
>
>
--
peter hughes
HELLGUEST
the enmpire in 1914 and gone in 1939.
L8R
JD Lail also dba Hellguest
Simon Estill
HELLGUEST <hell...@aol.com> wrote in article
<70ibqt$ut4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
The Irish Free State/ Eire had a negligable population compared to the
United Kingdom. Conscription was never enforced in Ireland during WWI and
after 1916 was probably unworkable anyway. During WWII conscription was not
employed in Northen Ireland. However, large numbers of volunteers from both
the Free State and Northen Ireland served in the Britsh Army, famous
regiments being the Ulster Rifles and the Irish Guards.Loyalist literature
at the time of the 50th anniversary of D Day goaded Irish Nationalists with
"where were you?" seemingly forgetting there were more Irish from the Free
State in the Britsh Army than Ulster protestants. It should also be noted
that the top British Generals, Slim, Alexander and Montgomery were Irish.
The reasons for shortage of the Army manpower, mainly Infantry, are quite
complicated. Britain was fighting a worldwide war and hence had a large
logistical tail. For strategic reasons it had a very large navy , airforce
and merchant marine. The increasingly technical nature of war meant a lot
of men were involved in non front line roles though there was widespread
use of women in some roles.
Australian, New Zealand and Indian troops that had been used in large
numbers in Europe during WW1 were busy fighting the Japanese.
In the NW European campaign there had been a miscalculation of the
expected casualty rates which had been taken from the less intense Italian
Campaign so 21st Army group rapidly became short of manpower. From mid 1944
onwards there was a feeling that the war had been won so there was not much
point in widening the conscription net.
Regards
Simon
Stephen David Thomas
> was about 63 divisions say about 900,000 men whereas in WW2 they were
> struggling to put 15 divisions in the same theatre.
Britains population was 47.5million during WW2. 3,778,000 served in the
Army, 1,185,000 in the Air Force and 923,000 in the Navy. 2,640,000
soldiers served overseas. Noted that down some time ago but forgotton the
source. Don't have any comparative numbers for WW1
Steve Thomas
Lenny Warren
HELLGUEST wrote:
>
> No one has mentioned that Ireland was part of
> the enmpire in 1914 and gone in 1939.
Southern Ireland wasn't. Northern Ireland WAS. Anyway, not really an Empire by then!
Also, many Southern Irish volunteered to fight with the Brits!
Catch you later,
Lenny...
Lenny Warren, Strathaven, Scotland.
e-mail: lwa...@zetnet.co.uk
www: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lwarren/
peter hughes
<hell...@aol.com> writes
>No one has mentioned that Ireland was part of
>the enmpire in 1914 and gone in 1939.
well, the population of ireland was probably about 2 million and also an
awful lot of irishmen voluntered in ww2
--
peter hughes
John Lee
<snip>
> State in the Britsh Army than Ulster protestants. It should also be noted
> that the top British Generals, Slim, Alexander and Montgomery were Irish.
<snip>
Nitpick, but I don't think Slim was Irish - he was a Birmingham lad
IIRC. Maybe you were thinking of Brooke, or Auchinleck?
--
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in
John doubts; but if he will be content to begin with
doubts, he shall end in certainties."
Martin Rapier
I've got some more facts from David Chandlers 'History of the British Army'.
The Sept 1939 National Service Acxt (ie conscription) covered all men between
20 and 41. In Dec 1941 this was extended to ages 18-60 and women aged 20-30.
In 1943 it was extended up to women aged 51 (although not all were called up
by any means to serve in teh ATS, the majority ended up working in munitions).
Basically the entire available population between the ages of 18 and 51/60 was
conscripted!
By May 1945, the serving strengths were as follows, Army 2.9 million, Air
Force 0.9 million and Navy 0.78 million. Army strength comprised 49 divisions
(excluding Commonwealth and Empire formations), 35 infantry, 11 armoured and 2
airborne. However, each division comprised 15-20000 men, plus approx 60000
Corps/Army support troops, so each division absorbed 75-80000 men. At this
time there were only 1.7 million men aged 20-5 available, so a large number of
those serving were over-age. In contrast, India had 1.7 million men under arms
out of 16 million 20-25 year olds.
There are two further issues then, why were only 15 divisions committed to the
ETO and why were they so chronically short of men?
1) The Army operated in three main combat theatres, the ETO, Italy and the Far
East. It also had global defence commitments thorughout the Empire whic
absorbed the bulk of its troops. Even in the late eighteenth century the (much
smaller) Empire absorbed 70-80% of available Army manpower, and it was nly
with great difficulty that it was possibel to scrape together surplus forces
for forays such as Moores expedition to Spain, the Walcheren landings etc.
Exactly the same considerations applied in 1944 - the Army was spread thin
throughout the world. At the same time as Normandy was being fought, the
decisive battles of Imphal and Kohima were finally breaking the the back of
the Japanese forces in Burma.
2) Having created such a relativly large military structure, shortages were
likely to arise in areas where wastage was highest. As discussed on the other
thread about casualties, approx 70% of losses are suffered by 'combat' units,
and of those approx 70% are suffered by infantry battalions. So of the 450,000
casualties suffered by the Army in WWII, approx 50% were concentrated in
infantry battalions. With 49 divisions, each absorbing 75-80000 men, only
around 4000 served in rifle battalions per division, so this strength of
200,000 men, suffered approximately 225,000 casualties, whilst the remaining
losses were spread among everyone else. It is unsurprising that the infantry
were always chronically short of men, so resulting in the 'tail' being combed
for replacements - AA battalions were disbanded, battalion AT gun platoons
broken up, the 59th div was disbanded, 26,000 men were even transferred from
the RAF in 1944.
It is interesting that even at the peak of Red Army strength, they only had
4.5 million men in the field (compared to nearly 3 million for the British
Army), but their divison count was hugely higher and concentrated on two
fronts.
John Lee
AndyFerara
I don't know whether it's correct to call 'British' Generals Irish. Prehaps
Anglo-Irish would be better.
Before the partitian of Ireland (1921 ???) many of the large protestant
landowners could be classed as Irish by any modern deffinition of nationality
but they would not have considered themselves as such. Their families may have
held large landholdings in Ireland for many years but they would have been
brought up and educated in England, spoken with an English accent, and have
had more in common with the 'English' upper classes than 'ordinary' Irish
people.
The Duke of Wellington was 'Anglo-Irish' but when asked if being borne in
Ireland made him Irish replied that being born in a stable didn't make you a
horse.
I would agree that this is a inexcusably arrogant attitude but it shows the
colonial nature of the British occupation of Ireland at the time.
BTW I know the current positionn of Northern Ireland if different (UNionist
majority, been there for hundreds of years etc.) but I used to know a fellow
from Ulster who refused to accept that he was Irish but would insist that he be
called British (as opposed to aknowledging two nationalities like most UK
citizens eg I'm Welsh and British)
peter hughes
<M.Ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> writes
>IIt is interesting that even at the peak of Red Army strength, they only had
>4.5 million men in the field (compared to nearly 3 million for the British
>Army), but their divison count was hugely higher and concentrated on two
>fronts.
>
>Cheers
>Martin
>
>--
>Martin Rapier, Database Administrator
>Corporate Information & Computing Services.
>University of Sheffield Tel 0114 222 1137
>The opinions expressed here may be those of my employer, or they may not.
>http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/
subject. I didn't have much time and no paper but the Oxford University
companion to ww2 said that 9 infantry divisions and i armoured never saw
any action at all. There do appear to be some useful books in the
westgate library but they are not for loan so i'll have togo back to get
a fuller picture.
--
peter hughes
bil...@uwindsor.ca
andyf...@aol.com (AndyFerara) wrote:
>
> I don't know whether it's correct to call 'British' Generals Irish. Prehaps
> Anglo-Irish would be better.
>
command before Home Rule British. Many of the soldiers who fought alongside
the British, served in the British forces or were under the command of British
leaders have been referred to as British. In the case of Ireland, it actually
was part of Britain. The unfortunate circumstances of Ireland don't take away
from the fact that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and Ulster still is.
We refer to all Indian troops as Indian although many of them were Moslem and
might have either lived or moved to what is now Pakistan. We don't refer to
Pakistani soldiers in World War II since Pakistan didn't exist as a country.
The same logic should apply to Ireland.
Mind you this is hypothetical for World War II as the Irish Free State was
officially neutral. Northern Irish would be considered then as now British.
John D Salt
<bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
[much snippage]
>Mind you this is hypothetical for World War II as the Irish Free State was
>officially neutral. Northern Irish would be considered then as now British.
I'm not sure about then, but now, Northern Irish are considered
Northern Irish. This country I'm typing from is called "The
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", at least
by Mr. Picky.
Erin Go Bragh, Britannia Rules the Waves, etc.,
John.
--
John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility
Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough
Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can
Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.
HELLGUEST
OK sorry, I thought the pop was around 5 million. . Of course the lost
bases there added to the war cost and that civilian population was not
available for war materials production But it appears that I was wrong
about the main manpower effect
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
> In article <70mqr1$ct3$1...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, Martin Rapier
> <M.Ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> writes
>It is interesting that even at the peak of Red Army strength, they only
>had 4.5 million men in the field (compared to nearly 3 million for the
>British Army), but their divison count was hugely higher and concentrated
>on two fronts.
Soviets roted their troops very efficiently. It was very different from
either German or American system. Few days of very intensive action and
break through exploitation, followed by weeks on the quieter sector and in
many cases with draw to the rear. Interestingly, Soviets had more than
1,000,000 men in artillery a lone. As many as 50% of this artillery was in
Stavka reserves, most of them saw only very brief action followed by weeks
of quiet following of the advancing Soviet Army.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
bil...@uwindsor.ca
"Simon Estill" <s...@fs4.ee.umist.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> In the NW European campaign there had been a miscalculation of the
> expected casualty rates which had been taken from the less intense Italian
> Campaign so 21st Army group rapidly became short of manpower.
I don't think that is quite correct. IIRC the casualty rates from Italy and
NW Europe are roughly similar. ISTM that what threw the Allies for a loop
was using the casualty rates from the desert campaign. It was a much larger
and longer struggle and the fledgling Italian campaign results (at the time
that the decisions were made) were not considered statistically valid. What
they didn't realize was that the desert campaign was a war of manouever with
comparatively low casualty rates while the hard slugging of the Italian was a
good indicator of what was to come in Normandy and beyond.
Donald Phillipson
>>
>> I don't know whether it's correct to call 'British' Generals Irish. Prehaps
>> Anglo-Irish would be better.
>>
> I think it is appropriate to call all Irish troops who served under British
> command before Home Rule British. Many of the soldiers who fought alongside
> the British, served in the British forces or were under the command of British
> leaders have been referred to as British. In the case of Ireland, it actually
> was part of Britain. The unfortunate circumstances of Ireland don't take away
> from the fact that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and Ulster still is.
(bil...@uwindsor.ca) writes:
> We refer to all Indian troops as Indian although many of them were Moslem and
> might have either lived or moved to what is now Pakistan.
This string has strayed off-target. The essential point is
that Britain commanded two armies approx. 1857-1947. One
was "the British army" which was recruited from the UK
(and some colonies, but not the self-governing dominions
e.g. Canada). The other was "the Indian army," commanded
by a Briton, but with its own wholly native regiments, some officered
by British nationals serving in the Indian Army, some with
native Indian officers as well. British officers could
choose which of the two armies to join, and did not then
swap between armies during their careers. The Indian army
had no British personnel in non-officer ranks. White troops
in India were British regiments assigned there (for periods
of 17 years in the 19th century!)
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
DanielR
> > andyf...@aol.com (AndyFerara) wrote:
> (bil...@uwindsor.ca) writes:
While it was true (I think) that Officers of the Indian Army did not swap
to that of the British Army (proper) for much the 19th Century , by WWI
there was no real bar as far as I can work out. One case in question is
FM Viscount Birdwood of Quetta who was an Indian Army officer and
eventually commanded 5 Br Army on the Western Front (via the ANZAC, 1
ANZAC and Australian Corps). He was maintained on the Indian Army List
(of officers) and on the Australian Army List thereby becoming the first
Australian Army officer to become a Field Marshall (in 1935 I think).
Many officers maintained there presence on the Indian Army List because of
more rapid promotion (particularly due to losses from disease and climate)
as well as a greater prospect for seeing action (albeit against
"natives").
Cheers
Danielr
He
John Hickey
writes
>In article <70ibqt$ut4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, HELLGUEST
><hell...@aol.com> writes
>>>No one has mentioned that Ireland was part of
>>>the enmpire in 1914 and gone in 1939.
>
>>well, the population of ireland was probably about 2
>>million and also an awful lot of irishmen voluntered in
>>ww2
To be more accurate, the population of Eire was about 3.5 million. The
remainder were in Northern Ireland and still part of the UK. The numbers
of men from Eire who joined up numbered only tens of thousands, but a
much higher number came over to Britain to workj in factories and other
war work - more than 200,000 IIRC.
John Hickey
Donald Phillipson
> To be more accurate, the population of Eire was about 3.5 million. The
> remainder were in Northern Ireland and still part of the UK. The numbers
> of men from Eire who joined up numbered only tens of thousands, but a
> much higher number came over to Britain to workj in factories and other
> war work - more than 200,000 IIRC.
What underlies this is the unique constitutional relationship
between Eire and Britain since independence 1923:
1. Irish nationals may immigrate to Britain and take
employment there without restriction. As non-British
nationals they were exempt from conscription when
resident in Britain.
1b. "Employment" of course encludes volunteering to
join the British armed forces. This includes an
oath of allegiance to the monarch. No Irish
volunteer raised raised objections about swearing
to serve a foreign king (and nor did American
enlistees e.g. Eagle Squadron pilots): after all,
no one obliged them to volunteer.
1c. The Irish privilege of residence or employment in
Britain continued throughout this century (until
superseded by Ireland's joining the European Union,
which guarantees similar mobility between member
states.)
2. British conscription was enforced selectively in
WW2, e.g. not at all in Northern Ireland, which was part
of the UK.
Jezza
>
>> > andyf...@aol.com (AndyFerara) wrote:
>
>> >> I don't know whether it's correct to call 'British' Generals Irish.
>> >> Prehaps Anglo-Irish would be better.
>
>> > I think it is appropriate to call all Irish troops who served under
>> > British command before Home Rule British. Many of the soldiers who
>> > fought alongside the British, served in the British forces or were
>> > under the command of British leaders have been referred to as British.
>> > In the case of Ireland, it actually was part of Britain.
Ireland has never been part of Britain!
Britain is an island off the coast of Europe.
Ireland is an island to the west of Britain.
>> >The unfortunate circumstances of Ireland don't take away from the fact
>> > that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and Ulster still is.
This is true, get your terminology, and your geography right!
Donald Phillipson
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
1. My name is cited above as an author: but I contributed
none of the posts quoted.
2. The sense in which Ireland was "part of Britain"
when various British generals were born there (which
is how the thread got started) is that Ireland was
ruled solely by the government and Parliament at
Westminster from 1801 to 1922. Between those dates there was
only one political entity, called the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. ("Great Britain" was the geographic
term for the whole island including England, Scotland
and Wales.)
bil...@uwindsor.ca
"Jezza" <je...@hotwells.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Donald Phillipson wrote:
> >
> >> > andyf...@aol.com (AndyFerara) wrote:
> >
>>> > In the case of Ireland, it actually was part of Britain.
>
> Ireland has never been part of Britain!
>
> Britain is an island off the coast of Europe.
>
> Ireland is an island to the west of Britain.
>
> >> >The unfortunate circumstances of Ireland don't take away from the fact
> >> > that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and Ulster still is.
>
> This is true, get your terminology, and your geography right!
>
I stand corrected. I appreciate your sensitivities and that technically
Ireland was never part of Britain but part of the United Kingdom. What is
missing from the equation is a general term for people from the United
Kingdom. I have never heard the term "United Kingdomites" used. OTOH all
the people in the British Empire have been referred to as British although
the vast majority of them never saw either the United Kingdom or Britain.
Some Irish willingly called and call themselves British, so IMO it is
legitimate to call those who served in the British army British especially
those who came from the north.
Soldiers from the Irish Free State serving with the British army would be
considered in the same vein as those troops from dozens of other independent
countries who also served with the British army.
Those of Irish ancestry who served in the British army would be legitimately
British. Similarly in the US army Eisehower was an American not German and
MacArthur was an American not a Scot.
Jim Garner
> In article <70tc0i$2...@dgs.dgsys.com>,
> andyf...@aol.com (AndyFerara) wrote:
>>
>> I don't know whether it's correct to call 'British' Generals Irish. Prehaps
>> Anglo-Irish would be better.
>>
> I think it is appropriate to call all Irish troops who served under British
> command before Home Rule British.
I used to have this argument or something like it with one of my Irish
friends years ago. Ethnically speaking, the Irish are British and the
English are not. The archipelago that consists largely of England, Wales,
Scotland and Ireland was called the Islas Britannicus (sp?) in Roman times
and the islands were inhabited by a fairly homogenous Celtic race. The
Anglo Saxons drove out the British from Albion (probably mongrelizing
themselves a good deal with the British women) and formed the English nation.
In medieval times the
name of "Britain" was not used. It was brought into use in 1603 as a name
for the new United Kingdom and has come to mean the political entity of
England, Ireland, Wales and whatever bit of Ireland was included. Because
of the weight of population the words "English" and "British" have been
incorrectly regarded as interchangeable. The Irish tend to be offended
by any suggestion that they are part of the British Isles or that they are
British.
--
Jim Garner, sage and dogsbody.
an...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an410
(613) 526-4786; 759B Springland, Ottawa, ON K1V 6L9 Canada
"The best-laid femmes go oft astray"