WW1 OOB (1914) needed!

[lord of the mark]

from the UK public records office

"In 1914, the British army was relatively small, consisting of just over 730,000 officers and men. One-third of them served in the regular army itself, with the greater part stationed in reserve formations, the most notable of which was the Territorial Force. The majority of officers were recruited from Britain's long-established public school élite. Many of the army's rank and file were unskilled (and often unemployed) labourers."

so lets assume all about 20,000 per div (thats high for a ww1 div, but we're not counting corp and army staff, etc) that could be about 35 divisions, including reserves and territorials, and all regulars, whether BEF or not.

Another 12 from the Indian army. thats 47.

Rest must be domininions (21 divisions?)

[Case]

I agree, 68 pre-war divisions sounds way too high, even assuming that many peacetime reservist formations are deliberatly kept under strenght so that they can serve as a cadre to facilitate the integration of war-time recruits.

[Boco]

Okay, lazybones finally pulled out his WWIDB. I figure by now only Grognards are reading this thread. The saner folks are gone.

True, 68 divs are listed on pp144-5 in the OOB section under UK. These, however, include,[list][*]12 regular divs[list=a][*]6 pre-war[*]2 by 9/14[*]3 by 1/15[*]The Gds div by 8/15[/list=a] [*]30 New Army divs[list=a][*]19 in 8 & 9/14[*]6 in 1/15[*]2 in 4/15[*]3 in 8 & 9/15[/list=a][*]14 Territorial divs[list=a][*]12 pre-war (2 never left India)[*]2 in 1 & 2/16[/list=a][*]9 2nd-line Territorial divs

1. Formation authorized in 9/14
2. Didn't serve overseas (outside of India and Ireland) until 6 & 7/16 (3 divs) or 1 & 2/17 (4 divs).
3. 1 never left India, 1 never left Ireland[/list=a]
4. RN division (9/14) -> 63 div (7/16).
5. 74th Yeomanry from dismounted reserve cavalry
6. 75th div from Territorial overseas units and a S. African arty component.

In addition, there were 7-8 Territorial and Home Service divs that never left England.

So the 68 divs whittle down to 6 regular pre-war divs. Fairline, Case, correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1914 and some of 1915, there were real qualitative differences between the old contemptibles and Territorials and NA. By 1916, the difference was largely in name.

Wish there was a CD of this info.

[jim panse]

And I guess this should mark the line. Enjoy the scenario(s) or just ask if an Admin moves this thread to the OT Section.

[Case]

Sorry Again Jim

Originally posted by Boco
Fairline, Case, correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1914 and some of 1915, there were real qualitative differences between the old contemptibles and Territorials and NA. By 1916, the difference was largely in name.

Yeah, though according to the stats I've seen, the pre-war regulars were almost all killed or badly wounded by the end of 1914 The territorials performed suprisingly well*, but the New Army took a long time to get going as an effective force (though this owes more to the stuipid way it was used then any paricular failing amoung the soldiers per-se).

*The Brits seem to have followed the sencible German policy of treating reserves as first line units, unlike the French who initally wasted them defending rear areas.

BTW, if anyone's interested, orbat.com has the entire British/Indian OOB in 1903 up now.

[Palaiologos]

Did Monty fought in WW1?

I suppose he did, judging from his age but where exactly?
Any more info on this?

[fairline]

Montgomery was wounded and decorated (DSO?) in WW1. He fought on the Western Front, initially as a junior officer.

Boco, Case, you're right about the regular BEF troops of 1914 being better than Kitchener's Army by some margin; the British struggled to keep enough regulars alive to act a as a cadre and train the new troops.

BTW what was the original topic of this thread

[Palaiologos]

So Monty was a veteran, heh?
Western front?

DSO?

[fairline]

Distinguished Service Order

[Palaiologos]

Any major battles he participated in?

where was he wounded?

[Case]

According to the article on Monty in the excelent book "Churchill's Generals', Lt Montgomery was severely wounded whilst bravely leading his platoon during the 1st Battle of Ypres in 1914, for which he recived the DSO, a rariety for such a young (26) and junior officer. After recovering from his wound, he spent the rest of the war in a variety of staff officer posts where he seems to have performed well.

[Palaiologos]

On 229 B.C the Romans invaded the kingdom of the Illyrian queen Teuta to supress her piratic activities.
On 220 B.C trouble flared up again in illyria and was not quelled until 219B.C.

This according to P.Connoly resulted the Romans gaining control of the illyrian coast across Brindisi.
However in John Warrys "warfare in the Classical world" the Roman occupied area in Illyria(page 115) is depicted farther up north in Yugoslavia.

During the first Macedonian war Philip V attacked the Roman possesions in Apolonia and Oricum, which are located in P.Connolly's "Illyria".

So i am a little bewildered here. Connolly is obviously a more reliable historian, but it could be that the romans occupied both areas. Where there any Roman operations in northern illyria prior 229? I doubt it since P.Connoly mentions that these were the first Roman overseas acquisitions.

Anyone has more info on this?