WW1 OOB (1914) needed!

[jim panse]

I just need the Ottoman/Turkish OOB for the Ottoman Empire. More information will be given later the day in an information thread.

[Case]

I wish I was rich enough to afford the Ellis books - they're geek heaven, but would cost me about $200 each if I ordered them from Amazon.com

WW1 isn't really my thing, but I do have a few links which may be useful:

http://www.1914-1918.net is a fantastic site, with lots of information on the British Army in WW1 including OOBs and TO&Es.

http://www.orbat.com/site/warpath/index.htm covers the same ground and isn't as good. On the upside, it is simpler to navigate and has division level OOBs for various engagements in 1914 available at: http://www.orbat.com/site/warpath/battles_ff/1914.htm

http://www.tdg.nu/resources/TOE/TO&E...4glorysend.htm has TO&E's for the German and French Armies.

While I've got some doubts over the accruacy of the information at the site http://home.wanadoo.nl/thomas.kolley/oc.html is definetly worth a look.

The West Point Maps of WW1 may also be worth a look - they often contain useful OOB information graphically presented on thier maps. Check them out at: http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhi...ges/WW1ToC.htm

If you dig around http://www.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/ long enough you're sure to find something of interest. If there's not much OOB information there, then it's more then made up for by the collection of articles on obscure topics.

While it doesn't really apply to 1914, http://www.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/index.html has the complete OOB of the Australian Army in WW1 (AFAIK, the closest the Australian Army got to Europe in 1914 was Egypt where the 1st Australian Division and some Light Horse units were sent to conduct their training while acting as a somewhat dubious strategic reserve for the defence of the Suez Canal)

[Galvatron]

Hi here I'm again sorry for the long delay it was a long weekend and a much looonger week full with and and and I think you got the picture

Well concerning the thingy Boco said, here are some notes for the Brits:

From the 64 (- the 4 colonial mentioned above) divs used were only 11 1st Line. And 6 div were formed for Home Defence duties they never went over sea and served the whole war at home.
So long story short: 58 div's served abroad (11 1st Line Guards)

And finally a nice story I've read which I must tell you, 2 of the 47 non guard div's were scots and they were feared by the Germans because the whole divisions consisted of battleharded Scottish brawlers (you know the kind of guys in the Scottish taverns we know from the films). German battle protocols showed a much higher rate of deserters and lower fighting skills when a German Army was involved in fighting with Scots. Furthermore the Scots never take prisoners. It was often observed that in infight a German armed with a rifle and bayonet was knocked out by a Scot with his bare hands.

Scary guys those Scots Especially for me I'm only around 5.8 feet high (Hmm think I've calculated this one right, I'm around 1,78m for all Europeans and this correspond with 5.8 feet due to my calculations)

Now I will do the Ottoman stats in a few minutes plz stand by

[Galvatron]

Ok here we go on with the show:

Ottoman Empire

Inf.Div = 37 (includes the 13 divs which were part of the 5th army responsible for containing the Allied landing at the Dardanelles)

Cav.Div = 2

Well judging the figures we see the Turks were really in their decline and not longer a force the once were.

PS: Oh and Jimmy I just donwloaded your scen, really good I like it plz keep up the good work

And for further infos plz refer to the Galvy bureau of WW I information, short: GBWWI
I might not have the time to react immediately but I will as soon as possible

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Galvatron
Scary guys those Scots Especially for me I'm only around 5.8 feet high (Hmm think I've calculated this one right, I'm around 1,78m for all Europeans and this correspond with 5.8 feet due to my calculations)

Ha!

I am 1,81m. Eat that!



P.S The ausies didn't take prisoners either.

[jim panse]

Dammit, I´m only 1,76m. F***! ;-)

Ayway, thank you all very, very much!

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Ha!
I am 1,81m. Eat that!

Wow Palai you're a giant I think I will mess with Jimmy, it's always more safe to pick on smaller people and funnier too
Because the difference between our heights is soooo high don't even think one will see it only with his eyes

[Boco]

1.83m , but first under a table in barroom brawls.

Quality in the Turk units varied tremendously. Some were good enough to shame the Allies at Gallipoli, Al Kut, 1st Gaza, and Galicia. 'Course it took a liberal amount of Allied bungling, too. At the bottom end, some of the Iraqi divisions simply fell apart on first contact. Most suffered horribly under Enver's mercurial but invariably poor generalship.

[Palaiologos]

Actually Turkish quality was not what halted the Brits at Callipoli, but the aggresive leadership of Kemal. As i have become quite the expert on the Callipolis Campaign recently i can safely deduct that the Ottoman army in general was crap.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Actually Turkish quality was not what halted the Brits at Callipoli, but the aggresive leadership of Kemal. As i have become quite the expert on the Callipolis Campaign recently i can safely deduct that the Ottoman army in general was crap.

Bollocks! (just wanted to see if Apolyton would censor this - apologies) There are numerous references to the courage and stoicism of the Turkish soldiers in the Gallipoli campaign. The decisive factor may have been Kemal's incisiveness, or Hamiltons indecision, whichever way you look at it, but without troops who were prepared to die by the thousand Kemal would have counted for nothing.

[Palaiologos]

Pah!.......

[Palaiologos]

The Ottoman army may had a a great tradition but it was in decline.

It had just sufered a catastrophic defeat in the Balkan wars, and i think that they were the worst army in WW1 next to the italians.

[Palaiologos]

As for the "turkish courage" and "martial art" it is a thing we in greece hear quite often.

You see i think that western historians are more or less influenced by the Turkish stereotype of a "warrior nation".

Also it is easier to accept defeat if the opponents are said to have fought bravely.

[Case]

The story of WW1 for the Ottoman Army seems to be that the Turkish soldiers could only be relied on to fight well during the actual defence of Turkey. The troops at Galipoli fought with a great amount of determination, and the armies routed out of Syria in 1918 seem to have remained determined to fight any invasion of Turkey proper.

I suspect that it's no coincidence that the troops commander on both occasions was one Kemal Ataturk, soon to become the leader of a Turkey freed from the demands of empire, and that once in office Ataturk would specifically rule out conquring a greater Turkey.

[Palaiologos]

To put things straight i believe that courage is not what the Turks lacked(for instance:did you read gareth on that site i found that story about that Turk that lifted an artillery shell by his own and fired the gun at the British ships?).

Courage and heroism was exhibited by the Turks many times.
But these are not enough elements to make an army efficient.Their whole command structure, obsolete armament(artillery mainly), 19th century tactics, lack of training all more than overshadowed the average Johny Turk's bravery.

The are tough and have a will to fight, i give them that.
But their army was simply outdated and therefore crap. It is like saying the Poles had a good army in WW2.