|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 2, 2020 16:16:18 GMT
That is where they suffer the majority of their losses.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190 
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 2, 2020 16:24:09 GMT
That is where they suffer the majority of their losses. So how big was their force on the Western Front. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 2, 2020 16:28:38 GMT
They maintained a force of 2 corps, each of 3 divisions, roughly totalling 110,000 men at average strength.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 2, 2020 16:33:11 GMT
They maintained a force of 2 corps, each of 3 divisions, roughly totalling 110,000 men at average strength. Was that the force they maintained as the losses they suffer is higher than the the force you mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 2, 2020 16:38:48 GMT
Yes, their losses come from the Western Front and the Chinese Front, along with more minor commitments at sea and in the Middle East. For example, the AIF maintained a minimum strength of 117,000 in France from 1916-1918, but sustained 181,000 casualties in this time.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 2, 2020 16:46:38 GMT
Yes, their losses come from the Western Front and the Chinese Front, along with more minor commitments at sea and in the Middle East. For example, the AIF maintained a minimum strength of 117,000 in France from 1916-1918, but sustained 181,000 casualties in this time. So do the Japanese by the end of 1918 also use armord cars and tanks. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 2, 2020 17:02:35 GMT
They are supported by British and French tanks in Europe.
From The History of the Tank:
“Japan’s initial forays into the development of armoured forces came in the bloody aftermath of the Great War in China and Far Eastern Russia, where the five cavalry divisions of the Imperial Japanese Army were used for long range reconnaissance in force, deep penetration raids and more traditional shock action against enemy infantry. Each division was augmented by a motor squadron equipped with Rolls-Royce and Austin armoured cars by early 1918 and these were followed by the acquisition of 96 British Whippet light tanks over the following two years to counter Bolshevik and Mongolian numerical advantages. The samurai units proved somewhat reticent to abandon their loyal steeds, but the long years of fighting soon wore down their institutional equine preference, whereas the veterans of the Japanese Expeditionary Force on the Western Front had seen the value of the heavy and medium tank in the less mobile environment of Europe. Those in the armoured infantry regiments were far more open to the prospect of direct support and employed thirty nine British Mark I-III heavy tanks in the Yangtze Campaign. The close links between the Japanese Armed Forces and their British allies in the Great War would have a strong bearing on the subsequent developments in Japanese tanks, particularly in the mutual belief in the value of the arme blanche and tank bayonets.”
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 2, 2020 17:16:19 GMT
They are supported by British and French tanks in Europe. From The History of the Tank: “Japan’s initial forays into the development of armoured forces came in the bloody aftermath of the Great War in China and Far Eastern Russia, where the five cavalry divisions of the Imperial Japanese Army were used for long range reconnaissance in force, deep penetration raids and more traditional shock action against enemy infantry. Each division was augmented by a motor squadron equipped with Rolls-Royce and Austin armoured cars by early 1918 and these were followed by the acquisition of 96 British Whippet light tanks over the following two years to counter Bolshevik and Mongolian numerical advantages. The samurai units proved somewhat reticent to abandon their loyal steeds, but the long years of fighting soon wore down their institutional equine preference, whereas the veterans of the Japanese Expeditionary Force on the Western Front had seen the value of the heavy and medium tank in the less mobile environment of Europe. Those in the armoured infantry regiments were far more open to the prospect of direct support and employed thirty nine British Mark I-III heavy tanks in the Yangtze Campaign. The close links between the Japanese Armed Forces and their British allies in the Great War would have a strong bearing on the subsequent developments in Japanese tanks, particularly in the mutual belief in the value of the arme blanche and tank bayonets.” A, should have check that before asking this, my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 3, 2020 4:50:06 GMT
Overall, the impact of the different casualty rates isn’t so much that one country lost more or less, but that losses as a percentage of population are reduced, making the impact of the Great War and its various campaigns is comparatively less than historical.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Jan 3, 2020 11:35:18 GMT
Casualties: Russia (1918: 226 million) 2.7 million dead 6.7 million wounded 2.1 million MIA/POW France (1918: 96.2 million) 1 million dead 4.8 million wounded 0.8 million MIA/POW Britain (1918: 98.5 million) 502,000 dead 1.2 million wounded 100,000 MIA/POW Yearly KIA/DOW breakdown: 1914: 35,000 vs 26,899 1915: 84,000 vs 113,187 1916: 123,000 vs 170,574 1917: 136,000 vs 202,183 1918: 124,000 vs 188,985 Italy (1918: 64 million) 700,000 dead 1.1 million wounded 540,000 POW/MIA Romania (1918: 18.4 million) 274,000 dead 180,000 wounded 105,000 MIA/POW Poland (1918: 45.7 million) 259,000 dead 566,000 wounded 83,000 MIA/POW USA (1918: 169 million) 236,000 dead 547,000 wounded 32,000 MIA/POW Japan (1918: 125 million) 210,000 dead 578,000 wounded 67,000 mIA/POW Byzantine Greece (22.6 million) 172,000 dead 324,000 wounded 45,000 MIA/POW Spain (56.1 million) 113,000 dead 217,000 wounded 39,000 MIA/POW India (418 million) 87,000 dead 179,000 wounded 12,000 MIA/POW Serbia (1918: 7.8 million) 58,000 dead 151,000 wounded 136,000 MIA/POW Canada (1918: 34.6 million) 48,000 dead 144,000 wounded 4000 MIA/POW Australia (1918 population 11.2 million) 42,000 dead 132,000 wounded 5000 MIA/POW Netherlands (1918: 14.9 million) 38,000 dead 67,000 wounded 42,000 MIA/POW Belgium (1918: 13.5 million) 33,000 dead 56,000 wounded 34,000 MIA/POW South Africa (1918: 12.6 million) 22,000 dead 76,000 wounded 2000 MIA/POW Portugal (1918: 15.2 million) 18,000 dead 41,000 wounded 15,000 MIA/POW New Zealand (1918: 3.2 million) 12,000 dead 37,000 wounded 1000 MIA/POW New Avalon (1918: 2.4 million) 6000 dead 23,000 wounded 1200 MIA/POW Rhodesia (1918: 1.9 million) 4000 dead 12,000 wounded 500 MIA/POW West Indies (1918: 2.8 million) 5000 dead 14,000 wounded 600 MIA/POW Newfoundland (1918: 900,000) 2400 dead 8000 wounded 200 MIA/POW Germany (1918: 120 million) 2.5 million dead 5.2 million wounded 1.6 million MIA/POW Austria-Hungary (1918: 73 million) 1.7 million dead 4.1 million wounded 1.6 million MIA/POW Ottoman Empire (1918: 65 million) 970,000 dead 1.76 million wounded 382,000 MIA/POW Bulgaria (1918: 10.4 million) 280,000 dead 520,000 wounded 68,000 MIA/POW China (both sides) 1.2 million killed 2.6 million wounded 650,000 MIA/POW
Fascinating and some interesting tit-bits here. Things that come to mind include that: a) Russian population seems a bit low given the size of the DE countries, and also possibly their deaths compared to OTL. Mind you I assume this doesn't include the murderous civil war after the Bolshevik coup, let alone any slaughters afterwards by Lenin and Stalin.
b) As you point out a number of nations have smaller death tolls than OTL even without the greater number of total population and hence presumably moblised. Even so given their much earlier and larger involvement the US death toll is still rather small. Especially since as raw troops they would be going up against the Germans when the latter are in a much stronger state.
c) Was still there the Spanish flu pandemic afterwards? That was for many a bigger killer than the war itself.
d) From the much lower death toll for Turkey does this mean that the OTL massacres by the Turkish regime - against Armenians, Assyrians and later Greeks and possibly the later Greco-Turkish war didn't occur?
By the way your in Australia aren't you? Hope you and yours aren't anywhere too badly affected by the current raging fires and are safe. Although it does seem to be hitting the main centre of population in the SE hard. Hopefully you get a lot of rain soon.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 3, 2020 11:58:12 GMT
Thanks Steve. Interesting questions once again.
A.) The Russian Empire as of 1914 had a population of 248 million plus the population of Poland and a few other Caucasian states that aren't counted in their 1918 population. Their deaths are on the low level, but quite a lot of their missing are dead. It does not include the Russian Civil War or the impact of the Spanish flu.
B.) The United States fights for ~2.5 years, or two solid years with some introductory battles in 1916. Their death level over these ~900 days is approximately half of what they took in 1918, which was 265 KIA/day. Their total death rate is 236,000, which is very close to the historical level, with the reduction coming through better battlefield medicine, better tactical approaches and protection, more tanks and a few other factors.
C.) There is a Spanish Flu pandemic and it is nasty.
D.) The Turkish death toll reflects their battlefield losses. The massacres they inflicted on many civilians aren't counted. There isn't a Greco-Turkish War.
I am in South Australia, which copped it the other week, but mainly in the hills surrounding Adelaide. I think my half-brother's house in East Gippsland, Victoria has survived. I haven't been out much, as this last few weeks has had its own personal problematic nightmares. There is some rain coming to South Australia this weekend, but not a huge amount for the eastern states.
Simon
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 5, 2020 15:37:31 GMT
[/u] The Imperial Russian Army was the largest in the world, with a peacetime strength of almost 2 million men organized in 105 divisions and over 6 million reserves. [/quote] The largest in the world does not mean the best in the world, is the Imperial Russian Army in 1914 well equipped to face the German Empire. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 6, 2020 5:04:47 GMT
It doesn’t have the best equipment in the world, but quantity has a quality all of its own.
Upon initial mobilisation, it fielded 52 cavalry and 184 infantry divisions, organised into 16 field armies, with a further 120 infantry divisions envisaged. They were equipped with over 12000 guns; only 900 of these were heavy artillery.
Facing Germany were 50 infantry and 16 cavalry divisions.
Against Austria-Hungary were 66 infantry and 20 cavalry divisions.
In the Caucasus were 18 infantry and 4 cavalry divisions.
Defending the Baltic and Black Sea littoral and as a general reserve were 30 infantry and 6 cavalry divisions.
In Siberia and the Far East were 20 infantry and 6 cavalry divisions.
They generally had fewer machine guns and corps artillery assets than the Germans.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 6, 2020 5:13:59 GMT
It doesn’t have the best equipment in the world, but quantity has a quality all of its own. Upon initial mobilisation, it fielded 52 cavalry and 184 infantry divisions, organised into 16 field armies, with a further 120 infantry divisions envisaged. They were equipped with over 12000 guns; only 900 of these were heavy artillery. Facing Germany were 50 infantry and 16 cavalry divisions. Against Austria-Hungary were 66 infantry and 20 cavalry divisions. In the Caucasus were 18 infantry and 4 cavalry divisions. Defending the Baltic and Black Sea littoral and as a general reserve were 30 infantry and 6 cavalry divisions. In Siberia and the Far East were 20 infantry and 6 cavalry divisions. They generally had fewer machine guns and corps artillery assets than the Germans. So mass infantry assault then for the Russians. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 6, 2020 5:36:34 GMT
Their tactical approach is similar to the other Great Powers in 1914: move mobilised forces to railheads, advance by foot preceded by cavalry screens, make contact with the enemy and either defeat them in pitched battle or try and hold them whilst other units outflank and surround them. The powers of the offensive were less than those of the defensive in 1914, 1915 and even 1916.
|
|
