Deployment of British Infantry Divisions, First World War

FORMATION AND DEPLOYMENT OF BRITISH INFANTRY DIVISIONS, FIRST WORLD WAR

While preparing the article on a separate page (see page list on right) on the Over-Expansion of the AIF in 1916, I needed to get a benchmark on the necessary timetable for deployment of a division. I used the formation and deployment of British infantry divisions for that purpose.

I looked at the British New Army, First-Line and Second-Line Territorial divisions, using Martin Middlebrook (Your Country Needs You, Pen and Sword, 2000) as the base source. He has some anomalies, and the dates of formation for some divisions are not clear, however, he has enough detail to give an indication of time taken from formation to deployment. For the five Australian divisions, I used Bean, though he also has some vagueness on the dates of formation.

When counting the time before a division went into action, I ignored the month when it was raised, then counted months either until it sailed to France for British divisions that went directly there, or until it went into action for Australian divisions, and those British divisions that went via Egypt to the Dardanelles. For the Australian divisions, I ignored the time lost on sea voyages, and any consequent disruption to training.

On that basis, the average time to get the first 18 New Army divisions into action was around 10.5 months. The quickest was seven months for the 12th, followed by eight for the 9th and 14th. Five more had ten months before going into action, the other ten took either eleven or twelve months.

Formation dates in Middlebrook for some of the last twelve New Army divisions are a bit vague, as several changed titles in April 1915. However, the lowest numbered of this group formed as the 37th in 'late 1914', becoming the 30th in April 1915, while the 36th (Ulster) Division formed in October 1914, and the 37th around September 1914, so it is probably reasonable to interpolate that those numbered in between (the 31st to 35th) also formed around September/October 1914. The 38th (Welsh) Division (Lloyd George's Army) also had a number change in April 1915, but its original date of formation is unclear. The 39th to 41st have firm dates of August and September 1915, when they were formed mostly from existing battalions.

Taking (conservatively) November 1914 as the dates for the 31st to 35th, and sticking (again conservatively) to April 1915 for the 38th, the average time to get into action for these twelve divisions was also 10.5 months, with the lowest eight and the highest 13 months. Most had eleven or twelve months before moving overseas. As an aside, Ray Westlake (Kitchener's Army, Spellmount, 1989) gives dates of December 1914 for the 33rd, September 1914 for the 36th, March 1915 for the 37th (which seems a bit late for deployment in July, certainly compared to the other divisions), and December 1914 for the 38th, but these do not change the argument significantly.

Ignoring the two sent to India in late 1914 to relieve regular garrisons there, the First-Line Territorial divisions had an average of ten months before being committed, with a minimum of six months (the 46th) and a maximum of 18 months (the 56th); the 55th also had an extended preparation, of 17 months. Both the 55th and 56th, however, had been stripped of their original infantry battalions in late 1914/early 1915, and had to re-gather their infantry component, delaying their deployment. These two push the average up noticeably, as without them the average for First-Line Territorial divisions was 8.5 months. Eight of the twelve that served in action as divisions were deployed within nine months.

The Second-Line Territorial divisions also have some anomalies. They were apparently brought into existence in late 1914, to control new recruits and the Second-Line battalions formed with non-deployable personnel from the First-Line divisions, but they were given numbers only in August 1915 (except for the 45th, also sent to India in late 1914, and numbered early in the First-Line series). I have counted August 1915 as their formation dates as divisions, 'writing off' the earlier period as draft finding duties only.

Those Second-Line divisions that went into action took an average of just over 16 months to prepare. The only two to deploy early were the 60th and 61st, after ten and nine months (in June and May 1916 respectively). The performance of the 61st at Fromelles in July might have discouraged early deployment of the others, as no other Second-Line Territorial division was deployed in less than 18 months. The 66th took 20 months. Five never left Britain, the number of one of these (the 63rd) being re-allocated to the Royal Naval Division after the original 63rd was broken up in July 1916 to provide reinforcements.

Turning to the Australian divisions, I think it is reasonable to equate them to New Army divisions, as they were formed ab initio. While the 4th and 5th have some similarities to the Second-Line Territorial divisions, being formed from cadres (albeit the cadres had some experienced personnel, unlike the Second-Line Territorial divisions), their supporting arms and services, particularly their artillery, were raised ab initio, so I think the New Army comparison remains broadly valid.

The 1st Division had about eight months from its formation to the Gallipoli landing. The 2nd was formed in Egypt in June/July 1915, but its brigades were formed in Australia around February/March, giving its component brigades about six months preparation before they moved to Gallipoli. The 3rd Division was formed in Australia in about February 1916, and went into the line in France that November, nine months later. All three lost some effective training time during their sea transits to Egypt/Britain.

The 4th and 5th Divisions had the shortest preparation periods, four and five months respectively. The average for the Australian divisions was six months, well below the 10.5 months average for the British New Army divisions, and even the 8.5 months for the First-Line Territorial divisions. Indeed, only the 1st and 3rd Divisions received more than the seven months for the fastest deploying New Army division.

Even accepting that the training time available to divisions, and their leadership, varied, these figures suggest that the 4th and 5th Divisions needed extra time before being sent into the line, and particularly into major offensive action. Leadership might have helped with the gap, but the 5th had McCay, who doesn't seem to have been one of the best and brightest. The 4th was luckier, getting H.V. Cox, formerly of the 29th Indian Brigade, and it could be argued that this explains some of the difference in the two divisions' performance in their first actions.

What does this mean? For the British, the delays in forming the last three New Army divisions (in August/September 1915), and the problems experienced deploying the Second-Line Territorial divisions, suggest that Britain probably could not maintain in action more than about 55 divisions on the twelve infantry battalion establishment. Either the Fifth New Army (the 36th to 41st Divisions) or the Second-Line Territorial divisions were 'a bridge too far'. Given that the Fifth New Army was deployable more quickly than the Second-Line divisions, and included the 36th (Ulster) and 38th (Welsh) Divisions, each of which had a strong political support base, I am inclined to consider that the Fifth New Army should (or certainly would) have proceeded.

All of the Second-Line Territorial divisions should probably have remained as draft finding organisations and/or static garrison formations (as some did), perhaps retaining their territorial designations rather than receiving numbers, to emphasise their restricted role.  That said, there were a couple of 'dodgy' divisions among the final twelve New Army divisions. Both the 35th and 40th 'Bantam' divisions needed drastic change to become effective formations.

Britain could have followed the French and Germans to divisions of nine battalions, to gain the flexibility provided by more, but smaller, divisions. If implemented in early 1917, this change would have allowed the extra battalions to be used to raise additional divisions, as the French and Germans did. Whether they could have been maintained during 1918 might, however, be questionable. When the change to a nine battalion organisation was made in 1918, it was under pressure to reduce personnel, not to raise new formations.

For Australia, while the twelve battalion establishment was in place, the 5th Division should not have been formed, and the 3rd should not have been committed to the Western Front after the failure of the first conscription referendum. By the end of 1916, the trend in recruitment without conscription was clear. It might have been possible to maintain four divisions on a nine battalion establishment with voluntary recruitment, but it is unlikely that five divisions could have been maintained at full strength without conscription, even on the lower establishment.

JOHN DONOVAN

Development of the Australian and Canadian Armies

DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN ARMIES FROM THE SECOND WORLD WAR UNTIL EARLY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

This was not written as a stand-alone book review, but as a summary of my reviews of three books covering this subject in Australia and Canada.

I recently reviewed two books on the development of armies, Australia's (John Blaxland's The Australian Army from Whitlam to Howard) and Canada's (Peter Kasurak's A National Force, The Evolution of Canada's Army, 1950-2000). Reading them prompted me to re- read Dayton McCarthy's The Once and Future Army, on Australia's CMF between 1947 and 1974. Blaxland's book is published by Cambridge, McCarthy's by Oxford, and Kasurak's, logically, is Canadian - published by UBC Press.

Looking at all of the books, Kasurak is much better than Blaxland on 'his' army overall, while McCarthy (who also perforce covers a fair bit on the regulars) is better on the Australian Reserves than Kasurak is on the Canadian Militia. McCarthy also provides a brief concluding up-date on events in Australia since 1974. McCarthy's book holds up well, even after a decade (as such a book should).

Looking at the two armies, it is notable that each had two 'big army' phases, but with different results. Australia went through its first phase with the 1950s national service scheme, at a time when surplus Second World War equipment was available to equip the part-time force of two infantry divisions, three independent infantry brigade groups an independent armoured brigade, and four Army Groups, Royal Artillery, that the 1950s scheme supported. This was alongside an under-strength regular infantry brigade group and armoured regiment.

Ultimately, demography (the imminent arrival of the baby boomers would have destroyed the universality of the scheme) destroyed Australia’s 'big army' even as the equipment died of old age, with no realistic hope of replacement on the necessary scale. This change led to massive (and traumatic) changes to Australia's CMF, and particularly to huge reductions in its order of battle. This phase is well described by McCarthy.

Australia had a second 'big army' phase in the 1980s, after the period McCarthy describes, when it developed the Army Force Structure Plan and the associated Army Development Guide. These documents went nowhere. Albert Palazzo covers them briefly in his The Australian Army, but Blaxland does not discuss them. Perhaps the Army is still a bit embarrassed about them.

Apart from the matter of resources for the necessary equipment, the reductions in the CMF/Army Reserve force structure during the 1960s removed the 'skeleton' on which a 'big army' might have been constructed, and the Army had spent much time in the intervening period arguing against the 'skeleton' philosophy, leaving it in a logical bind. However, during the 1980s and 1990s, the Army Reserve (as the CMF had since become), developed a viable future role. While still a bit narrower than might be possible, it is at least realistic. Taking the trauma early seems to have led eventually to a useful outcome.

Canada's army held hopes for a 'big army' for most of the post-war period, but was distracted from attempting to implement it by the NATO commitment and the Canadian political aversion to conscription. This aversion was largely caused by the reluctance of les Quebecois to accept conscription, even in time of war, when la Belle France was actually invaded. After the Second World War, the Canadian Army proposed to its government a 'big army' of two corps supported by conscription into the Militia, akin to that actually implemented by Australia in the 1950s. The proposal was rejected, and NATO became the main game for Canada after Korea.

The Canadians did not start planning again in detail for a 'big army' until the 1970s-1980s, and these plans ultimately collapsed when it became quite clear after the end of the Soviet Union that the Canadian government would not provide funding for the personnel (even if they were predominantly militia) and equipment for a force up to 200,000 strong (there were two versions, Corps 86 and Corps 96, the latter being a slightly reduced version). Students at Canada's staff college also rebelled at having to learn and be examined on organisations that they realised would probably never be implemented.

Through all this, however, the Canadian Militia retained a huge order of battle, which the regulars wanted to keep to provide the 'skeleton' for the 'big army'. (In Australia, the regulars were more willing to cut the CMF order of battle - see some of the quotes in the McCarthy review.) That Militia order of battle seems to exist still, and changing it is likely to be as traumatic for Canada as the 1960s changes to the CMF were for Australia.

One other event stood out in Kasurak's book. After being in Europe for some 35 years, at high readiness for a Third World War, less than two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union the 4th Canadian Mechanised Brigade Group was not able to be deployed to the 1990-91 Gulf War for logistic reasons. One wonders how long it would have lasted against the Soviets? Perhaps not even long enough to see the first nuclear flash! Keeping a 'big army' ready for high-level combat is clearly a very complex business. Whether small nations can do it even at brigade level seems problematic! If you can find it, read Andre Beaufre's 1974 Strategic Studies Centre book Strategy for Tomorrow for an alternative approach.

Of the three books, McCarthy and Kasurak are the pick.

My reviews of all three books are available on this blog

JOHN DONOVAN

To Win the Battle/We Lead, Others Follow

TO WIN THE BATTLE/WE LEAD, OTHERS FOLLOW

This was prepared as an email to a friend, to discuss two books that I read, but on which I did not prepare reviews. It has been lightly edited.

I think I mentioned to you that I had read Robert Stevenson's book on the 1st Division in the Great War, To Win the Battle, but did not gain any startling insights from it. I have now read the Canadian equivalent. We Lead Others Follow: First Canadian Division 1914-1918, by Kenneth Radley (Vanwell Publishing, 2006) follows a similar theme. Radley uses a thematic approach, emphasising the roles of command and control, staff work and training in the development of an effective fighting force, with a summary chapter on three Canadian battles during the Hundred Days, showing how ‘It All Came Together’.

Again, there were no startling new insights (or maybe I am just old and jaded). After all, who would possibly have guessed that good leadership, effective command and control systems, efficient staff work and vigorous training would lead to a successful fighting organisation? That said, Radley's book is very interesting, and there were some useful points of detail (such as the demands by some Canadian battalion and brigade commanders for machine guns and trench mortars to be integrated into infantry battalions, rather than operating separately, and the strong engineer elements in Canadian divisions in 1918, three battalions and a pontoon bridging unit each).

Radley's book is generally more readable, but I think he must have spent a posting (he is a retired Canadian army officer) as directing staff at a staff college, as he has a propensity to ‘grade’ orders he has found in the Canadian archives. This makes the chapters on staff development, in particular, somewhat dry reading!

Looking at both books, I get the impression that a lot of effort is going into attacking the ‘citizen soldier’ myth, that once a uniform is on a magical transition occurs from citizen to soldier. However, books like Stevenson's and Radley's are preaching to the converted. Their likely readers already know that time, training, good staff and effective commanders are needed to make an army. The real audience is (or should be) the readers of ‘pub yarns’, or popular histories. The Campaign Series is a good approach to that audience, and should be continued, if only to get a toe into the ‘pub yarn’ market.

JOHN DONOVAN