Indiska soldater i GB tjänst under ww1
Har just sett dokumentären "The lost Liner and the Empire's Gold" på BBC Learning, BBC Prime på natten.
Det handlade om tyska flottans ubåtar under ww1. En frågade varför var Indien pärlan i det brittiska imperiet? Jo, därför att 1,5 miljoner indier var soldater i GB tjänst.
Kan det verkligen stämma? Hur många soldater hade GB som var britter vid denna tid?
Var indiska soldater avgörande för brittiska slag utanför indien?
Om så, vika slag?
Indiska soldater i GB tjänst under ww1
-
Ronald Reagan
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 15
- Blev medlem: 27 maj 2005, 11:59
- Ort: Sweden
Re: Indiska soldater i GB tjänst under ww1
Den brittiska sjätte fördelningen som slogs mot ottomanerna i Irak bestod av 15 infanteribataljoner varav 11 var indiska.
MVH
Hans
edit:
Mesopotamia
Britain originally sent troops to Mesopotamia to protect its oil supplies following Turkey’s entry into the war on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary. An Indian Division occupied the port of Basra in November 1914 and when a second division arrived, the British commander, General Sir John Nixon advanced deeper into Mesopotamia. One division moved up the Euphrates to Nasiriya while the 6th Indian Division under Major-General Charles Townshend advanced 100 miles along the Tigris to Amara, which fell on 4 June 1915. Britain believed that a successful campaign in Mesopotamia would help to rally the Arabs against the Turks so Townshend was ordered to push on to Kut and then to Baghdad, some 250 miles away.
On 28 September, having inflicted heavy losses on the Turks, Townshend’s Division entered Kut and by mid November he was only 25 miles from Baghdad. But a single division was not strong enough for such an operation and sickness and lack of supplies had weakened Townshend’s force. On 21 November he was checked at Ctesiphon, suffered heavy losses and decided to retreat back to Kut where, on 7 December, the Turks surrounded him.
In early January 1916 two Indian divisions, known as Tigris Corps, were despatched to relieve Townshend’s beleaguered forces. Tigris Corps rapidly reached Hanna, about ten miles from Kut but was then unable to break through the Turkish defences. Attacks in January, March and April all failed with heavy losses. Indeed, in attempting to rescue the 13,000 men in Kut, the relieving force suffered no fewer than 23,000 casualties. By the end of April the Kut garrison was starving, sickness was rife and with no prospect of relief, Townshend was ordered to begin surrender negotiations with the Turks. On 29 April 1916 the Kut garrison surrendered and 12,000 men marched into a harsh captivity where a third were to die.
Substantial reinforcements, increased artillery and improved logistical arrangements enabled the British, under Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude to recapture Kut in February 1917. On 11 March they entered Baghdad, pushed on northwards and the following year compelled the Turkish 6th Army to surrender.
The Mesopotamian campaign had finally been won, but with 200,000 British Empire troops committed to it against far fewer Turks, the whole operation has to be seen as a drain on British resources.
http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/p ... d-war.html
MVH
Hans
edit:
Mesopotamia
Britain originally sent troops to Mesopotamia to protect its oil supplies following Turkey’s entry into the war on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary. An Indian Division occupied the port of Basra in November 1914 and when a second division arrived, the British commander, General Sir John Nixon advanced deeper into Mesopotamia. One division moved up the Euphrates to Nasiriya while the 6th Indian Division under Major-General Charles Townshend advanced 100 miles along the Tigris to Amara, which fell on 4 June 1915. Britain believed that a successful campaign in Mesopotamia would help to rally the Arabs against the Turks so Townshend was ordered to push on to Kut and then to Baghdad, some 250 miles away.
On 28 September, having inflicted heavy losses on the Turks, Townshend’s Division entered Kut and by mid November he was only 25 miles from Baghdad. But a single division was not strong enough for such an operation and sickness and lack of supplies had weakened Townshend’s force. On 21 November he was checked at Ctesiphon, suffered heavy losses and decided to retreat back to Kut where, on 7 December, the Turks surrounded him.
In early January 1916 two Indian divisions, known as Tigris Corps, were despatched to relieve Townshend’s beleaguered forces. Tigris Corps rapidly reached Hanna, about ten miles from Kut but was then unable to break through the Turkish defences. Attacks in January, March and April all failed with heavy losses. Indeed, in attempting to rescue the 13,000 men in Kut, the relieving force suffered no fewer than 23,000 casualties. By the end of April the Kut garrison was starving, sickness was rife and with no prospect of relief, Townshend was ordered to begin surrender negotiations with the Turks. On 29 April 1916 the Kut garrison surrendered and 12,000 men marched into a harsh captivity where a third were to die.
Substantial reinforcements, increased artillery and improved logistical arrangements enabled the British, under Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude to recapture Kut in February 1917. On 11 March they entered Baghdad, pushed on northwards and the following year compelled the Turkish 6th Army to surrender.
The Mesopotamian campaign had finally been won, but with 200,000 British Empire troops committed to it against far fewer Turks, the whole operation has to be seen as a drain on British resources.
http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/p ... d-war.html
Re: Indiska soldater i GB tjänst under ww1
The Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa responded to the call as quickly as they could, the earliest to send troops was India. Whereas Canada raised 629,000 men – the highest figure for any Dominion – India raised 1,440,500. Elements of the Indian Army fought in Ypres in the early battles of 1914, losing 7,000 dead in two months fighting. Their contribution was crucial to the holding of the line at a time of great danger. Without them Ypres would have fallen and the way would have been open to the Channel Ports and the war lost.
Seven battalions of the British West Indies Regiment also served on the Western Front and soldiers from Bermuda fought alongside men from the 1st Lincolnshire Regiment, maintaining a tradition that exists today. Troops from Africa also served on the Western Front as well as on the continent of Africa and in Mesopotamia.
http://www.angliabattlefields.co.uk/tou ... roops.html
The 'modern war' fought from 1916 onwards resolved itself simply into a demand for more: more men, more weapons, more ammunition, more money, more skills, more morale, more food. Some of the demands were contradictory. More men meant more men for the armies and more men for the factories. Balancing the competing demands was never easy. 'Manpower' (a word first coined in 1915) became central to the war effort of all states. The Allies were in a much stronger position than Germany. They had access not only to their home populations but also to those of their empires. 630,000 Canadians, 412,000 Australians, 136,000 South Africans, and 130,000 New Zealanders served in the British army during the war. Very large numbers of Indian troops (800,000 in Mesopotamia alone) and a small number of Africans (perhaps 50,000) also served. (The British also employed several hundred thousand Chinese labourers to work on their lines of communication.) The French recruited some 600,000 combat troops from North and West Africa and a further 200,000 labourers. And of course there were the Americans. American troops arrived in France at the rate of 150,000 a month in 1918. Truly the new world had come in to redress the balance of the old.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/ww1/bourneessay.htm
MVH
Hans
Seven battalions of the British West Indies Regiment also served on the Western Front and soldiers from Bermuda fought alongside men from the 1st Lincolnshire Regiment, maintaining a tradition that exists today. Troops from Africa also served on the Western Front as well as on the continent of Africa and in Mesopotamia.
http://www.angliabattlefields.co.uk/tou ... roops.html
The 'modern war' fought from 1916 onwards resolved itself simply into a demand for more: more men, more weapons, more ammunition, more money, more skills, more morale, more food. Some of the demands were contradictory. More men meant more men for the armies and more men for the factories. Balancing the competing demands was never easy. 'Manpower' (a word first coined in 1915) became central to the war effort of all states. The Allies were in a much stronger position than Germany. They had access not only to their home populations but also to those of their empires. 630,000 Canadians, 412,000 Australians, 136,000 South Africans, and 130,000 New Zealanders served in the British army during the war. Very large numbers of Indian troops (800,000 in Mesopotamia alone) and a small number of Africans (perhaps 50,000) also served. (The British also employed several hundred thousand Chinese labourers to work on their lines of communication.) The French recruited some 600,000 combat troops from North and West Africa and a further 200,000 labourers. And of course there were the Americans. American troops arrived in France at the rate of 150,000 a month in 1918. Truly the new world had come in to redress the balance of the old.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/ww1/bourneessay.htm
MVH
Hans