The ANZAC troops. Physical aspect

Hi all,

I know that this could seem quite a strange question, but I am curious and, maybe, it could be useful for my next historical book.

I have just realized that in the most part of the books I read, concerning the North African campaign during the WWII (not only about El Alamein), the ANZAC soldiers were ofter described as "giants". "The highest warriors never seen". "Very tall". "Enormous soldiers".
The last book I read, "Knight's Cross" by David Fraser, about Erwin Rommel, continues to repeat such descriptions.

I would like to know if this was just an impression or the true. For instance, I know that the Italian males were lower than today; I am 1.87 high, my brother even more, the most part of my friends exceed 1.80 meters high.
Do you have any paragraph or book chapter, statistic or historical analysis about the height of the soldiers from Australia and New Zealand?

Thank you all and have a nice day from the very rainy Milan.

Marco

 

Varasc. I can't give any statistical evidence regarding height but I can tell you that present day Australian and Kiwis are generally no taller (or shorter) than the average European. My height is 1.76m and the people around me are roughly the same - with a few notable exceptions. So unless they have shrunk since the war...
What might have given the impression of them being giants was their build. Many of the ANZACS came from physical occupations, farming or work associated with farming being most common. Such physical activity and that they were comparatively well-fed and so were physically 'robust' might have given the impression of them being giants.
When I look back at old photos of (say) British soldiers I am struck by their generally comparatively slight build. This, of course, was no doubt due to the fact that they had just survived the "depression" when many Europeans were less well nourished than is the case today.
It's more likely that your forebears were a lot shorter than you and your friends are now and that gave the impression of height.
Pete

 

Varasc. I can't give any statistical evidence regarding height but I can tell you that present day Australian and Kiwis are generally no taller (or shorter) than the average European. My height is 1.76m and the people around me are roughly the same - with a few notable exceptions. So unless they have shrunk since the war...
What might have given the impression of them being giants was their build. Many of the ANZACS came from physical occupations, farming or work associated with farming being most common. Such physical activity and that they were comparatively well-fed and so were physically 'robust' might have given the impression of them being giants.
When I look back at old photos of (say) British soldiers I am struck by their generally comparatively slight build. This, of course, was no doubt due to the fact that they had just survived the "depression" when many Europeans were less well nourished than is the case today.
It's more likely that your forebears were a lot shorter than you and your friends are now and that gave the impression of height.
Pete


Thanks Pete,

I did not consider what you correctly said about the agricultural work in the field or in the woods. And probably, the good food, too.

All the pictures I saw in these books show very small Italian soldiers, as prisoners or as guards, surrounded or watching taller ANZAC soldiers.

 

Can only agree with Kiwi Geordie as it was fairly obvious to most - even Rommel- that the Anzacs were much taller and more physically developed than most Europeans at that time owing to their outdoor activities and good food - was also the main reason that David Stirling built the SAS originally with New Zealand farmer types as they could "read" the countryside better than the City bred Europeans - the difference is not quite so obvious to-day as they too have discovered "city" life to the onset of mechanisation of farming.
Cheers

 

Tom, I also recall that comment about Kiwis and their ability to 'read' the country and it always puzzled me why someone from the Canterbury Plains or the rolling hils of the Manawatu should be so adept in the desert

 

There is a certain amount of mythology surrounding the 'bush ANZAC.' Australia has always been a highly urbanized society, with the great majority of its population concentrated in its littoral cities and towns. And its armed forces reflected those demographic realities as well:

"Only about 20 percent of the Australians who served overseas in World War I (WWI), dubbed ‘the war to end all wars’, were actually from the bush. There are far more accountants and wool store clerks on the rolls held at the Australian War Memorial than there are station hands and farm labourers, yet the legend persists. European war correspondents wrote of “tall, sun-bronzed Australians”, but the Anzacs were no taller on average than the men from other countries in the Empire."


Indeed, there were probably more agricultural laborers in the Italian Army of the 1940s than in the Australian.

Best, Alan

 

All the pictures I saw in these books show very small Italian soldiers, as prisoners or as guards, surrounded or watching taller ANZAC soldiers.

If they were official photographs, it's possible the differently-sized subjects were chosen for their propaganda value. If that was the case, Rommel swallowed it.

 

Interesting statistic Alan but I wonder what the numbers were for Kiwis which was much more of a rural population at that time.
Pete

 

Point taken - I share the bad habit of forgetting that there's a 'NZ' in 'ANZAC.'

However, New Zealand hasn't been a predominantly rural society since before the First World War. By the 1940s about two thirds of the population lived in urban areas.

Best, Alan

 

Alan/ Kiwi
Then the difference must be that of diet as the general European men were undernourished as a consequence of the great depression - whereas the Anzacs still had a better diet albeit lamb and beef ad nauseum.

On a visit to those two countries I popped into a butchers in Melbourne for something for dinner and was astonished at the sheer size of the steaks available for a most reasonable price- now at that time living in Canada with it's 24oz steaks - this was something to behold - but NOT unusual- same at Christchurch - Oamaru- Dunedin on the South Island of NZ - it was lamb most of the time..and had been for along time before

KIWI the fact that a farmer in the hills of NZ KNOWS that there is yet another hill beyond the one he is looking at is the same as Knowing that beyond that sand ridge is another sand ridge which might be hiding an enemy force/a few sheep - where a city boy might think that all that is behind that ridge is a pub ! That also is the main reason for Tanks not to drive helter skelter over any ridge as he exposes his weak underbelly to an A/T gun- so he has a careful look first- if he can !
Cheers

 

Grandfather also talked about the outnumbered British Expeditionary Force (BEF) that faced the might of the German army and mentioned what appeared to be for him “the tall Canadian soldiers” that heroically held ground and survived the heavy bombardment

All adults look large when you are about two and a half feet tall but when the Canadians arrived, I had never seen such big people. Their uniforms were similar style to the British services but better made with better material but even from a distance I could tell the difference- their height was the give away. Any group of British Soldiers had the occasional big man but it was clear to me that all Canadians were six foot plus.


Seems to be a similar observation for all the 'colonials'.

 

OK guys. I finally have proof positive that Kiwis were a lot shorter than their Australian cousins as the attached pic will clearly show.
Pete

 

Taller, but similar..............

 

Trust ewe..

 

I'm 6' 4'' plus, my youngest brother about the same, my father was about 0.5 inch shorter than me, my paternal grandad about the same height as my dad. Nothing unusual about our height, during WWII or now.

One of my best mates, who I played rugby with - now deceased - and British was circa 6' 10" and he was married to a KIWI who was about 5' nothing. The only difference between us and NZ'ers is that we don't have such a great interest in sheep. Baaa!

Best,

Steve.

 

The only difference between us and NZ'ers is that we don't have such a great interest in sheep. Baaa!

Best,

Steve.[/QUOTE]

Steve. Everyone needs a hobby...
Pete

 

Steve. Everyone needs a hobby...
Pete[/QUOTE]

Agreed Pete, and I am pleased that following your move to NZ that you have chosen the WW2TALK forum.

 

I am just off six foot and am considered very big. I was Number 8 and number 7 and captain in my school ruby team. The only person ever in my family who was as big as me is my Grandfather who was a paratrooper in ww2. My older brother speaks of this often about it and says this is where I get my build from. My Nan always says about my Grandfather how strong and big he was. He lost a lot of weight after he was taken prisoner at Arnhem. I think he was consider above average height, he did a a drop in north Africa. I think he was was consider tall at the time.

 

I'm 6' 4'' plus, my youngest brother about the same, my father was about 0.5 inch shorter than me, my paternal grandad about the same height as my dad. Nothing unusual about our height, during WWII or now.

One of my best mates, who I played rugby with - now deceased - and British was circa 6' 10" and he was married to a KIWI who was about 5' nothing. The only difference between us and NZ'ers is that we don't have such a great interest in sheep. Baaa!

Best,

Steve.

Back to the thread (kind of). I come from a pit village and most of the men (miners) were short but built like brick karzis. Wasn't that the reason for the formation of the WW1 'bantam' regiments? To rope-in the undersized blokes?
I would have said your family's height was more the exception than the rule.
As for your mate's 5' Kiwi wife - sounds like he was short-changed
Cheers,
Pete

 

There can be quite a difference in a few generations. My paternal grandfather, a WW1 vet, was 5' 8", my father was 6' 0", I am 6' 2" and both my sons are approx. 6" 4".