% of army that do the fighting?

Discussion in 'General' started by adam180, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Plant Pilot -
    I suppose we all appreciate individual and group efforts in a total war but the initial posting referred to how many of the army did the actual fighting - then we drifted off topic - with Sapper's commendation of support troops then Smudger muddied the water with his tables of divisions used -the someone else with an unsubstantiated claim of 20% ... so where are we in relation to the initial posting - simple question .... how many in any one unit did the actual fighting and how many were employed in keeping those troops fighting ...is how I saw the posting...

    many threads appear to be unecessary and irelevant - but questions in postings surely demand suitable answers - then sometimes the truth comes out and all are enlightened ....Right ?

    Cheers
     
  2. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    simple question .... how many in any one unit did the actual fighting and how many were employed in keeping those troops fighting ...is how I saw the posting...

    many threads appear to be unecessary and irelevant - but questions in postings surely demand suitable answers - then sometimes the truth comes out and all are enlightened ....Right ?

    A question which is impossible to answer in my opinion. Each Army, each Corps, each Division, each Regiment/Battalion, each Squadron/Company and each Troop/Platoon has a different job to do and a different make up at different times.

    A mechanized Infantry Battalion will have a different forward and support setup (more drivers and fuel supply requirements) than a light/airborne/marine Battalion. Even then, the wartime establishment will be different from the peacetime establishment and can also change due to current operational requirements, attachments, detachments and of course BCR availability.

    So you may work it out for a particular unit at a particular point in time, but it wouldn't correlate to other units at all times or for the whole army. At the end of the day a guess is just a guess.
     
  3. adam180

    adam180 Senior Member

    Am i not aloud to ask this question plant-pilot?
    Its where my interest is, at the sharp end as others put it.
    And i did clearly say i didn't want to take anything away from what the others did.
    Oh well perhaps i shouldn't ask next time.
    Adam
     
  4. WotNoChad?

    WotNoChad? Senior Member

    Without remembering the source I seem to recall how it was around 13-15% during WWII for the Army.
     
  5. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Tsk, tsk, the familiar knee-jerk, eh? :lol:

    Pile it on! :rolleyes:
    :lol:
    I gotta a knee jerk for you, you old Portuguese restuarateur. :box2:
     
  6. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Am I not allowed to ask this question, plant-pilot?
    It's where my interest is, at the sharp end as others put it.
    And I did clearly say I didn't want to take anything away from what the others did.
    Oh well, perhaps I shouldn't ask next time.
    Adam

    There, fixed it for you.

    There is behind the back of my nebulous mind an American operational research report concerning the actual amount of riflemen who actually at least pointed their guns in the enemy's general direction. This has been quoted and misquoted a number of times, but I never did see the original report.

    Perhaps this is what you allude to, and therefore your question is justifiable.
     
  7. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Za Rodinu
    In the John Ellis book on "Cassino -The Hollow Victory" he goes into great detail of the losses in Riflemen only in each battalion and it makes for fascinating reading.. perhaps this is where you read those figures.....
    Cheers
     
  8. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    I can't say, Tom, I haven't read that book (yet), but one thing is certain, it wasn't called the PBI for nothing...

    Cheers!
    Miguel
    (before somebody thinks I'm from Transylvania or whatever :D)
     
  9. Capt.Sensible

    Capt.Sensible Well-Known Member

    There, fixed it for you.

    There is behind the back of my nebulous mind an American operational research report concerning the actual amount of riflemen who actually at least pointed their guns in the enemy's general direction. This has been quoted and misquoted a number of times, but I never did see the original report.

    Perhaps this is what you allude to, and therefore your question is justifiable.

    That would be Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War S.L.A. Marshall (19470. I think we've had a thread running on this source before. Have a look here to out it in context:
    S.L.A. Marshall's Ratio of Fire

    CS:)
     
  10. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Am i not aloud to ask this question plant-pilot?
    Its where my interest is, at the sharp end as others put it.
    And i did clearly say i didn't want to take anything away from what the others did.
    Oh well perhaps i shouldn't ask next time.
    Adam

    Wouldn't it be better to ask a question that has a remote possibility of being answered, other than with guess work and conjecture. Many soldiers other than just the Infantry Platoons and Tank troops got in situations where they had to exchange small arms fire with the enemy...... how on earth do you quantify them, or do you ignore them and only look at who were 'supposed' to do the 'real fighting'?

    Just my opinion you understand.
     
  11. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    In the Pacific theatre of operations for every US Marine island hoping he was supported by a further nine men.

    Just to quote my where the info came from.

    It was a documentary on the Military History Channel about the USMC in the Pacific during WW2 when the figures were quoted.
     
  12. 51highland

    51highland Very Senior Member

    As Plant pilot inferred, there is no hard and fast rule as to men who did the 'actual fighting'. In the far east especially, kohima for example, all ranks, from top to bottom, stood too and fought.
     
  13. Go for it Adam,

    You asked a ball park question and got quite a few interesting comments and opinions which I should imagine was what you were after.

    What I cannot understand is why threads are diverted because someone cannot see the point in what is asked.
    Unless it is a matter of fact that needs to be corrected just leave it to those who are happily discusing the subject.

    Thats why questions like Adam asked should be allowed to be asked


    Dodn't STRESS stay HAPPY.

    My opinion Cheers.
     
  14. Noel Burgess

    Noel Burgess Senior Member

    I have to agree with Troopietraveller. Also it must be something that the "top brass" consider - if they want, say, 10,000 fighting men in a campaign they would need some idea of the total number of men, vehicles and stores this would require.
    This webpage has some interesting thoughts.
    I would also say that it depends on the "stage" of the campaign - e.g. NW Europe; there would probably be a higher proportion of fighting men in Normandy than by the time the Rhine was reached when there was a long Line of Communication, Railheads, Maintenance Areas and rest/replacement camps to be manned, guarded, policed Etc.

    Theres my thoughts
    Noel
     
  15. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    So is this about logistical tails?
    Or is it about 'shooting ratios' in front-line units?

    If the former, I've got a great article somewhere in Britain at war that looks solely at the effort put into the rail system. Just that one 'small' area had some staggering figures associated with it which I can probably dig out. No small job supporting the largest Armies assembled in History and any low percentage of the overall manpower actually being at the pointy bit does't surprise me at all.
    According to the Oxford companion to WW2, (usually pretty good on these things) : On average in the European Armies 8 soldiers were required to support each one fighting. In the Pacific 18 were required for each combatant.
    So if my maths are right (quite likely not), the rough percentages for actual allied troops engaged in fighting are:
    Europe - 11.1%
    Pacific - 5.3%

    If it's about % actually shooting in combat units then Slam's book was taken as read for 40-odd years until the last couple of decades, when serious doubt has been cast on whether he actually conducted his combat research at all.
     
  16. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Look at the picture below.

    It shows the men involved in getting one B-25 in the air. In front are the 6 members of the the flight crew. Scattered behind them visible are 17 men, although I understand that the photo is cut off and that there are actually 3 men to the right and not the one, plus an arm that can be seen.
    This photo does not include the upper command, rear area medical support, bulk logistics, intelligence types and those involved in training.

    That's a lot of tail for the teeth.

    http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/general/attachment.php?attachmentid=14091&d=1235658219
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Thats a great pic Jeff!
     
  18. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Except for some fool parking an aeroplane in front of that delightful artic & fuel trailer! - (Autocar?).

    The thing that gets me is it's nowhere near just those chaps that form the tail as a whole. Somebody's got to make the fuel, aircraft, armaments, infrastructure, equipment, etc. etc. etc. that combine to get those chaps airborne, let alone those making the orders and preparing the way for them in terms of maps, planning, training, medical, reconnaissance, and so on and so on...

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  19. Capt.Sensible

    Capt.Sensible Well-Known Member

    Except for some fool parking an aeroplane in front of that delightful artic & fuel trailer! - (Autocar?).

    The thing that gets me is it's nowhere near just those chaps that form the tail as a whole. Somebody's got to make the fuel, aircraft, armaments, infrastructure, equipment, etc. etc. etc. that combine to get those chaps airborne, let alone those making the orders and preparing the way for them in terms of maps, planning, training, medical, reconnaissance, and so on and so on...


    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    The film 'Rosie the riveter' is worth a look for the US perspective on industry and the civil population in war-time. Also rather important milestone for female rights in the workplace, as I recall.

    Rosie the Riveter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    CS
     
  20. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    You asked a ball park question and got quite a few interesting comments and opinions which I should imagine was what you were after.

    What I cannot understand is why threads are diverted because someone cannot see the point in what is asked.
    Unless it is a matter of fact that needs to be corrected just leave it to those who are happily discusing the subject.

    Thats why questions like Adam asked should be allowed to be asked


    I have to agree with Troopietraveller. Also it must be something that the "top brass" consider - if they want, say, 10,000 fighting men in a campaign they would need some idea of the total number of men, vehicles and stores this would require.
    This webpage has some interesting thoughts.
    I would also say that it depends on the "stage" of the campaign - e.g. NW Europe; there would probably be a higher proportion of fighting men in Normandy than by the time the Rhine was reached when there was a long Line of Communication, Railheads, Maintenance Areas and rest/replacement camps to be manned, guarded, policed Etc.

    For a start, I questioned the point of the question, not his right or otherwise to ask it. I feel there is a difference. I also didn't 'divert' the thread, just voice my opinion as to why it was unlikely ever to get an accurate answer. I indicated some of the shortfalls in the ability of assessing the wide and varied 'scraps' of info, that I knew would be grasped by some and used to come up with an 'across the board figure'. From the rest of the thread I can see that people are doing exactly that.

    As for the 'Top Brass' working out how many fighting men they need and then multiplying it to come up with how many troops they need? All back to front and very far from the actual planning sequence. Objectives, Axis, Boundaries and Frontages dictate the requirement for a Corps, Division, Brigade or other formation. Each has it's own integral support but there may be requirements for specialist units. Shuffle any required 'Atts & Dets' and the ORBATs will tell them how many men they are going to have. A commander never gets the number of fighting men they 'want'..... they will always want more.
     

Share This Page