US expeditionary force in World War I

May 2011
13,465
Navan, Ireland
................................

Dear Kevin,

I cannot argument with you about English language but the phrase after which date all voluntary enlistment even for the Territorial Army ceased" I think it is easy to be understood.

After with date means after Conscription Act came into force (it is said January 27th 1916).. all voluntary enlistment (I think it means all the volunteers), the word "even for" (maybe I am wrong but I think it means including... as to say not only for the Army but also for the Territorial Army.. in any case in this forum there are hundreds specialist in English languages.. not me. But word "Even for" I understand as not even volunteers accepted in Territorial Army.. so much less in Regular Army.

No it doesn't so no matter what you'd like to believe the British army even in 1918 was still approx. 2/3 rds made up of volunteers.

I don´t want to believe nothing.. simply I write what I read in OR. You said 66% were volunteers in 1918.. Ok.. I guess you are counting people were volunteers befroe January 1916... I asked to you how to know who were volunteers or not after 1916... and I think... you don´t know how to know it.

"..The upper limit on the number of men conscripted is usually calculated by assuming that all recruits after 1 March 1916 were conscripts: 1,542,807 men, 43.7% of those who served in the Army during the war. However, Derby had enlisted 318,553 single men in Special Reserve B, who were called up in spring 1916, which reduces the conscripted to 37%. The married men who had attested in the Derby plan are harder to categorize because they were not called up from the Reserve but swept up with the rest. It seems that somewhat less than 35% of the men in the army were compelled to serve...."

Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War - Wikipedia

And you were not allowed to join the Territorial army because if you did so that meant you could opt only to serve in the British Isles.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
"..The upper limit on the number of men conscripted is usually calculated by assuming that all recruits after 1 March 1916 were conscripts: 1,542,807 men, 43.7% of those who served in the Army during the war. However, Derby had enlisted 318,553 single men in Special Reserve B, who were called up in spring 1916, which reduces the conscripted to 37%. The married men who had attested in the Derby plan are harder to categorize because they were not called up from the Reserve but swept up with the rest. It seems that somewhat less than 35% of the men in the army were compelled to serve...."

Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War - Wikipedia

And you were not allowed to join the Territorial army because if you did so that meant you could opt only to serve in the British Isles.
Ok Kevin, thanks for the answer... yes, I undestand now why not was allowed to join the Territorial force. +1
 
Sep 2018
37
America
I agree with the strategic situation was right for offensive action. I was saying the AEF had a lot to learn tactically/operational about how to conduct offensives and the AEF had not gone through the learning process that other armies had, and had not really studied the conflict from a far and learnt either, the Americans did have a attitude of they knew better (staying with square divisions for example making their formations infantry heavy and support light by the standards of late ww1) , the US was badly short of trained officers and NCOs (which was a product of massive expansion) and bringing these up to date with the fairly rapid advance of operational/tactical doctrine was a huge problem, and it's no surprise it did bring some problems to operational effectiveness. The British army faced many similar problems with it's massive expansion, in part a major factor in the somme, but the British also were ahead of other armies in some respects as they had got a reality check in the Boer War which meant they had learnt some recent lessons (the British had better rifle doctrine (rapid fire) and cavalry doctrine (moved by and large to mounted infantry) The US were behind other armies in 1914, and without direct experience they were further behind in 1918 and had not worked hard to learn from others mistakes, and would pay their own blood price to learn these in 1918.

The Strengths of the AEF were willingness to fight and ability to take causalities which was rapidly bleeding out of the other armies. (as well as it's massive numbers)[/QUOTE]


Spot on. In 1918, most senior officer in the U.S. had cut their teeth chasing Indian raiders on horseback across the Great Plains, not co-ordinating massive infantry assaults and artillery bombardments. We showed up in 1917 fighting the same way everyone else had been fighting in 1914, and it showed. It seemed like we were trying to catch up to the French and British in terms of casualties.
 
Sep 2012
910
Spring, Texas
The US Cavalry after the ACW fought as mounted Infantry against the Native Americans. Even such Horse Troopers as George Custer preferred to use his horses to get to the battle and then dismounted. The US Army also used the Philippine Insurrection as a way to train its Regulars. One of the worst problems in the US Army is so many of its senior officers were old and had never commanded large bodies of troops. This logjam of senior officers kept young promising officers at a lower rank. Keep in mind that many Indian Campaigns used Infantry as many forts on the Great Plains had a Company or two of Infantry stationed there. Some of these Infantry were mounted on Mules, but not all. At the Battle of the Rosebud, the Infantry were instrumental at turning aside Hostile attacks as their Rifles greatly outranged the carbines used by the Cavalry and the Hostiles. Crook stayed put after the Rosebud because he claimed he had shot off most of his ammunition and wanted to wait on a resupply.

Pruitt
 

Similar History Discussions