Turkey OOB/TO&E

[Red]

Does anyone have the slightest idea about turkish OOB/TO&E 1939-40?

If so would they care to share their knowledge with me? :)

[Ben Turner]

This site has most of the information I have on Turkey.

http://www.members.tripod.com/~marcin_w/index-2.html#

Let me know if you want tank and aircraft strengths.

[Red]

I know that site.

Hopefully you dont base your scenarios on that kind of general knowledge. :cool: :)

I was hoping to get my hands on something more detailed

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red
I know that site.

Hopefully you dont base your scenarios on that kind of general knowledge. :cool: :)

I was hoping to get my hands on something more detailed

Nothing more detailed exists. A friend of mine was doing research for a 1920s Greco-Turkish war and could not find ANY detailed sources on the Turkish Army for any pre-modern era in English- this using the library at UC Berkeley, which IIRC is a copyright library.

If I wanted to make a scenario regarding the Turks I would use the above site and common sense: for example 108 rifle squads, 36 MMGs and some (say 12) mortars (say 81mm) make an infantry regiment. That's going to be pretty bloody close to reality. I'll also look up other people's scenarios on the same subject- and if they look convincing I'll E-mail them and ask what their sources were.

If you find a better source you're welcome to use it- just I think you're going to be disappointed.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


Nothing more detailed exists. A friend of mine was doing research for a 1920s Greco-Turkish war and could not find ANY detailed sources on the Turkish Army for any pre-modern era in English- this using the library at UC Berkeley, which IIRC is a copyright library.

If I wanted to make a scenario regarding the Turks I would use the above site and common sense: for example 108 rifle squads, 36 MMGs and some (say 12) mortars (say 81mm) make an infantry regiment. That's going to be pretty bloody close to reality. I'll also look up other people's scenarios on the same subject- and if they look convincing I'll E-mail them and ask what their sources were.

If you find a better source you're welcome to use it- just I think you're going to be disappointed.

Yep, In this case I agree with you.

I was just hoping someone would pop up with some "hidden" knowledge.

Btw, I hope you noticed the smileys in that last post... :cool:

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red
Yep, In this case I agree with you.

I was just hoping someone would pop up with some "hidden" knowledge.

Well like I said I have tank and aircraft strengths. The former from http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks which I guess you already know. The latter I don't recall the source- something internet based.

[Grant]

There's a detailed study of the Turkish(Ottoman, actually) Army during WWI. I believe it's titled Ordered to Die. I've also got an article about the Greco-Turkish War on my hard drive somewhere that has some formation names and some basic TOE information for the Greeks and Turks. It's really just a general history, but there's not much or anything else out there. As far as the WWII time period, I haven't a clue.

[Bill II]

This OOB is from the GRD boardgame Western Desert. I don't know how accurate it is, but it could be a starting point. The game has the Garrison X's are shown as artillery X's due to their Arty heavy TO&E's. I hope this helps.
BL

Sept 1939 Peacetime Army:

Erdirne
28th Inf XX
46th Inf XX
Edirne Border X

Luleburgaz
1st Lt Arm XX
52nd Inf XX
2nd Cav XX

Corlu
103rd Art III

Catalca
1st Inf XX
Catalca Garrison X

Tekirdag
61st Inf XX

Geliboulu (Galipoli)
19th Inf XX

Zonguldak
Zonguldak Garrison X

Uskudar
33rd Inf XX

Izmit
23rd Inf XX
Izmit Garrison X

Canakkale
20th Inf XX
Canakkale Garrison X

Samsun
15th Inf XX

Bursa
11th Inf XX

Edremit
4th Inf XX

Balikesir
102nd Art III

Eskisehir
104th Art III

Zile
108th Lt Art III

Ankara
8th Inf XX

Izmir
16th Inf XX
57th Inf XX
Izmir Garrison XX (Cadre Strength)

Kars
Kars Garrison X

Afyonkarahisar
101st Lt Art III

Sarikamis
9th Inf XX

Sivas
12th Inf XX

Erzurum
Erzurum Garrison X
109th Lt Art III

Erzincan
3rd Inf XX

Kayseri
106th Lt Art III

Isparta
6th Inf XX

Mugla
Mugla Mtn X

Near Mount Ararat
1st Cav XX
Agri Dagi Mtn X

Konya
5th Inf XX
105th Lt Art III

Nigde
41st Inf XX

Elazig
17th Inf XX
Elazig Mtn X

Siirt
2nd Inf XX

Diyarbakir
107th Lt Art III

Adana
7th Inf XX

Gaziantep
Islahiye Mtn X

Urfa
14th Inf XX
14th Cav XX
Urfa Border X

Any Rail Hex
1st Railroad Repair III

Aircraft
50 A-19 (1930's Vultee single engine attack plane - use A-17?)
50 Blenheim MkI
50 He-111F
50 P.24
50 Mixed Fighters (Use Biplane fighters late?)

Navy
1 Battlecruiser Yavuz (Goeben)
10 Destroyers

Costal defense batteries at...
Zonguldak
Izmit
Izmir
Istambul
Canakkale

Partial Mobilization: (2 weeks)
Add ...

Edirne
Edirne Garrison X

Kirklareli
Kirklareli Garrison X

Just North of Istambul
Istambul Bogazi Garrison X

Convert...

Agri Dagi Mtn X > 1st Mtn XX
Mugla Mtn X > 18th Mtn XX
IslaHiye Mtn X > 39th Mtn XX
Edirne Border X > 10th Inf XX

To full strength...
Izmir Garrison XX

Partial Mobilization: (2-5 weeks)
Add ...

Up to 1 XX & 1 Non-XX per city
13th Inf XX
24th Inf XX
25th Inf XX
34th Inf XX
35th Inf XX
68th Inf XX
1st AA III
2nd AA III
3rd AA III
4th AA III
1st Eng III
2nd Eng III
3rd Eng III
110th Art III
111th Art III
112th Art III
113th Art III

Full Mobilization: (6-9 weeks)
Add ...

Up to 1 XX & 1 Non-XX per city
Egirdir Mtn XX
Van Mtn XX
21st Inf XX
22nd Inf XX
32nd Inf XX
45th Inf XX
50th Inf XX
63rd Inf XX
64th Inf XX
67th Inf XX
72nd Inf XX
119th Inf XX
4th Cav XX
117th Lt Art III
118th Lt Art III
120th Art III
126th Lt Art III
150th Art III
229th Lt Art III
240th Lt Art III

[Red]

Excellent!!!! :)

GRD usually is VERY accurate...

Thank you

Btw, there may be a question about copyright when you post this... :confused:

[Colin Wright]

I'd note that the above list of Turkish formations needs to be taken in conjunction with the following observations.

1. The total list adds up to the equivalent of perhaps fifty divisions nine weeks after mobilization.

2. For comparison, nine weeks after mobilization, Hitler's Germany was fielding something like 100 divisions.

3. Turkey's population in 1939 was seventeen million -- slightly less than a quarter of 1939 Germany's.

4. Turkey in 1939 was a far less modern state than 1939 Germany. Non-modern states lack both the organization and resources to draft and equip anything like the same proportion of their population as a modern state.

Taking (3) and (4) into account, it's hard to imagine Turkey fielding an army much larger than a sixth of Germany's 1939 army -- I'd go for a tenth, myself. Since the nominal number of Turkish divisions -- fifty -- is fully half as many as the number initially raised by Germany, something obviously has to give.

Either the above OOB should be disregarded, or one should assume that a Turkish 'division' was between a third and a fifth of the size that we normally associate with the word.

[Red]

Hmm, usually GRD is thrustworthy... :o But I agree that your points are very valid...

Perhaps Bill II could tell us what strenght GRD gives their Turkish Div's?

Then we can compare then to other GRD Div's.

Typical values:

A Greek Mtn Div is 5-6
A German Inf Div is 8-6 or 7-6
German 2.Pz Div is 11-10
A Bulgarian Inf Div is 5-6 or 4-6

[Ben Turner]

Considering the Turkey's situation at the time I would that a rather higher proportion of the manpower of their divisions would be in the combat arms- suppose the divisions are 5,000 strong. That still allows for a reasonable number of squads if one assumes a lack of support staffs and heavy weapons. Turkish formations should of course have low supply effeciency etc. to represent the shortcomings of their divisions.

[Grant]

Some research into the influence of the sundry military missions that Turkey had contracted would be of some use, too. Moorehead's Gallipoli goes into this a bit; as I remember, most of the major western powers were competing for influence with the Turkish military, sometimes to the point of having dual missions- a British and a German naval training mission, for example. This was before WWI, however- one would really need to try and dig up details of what happened with the army after WWI or especially after the Greco-Turkish War. If Turkey was emulating anyone at that time, I'd suspect that it would have been Germany. Pre-WWI, the British had alienated the Young Turks and was responsible for pushing Turkey into becoming one of the Central Powers. Kemal had been a member of that group- I suspect that some of that ill feeling would have remained.

[Bill II]

Here's the OOB with counter strengths added. The numbers are strength when attacking, strength when defending & movement. The asterisks on divisions mean they only have a Bn. of field arty rather than a rgt. The asterisks on non divisions mean they have a Bn. of field arty rather than none, The exception being Arty Rgts (all artillery) & Garrison Bdes (Mostly artillery).

In 1991 Turkey had a larger army than Germany with a smaller population. The figures below are from "The Military Balance 1991-1992" and do not include Navy & Airforce personel.

Germany
Population = 76,877,400
Acitive = 335,000
Reserves = 857,000

Turkey
Population = 56,981,800
Acitive = 470,000
Reserves = 950,000

Turkey had a 3rd world army in 1940. With almost no mechanization. with fewer men being sucked up by support troops, The Air Force & the Navy. you can put a lot of rifles on people's sholders.

Sept 1939 Peacetime Army:

Erdirne
28th Inf XX 4-5-6
46th Inf XX 4-5-6
Edirne Border X 1-2-5

Luleburgaz
1st Lt Arm XX 6-4-8
52nd Inf XX 4-5-6
2nd Cav XX 4-4-8*

Corlu
103rd Art III 1-2-8

Catalca
1st Inf XX 4-5-6
Catalca Garrison X 1-1-4

Tekirdag
61st Inf XX 4-5-6

Geliboulu (Galipoli)
19th Inf XX 5-5-6

Zonguldak
Zonguldak Garrison X 1-1-4

Uskudar
33rd Inf XX 4-5-6

Izmit
23rd Inf XX 4-5-6
Izmit Garrison X 0-1-4

Canakkale
20th Inf XX 4-5-6
Canakkale Garrison X 1-2-4

Samsun
15th Inf XX 4-5-6

Bursa
11th Inf XX 4-5-6

Edremit
4th Inf XX 4-5-6

Balikesir
102nd Art III 1-2-8

Eskisehir
104th Art III 1-2-8

Zile
108th Lt Art III 1-1-8

Ankara
8th Inf XX 4-5-6

Izmir
16th Inf XX 4-5-6
57th Inf XX 4-5-6
Izmir Garrison XX (Cadre Strength) 2-2-4

Kars
Kars Garrison X 0-1-4

Afyonkarahisar
101st Lt Art III 1-1-8

Sarikamis
9th Inf XX 4-5-6

Sivas
12th Inf XX 4-5-6

Erzurum
Erzurum Garrison X 1-1-4
109th Lt Art III 1-1-8

Erzincan
3rd Inf XX 4-5-6

Kayseri
106th Lt Art III 1-1-8

Isparta
6th Inf XX 4-5-6

Mugla
Mugla Mtn X 2-2-8*

Near Mount Ararat
1st Cav XX 4-4-8*
Agri Dagi Mtn X 2-2-8*

Konya
5th Inf XX 4-5-6
105th Lt Art III 1-1-8

Nigde
41st Inf XX 4-5-6

Elazig
17th Inf XX 4-5-6
Elazig Mtn X 2-2-8*

Siirt
2nd Inf XX 4-5-6

Diyarbakir
107th Lt Art III 1-1-8

Adana
7th Inf XX 4-5-6

Gaziantep
Islahiye Mtn X 2-2-8*

Urfa
14th Inf XX 4-5-6
14th Cav XX 4-4-6
Urfa Border X 1-2-5

Any Rail Hex
1st Railroad Repair III 0-0-6

Aircraft
50 A-19 (1930's Vultee single engine attack plane - use A-17?)
50 Blenheim MkI
50 He-111F
50 P.24
50 Mixed Fighters (Use Biplane fighters late?)

Navy
1 Battlecruiser Yavuz (Goeben)
10 Destroyers

Costal defense batteries at...
Zonguldak
Izmit
Izmir
Istambul
Canakkale

Partial Mobilization: (2 weeks)
Add ...

Edirne
Edirne Garrison X 1-1-4

Kirklareli
Kirklareli Garrison X 1-1-4

Just North of Istambul
Istambul Bogazi Garrison X 1-1-4

Convert...

Agri Dagi Mtn X > 1st Mtn XX 4-4-8
Mugla Mtn X > 18th Mtn XX 4-4-8
IslaHiye Mtn X > 39th Mtn XX 4-4-8
Edirne Border X > 10th Inf XX 4-4-6

To full strength...
Izmir Garrison XX 3-6-4

Partial Mobilization: (2-5 weeks)
Add ...

Up to 1 XX & 1 Non-XX per city
13th Inf XX 4-4-6*
24th Inf XX 4-4-6*
25th Inf XX 4-4-6*
34th Inf XX 4-4-6*
35th Inf XX 5-5-6
68th Inf XX 4-4-6*
1st AA III 0-0-8
2nd AA III 0-0-8
3rd AA III 0-0-8
4th AA III 0-0-8
1st Eng III 0-0-6
2nd Eng III 0-0-6
3rd Eng III 0-0-6
110th Art III 1-2-8
111th Art III 1-2-8
112th Art III 1-2-8
113th Art III 1-2-8

Full Mobilization: (6-9 weeks)
Add ...

Up to 1 XX & 1 Non-XX per city
Egirdir Mtn XX 3-3-8*
Van Mtn XX 2-2-8*
21st Inf XX 3-3-6*
22nd Inf XX 3-3-6*
32nd Inf XX 2-2-6*
45th Inf XX 2-2-6*
50th Inf XX 3-3-6*
63rd Inf XX 3-3-6*
64th Inf XX 2-2-6*
67th Inf XX 3-3-6*
72nd Inf XX 3-3-6*
119th Inf XX 2-2-6*
4th Cav XX 3-3-8*
117th Lt Art III 1-1-8
118th Lt Art III 1-1-8
120th Art III 1-2-8
126th Lt Art III 1-1-8
150th Art III 1-2-8
229th Lt Art III 1-1-8
240th Lt Art III 1-1-8

[Colin Wright]

Originally posted by Bill II
...In 1991 Turkey had a larger army than Germany with a smaller population....

(long pause). Germany's not exactly fully mobilized at the moment though, is she? The relative sizes of the Turkish and German populations and armies NOW are completely irrelevant.

While you do make some excellent points otherwise, and while for lack of anything better, I will probably take the GRD OOB as at least a starting point, it remains highly questionable for the reasons I have given.

It's a shame the practice of footnoting doesn't exist in wargame design the way it does in academic writing. It would be nice to know if the GRD designer who came up with this OOB had an actual source or if he just winged it when he couldn't find anything. I'm not criticizing the latter approach if that was what he had to do -- but it would be nice to know.

Assuming that most of the listed formations existed on paper somehow, my guess is that they were little more than devices for channelling conscripts and resources -- that is to say, largely static formations, of no particular strength and incapable of supplying themselves with munitions on the march, etc. Offhand, I'd figure Turkey was probably good for perhaps a dozen divisions capable of moving and fighting. For lack of anything better, one could look at Yugoslavia and Greece, their population in 1939, and see how many divisions they could put into the field and how good they were.

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by Colin Wright

Either the above OOB should be disregarded, or one should assume that a Turkish 'division' was between a third and a fifth of the size that we normally associate with the word.

I gather you have not read much about the Turks in WWI as this would put right a number of offbase assumptions here. A few items:

1. The total list adds up to the equivalent of perhaps fifty divisions nine weeks after mobilization.

In WWI the Turks raised over 66 divisions; granted, you can subtract about 14 divisions or so that were local Arab nationals in Syria, Iraq, and Arabia etc. Still, if they could raise 50+ in WWI I imagine they could in WWII. My own research came up with 25 on the Caucasus front alone in 1942.

2. For comparison, nine weeks after mobilization, Hitler's Germany was fielding something like 100 divisions.

Perhaps, but again, Turkey had 40 pre-war divisions in 1914.

3. Turkey's population in 1939 was seventeen million -- slightly less than a quarter of 1939 Germany's.

Population stats are far more relevant taken in conjunction with % of men of prime military age--as the Germans found out in Russian 1941-44.

4. Turkey in 1939 was a far less modern state than 1939 Germany. Non-modern states lack both the organization and resources to draft and equip anything like the same proportion of their population as a modern state.

Yes and even more of disparity in WWI; nonethless, they raised some 67 divisions 1914-18.

The obvious reality here (again, this is a given in WWI studies), is that Turkish divisions were far smaller than their western counterparts, both in TO&E, but also in actual number of effectives present at any given time. Turkish divisions in WWI were often 2/3 understrength.

Re academic sources, you will find its a tight business getting good orbats and when you work your butt off digging out your own (often demanding long hours sifting through original source documents, often not in English), you might not be keen to toss it out to whomever wants it as a freebie. Nafziger charges for detailed OBs, as does Glantz, and orbat.com, which has perhaps the most comprehensive orbat collection in existence, at least for modern armies. I sometimes get OBs from them by trading one of my own.

GRD/GDW has always done fine work.

D.

[Colin Wright]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg


I gather you have not read much about the Turks in WWI as this would put right a number of offbase assumptions here.

Yes -- I like you too, Dan. I'd love to match reading lists with you on WW1 Turkey -- but shall we try to keep it civil? As a preliminary, I'll note that using the performance of an Asiatic empire reaching from the Bosphorus to the Red Sea in 1914 as a yardstick for measuring the potential of a republic consisting primarily of Anatolia in 1941 is questionable. However...

A few items:


In WWI the Turks raised over 66 divisions; granted, you can subtract about 14 divisions or so that were local Arab nationals in Syria, Iraq, and Arabia etc. Still, if they could raise 50+ in WWI I imagine they could in WWII. My own research came up with 25 on the Caucasus front alone in 1942.


Perhaps, but again, Turkey had 40 pre-war divisions in 1914.


Population stats are far more relevant taken in conjunction with % of men of prime military age--as the Germans found out in Russian 1941-44.


Yes and even more of disparity in WWI; nonethless, they raised some 67 divisions 1914-18.

...and WW2 Germany must have raised four hundred by 1945. However, the OOB we're discussing presents the force nine weeks after mobilization. For comparison, WW2 Germany had raised about a quarter or a third of the 1945 number by the end of October 1939. Therefore, the relevant figure would be how many divisions the Turks had raised in Anatolia and Thrace alone by the end of 1914 -- not from their entire empire by the end of 1918. Not 67. You say that they had forty pre-war divisions in their entire empire -- and note below that 'they were 'often 2/3 understrength.' So the equivalent of how many full-strength divisions from Anatolia and Thrace alone in 1914? Twenty? Thirty?



The obvious reality here (again, this is a given in WWI studies), is that Turkish divisions were far smaller than their western counterparts, both in TO&E, but also in actual number of effectives present at any given time. Turkish divisions in WWI were often 2/3 understrength.

Thank you. Stop me if I'm wrong -- but isn't '2/3's understrength' the same as '1/3 strength'? I suggested that if one is to accept the number of divisions in the GRD OOB, one should assume that the divisions were between one fifth and one third of the usual divisional strength. If one takes account that even at full strength Turkish divisions probably lacked the Western norm of signals, artillery, engineers, etc, then I don't see how you've contradicted me at all. Perhaps you're agreeing with me? The GRD OOB still seems to me to necessitate a Turkish 'division' that would look like a regiment in most armies -- that is to say, somewhere between a third and a fifth of the usual TO&E.

Re academic sources, you will find its a tight business getting good orbats and when you work your butt off digging out your own (often demanding long hours sifting through original source documents, often not in English)

I doubt either you or GRD 'worked your butt off' in bloody Turkish. I can make heads if not tails of a German or Dutch document -- but Turkish? This is the problem. Some nice Wehrmacht or Imperial General Staff study buried somewhere I'm sure...trick is to find it. The French were having problems with an acquisitive Turkey in 1938 -- they would have been motivated to work out Turkey's actual military potential.



, you might not be keen to toss it out to whomever wants it as a freebie. Nafziger charges for detailed OBs, as does Glantz, and orbat.com, which has perhaps the most comprehensive orbat collection in existence, at least for modern armies. I sometimes get OBs from them by trading one of my own.

GRD/GDW has always done fine work.

D.

Be that as it may. I still would like to know the source -- and it's odd that other forms of academic endevour have not been crippled by the expectation that one justify one's statements with sources. Glantz, to take your example, certainly gives you his sources -- and you're welcome to fly on over to Russia and burrow through them for yourself without paying David a penny.

As matters stand, there're three possibilities.

1. GRD had to totally wing it when it came to the Turkish Army. Not a crime -- but in that case, it would be silly to use their OOB as a source.

2. GRD got some list of Turkish military formations. Kudos -- but how many existed on paper and how many were actually ready to fight? After all, when I recently drove through Ohio I noted a sign indicating the headquarters of the 'Fourth Ohio Police Division.' Should we assume that Ohio has at least sixty thousand troops ready to move out if Indiana gets out of hand? Obviously not. What were these Turkish 'infantry divisions' in the OOB? Fully trained and equipped combat formations? An administrative unit with a moldering barracks, a colonel, and a staff of twenty clerks? Somewhere in between? Where in between?

In Turkey's case, one would like some way of determining which of the 'divisions' could pick up sticks, move a few hundred miles, and put a few thousand armed, trained men into combat -- preferably with food and ammunition.

3. GRD's list is just fine -- and one should create a Turkish army that can throw fifty divisions over the Syrian frontier or whatever within nine weeks. This is just so overwhelmingly implausible that one has to question it. As I said, the GRD OOB shouldn't be taken at face value. No way Turkey in the forties could field an army of the size suggested so shortly after mobilization -- not if the 'divisions' are to be represented as mobile formations of 324 rifle squads, 72 artillery pieces, 36 engineer squads, etc, etc. One's right back to square one -- arbitrarily making the 'divisions' some virtually random fraction of a normal TO&E. In all likelihood, the Turks must have had some much smaller number of reasonably mobile and potent formations -- but which were they, and how many, and how strong? The GRD OOB does nothing to answer that -- and that's the relevant question.

GRD may be a wonderful company that does fine work. I'm not doubting it. I'm merely pointing out that their OOB in this instance presents obvious problems as a foundation to build upon.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
Population stats are far more relevant taken in conjunction with % of men of prime military age

Gosh. That would explain why we fielded as many Indian divisions as the USSR fielded Russian ones... why there were as many British divisions in wwii as French....

No, wait a moment.... back up a bit there...

[Stauffenberg]

"Yes -- I like you too, Dan. I'd love to match reading lists with you on WW1 Turkey -- but shall we try to keep it civil?"

I do find that hilarious after reading all the character assassination that passes for "TOAW design discussion" at your site, but nevermind. Yes do let's keep it civil here.


I'll repeat my points re Turkey in a different way. Mobilising within 9 weeks has to discuss what divisions were already set up, with reservists in place etc etc. I used WWI as an example:

Turkey had 40 pre-war divisions in 1914 and raised another 9 within 2 months after they entered the war. You need to talk about divisions raised from scratch vs divisions pre-existing in cadre form to get anywhere on the topic. But even in terms of what you think the Turks should be able to raise, and indicting the research quality of GDW, even by WWI standards the Turks have proven they are capable of raising this many formations. And btw using the German miracle of a standing start in 1933 under the severely limiting Versailles Treaty, to a world power in 1939 would dwarf any other country by comparison at the time. Its not a good example.

The divisions above are all Turkish divisions. I was perfectly clear about Turkish vs non-Turkish divisions in my post, even noting the number: some 67 total divisions, -14 for local Arab divisions, still leaves +50, 10 more than they started the war with, and the additional number were raised within months after hostilities broke out.

But let's agree that Turkish divisions were basically far below establishment strength. Every basic war history mentions this.

Re sources; yes you can get lucky in a published book by Glantz to get a good OB but the really detailed stuff... As I said, they hang on to it and self-publish. Have a look at what Glantz self-publishes sometime in terms of war atlases and volumes of detailed work.

I got my 1942 Turkish info through a German friend who was researching German records on Turkey. Apart from that my spouse speaks Turkish and we have spent a fair bit of time there which is perhaps neither here nor there, but the army is a big institute in Turkey and a powerful part of their history and social fabric. Of all the Islamic states, Turkey alone has managed to break free from a theocratically-driven government and enter the realm of the secular. The existence of a large and powerful army is key to Turkish identity, most especially after the shrinkage of boundaries post-WWI. While sources for WWII are extremely difficult (I spent an entire day at two university libraries trying to track it down and got very little for the trouble) one can be sure they were not dilatory in maintaining a large number of formations to cover their borders. 25 divisions or so on the Caucasus front alone in 1942. There is further indirect evidence if you need it in the fact that Stalin, even when the Germans were seemingly upon the verge of storming into Moscow in early winter 1941, kept no less than 4 armies in place along the Turkish border. 4 armies with... 25 divisions or so in place.

D.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
even by WWI standards the Turks have proven they are capable of raising this many formations.

Two things; "by wwi standards" a division is something different altogether. A lot less tail for the same amount of tooth. Second, again the Turks simply had far more people before 1914. They may not have been proportionally represented in the Turkish army- but they were there.

25 divisions or so on the Caucasus front alone in 1942.

Well this is like saying Germany had 120 (or whatever) divisions on the Soviet front alone at the start of June 1941.... who else is going to descend on Turkey? Is Persia suddenly going to annex Kurdistan? Is Vichy France going to make a grab for Iskendrun? Perhaps there'd be an attack from Europe- but that'd be on a narrow front and Turkish resistance would be pretty futile. If the Turks have 25 divisions facing the USSR, one can quite reasonably assume that 25 divisions represented the bulk of the Turkish army- certainly those would be the better Turkish divisions.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
I do find that hilarious after reading all the character assassination that passes for "TOAW design discussion" at your site, but nevermind.

I was going to make a detailed analysis of the thread. Calling it "character assassination" though is transparently false enough as to make that uneccessary. The highlight of the thread was Jim Burns sallying forth and opening fire on all the neutrals.

[Siberian HEAT]

Gentlemen, do not stir the pot. Take it offline if you have personal problems. This board is for relevant design issues only.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
Gentlemen, do not stir the pot.

Yeah... I realised that any "long analysis of the thread" would have a negative impact on my amount of free-time for the next week or so.... so I didn't.

Daniel, we've now had one opinion from either side on that thread. I'm going to try and keep it at that- and will advise Colin to do the same. This is me advising you of that, also.

[Colin Wright]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


Yeah... I realised that any "long analysis of the thread" would have a negative impact on my amount of free-time for the next week or so.... so I didn't.

Daniel, we've now had one opinion from either side on that thread. I'm going to try and keep it at that- and will advise Colin to do the same. This is me advising you of that, also.

And I'd posted such a fine reply on my way to work this morning, too. Technically irreproachable, taking the moral high road -- and extremely effective. Unfortunately, it didn't 'take' -- and now the fun's over. Oh well...

[Red]

Hmm, if you look at the sthrenght GDR gives the Turkish Div's, it indicates that they considered them on a equal footing to most "minor" armies Div's of that period.

This would indicate that GRD disagrees with both views in this thread, since both seems to agree that a Turkish Div should only be 1/3 of a "standard" Div ( or 2/3 understrenght :D ).

Btw, I'm not implying that GRD is correct... :)

[Colin Wright]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


Well this is like saying Germany had 120 (or whatever) divisions on the Soviet front alone at the start of June 1941.... who else is going to descend on Turkey? Is Persia suddenly going to annex Kurdistan? Is Vichy France going to make a grab for Iskendrun? Perhaps there'd be an attack from Europe- but that'd be on a narrow front and Turkish resistance would be pretty futile. If the Turks have 25 divisions facing the USSR, one can quite reasonably assume that 25 divisions represented the bulk of the Turkish army- certainly those would be the better Turkish divisions.

My own thought on that score would be that Turkey would have every reason to impress Russia with her strength on this front -- for some strange reason, Turkey has a chronic fear of Russian aggression.

There may well have been twenty five 'divisions' facing Russia -- but of what strength, and how mobile?

In assessing Turkey's strength, one has to decide: strength for what? No doubt if she was invaded, she would put a considerable number of formations into the field -- as Greece did when attacked by Italy, or on a larger scale, Russia did when attacked by Germany. I could readily accept the equivalent of thirty or so bodies of ten thousand-odd men opposing a serious incursion by either Russia or Germany -- with more to follow if the war lasts for any length of time and someone is good enough to supply more arms.

On the other hand, if we're discussing what kind of force Turkey could and would project beyond her frontiers, the number falls sharply. Here one is reminded of Russia's incredibly inept performance against Finland in 1939-40. Not that this is at all a direct parallel -- but my point is that what Turkey could muster in the way of little counters with 'xx' on top drops dramatically if we want those units marching on Baku or Salonika or Mosul or Damascus. The number that comes to mind here would be more like perhaps a dozen at most.

[a white rabbit]

..it's true that the Turks managed a large-ish army but it was very big on log-term compulsary military service which got used for other civil works purposes..road-building , standing around looking fierce with moustaches, that sort of thing..,

..how many of it's troops could have been said to be combat-useful is another question..,

[a white rabbit]

Armed Forces: In 1938 the Turkish standing army had 20 000 officers and 174 000 men. Military service lasted for three years. In 1939 the Turkish army was administrationally divided into three army inspectorates, nine corps, and one military governorship; the country's armed forces were composed of 20 infantry divisions, three brigades of mountain troops, one fortress brigade, and five cavalry divisions (including two reserve cavalry divisions) - altogether 132 regiments (60 infantry, six mountain troops, 21 cavalry, eight reserve cavalry, 20 field artillery, 10 heavy artillery, and seven fortress artillery). In early 1941 Turkey established 17 corps headquarters, 43 divisions and three independent infantry brigades, two divisions and one independent cavalry brigade, as well as two mechanized divisions. The armed forces were poorly equipped; weapons shipments from Germany, Great Britain, and U.S. did little to improve that condition. Just before the onset of hostilities the Turkish navy underwent a program of expansion and modernization; two submarines were ordered for construction in Germany, two submarines and four destroyers were ordered for construction in U.K. Lesser vessels were also constructed in home shipyards. After Germany delivered one submarine in 1939, the Turkish navy contained 19 naval vessels and they included one armoured ship, one line cruiser, two light cruisers, two torpedo-boats, four destroyers, five submarines, and four other lesser ships (most vessels were obsolete); with a total displacement of 55 775 tonnes (the number of naval personnel stood at 9 200). The real combat value of the navy was insignificant. By the end of WWII, the navy had one battle cruiser, two cruisers, two gunboats, three minesweepers, eight destroyers, 12 submarines, three motor torpedo boats, five minelayers, a surveying vessel, a depot ship, a fleet tug, a collier, and an oiler. By 1940 the Turkish air force was composed of four air regiments (each regiment contained six air companies), and had in possession a total of 370 aircraft (it had 8 500 personnel). Thanks to British and French shipments one more air regiment, along with five independent air wings, was formed in 1941. Shipments of military equipment from Germany replaced the shipments from Allied countries in the same year. Close to the end of the war, two air force divisions were organized; they together contained 15 air wings (or 30 flights). The Turkish armed forces did not participated in any military operations of WWII.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...:cheeky: ...,

..from

[Ben Turner]

Yeah- it keeps coming back to that. Red's comment on it was "Hopefully you dont base your scenarios on that kind of general knowledge."

That site is run by a "marcin_w" as far as I can tell- and he has posted occasionally at TDG. Sooner or later someone should just go right out and ask him if he has any further information on the subject. I'm sure he won't be offended.