US Troops

Australia had 7 million people at the outbreak of war...we managed to field 996 thousand or close a million service personnel.

 

Where else can you go to find discussions of grease traps and mimeograph machines in the same thread?

Rich, don't forget to add manual typewriters to your list. And don't huff that mimeo fluid (more mysteries for the youngsters to puzzle over).

Nice synopsis, Shel. Was there a massive amount of available housing, depot, and storage space ready for the evicted Brits to move into? Any idea how many men were uprooted? Logistical Support of the Armies says the newly assigned American zone had about 7.5 million sq ft of covered storage. That's more than 160 acres (and doesn't include housing). Again, according to LSotA, the first of the Bolero buildup forces were already on the way when this decision was made. Not much time to pack up and move.

Slip, LSotA credits British MG Richard M. Wooten with deciding where the American zone would be. As I read it, he made the decision on the first day that the Bolero Combined Committee (London) met. That's a few pay grades above colonel. The choice was so obvious that he didn't even wait for an official survey of existing facilities.

 

what was the percentage of infantry to tankers, support, navy, etc? appears heavy in infantry from my searches....more at the 'tip of the spear' by percentage?

good call here....

what about the Pacfic theater? was there less of the tail starting at the beachehad? obviously there weren't 'long roads'/ paved roads on the islands....not as many tank battalions ..? no room or 'roads' ?.....by percentage of combat troops? they didn't need as much transport and therefore gas ??? such as Munda, Betio, etc....a lot of the long marches were foot only, supplies hand carried
even Iwo Jima is small 8 sq miles....would not need much fuel to get around, ...? Saipan 12 x 5.5 miles ......this is easily what the USMC calls 'humping' distance [ and you would not go all 12 miles in a day ]......what do the Brits and Aussies call it? yomp? I forget the term used in the Falkland War
of course more navy in the Pacific...and they had to build a lot of bases from scratch

 

One source I looked up stated that the US Merchant Marine had ~250,000 men in it over the course of the war. I'm pretty sure the German equivalent wasn't anywhere near that.

As for logistics in the Pacific vs Europe they are so different that comparing is rather problematic. The distance were greater but the fighting was very episodic with definitive starts and ends and gaps in between. If you add China in it gets even more complex IMO.

 

That is total enlistments, which is slightly different than peak strength. For example, in the United States peak strength was around 12 million, but total enlistments were about 16.1 million.

Peak Australian strength was late 1942, when about 476,000 were in the Army (including militia), but was later in 1945 for the Navy (39,650) and Air Force (152,000).

However, the peak Army strength was unsustainable and in 1942 it was reduced by 100,000 to allow personnel back into the civilian workforce.

 

from the lee marvin movie "big red one," is it true that the US first infantry had difficulty getting reserves to fill out its depleted ranks?

"the US army consists of the first infantry division, and 15 million reserves."

 

There was a serious shortage of infantry replacements in 1944-45; I expect all front-line divisions were affected.

 

Glantz listed total German armed forces at just over 13 mil.

 

Doubtful. According to Mueller-Burkhardt's P-005 Personnel and Administration, as of the peak in 1944 it was:

Feldheer 4,000,000
Ersatzheer 2,510,000
Luftwaffe 1,500,000
Kriegsmarine 810,000
Waffen-SS 600,000
Freiwilliger 350,000
Beamte, Wehrmachtsgefolge, OT, NSKK, etc. 2,300,000
Total 12,240,000

 

That would have been in 1945, when total strength dropped (except for Waffen-SS). The numbers of Volksturm mobilized is unknown.

 

Well he did say total German forces which might not be the same as peak forces. Of course, off the top of my head, it sounds a little low if you are talking total served. Would help to see exactly what he said.

 

http://sti.clemson.edu/publications-mainmenu-38/commentaries-mainmenu-211/doc_download/189-the-soviet-german-war-1941-1945-myths-and-realities-a-survey-essay


Page 14..... Total armed forces losses (German) 13,488 mil. 10,758 mil suffered in Russia.

Then again the numbers are for total German casualties throughly the war not the "peak number mobilization"?

 

double delete*

 

Delete triple post *

 

Yes, those are losses and not strength.