Gareth Davies Posted 17 November , 2013 Share Posted 17 November , 2013 I have managed to get my hands on an original copy of 'Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire 1914 - 1920' (sadly I don't get to keep it) and am slightly confused by the figures given for the strength of the Tank Corps in 1916 (which I know wasn't called the Tank Corps back then). It lists the officer monthly strengths as: May 16 - 133 Jun 16 - 58 Jul 16 - 198 Aug 16 - 181 Why did the number drop so sharply in in Jun 16 or is it just a typo where they should have written 158? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 18 November , 2013 Author Share Posted 18 November , 2013 I have amended the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin ss002d6252 Posted 18 November , 2013 Admin Share Posted 18 November , 2013 I have managed to get my hands on an original copy of 'Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire 1914 - 1920' (sadly I don't get to keep it) Its available as a pdf download here - https://archive.org/details/statisticsofmili00grea Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 18 November , 2013 Author Share Posted 18 November , 2013 Thanks Craig. Any ideas on the figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 18 November , 2013 Share Posted 18 November , 2013 I would have thought a drop at that time was unlikely. The new companies had formed the previous month so makes no sense to me at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 19 November , 2013 Author Share Posted 19 November , 2013 Indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 19 November , 2013 Share Posted 19 November , 2013 I have come across the occasional typo in Statistics. Because I was transcribing some of the figures into spreadsheets, I noticed that some of the columns did not agree with the printed figures. I would suggest that the June figure should be 158, not 58. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now