Royal Navy man power August 1914

[researchingreg]

Watching Jeremy Paxman's Britains Great War . He said the Army's strength at the out break of the war was 120,000 men. What was the Royal Navy's strength in manpower?

[sotonmate]

A guy called Godfrey Dykes (www.godfreydykes.info/THE STRENGTH OF THE NAVY 1882-1982) lists:

1913 - 146000

1914 - 250000

1915 - 350000 etc.

Figures a bit rounded for my liking !

There is also a book he refers to,a BR1806 The Naval War Manual,which he has included in his site.

[researchingreg]

Thanks for the information. From the rounded off figures you have found, it seems that the Royal Navy was twice as big as the standing Army in August 1914. Therefore it really was the 'Senior Service' that Britain required to project power and defend the Realm and Empire. However I do not know whether Jeremy Paxman's Army figures were just for the Regular Army or whether it included the Territorial Force. Also Britain could depend on other Army's from the Empire as well e.g the Indian Army, plus Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders etc.

Therefore the figure of Germanys' 2,000,000 men under arms does not seem quite so unequal against Britain as they were also fighting the French and Russians etc. Also the German Navy's Surface Fleet did not stand a chance against the Royal Navy.

[Gibbo]

Vol. V of 'Naval Operations', the RN official history gives 146,047 men borne in the fleet on 15 July 1914, rising to 201,017 on 15 August after the mobilisation of reserves.

The number excluding reserves at 15 August was 147,667, and 53,350 reserves had been added.

Paxman's figure for the strength of the army appears to be the number of regulars at home, which was about have the total regular strength.

'Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914-1920' gives strengths of 126,309 regulars at home and 247,439 in total on 1 August 1914.

Army Reserves, Terrtorials, Militia etc were:

Army Reserve 145,347

Special Reserve 63,933

Channel Islands, Malta & Bermuda Militia 5,554

Militia one man!

Militia Reserve 58

Territorial Force 268,777

Territorial Force Reserve 2,082

Bermuda and Isle of Man Vols 330

Total 486,312.

I think that the Militia had been replaced by the Special Reserve but that a handful of men still belonged to the Militia.

[researchingreg]

Gibbo

Thanks for the information. From your figures it seems that the Army was bigger than the Navy in manpower right from the start in August 1914 as the total including all Reserves Militia, Territorials etc (your figure 486,312) plus the Regular Army at 247,439 = 733,751 over half a million more men than the Navy. So the Army man power was not as black a picture as Paxman has claimed.

I have found these figures for the French Army

Total number mobilized in August 1914...........4,186,000

Size of active army in August 1914.................1,138,000*
Size of reserve army in August 1914...............1,658,000*
Size of territorial army in August 1914...........920,000
Size of territorial reserve in August 1914........470,000**

And these for the Russian Army all mobilised in Aug 1914

5,971,000

Even Belgium had an Army of 117,000 in Aug 1914

So the German Army at 2,000,000 men (Paxman's Figure) seems vastly out numbered its a wonder they did as well as they did to last 4 years. It seems that with reserves etc the total German Army strength in August 1914 was around 4,500,000 and their Allies Austro-Hungary Army and reserves 3,000,000.

Sorry this has strayed off Ships and Navies

[ATM]

It is interesting to keep in mind that the RN which gave Britain naval domination only cost slightly more per year than the rather small British regular army did per year which, if you add up the infantry battalions and cavalry, was the equivalent of roughly 3 cavalry divisions and 13 infantry divisions. Compare this with the size of most continental armies REGULAR units it is rather small, for example the French had 47 infantry divisions and 10 cavalry divisions. The Belgian Army wasn't far off in size compared to the British. Not only was the RN more popular with the British public it was more popular with the Chancellor too as it was perceived the RN gave more bang for its buck as the two services cost almost the same. This was something Haldane tried to address by making the army more cost efficient. He did a great job at this.

[bill24chev]

It is interesting to keep in mind that the RN which gave Britain naval domination only cost slightly more per year than the rather small British regular army did per year which, if you add up the infantry battalions and cavalry, was the equivalent of roughly 3 cavalry divisions and 13 infantry divisions. Compare this with the size of most continental armies REGULAR units it is rather small, for example the French had 47 infantry divisions and 10 cavalry divisions. The Belgian Army wasn't far off in size compared to the British. Not only was the RN more popular with the British public it was more popular with the Chancellor too as it was perceived the RN gave more bang for its buck as the two services cost almost the same. This was something Haldane tried to address by making the army more cost efficient. He did a great job at this.

Are the costs you refer to the "Running Costs" such as pay and fuel for the RN and pay and fodder for the Army or do they include "Capital" costs such as building the battleships ?

[ATM]

The costs were the annual budget that was given each for the army and navy. What the budget consisted of exactly and whether it included the costs of building capital ships I honestly don't know. I am assuming that you refer to, for example, the 1909 Naval construction programme/"We want 8 and we won't wait." I had not considered whether these Naval Construction Programmes were worked into the annual budget, or whether as they were voted through parliament, approved funds added onto the annual budget.

I have come across this comparison on the army and navy a couple of times in books, usually about the British army in the run up to the war and the effect that Haldane had on it. Robin Neillands The Old Contemptibles, and Haig: The Educated General spring to mind without the rummaging through the loft and getting all of my books out.

[Gibbo]

I have recently bought a book called The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships by Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton, which gives some information on relative army and navy expenditure.

British defence expenditure split 50.27% navy, 49.73% army in 1889-96, 38.80% navy, 61.20% army in 1897-1904 and 58.37% navy, 41.63% army in 1905-12.

Thus, spending on the two armed forces was similar in the late 19th century, more was spent on the army during the Boer War and naval expenditure dominated during the Anglo-German race.

British naval expenditure averaged £40.883m p.a. in 1910-14, of which £15.73m (38.48%) was spent on new construction.