Talk:Order of battle for the Battle of Dumlupınar

Greek strength
The Greek strength in the article is given as 220,000, quoting an encyclopedia, however a few things must be clarified:

The official (in Army histories) manpower figures given can either refer to the theoretical establishment accoridng to the official tables of organization, or to the actually present strength. To give an examle, on 31 October 1920 (Old Calendar) there was a theoretical establishment of 131,500 personnel but a present strength of 115,600 -ie a level of 88%. For the election campaign's purposes of November, Venizelos discharged the reservist class of 1915 reducing the manning level. On 1st January 1921 (OC) there were only 103,500 personnel present -ie a manning level of 78.7%. Following that low point, in March 1921 were called the 1913b, 1914 and 1915 classes, while in Arpil also the 1912 and 1913a classes, bringing 58,000 men, while an additional 12,000 local Anatolian Greeks were recruited. Still, prior to the grand summer 1921 offensives the Army of Asia Minor had on 20 June (OC) a present strength of 171,300 out of a theoretical 200,100 (ie a manning level of 85.6%). For March 1922 (last date I have found official data for present strength) the present strength of Army of Asia Minor is given as 177,000.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the Army of Asia Minor, per the request of Hatzianestis upon assuming command of the Army, incorporated the "Army of Thrace" (renamed to D' Corps on 1st June O.C.) in May 1922, thus changing its Order of Battle compared to 1921. The D' Corps on 31st July 1922 (O.C.) had 43,150 personell.

The total theoretical establishment of the Army of Asia Minor (with all Corps: A, B, C and D) is given for 1 August 1922 (OC) as 253,977. Given that there were clearly at least 40,000 men in Europe, and that the official history explicitly states that there was a problem with soldiers (and to a lesser extent officers) being absent from their posts, with or without leave, and the number of 220,000 (present strength?) which is given in the article, I believe that the Greek military personnel present on Anatolian soil in August 1922 was no more than 180,000, and possibly less than that.

Numbers quoted come all from official histories published by the Army History Directorate --Xristar (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I am not sure I agree with your conclusion. "Absent from posts" does not mean that the men and officers in question were not in Anatolia, but that they were not in their designated units at the front, instead lounging hundreds of kilometers behind in the casinos and cafes of Smyrna. That is a well-known fact. The IEE does not make a claim that there were 220,000 front-line combatants, indeed it is explicitly stated in the article that front-line strength amounted to ca. 80,000 out of a total (on paper?) strength of 220,000. The figures you give IMO rather support the approximate 220,000 figure for the Asia Minor Army (probably plus some Circassian and other auxiliaries here and there), but this merits further examination. Perhaps we could simply add that this is a "theoretical" figure? BTW, if you have access to the Army History Directorate's histories, please add whatever you can to this and other articles. Constantine  ✍  12:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a correct observation I had not thought about. Although men away from their units are the similarly useless wether they're back in Greece or in having a good time in Anatolian casinos. However my point is that there seems to have been the standard practice of the Army to keep its manning level at ~85-88% of its theoretical establishments. After all there was a constant strong pressure to discharge the older reservist classes. That means that for a theoretical strength of 254,000 there would be and actual strength of 216,000-223,000, which agrees to the reference quoted. From that we must deduct about 43,000 that were positioned in Thrace (though still part of the Army of Asia Minor) and we have a -very consistent- ca 180,000 men actually present with their units in Asia Minor, in August 1922. I have access to pretty much all the official Army volumes but not at all times. --Xristar (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but who says that the IV Corps in Thrace was 100% manned? If we apply the ~85-88% criterion, then we should apply it throughout the army, i.e. from a nominal force of 253,977 we subtract 43,000 men for IV Corps, and are left with 211,000 men (nominal) for Asia Minor. That's pretty close to the IEE numbers (which no doubt also rely on Army History Directorate figures). The real number was of course far lower, whether through under-manning (your criterion would give some 185,000 actual soldiers in Anatolia) or through loafing away from the front, leaving the 80,000 effectives mentioned in the article. However in the absence of hard facts or a direct citation, it would probably break WP:OR to say directly "there were in reality 185,000 men". That's why I suggest making clear that the 220,000 is a nominal number, perhaps with a footnote as a historical note on troop strength levels summarizing what you wrote above. Constantine  ✍  13:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the IEE number should be reliable and based on an official military number -most certainly representing the "present" strength of the Army at some point (probably on 1st August 1922). My main purpose in writing my original post was to make sure people realise that after Hatzianestis tokk command of the Army of Asia Minor, the Greek forces in Thrace were added to the Army's strength, without in fact there being any change in the Greek disposition in Anatolia. It's simply a statistical thing, but I think is also misleading without a clarification note, since the units in Thrace took no part in the Asia Minor operations. The strength of D' (or "IV" ...why?) Corps was some 29,500 on 1st June and increased to 43,000 in July, for the planned for mid-July offensive towards Constantinople which never materialised. Although I can't be certain, combat formations had a higher manning level than rear area formations. I assume the high command would have made sure the IV Corps was well manned since it was going ont he offensive. But that's just an assumption. The "80,000 effectives" clearly refers to the so-called "combatant strength", a statistical thing again which refers to the infantry & cavalry battalions' strength. This statistic is often used in the Greek histories to show that the "real" numbers of the Greek army were not that bigger than the Turkish (because in total strength there was at some times a pretty big difference). However to give some perception, the Greek "combatant" strength just prior to the Sakarya offensive is given as 77,060 personnel out of a "present" strength of 183,500 (Επίτομος Ιστορία Εκστατείας Μικράς Ασίας of ΔΙΣ, page 209). According to same source, the combatant strength dropped to 69,500 after the end of operations.--Xristar (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, feel free to edit as you see fit to incorporate this information into the article, I trust your judgement. On the naming of the Corps, English practice (and European/Western practice in general) uses Latin numerals for Corps, Arabic for divisions. In Greece, we use the Greek system for Corps, and Latin numerals for divisions. Per WP:ENG it is best to use the more familiar and widespread system. "A' Corps" looks a bit weird to a non-Greek. Constantine  ✍  15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response. Thanks for the confidence. I'm not really home right now. I'll see what I'll do when I get back. I think the correct is to just add a description IV Corps in the Army's order of battle. --Xristar (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)