Technical data about the romanian soldier in WW1

[Indrid]

the title says it all. i have a pretty good idea about the equipment of the romanian soldier in ww2 but what about ww1? spears and bows? i would appreciate an answer because i really want to know. thanks

[Florin]

QUOTE

the title says it all. i have a pretty good idea about the equipment of the romanian soldier in ww2 but what about ww1? spears and bows? i would appreciate an answer because i really want to know. thanks

Well, it was not spears and bows, but not comparable with that of the German units. For example, by 1916 a German regiment could have as much as 50-60 machine guns, while a Romanian regiment had 5-6 machine guns.

By 1916, the Western Allies and the Central Powers had available thousands of airplanes - literally. Romania's airplanes could be numbered by tens. However, we should not forget that Romania was the second country in history who used airplanes in combat. But if we pass over the priority factor, the Romanian aviation was no match for her World War I enemies before 1917.

When Romania entered in war she already had her own anti-aircraft batteries, good enough to incurr a fatal damage to the Zeppelin which attacked Bucharest in October 1916.

Most of the foreign military equipment of the Romanian Army before 1914 was German made, especially by Krupp.

Romania also had at the start of 1916 few military ships, but a I cannot tell you what happened with them during the war. Most, if not all of this little fleet was on Danube river.

The standard soldier of the Romanian army during WWI was the conscripted peasant. That was usual for the time, as only Germany, and to a lesser extent Great Britain, had a notable percentage of population living in cities.

The standard rifle issued to the average Romanian soldier was not inferior to the standard rifle used by the average enemy soldier.

Now, if you look to a map of Europe as it was in 1914, you'll see the lenght of the Romanian borders, compared with the surface of her territory. That was the big problem. In August 1916, Romania had front lines two times longer than the French front, but her forces were ten times smaller than those of the Western Allies combined. Under this light, the fact that Romania managed to continue her war until Lenin pulled Russia out in the spring of 1918 is a performance itself.

Regards,
Florin

PS: The only notable army who literally had swords, spears and bows as standard equipment at the eve of the 20th century was the army of the Chinese Empire. That meant a lot of teritorial losses during China's lost wars, under the reign of Empress Cixi, who died in 1902. In 1911 China became republic after a successful revolution.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

In August 1916, Romania had front lines two times longer than the French front, but her forces were ten times smaller than those of the Western Allies combined. Under this light, the fact that Romania managed to continue her war until Lenin pulled Russia out in the spring of 1918 is a performance itself.

the opposing forces were aequivalently smaller as well, which favoured a battle of movement instead a western front-like campaign, which the romanian forces, given her deficiencies in artillery should avoid.

QUOTE

The standard rifle issued to the average Romanian soldier was not inferior to the standard rifle used by the average enemy soldier.

no ww1 rifle was adequate 1914. the shortes sight setting was 400m because nobody expected infantry engagements at beyond that range to occur so frequently. with a rifle there wasn't much to do wrong when building it, unlike the machine guns. if a regular rifle, like the 98k jammed, it was easy to repair it. with machine guns however...

QUOTE

Romania also had at the start of 1916 few military ships, but a I cannot tell you what happened with them during the war. Most, if not all of this little fleet was on Danube river.

there were 4 Kogalniceanu class river monitors build in England which were quite modern. but as Paul Halpern states in "Naval history of ww1" the russians accused them that they often camouflaged themselves and remained very passive, which the romanian side justified with imminent danger from heavy enemy artillery emplacements nearby.

QUOTE

For example, by 1916 a German regiment could have as much as 50-60 machine guns

this wasn't the case in 1914. the increase of machineguns attached to a regiment (and the increase of machinegun production) is a consequence of the realities of the battlefield from 1914/early 1915. same for the other armies. by the end of the war germay build around 100 000 Maxim 08 which accounted arugably for roughly 25-30% of enemy casualties.

[Florin]

QUOTE

QUOTE ......................................................................... The standard rifle issued to the average Romanian soldier was not inferior to the standard rifle used by the average enemy soldier.   no ww1 rifle was adequate 1914. the shortes sight setting was 400m because nobody expected infantry engagements at beyond that range to occur so frequently. with a rifle there wasn't much to do wrong when building it, unlike the machine guns. if a regular rifle, like the 98k jammed, it was easy to repair it. with machine guns however...........................

Hi,

Thank you for the additions.
My statement highlighted above doesn't mean that the standard rifle of the Romanian soldier was appropriate, or that of his enemies or allies. When you say that something is not worse than other thing, it could still mean that both are good, or both are bad, or one is good and the other bad etc.

Florin

[Victor]

QUOTE

there were 4 Kogalniceanu class river monitors build in England which were quite modern. but as Paul Halpern states in \"Naval history of ww1\" the russians accused them that they often camouflaged themselves and remained very passive, which the romanian side justified with imminent danger from heavy enemy artillery emplacements nearby.

On the contrary, my impression from what Iread was that in 1916 they were quite active, unlike the 3 Russian gun-boats. In 1917, there was less activity, because there was little action on the whole in Dobruja and the Danube Delta. The main front was in Moldavia.

[dead-cat]

the author was refering to late 1916 and 1917 indeed. he also mentioned the austro-hungarian monitors shelling the danube crossing during the romanian offensive attempt in bulgaria.

[dragos]

I have found an interesting journal of a WWI combatant, teacher in the civil life. This journal is published in Revista de Istoria Militara (Military History Magazine, old issues). It is written that Romanian Army used to employ dogs as sanitary or ammo carriers. But instead of special trained dogs, they gathered all kind of curs from the villages they were passing through, dogs that were tied and dragged behind units. All efforts to achieve a quite advance failed because the units were always accompanied by a chorus of howlings !

[Victor]

QUOTE

the author was refering to late 1916 and 1917 indeed. he also mentioned the austro-hungarian monitors shelling the danube crossing during the romanian offensive attempt in bulgaria.

He is probably referring to the Flamanda maneuver. IIRC, it was Avarescu and his staff that thought the bridge could be defended only with torpedo stations and land artillery. Anyway, the monitors would have had to travel over 100km of unfriendly waters.

[Florin]

Hi,

This is an addition to my previous post.

At the end of XIXth century, the Romanian leadership spent a huge amount of money in building a ring of forts and fortifications around Bucharest. They were very modern for the moment when they were built. However, few years later all armies made the transition from the black powder to the new smokeless powder, also much more powerful (from memory, the black powder could expand 200...300 times its volume, while the new type of smokeless powder could expand 700...800 times its volume). These new powerful explosives made absolete the fortifications around Bucharest.

Furthermore, while retreating under the pressure of the Central Powers armies, Romania decided to don't defend Bucharest in the Fall/Autumn of 1916, to spare the city from the destructions related to such kind of fighting.
The fortifications were never used for their purpose. I enjoyed the thrill of walking through some of their tunnels during high school.

[Victor]

Liege had similar fortifications to Bucharest, IIRC, and they proved useless in 1914, against the German heavy artillery.

[petru]

The source of this text is mainly from Kiritescu, " Istoria razboiului pentru intregirea neamului" (it mean something like "The history of the war for Great Romania" , maybe someone could provide a better traslation of the book's title).

At the beginning of the war the Romanian army was grouped in 23 infantry divisions and 2 cavalry divisions. Divisions 1-10 were old divisions, in majority with active officers. They consisted of 3 brigades with 2 infantry regiments. Additional units attached to them were one horse artillery brigade (2 regiments), one regiment vanatori, and rear service units. Divisions 11-15 were units created in 1914-1916. They consisted of 2 infantry brigades (mainly of reservists) and had weaker artillery (only one regiment). Also the rear service units were fewer. After mobilization there were created a further 8 divisions (16-23), from elements taken from other units, or by creating new formations. The quality of these last divisions was very poor. The officers were mainly reservists, and the artillery consisted of old 87 and 75 guns with a slow rate of fire. Also, divisions 1-10 had 6 machine guns for each regiment, 11-15 had only 2, and some regiments belonging to 16-23 didn’t have any machine gun.

The artillery consisted of 277 batteries (one battery = 4 guns): one regiment horse artillery, 25 regiments light artillery (75 mm), five regiments of light howitzer; one regiment mountain artillery (63 mm) and a division of 75 mm; 4 heavy artillery regiments. In general an artillery regiment had 6 batteries and one reserve. Two other regiments were built with the older 87 mm guns. The small 53 and 57 mm guns, from the forts around Bucharest were transformed in mobile units and were given to the infantry units. In such a way there formed 56 batteries of 6 pieces each.

In terms of heavy artillery there were only 104 guns, compared to the 848 German guns. By stripping the old forts of Bucharest and the Siret line of their heavy guns there were created 4 heavy artillery regiments (129 guns). Their units had 105 Krupp, long guns of 150 mm, 210 mm howitzer and mortars etc. There were also used guns from the “Elisabeta” cruiser, from the river monitors and from a coastal battery at Galati. The only new heavy guns were 2 batteries of Schneider-Creuzot of 150 mm. The first guns of 120 mm bought from France started to come barely in October 1916.

There were organized 404 hospitals with 57 766 beds. If necessary this number could increase with 17 120 beds. That was to prove adequate for the whole war. To my knowledge all the solders were immunized agianst the most likely diseases, but not for one that would decimate the population in the winter 1916-1917 (I think it was typhoid fever).

[dead-cat]

the 210mm howitzer wasn't enough to crack the fortification at Liege, Maubeuge, Antwerpen etc. The 420mm was absolutly needed, at least until "Max" was available.

[dragos03]

You can still see some of the forts around Bucharest. One of them is near Baneasa Forest.

[C-2]

Can you tell where exactly?

[Dan Po]

QUOTE

one regiment mountain artillery (63 mm) and a division of  75 mm;

The 63 mm mountain gun was from 1863 (I don t know the type) and completely obsolete for 1916.

Only the division of 75 mm Schneider md 1911 was a modern one. The 75mm Schneider gun fired the same projectile as the 75 mm field gun.