# Talk:Indian Army during World War I

Rather than make this page just a list of links, I'd like to expand it to be a brief overview of all Indian Army divisions and independent brigades of WW1, with links to longer articles where appropriate.Yorkist (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the scope of article be expanded to include everything about Indian Army during World War 1 rather than just a list. Currently no such article exists.  
Vinay84 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is here Indian Army (1895–1947)#First World War  You can of course make a new article Indian Army during World War I.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
As I see it , the new article Indian Army during World War I would be draw heavily from what is already there is this article and  Indian Army (1895–1947)#First World War and hence I believe it is a good idea to expand the scope of the current one which is an established article already
Vinay84 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Be bold instead of the list format there is enough detail here to change it into prose if you want I will help and we could move the article name to Indian Army during World War I. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sumner says that the meerut division joined Force D and not E
--Vinay84 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The 3rd and 7th divisions were transferred to Force E in 1918, together with about 36 Indian battalions attached to what were called British Divisions but they only had one British battalion per brigade so they had the same formation as a Indian division 1 British 3 Indian battalions per brigade. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Force E created in 1918 looks to be out of sequence with the previous and next Forces which were created in 1914. The 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions were formed in Palestine from British Yeomanry already in the EEF and British Indian Army units transferred from France. --Rskp (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added the world war 1 template shown below twice in as many days.Why is it being deleted?

It is present in both British Army during World War I and History of the United Kingdom during World War I articles in which Jim has contributed.
--Vinay84 (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think its needed it need to be redirected to this article at present it goes to British Raj. I am not sure it is as most of the links are already in the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
My concern is for people who would also like to see India's participation in the context of the whole thing maybe for example see how Other country armies fared during this period
--Vinay84 (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Link in WWI Campaign box has been fixed with India link now pointing to this page, instead of the The Raj.  I agree that the link to the Raj as part of a set of WWI links was not correct.  Vinay84, can you now reinsert the WWI Campaign Box back into this page?  Farawayman (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some pointers I came up with looking through the article - call it an informal (and lazy :P) peer review for someone who can't be bothered to do it formally:

Seriously, the Overseas section with the massive infobox? That's gotta go - it looks awful there, it stretches the screen and that should be turned into prose.  Done moved to the bottom of the article
Significant copy-editing for punctuation would be good - some commas that need to be turned into semi-colons or full-stops. Also for prose.
What's a 'princely state' and shouldn't it be capitalized to some extent?  The Princely states were a nominally sovereign entity of British rule in India that was not directly administered by the British, but rather by an Indian ruler under a form of indirect rule.  I thought I had Capitalised the P but not the S will recheck.
Siege of Tsingtao and 1915 Mutiny either need to be expanded, or merged into some all-enompassing section that covers both, because they're far too short at the moment.  Done
Victoria Cross section. I found it better (and was asked to) on the PIAT article to turn a list of VC winners into a prose section, using their official citations from the London Gazette to write a few sentences on each. Done
Lot of single-sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs that either need to be merged or expanded upon - especially near the beginning and middle of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As well as the operations in the Kuki Hills (November 1st 1918 - May 15th 1919), punitive measures were carried out in the same area - but referred to as the Chin Hills - from December 1st 1917 until June 1st 1918. [Report of the Battles Nomenclature Committee]. Earlier punitive operations were undertaken in the Kachin Hills, thru' January and February 1915. [Report of the B.N.C., and London Gazette No. 29652, p. 6699].--FwdObserver (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Army during World War I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This is a very nicely done article.  I like how you have linked the Indian Army's activity to the other aspects of the war, placing it entirely in context.  I might have appreciated knowing if there were internal political struggles going on, but perhaps that is another article entirely.  I've made some very minor tweaks and grammar/punctuation fixes, nothing major, just to help with clarity and focus. Nicely done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Auntieruth55, please suggest further scope for expansion .I have linked for article regarding political events during the time. Anything Else?
--Vinay84 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Vinay, you've done a very nice job with this.  I'd like to see you tackle the larger issues that were brought up during the peer review process (see Faraway's and my comments below).  I wouldn't expect you to include everything in one humongous article, but this is an important subject and needs a series, I think.  You've done very well so far, and I'd like to see you carry this into a broader project.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about the speedy award of GA status to this article right now!  An article about a national army should at least also cover:

Command and control structure: Who lead the army, who did he report to for operational command and for political control?
An order of battle, at least to corps or possibly division level is essential.
What was the difference between the Indian Army and the British Army in India and the British Indian Army?
The army contained other corps, yet there is no reference to Indian Artillery and Indian Engineering corps?
The article was submitted for Peer Review - yet, none of those comments were taken into account in the swift transition to GA status.  Comments can be found here.
I sincerely believe that this is a GA or even an A-Class article.  But it still needs some work, and we should not be submitting articles for peer review, and then promoting them in a parallel course to the review process!  I have not reverted the GA status, but I urge you to consider the comments from the MilHist project.  
Farawayman (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your reservations.  Given the standards for GA, I still think this article meets them. It sets up the limitations of the article in the lead, and does not pretend to be a comprehensive article covering all aspects of the Indian army, but rather the various actions of the Indian army in the war. Before it goes to A-class review, other issues need to be addressed, including a few very minor prose issues.  These are:
the fraught history of Indian military, especially after 1858;
command and control of the army during the war;
problems of transportation;
the problems of integrating different castes, religions, and ethnic groups into the army (issues of segregation and integration), which is mentioned, but not dealt with in detail;
technological problems, especially vis a vis conflicts between western technology and Indian religious  requirements;
and others.
The Command and control structure should, I think, have an article of its own.  In the India case, especially, this was a complex and loaded situation.
The orders of battle seem to go into separate "lists"...no problem as far as I can see with not including this in the article, although it should have a separate list.
The differences between the armies, etc., is a comparative article, something to deal with separately, and once that is written, should be integrated back to the basic article.
Regarding the conflicting submissions to GA and peer review, it used to be the policy that there would not be a GA submission while there was an open peer review. I didn't notice that a peer review was still open.  Regardless, this really doesn't change my mind about the GA, although it points out to me that I should have made a more elaborate critique.  It is still a good article, within the stated limitations on the topic. I'd like to see a series of articles, however, and that needs to be encouraged. Perhaps we can encourage this editor to tackle that kind of project, in a series, rather than asking him to make it all in one fell swoop.  I was pleased to see an article of this quality on Indian military at all, and I'd like to see more.   Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If the intention was to limit the scope, then perhaps another title should have been selected, as I dont see the limtation in either the name, or the lead.  Be that as it may, lets try to get this to A Class with a scope and quality level which cannot be disputed.  I will try to assist wherever I can.  Farawayman (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the simultaneous GA and Peer reviews, I was unaware of the policy and the mistake is mine.However, Jim and I have taken the suggestions into account as and when they came .For example, all of AustralianRupert's suggestions were dealt with.
--Vinay84 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I must have missed where it says an article can not go in for PEER and GA reviews at the same time. It common practice to do both, I believed because the PEER review process has no bearing on the article class and its an internal WPMILHIST review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vinay, Farawayman has some valid criticisms that need to be addressed to prepare for A-level review; I agree that this article has some gaps that need to be filled before you try to take it that far.  

Command and control structure: Who lead the army, who did that person report to for operational command and for political control?
Not only were there issues with command and control on General Staff level, but there were severe problems staffing units with officers.  The British policy that units should be staffed by British Officers simply didn’t work when casualties started mounting.  Take a look here (Page 200 onwards)[1].  Again, I believe there should be some reference to this type of issue and I don’t think that it is "out of scope" - if the article was called "Indian Expeditionary Forces in WWI" then I would agree more on the Command and Control / scope matter, because then the discusion could be limited to that within each Expeditionary Force.  Farawayman (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

During the course of the war, divisions of the army fought under different commanders , so there was no overarching person reporting, there was the Commander-in-Chief, India and there are articles. Do you want a link to the CinC India article?--Vinay84 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
See the Organization section C in C India and C of Staff mentioned with links --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
An order of battle, at least to corps level, or possibly division level. He and I disagree on whether that needs to be included in the article or whether it could/should go in a separate "list" style article.
Such large wars in various theaters do not allow a single Order of Battle. Lahore division for example, fought under Haig, Maude and Allenby  . There are individual orbat pages for specific wars. Trying to link to alla of them does not seem reasonable. Suggestions are solicited.--Vinay84 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd work this through with Farawayman, re the orders of battle.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There should also be a separate "list" (article) that shows the Corps and other military units involved in various theaters.  The link in Indian Army (1895-1947) -- List of Indian divisions in World War I redirects to the Indian Army during WWI.  This needs a page that actually does list the divisions that fought in World War I.
see Indian Army during World War I order of battle link added
This should also be linked from the other page.  And please sign your posts! :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What was the difference between the Indian Army and the British Army in India and the British Indian Army?  There should be something in this article eventually on the difference, but I think it can be short, as long as it is covered in depth elsewhere: Ultimately I think you'll need some expanded/new articles on (titles to be worked out):
See link to Army of India in the Kitchener's reforms section
Will try to add the distinction in the article--Vinay84 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
History of the Indian Army in the Raj Indian Army (1895–1947) needs expansion work.  Most of the things he thought should be covered in the WWI article I thought belonged in this article.  This article needs big-time expansion of command section.  Who was "in charge", dates, brief bios, etc.
Agree but that is outside the scope of this article. see Indian Army during World War II for more about WW2 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is outside the scope of this particular article, but the section on WWI could be augmented.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Political History of the Indian Army -- or something to that effect, that discusses the problems of developing an indigenous military force in the Raj
Outside the scope of this article should be in Indian Army (1895–1947) --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, I agree that it is outside the scope of this article, which is why I suggested it be in another article.  HOWEVER, there are political considerations for this article.  See Farawayman's comments above.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The army contained other corps, yet there is no reference to Indian Artillery and Indian Engineering corps?
There was no Indian Artillery until 1935 just a small number of Batteries the Royal Artillery provided any guns needed. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
On the artillery and engineering matter, indeed there were artillery and engineer elements within the Indian Army before 1935.  This is one of the reasons I suggested that we clarify the Army of India / British Indian Army etc. issue!  In 1914 The following artillery units were officially part of the "Indian Army":
Northern Army:
VIII Brigade RHA: M Battery
XVI Brigade RFA
89, 90, 91 Batteries
III Brigade RFA
75 Battery
72 Company RGA
Q Battery RHA
VII Brigade RFA
4, 38, 78 Batteries
68, 94, 104 Companies RGA
23, 27, 28, 30 Mountain Batteries
III Brigade RFA:  18, 62, 75 Batteries
XVIII Brigade RFA
59, 93, 94 Batteries
2, 5 Mountain Batteries RGA
XII Brigade RHA:  V, W Batteries
VII Mountain Brigade RGA
21, 26 Batteries
59, 81 Companies RGA
VI Brigade RFA:  77 Battery
IX Brigade RFA
19, 20, 28 Batteries
73, 74 Companies RGA [74 in Delhi]
XI Brigade RFA:  83, 84, 85 Batteries
V Brigade RFA
84, 73, 81 Batteries
91 Company RGA
..... and more.
The units listed above are all British Army Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Field Artillery and Royal Garrison Artillery the only Indian Army artillery pre 1914 were:
ndian Mountain Artillery

21st Kohat Mountain Battery (Frontier Force)
22nd Derajat Mountain Battery (Frontier Force)
23rd Peshawar Mountain Battery (Frontier Force)
24th Hazara Mountain Battery (Frontier Force)
25th Mountain Battery
26th Jacob's Mountain Battery
27th Mountain Battery
28th Mountain Battery
29th Mountain Battery
30th Mountain Battery
31st Mountain Battery
32nd Mountain Battery
The Frontier Garrison Artillery
and the war formed batteries

33rd (Reserve) Mountain Battery
34th (Reserve) Mountain Battery
35th (Reserve) Mountain Battery
39th (Reserve) Mountain Battery --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, there were Engineering units allocated in the form of Pioneers attached to most of the North Army brigades.  i.e. 64th Pioneers of the Mandalay Brigade.  They also had "miners" forming part of the engineer corps (and I think there was one or more labour units as well, but I'm not totally sure of this).
Engineers
1st Sappers and Miners
2nd Queen's Own Sappers and Miners
3rd Sappers and Miners
Indian Submarine Mining Corps
The Pioners regiments were all infantry who also undertook some building tasks  --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall, from the sources I looked at, in 1914 the British Army provided 6,056 cavalry, 17,140 artillery, 165 engineers and 77,075 infantry towards the Indian Army (Northern Army?) whilst India provided 24,854 cavalry, 3,104 artillery, 4,877 engineers and 141,890 infantry.  Farawayman (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the many decisions post 1857.--Vinay84 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
biographical articles (at least at the stub or start level) on the key personnel Commander-in-Chief, India is a start, but could be better (in the notes line, could have major accomplishments).  There is some dispute about its accuracy, also.
This is a Big problem about Military (and general) history of India. Official documents are either classified or available in very few libraries. All common people have are inaccurate anecdotes.--Vinay84 (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So, lest you think this is done, it's not.  :)  But you've made a terrific start, and it appears that Farawayman is interested in helping you bring this along.  Good luck!

The InfoBox at the start indicates pre-1914 and post-1918 engagements - Would it not be better to only list the colours awarded to the Indian regiments for WWI?  Farawayman (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The info box is for the British Indian Army not just during WWI --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
But is the subject of this article not the Indian Army in WWI? Farawayman (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes other articles have the same kind of inf boxs see British Army during World War I its a judgement call does the article look better with or without it ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I certainly believe that it belongs and adds value - my question is whether it should cover the whole era of the British Indian Army, or only the period covered by the article?  If for the period of the article, we would need to adjust the commanders and engagements.  Defining a list of engagements is difficult, because it spills over into minor actions too, thats why colours awarded to the regiments, or divisions could be better.  I also think the current InfoBox type is better and more appropriate than that used in the British Army in WWI. Farawayman (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we create a separate list/table of engagements in world war 1 instead since that will be used only for this article?--Vinay84 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
And don't forget that things like the Waziristan Campaign do officially count as part fo the WWI period - included in CWGC death totals and so on.  David Underdown (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no Auxiliary Force as such until 1920, when the Auxiliary Force, India, was created from the Indian Defence Force, which was itself created in 1917 from the various Indian Volunteer Corps.--FwdObserver (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two auxiliary forces mentioned in the article , one formed from European volunteers and another from Assam Rifles. So I am guessing your concern is with the latter.--Vinay84 (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Please post more photos of Indian soldiers in the European, African, Asian theaters of war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.desert (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 

I think it would be a good idea to rename the heading and the relevant text to British-Indian army. Otherwise, a wrong notion the current-day Indian army was involved in the war can creep in. Current day India is a totally different entity with a different national flag, national anthem, and much else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.250.149 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) 

Before 1947 there was only the Indian Army, officered by British and Indians and manned by Indians. There is no source anywhere which refers to any such entity as the British Indian Army dating from that time. That name was invented by Wikipedians to avoid the confusion but is a complete POV anachronism. I am going to move this back to the correct article title which uses the term Indian Army. Dabbler (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Gday. I can see this was discussed about 6 years ago but I think there is an issue with the infobox and that it may be time to re-examine the issue. Currently it seems to cover the entire period of the British Indian Army's existence; however, this article is about the organisation during World War I only so in my opinion the infobox should reflect that. Consider - at the moment the infobox includes battles both before and after World War I, whilst none of the notable commanders listed in the infobox commanded it during World War I either. As such I propose changing it to reflect World War I only (my proposed revised infobox would look something like this). Does anyone have any opinions or comments on this issue? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Does it really need an infobox at all? I personally don't see how it could aid the understanding of the article very much, even if it were changed... —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it, infoboxs are fairly standard for units and formations, so I'd think an Army would seem an obvious extension. I guess the infobox I propose is a little light on detail, happy for other information to be added of course. My main concern is that it currently doesn't reflect the topic that's all. FWIW a few similar articles have infoboxs - see Australian Army during World War I and Australian Army during World War II. Anotherclown (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This article currently states: "In 1914, the Commander–in–Chief was General Sir Beauchamp Duff of the Indian Army,[15] and the Chief of the General Staff was Lieutenant General Sir Percy Lake of the British Army.[16]" I'm no expert on the British Indian Army so this may well be true (it certainly appears to be cited to reliable sources). However, this sentence seems to contradict the wiki articles on these two gentlemen. For instance the article on Beauchamp Duff states that he was "Chief of the General Staff in India from March 1906 to 1909" and that in 1914 he was as ADC General to HM the King (although this point isn't supported with a citation). Equally, the wiki article on Percy Lake states: he was "Chief of the General Staff in India from 1912." Meanwhile, our article on Commander-in-Chief, India states Beauchamp Duff was appointed to the posn in 1914, while Lake isn't even mentioned. The point is that one (or more) of these articles is incorrect. As such is someone with some knowledge of the topic possibly able to review this matter and confirm which is correct? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Beauchamp Duff was the Chief of the General Staff before he was appointed Commander-in-Chief in India to replace O'Moore Creagh in March 1914, it made a bit of a fuss at the time as the Commander-in-Chief was normally a British Army officer rather Beauchamp Duff who was part of the Indian Army and it was the first time it had been done, Charles Monro took over the post in June 1917. Percy Lake was appointed Chief of the General Staff in India in 1911 until January 1916 when he was replaced by Anderson. Not had a look at the individual articles but it appears that this article is correct. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Had a look at the two articles but other than adding some minor information they appear to be correct Lake was never Commander in Chief just the Chief of the General Staff in this period. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Gday - thanks for this. I see my error. I agree there is no issue (with this article) - my comprehension skills are another matter though it seems. Anotherclown (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Indian Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090529082359/http://www.1914-1918.net:80/2cavdiv_indian.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/2cavdiv_indian.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090610032042/http://www.wewerethere.defencedynamics.mod.uk:80/ww1/k_khan.html to http://www.wewerethere.defencedynamics.mod.uk/ww1/k_khan.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090905153609/http://india.gov.in:80/knowindia/indiagate.php to http://india.gov.in/knowindia/indiagate.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509080005/http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html to http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618081321/http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_india.pdf to http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_india.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010144500/http://orbat.com/site/history/volume5/529/Indian%20Army%20Brigades.pdf to http://orbat.com/site/history/volume5/529/Indian%20Army%20Brigades.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indian Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524192004/http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/article1433642.ece?service=print to http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/article1433642.ece?service=print
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090702131058/http://www.dva.gov.au/news_archive/Documents/090327_GallipoliCampaign.pdf to http://www.dva.gov.au/news_archive/Documents/090327_GallipoliCampaign.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224083410/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_570_2005-01-24.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_570_2005-01-24.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820033615/http://national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/page4-2.shtml to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/page4-2.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112103728/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/ to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Where are the numbers of casualties taken from? No source is cited. Several internet articles cite those numbers but also give no source. The only other numbers I’ve seen are those given by the British Secretary of State for India in 1919 and they’re very different. Also the sentences describing the numbers are confused and don’t make sense: they appear to give two numbers for total deaths.  Djewesbury (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please give a citation for the size of the Army given in the infobox. By 'size' is it referring to the peak combat strength at some given point in time, or the total who served during the entirety of the Great War. Searching for the figure only leads back to the Wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.205.196 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)