Talk:Indian units in World War I

There's a list on http://web.archive.org/web/20050210120910/http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/lists/ia1918.htm but its copyright/rights status is uncertain. --Mia (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2014 (PST)

There's a list of units taken from CWGC memorials at http://www.militarian.com/threads/indian-units-listed-by-cwgc-ww1.3629/ but without additional hierarchical information it may be difficult to incorporate. --Mia (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2014 (PST)

There's a list of regiments in this period at Wikipedia but I'm not sure if it's definitive. Regiments have mostly unique numbers as well as names. Most regiments seem to have had only one battalion but some had more than one. So far I haven't found any information about admin structures above regiment level. I've got lots of Indian battalions from WO 95 but can't do much with them without more information.--GavinRobinson (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2014 (PST)

It'd be worth getting the names in, even if the military structures have to be added later, in case anyone searching for specific names is able to add more information. --Mia (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (PST)

According to CWGC, in 'August 1914, the Indian Army comprised: 39 horsed cavalry regiments, 138 infantry battalions, 20 of which were Gurkhas. There were 200,000 enlisted men, although 45,000 of these were non-combatants such as cooks, grooms and tailors.' And 'An average company might consist of 150-200 men and five or six officers.'CWGC So if the Wikipedia page lists anything like 200 units it might be an ok list for the start of the war.

I've used Wikipedia to disambiguate Indian battalions, so I can import them along with the British. They won't have admin parents, but will be better than nothing. What's the best nation suffix for Indian units? ", Indian"? Should the country value in the main infobox be "India" or "British India"?--GavinRobinson (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2014 (PST)