An interesting comparison of Haig's reaction to the King's accident and an estimated 40,000 casualties. Another example of such a large number being simply a statistic with no real meaning.

I recall reading somewhere that the expected ratio of killed to wounded for such assaults was 3 wounded for each man killed. So if Rawlinson wanted to cater for 10000 casualties, he must have expected some 3000 dead as well, giving 13000. Yet Haig doesn't seem to have considered 40,000 "severe".

Also interesting that for some time, Haig apparently thought that the 40,000 figure related to 2 days fighting. It's understandable, I suppose, given the poor communications of the time and the sheer scale of atrocity, that no accurate figures were available for some time.

Note: I've looked through my various sources for that Rawlinson quote on expected casualties but cant find it anywhere. Also cant yet find who was heading up the RAMC on the Somme.