life expectancy

[Muerrisch]

A thread in BOOKS

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=154888&view=findpost&p=1493019&hl=&fromsearch=1

begins to discuss the life expectancy of a subaltern.

I have shown, very superficially, that in 2nd RWF the average [taking the first 12 men alphabetically] was

average 32 weeks, please have a look.

I am sure that between us our data bases can provide some useful figures, or there may be some already in the literature.

Worth a look, please.

[PhilB]

How does one derive an "average life expectancy"? Many subalterns didn`t succumb so do they count as having an active life of however long they served? Is it a mean or a median?

[Bernard_Lewis]

At Mametz Wood on 10 July 1916 the Swansea Battalion went in with just under 700 men; only one officer was killed though a lot were wounded. Overall casualties were more than 300 (some with minor wounds).

Bernard

[dfaulder]

Isnt the six week subaltern one of the war myths?

As with most myths I suspect that somewhere there is a truth that has been misunderstood and then used out of context.

It might be something like (and I am only putting up an Aunt Sally)

- during day one of the first battle of the Somme

- in the Pals battalions

- the average length of [front line] service of those lieutenants who were killed was

six weeks.

I suspect someone has the ability to disprove this but I put it up as an example of a "fact" that can grow into a myth.

David

[truthergw]

Phil has raised a valid point. We need to decide what we are actually calculating. The average life of a subaltern in any one battle. The average summed over all the battles of the war. I do not believe it will matter whether we calculate a mean or median or any other ' average ' as long as we state what we are doing. I think it was immediately obvious to any observer that a subaltern who went over the top with the men was at more risk than an officer who did not. From that, it would be a short step to deciding that the average life span must only be a matter of, -------------. ( fill in your own guess).

[Muerrisch]

I thought my contribution in the referenced thread defined an approach.

One battalion throughout the war in F&F only

Only count dead subs who died as such, KiA or DoW

I used to teach Statistics and the Theory of Experiments ..... when I did, average usually meant mean, but once the extractions, filters or whatever are applied, the data will be amenable to mean, median, mode and even standard deviation.

My basic premise was that between us we have access to a lot of data in near perfectly machinable format, probably far more than most

[Nigel Marshall]

The only subaltern who I've been able to discover the dates of service for so far went to France on 09 November 1915.

He is reported in the war diary as joining the battalion 2 days later on 11 November 1915 and on 19 December 1915 he was killed in the phosgene attack on the Boesinge positions of the 49th (West Riding) Division.

A total of 5 weeks and 3 days service with his battalion.

Cheers,

Nigel

[Chris_Baker]

Last year I had an article published in the WFA's journal, "Stand To!". It was on the experience of the officers of the 1st South Staffords and concentrated on the period from the battalion's arrival in October 1914 up to the Somme. To quote any kind of average is, I believe, just meaningless. As with all units, the battalion's activity went through phases - heavy action, rest and training, trench-holding and back again. I'll try to dig out the statistics but the variation of both duration* of an officers service and their experience of war is enormous.

*And by that I mean from arrival at the battalion to the end of their career with the battalion.

Thinks: actually I will post the article onto the LLT.

Grumpy, if we count just those who died, the answer is meaningless-plus, isn't it, given that most did not die?

[dfaulder]

>><<

Thinks: actually I will post the article onto the LLT.

Grumpy, if we count just those who died, the answer is meaningless-plus, isn't it, given that most did not die?

Chris, I hope you will revisit this thread and add the appropriate link to LLT

Counting those who did not die is what makes the whole calculation of averages so difficult as to verge on meaningless.

In the calculation of an average we have to assign a "life-length" to those who did not die - if the population is to be "all subalterns".

Should surviver's life-length be:

• remainder of their life - no, preposterous as periods out of danger are surely not relevant to calculating the "lethality" of being a subaltern
• remainder of the war
• until promoted out of / dismissed from the "lethal ranks"?

Or do we look for some other type of calculation - given that I think we are wanting to be able to make comparative statements about your chances of dying if you were a private, a lieutenant, a brigadier etc.?

• Total number of "rank-days" "in danger", (for example 42 lieutenants - as a sort of actual "establishment" figure who may have been swapped around or killed and replaced - in a particular theatre/sector for 10 days counts as "420 rank-days")

divided by:

• Total number of lieutenants killed/dying whilst "in danger" (say 10 died during those days in that theatre/sector)

gives us

• some form of "lethality index" expressed in units = days (say 420 rank-days divided by 10 = 42 days - or 6 weeks)

Of course we need to decide whether my implicit assumption above that "in theatre" and "in danger" are near enough the same is acceptable. Then do we look at just infantry or all units (including those who may be well behind the lines for more time than an infantry company commander or his deputy). What are we really trying to assess?

This calculation could (in theory) be done across the whole war, but might be easier (with some approximations/guesstimates) to apply to a particular area over a shorter period such as the first day (or week) of First Somme. So, can anyone gives us an approximation for:

• How many lieutenants in units involved in the Somme area on 1 July 1916
• How many lieutenants killed on that day (or dying from wounds received that day)

Would the resulting index (applied to say privates, lieutenants and brigadiers) be useful?

David

[John_Hartley]

Grumpy, if we count just those who died, the answer is meaningless-plus, isn't it, given that most did not die?

I agree. Surely the myth is debunked by the simple fact that most did not die?

That said, if a double debunk was wanted, would one start with the CWGC records of those listed as Lts and then work back to see how long they had been in theatre? To muddy the waters further, I assume only men with infantry battalions would be included.

[Muerrisch]

The book in question is entitled:

Six Weeks: The Short and Gallant Life of the British Officer in the First World War No, I have not seen it ..... I was reacting to a reaction to the title on t'other thread.

It is quite legitimate from a statistical point of view to present an analysis beginning:

Of those subalterns KiA/DoW of the Nth Blankshires during their period between XXXX and YYYY in F&F, the pattern of active service spans is as follows ......

shortest

longest

mean/median/mode or whatever

and perhaps a few clusters of similar spans

and perhaps clusters around notable battles

and some comments on how meaningful the figures may be

and some comparison with the title of the book.

But if we agree that the 6 week subaltern is cobblers, why go to much triuble?

Enough said.

[truthergw]

If we assume that the life started in August 1914 and ended in November 1918 we can then measure the lifespan of all subalterns including those who did not die. Lifespan relative to a battle would require very detailed information as to when the subaltern first was exposed to danger and when he died. If a subaltern were to be shot climbing out of the trench and died of wounds after a few months, how would that be represented? Would we include those who were killed or died of wounds from an injury received outside a recognised battle? I am thinking of a victim of normal trench wastage. Would we be entitled to isolate a certain class of these victims and attribute their deaths to their rank? I am pessimistic as to how useful it would be to try to quantify the life expectancy of a subaltern. I, personally would settle for the qualitative knowledge that they shared the men's exposure and danger and this rendered them more liable to becoming a casualty.

[kenf48]

Off topic in that it's the wrong war, but evidence of the persistence of the myth.

Just read Anthony Beevor's D - Day where he quotes a subaltern in the Somerset Light Infantry who is told, 'by a moustachioed major' when he reports for duty at the Base Depot at Bayeux that 'his life expectancy from the day he joins his Battalion is three weeks'.

The quoted source is given as published in 1998 which kinda gives the lie to the statement.

Ken

[Steven Broomfield]

Appendix II of the History of the 1/4th Duke of Wellington's Regiment (Capt P G Bales, MC) has an alphabetica list of all officers who served. Those proceeding overseas with the battalion in April 1915 are marked. Taking the first dozen Second Lieutenants and Lieutenants:

5 months (wounded)

3 months (Killed) Original member

2 months (Transferred)

10 months (Sick)

2 months (wounded)

5 months (promoted - then served another 29 months. Original member, demobbed 1919)

1 month (Transferred)

26 months (survived war)

23 months (Promoted - then served another 19 months. original member, demobbed 1919)

1 month (Wounded) Original member

8 months (demobbed 1918)

6 months (Transferred)

I'd settle for the word "Myth".

Mind you, I've just had a quick look at Appendix III of the history of the 129th Baluchis (service of Indian officers), and the figures there for those who arrived in France in October 1914 is truly staggering

2 Subedars and 5 Jemadars were killed by the end of 1914; 2 and 4 were wounded. 2 Subedars were POW one wounded). Only one Subedar was left, with three Jemadars. Of the British subalterns, 2 were wounded and two unhurt by Xmas. Of the senior officers, 2 Majors (plus the Doctor, also a Major) were killed (one unhurt), and 2 Captains had been killed and two wounded. I suspect if you want to support the myth, take a narrow sample of Indian officers in late 1914, early 1915 and you'd be quids in.

[Tunesmith]

In 'Stand To: a diary of the trenches' Capt F.C. Hitchcock MC , 2nd Leinsters, calculated the average life expectancy of a subaltern was 6 weeks in 1916 and 1917.

I haven't read the book so can't say what Hitchcock based his calculation on – but I assume his own unit's casualty figures.

Incidentally I found the reference to it in a review by one Chris Baker.....:

http://www.1914-1918.net/reviews_memoirs.htm

Was this book where the statistic originally came from? It was published in 1937. Any earlier examples?

[phil andrade]

Risking a" firing from the hip" judgement, I'd say we're up against that infuriating and persistent error : the confusion of "killed" with "casualties". How many times do we hear, or even read, that sixty thousand British troops were "killed" on the first day of the Somme ? I guess the same error applies here : a frontline infantry subaltern might last an average of three weeks before he was killed, wounded or taken prisoner. This does not mean that he had an average of three weeks to live : his tour of duty was more likely to be ended by being wounded, or captured.

Editing : Four fifths of all the British officers who were commissioned in the war were alive when it ended...that's not exact, but I reckon it's roughly correct. Three week's life expectancy : cobblers' !

Phil (PJA)

[Chris_Baker]

How many times do we hear, or even read, that sixty thousand British troops were "killed" on the first day of the Somme ?

I left a comment on an article in an Irish newspaper this very day, pointing out their error in saying exactly this.

[truthergw]

Appendix II of the History of the 1/4th Duke of Wellington's Regiment (Capt P G Bales, MC) has an alphabetica list of all officers who served. Those proceeding overseas with the battalion in April 1915 are marked. Taking the first dozen Second Lieutenants and Lieutenants:

..................................

I'd settle for the word "Myth".

Mind you, I've just had a quick look at Appendix III of the history of the 129th Baluchis (service of Indian officers), and the figures there for those who arrived in France in October 1914 is truly staggering

2 Subedars and 5 Jemadars were killed by the end of 1914; 2 and 4 were wounded. 2 Subedars were POW one wounded). Only one Subedar was left, with three Jemadars. Of the British subalterns, 2 were wounded and two unhurt by Xmas. Of the senior officers, 2 Majors (plus the Doctor, also a Major) were killed (one unhurt), and 2 Captains had been killed and two wounded. I suspect if you want to support the myth, take a narrow sample of Indian officers in late 1914, early 1915 and you'd be quids in.

Steve, Was it Corrigan who said that Indian troops expected to be led from the front by their officers and that this led to high officer casualties.

[phil andrade]

The "three week life expectancy" has about it the same ring of absurdity as that old chestnut " a whole generation wiped out".

Hyped up claims and slogans that really have done damage. Lord knows, the truth was bad enough - a male generation was decimated : in the case of the subaltern class, doubly so. This was, and remains, a uniquely catastrophic event in British history. The turnover of officers, as opposed to their death, might well correspond to an average of three weeks.

Editing : The Black Death was, of course, a much bigger demographic catastrophe, but in terms of gender selection it was, presumably, even handed, whereas 1914-1918 was a male orientated Pied Piper. Hence my statement that for Britain the Great War was, and is, a unique catastrophe.

Phil (PJA)

[Muerrisch]

The "three week life expectancy" has about it the same ring of absurdity as that old chestnut " a whole generation wiped out".

Hyped up claims and slogans that really have done damage. Lord knows, the truth was bad enough - a male generation was decimated : in the case of the subaltern class, doubly so. This was, and remains, a uniquely catastrophic event in British history. The turnover of officers, as opposed to their death, might well correspond to an average of three weeks.

Editing : The Black Death was, of course, a much bigger demographic catastrophe, but in terms of gender selection it was, presumably, even handed, whereas 1914-1918 was a male orientated Pied Piper. Hence my statement that for Britain the Great War was, and is, a unique catastrophe.

Phil (PJA)

"Turnover"

2nd RWF had almost exactly 300 officers through their books during the war, with a War Establishment of 30 or so which was rarely met except at the beginning.

So that is crudely a ten-fold turnover in crudely four years, or 2.5 turnover per year, to achieve which the "average " officer had to be on the books 52/2.5 weeks, some 21 weeks.

This figure includes ALL officer ranks and those who progressed through those ranks and those who came, went, and returned.

[PhilB]

Risking a" firing from the hip" judgement, I'd say we're up against that infuriating and persistent error : the confusion of "killed" with "casualties". Phil (PJA)

Maybe not. It depends what the original quote was. It may have referred to the subaltern`s life on the Western Front, which might have been curtailed by many means - death, wounds, promotion, transfer, illness, etc.

[John_Hartley]

Maybe not. It depends what the original quote was.

Phil

We're prompted to the discussion by the book's title, which is sub-titled "The short life of the British officer in the First World War". In the Amazon blurb is also mentions "life expectancy". Obviously the actual narrative may have a different story to tell than the title suggests - but I'm clear it's intended to use the word "life" in the context of "not yet dead".

[PhilB]

I`m sure you`re right but the the man who made the original comment may have meant something different. Unfortunately, we`ll probably never know who he was or what he said.

[phil andrade]

A close inspection of my Medical Statistics throws some light on this.

There is an elaborate series of tabulations that expresses total casualties as a per centage of the overall average ration strength throughout the war. It's a bit convoluted, and it needs to be remembered that this expresses the total for the whole war as against the average ration strength as assessed for the entire period Aug 1914 to November 1918. I focus only on battle deaths, and do not take into account wounded ( non mortal), prisoners or non battle wastage ( illness or injury). So, here were are, total battle fatalities as against average ration strength in F&F :

Officers 17.6%, ORs 12.2%

For Gallipoli :

Officers 33.2% ORs 24%

I'm astonished at the greater lethality of Gallipoli : in relative terms, it appears, virtually twice as deadly as the Western Front.

I wonder if I've made a mistake .....

Phil (PJA)

[WilliamRev]

I have recently purchased "Six Weeks, The Short and Gallant Life of the British Officer in the First World War" by John Lewis-Stempel from Amazon - using the GW Forum fund-raising green link at the top of the page of course . It is currently £11.10 in hardback - reduced from £20 - because a (more expensive) paperback edition is due this autumn, so now is the time to buy it!

I have only started reading it, but it is already proving to be a really interesting and thought-provoking book focussing on young and junior officers: straight from public-school at the beginning of the war, and then later-on increasingly from the ranks. I have no doubt that in the coming months, when lots of Pals have read it (as I hope they will), it will provoke plenty of lively discussion.

Although the publisher's hype suggests that it is a universal statistic that junior officers only survived an average of six weeks, the text of the book makes it clear that the title comes from a quote from Robert Graves : " A soldier who had the honour to serve with one of the better divisions could count on no more than three months' trench service before being killed or wounded; a junior officer, a mere six weeks."

So we are talking about one man's quote about a junior officer being a casualty, not necessarily being killed, and in one of those reliable divisions which saw more action than the others.

William