was it safer being an artillery man than a simple soldier

[margaretdufay]

have just been watching some of the films posted, and it struck me was it a lot safer being an artillery man than just a simple soldier, or were the risks just as great for both categories of soldiers?

hope this question hasn't been raised before, tried to search for it on the forum, but couldn't find any answer.

thanks in advance

mags

[thor432]

Hi Mags

You may think that it would be Safe to be behind the lines as a Long range sniper but thats no true, as soon as your Battary opened up you would have had counter artillery fire from the German Gunners, so I would say that the Risk was the same.

Dave

[John_Hartley]

I suspect that there's no statistical answer to this.

The dangers were different. An artilleryman didnt attack across No Man's Land, of course, so in that respect was safer than his infantry comrades. On the hand, his service was in fixed locations, often well targetted by the enemy artillery and, of course, while they were operating the guns they had no protection by way of trenches or dug-outs.

[Johno7439]

Mags,

Counter battery fire, the ever present danger of a round exploding either in the breech or barrel, the dangerous environment of working around the gun, and wondering if the infantry in front would hold the line, all these plus I'm sure many more dangers would have been ever present in an Artilleryman's mind. Being an ex-gunner myself, I can only comment on modern Artillery warfare, but counter battery fire and the dangerous environment within the gun platform are certainly area's which are highlighted in training.

Your's aye

Ewan

[Robert Dunlop]

On the hand, his service was in fixed locations, often well targetted by the enemy artillery and, of course, while they were operating the guns they had no protection by way of trenches or dug-outs.

In addition, artillerymen often spent much longer in danger. During the Third Ypres campaign, for example, infantry were rotated in and out of the lines relatively quickly. The gunners spent more time at risk, being relieved less often.

Robert

[margaretdufay]

Many thanks for your replies, it's interesting to hear information about the lives of artillerymen, as we always seem to hear more about the front line soldiers.

br

mags

[oscarquebec]

I guess there is no experience quite like 'going over the top' and crossing no mans land. But, I remember my grandfather's account (RFA) or being the only survivior of his gun crew when hit by opposing artillery. One minute a gun and crew, the next a hole in the ground!

[tipperary]

An entry of just the rank of Gunner into Geofs brings up 6000 results out of a possible 29547 casualties in that rank so they had as said above different but very real risks.john

[centurion]

Far too simplistic a question. Just too many factors. To start with it would depend on

Which particular theatre and time of the war

What the service of the 'simple' soldier was (not all experienced a Somme type over the top)

What the duties of the artillery man were (for example if he was part of the crew of a 'sacrifice' gun intended to defend a retreat as in March/ April 1918)

What type of artillery he was with (there's a difference between a gunner on a big railway gun and a field gunner in a forward position)

[kenf48]

The inscription on Jagger's Royal Artillery Memorial Hyde Park Corner

'In Proud Memory Of The Forty-Nine-Thousand-Seventy-Six

Of All Ranks Of The

Royal Regiment of Artillery

Who Gave Their Lives for King

And Country in the Great War'

1914—1919'

Depending on the source, say 703.000 total killed so around 7% of the total dead came from the RA

With a few hours to spare you could no doubt calculate comparative casualty ratios to the infantry by reference to the WW1 Statistics http://www.vlib.us/w...britishwwi.html but it still wouldn't tell you much [ and the file is so big even though it's saved to my laptop it brings everything to a halt!]

Then you would need to factor income of the variables mentioned above.

Ken

[Tom A McCluskey]

Hi Mags,

Assuming you mean infantryman by your term 'simple soldier', the answer to your question is yes.

Although simple statistics are involved in working out the answer, there is not a simple process to calculate the answer. This is due to the fact that circumstances change as the War progresses (i.e. too many variables and too few constants). The percentage of soldiers allocated to the various combat and support arms changed throughout the War. The table below illustrates the changes in the percentage make up of the Army from its constituent Arms and Services on the Western Front. Anyway, in basic terms, there were over 2 million casualties and the breakdown is as follows (figures come from Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914 - 1920):

83.4% of Army casualties came from the Infantry (from making up 53.9% of the Army in 1914 to 32.8% in October 1918)

8.1% of Army casualties came from the Artillery [all branches] (as above - 16.4% to 17.8%).

2.6% of Army casualties came from the Royal Engineers (as above 4.9% to 7.9% ).

2.5% of Army casualties came from the Machine Gun Corps (as above 0% to 3.8%).

2.2% of Army casualties came from all Other Corps (as above 16.6% to 34.2% ).

0.9% of Army casualties came from the Cavalry (as above 7.7% to 1%).

0.3% of Army came from the Tank Corps (as above 0% to 1%).

Regardless of danger elsewhere on and around the battlefield, the infantry were subjected to considerably more risk than the other Arms and Services - the statistics speak for themselves. Using the same source document, here are some revealing wound comparisons from the Western Front, October 1917:

10.1% of infantrymen serving had been wounded twice.

1.3%* of cavalrymen serving in had been wounded twice.

0.6% of artillerymen serving in had been wounded twice.

I hope this gives you a better indication of the casualty percentages.

Aye,

Tom McC

PS - the 'Total' Column (on the table) indicates casualties per Arm/Service.

*I have used the 1918 ‘effective strengths’ as I cannot find one for October 1917.

[Robert Dunlop]

Well done, Tom. Puts things in perspective really nicely.

Robert

[margaretdufay]

Thanks too Tom, I'm glad your Maths are better than mine

mags

[David_Underdown]

While an interesting statistic, it could be that the nature of circumstances leading to artillerymen becoming casualties were more likely to be killed than wounded. I'm certainly surprised there's such a disparity in the experience of infantry and cavalry given how much time cavalry spent on dismounted duties in the trenches

[centurion]

Well done, Tom. Puts things in perspective really nicely.

Robert

Except of course it doesn't

Define infantryman and cavalryman for a start

Define Artilleryman (eg do you include all trench mortar crews or just medium and heavy trench mortar crew - or none)

These are casualties but casualty can mean anything from a burnt finger to blown to smithereens.

I've been trying to see what the chances of a gunner being killed were compared to that of an infantry man etc but the figures are too imprecise and (to quote Gary Larson) please Sir my brain is full.

Sometime ago I knew someone (an actuary) who was trying to do a risk analysis of submariners (not war time) versus surface sailors, his problem was that whilst submariners had fewer casualties those they did have tended to be fatal. It's the same sort of problem. It's the same kind of problem. Simple stats only take you so far.

[kevmc]

It's worth bearing in mind that on many occasions Artillery units remained in the line whilst the Divisions' Infantry went back to billets. They also were switched to other Divisions on a temporary basis whilst the Infantry had a period of rest.

Kevin

[Tom A McCluskey]

Hi all,

From the figures provided from the upper part of the table on page 249 of Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914 – 1920, the following breakdown of casualty percentages are produced:

Aye,

Tom McC

[centurion]

Hi all,

From the figures provided from the upper part of the table on page 249 of Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914 – 1920, the following breakdown of casualty percentages are produced:

Aye,

Tom McC

Ahw come on ! are you suggesting that over 80 % of infantry were killed? And over 90 % captured ? That's what the extract you posted shows!

I don't have enough legs to have bells on.

[IPT]

I think they're percentages of the total for each category.

Otherwise it adds up to 257% of infantrymen.

[margaretdufay]

I saw a posting from Tom this morning and now it seems to have disappeared. ????????????

[Tom A McCluskey]

IPT,

That’s correct.

Centurion,

No, that’s what you are suggesting.

Read my post 11, look at the 'Total' column on the table, and look at the total British casualties from Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914 – 1920.

All,

Presenting the figures in a different way:

• Out of every 10 men killed, 8.3 were in the Infantry – bearing in mind that 5.4 out of 10 soldiers were in the Infantry in 1914, and 3.3 out of 10 soldiers in 1918.

• Out of every 10 men killed 0.8 were in the Artillery - bearing in mind that 1.6 out of 10 soldiers were in the Artillery in 1914, and 1.8 out of 10 soldiers in 1918.

• Out of every 10 men wounded, 8.2 were in the Infantry and 0.9 were in the Artillery.

• Out of every 10 men Missing/POW, 9.2 were in the Infantry and 0.2 were in the Artillery.

Again, putting it simply, the odds were more stacked against you if you were in the infantry. This comes as no surprise to me.

Aye,

Tom McC

[SteveMarsdin]

Good morning,

Most of the contributions seem to address the issue either from a British and Empire side, or from the basis of static warfare. It is worth remembering that the 2eme RACC was so devastated at the Battle of Rossignol (22/08/1914) that it was, I think, the only French regiment in the entire war not to be reconstituted (until late in 1917).

[Roger H]

I'm not sure that I am bothered which was "safer". They all did their duty

Roger

[truthergw]

Hi Mags. We can look at the question from another point of view. The most dangerous place to be is on the firing line. Which ever other areas are fired on, we can be sure that the firing line got the lion's share. In open warfare, field guns are right up there in the front alongside and even in front of the infantry and will be suffering equal casualties if not more. During the period of trench warfare, artillery pieces did not normally fire from the firing trench and so the day to day ' friction' was more likely to cause casualties in the infantry manning the trench. That must be balanced by the use of counter battery fire, targetted specifically at enemy guns and crews. Prior to and during a battle, this gun against gun action was intensified so during the preparatory bombardments at the Somme for instance, the vicinity of the guns would be very unhealthy. If I were to try to quantify all that, I think I would start by calculating what percentage of artillerymen were killed as against what percentage of infantry were killed. I think that would give us a rough but fair indication.

[widavies]

Hi Mags,

Assuming you mean infantryman by your term 'simple soldier', the answer to your question is yes.

Although simple statistics are involved in working out the answer, there is not a simple process to calculate the answer. This is due to the fact that circumstances change as the War progresses (i.e. too many variables and too few constants). The percentage of soldiers allocated to the various combat and support arms changed throughout the War. The table below illustrates the changes in the percentage make up of the Army from its constituent Arms and Services on the Western Front. Anyway, in basic terms, there were over 2 million casualties and the breakdown is as follows (figures come from Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914 - 1920):

83.4% of Army casualties came from the Infantry (from making up 53.9% of the Army in 1914 to 32.8% in October 1918)

8.1% of Army casualties came from the Artillery [all branches] (as above - 16.4% to 17.8%).

2.6% of Army casualties came from the Royal Engineers (as above 4.9% to 7.9% ).

2.5% of Army casualties came from the Machine Gun Corps (as above 0% to 3.8%).

2.2% of Army casualties came from all Other Corps (as above 16.6% to 34.2% ).

0.9% of Army casualties came from the Cavalry (as above 7.7% to 1%).

0.3% of Army came from the Tank Corps (as above 0% to 1%).

Regardless of danger elsewhere on and around the battlefield, the infantry were subjected to considerably more risk than the other Arms and Services - the statistics speak for themselves. Using the same source document, here are some revealing wound comparisons from the Western Front, October 1917:

10.1% of infantrymen serving had been wounded twice.

1.3%* of cavalrymen serving in had been wounded twice.

0.6% of artillerymen serving in had been wounded twice.

I hope this gives you a better indication of the casualty percentages.

Aye,

Tom McC

PS - the 'Total' Column (on the table) indicates casualties per Arm/Service.

*I have used the 1918 'effective strengths' as I cannot find one for October 1917.

I noticed in the table that "Other Corps" made up a significant percentage of casualties by 1918. What was the composition of these other corps?

Regards

Will