So much for senior officers being safe.

[neutrino]

So much for senior officers being safe.

A quote from Tommy by R Holmes.

I found this quote quite strange as he only listed one BG killed at the some.

Has anyone done any statistics on this.

There were so many soldiers and so many generals.

The number of generals to soldiers was 1 in 5,000 say.

The number of generals to soldiers killed was 1in 50,000 say.

And maybe then comment how safe or otherewise it was for senior officers.

[Greenwoodman]

Frank Davies and Graham Maddocks' book "Bloody Red Tabs: General Officer Casualties of the Great War, 1914-1918" (London: Leo Cooper, 1995) lists 78 generals who died on active service, and 146 who were wounded. Copies available on the secondhand market, or try Tom Morgan.

[Guest IMDB Fan]

Not to be heartless it should be pointed out that the rank of Brigadier General in the British Army was scrapped in the 1920s and the rank was changed to Brigadier ( Though even today a great number of armies across the globe retain this rank ) so by todays criteria some of the generals killed 1914-18 wouldn`t qualify as generals today . However that would be rewtiting history

Nevertheless the fact that so many senior officers were killed ( or indeed junior ones - Check out you local memorial ) hasn`t stopped the ridiculous and quite offensive myth that it was cushy for some ranks and certain death for others . Even second world war Generals like Monty and Brian Horrocks were wounded fighting on the western front 1914-18 which led them to be catious with mens lives 25 years later

[neutrino]

I wasn't meaning to be ridiculous or offensive (yet :-) )

Was wondering if there were any facts and figures which might give some idea of what actually occured.

[PhilB]

. Even second world war Generals like Monty and Brian Horrocks were wounded fighting on the western front 1914-18 which led them to be catious with mens lives 25 years later

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure of the significance of this since they were junior officers when wounded? Phil B

[welshdoc]

If the figures quoted are correct (and Im not suggesting otherwise) the proportion of generals to others died was nearer 1:100,000 !. We all know that junior officers were the most likely to be killed with RFC flyers. If we also consider that "died while on active duty" included anything from shot to died of gout, the proportion KIA was probably much higher. Therefore it was much safer to be a general than anything else. So is the comparison fair? Probably not but then neither was the different lives led by different ranks. GAreth

[neutrino]

welshdoc,

thanks for that.

It was R Holmes' remark in Tommy ''So much for senior officers being safe''

that rather surprised me especially as he didn't give any figures and only one example of a BG being killed.

As the book got good reviews on here I rather expected a bit more from him.

I may well be jumping to conclusions as I'm stiil only on page 47.

[truthergw]

welshdoc,

thanks for that.

It was R Holmes' remark in Tommy ''So much for senior officers being safe''

that rather surprised me especially as he didn't give any figures and only one example of a BG being killed.

As the book got good reviews on here I rather expected a bit more from him.

I may well be jumping to conclusions as I'm stiil only on page 47.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do we really wish to expose senior officers to mortal danger? As a soldier in the field I would want the men in charge to be well out of harms way. I'm there to do the fighting and they are there to tell me how best to do it. I want them concentrating on how best to win, not dodging bullets, bombs or shells.

[neutrino]

truthergw,

I was questioning R Holmes inferring that senior officers weren't safe during the Great War.

Taking it on a step, he seemed to be rebutting a general thought that senior officers had perhaps intentionally kept themselves out of harms way and that this wasn't in fact the case as shown by his ''one'' example.

Taking it on a further step it seemed to me that he was rebutting a thought that while senior officers were less than careful about the lives of their men they were very careful with their own safety.

I was asking if there were any figures which might point one way or the other.

No axe to grind either way.

Just interested.

[armourersergeant]

There is eveidence that certainly ion 1914 and 1915 that General officers led literally from the front. In fact after Loos in 1915, the loss of Capper, Wing, Nickalls and 'forgotten' (getting old!) Sir John French had Robertson issue an order to the effect that General officers could hardly be spared and this order almost banned them from the front line.

Still 'Bloody red Tabs' shows that many, especially and I guess given there near proximity to the front line, Brigadier Generals, still suffered in 1916-18 either through wounding or death.

regards

Arm

[treetop]

Whilst the ratio of dead to numbers may be interesting it must surely be wrong to try and compare in the first place? What use would it be to have all the planning of the battle in the front line if it was overrun ? A more valid point would be the inability to quickly progress men who had recent front line experience to senior positions so that the case for changing tactics would be heard better rather than overruled without due consideration. My wife's grandfather told me 35 years ago, when I met him,about his experience wounded in the trenches and recovering behind the lines worked at a brigade or corps HQ. When listening to senior officers discussing an advance by throwing 1000 men at the huns and seeing how many they lost to detremine the strength of the enemy positions he apparently interrupted to say it was men's lives at stake and he was shortly returned to the front line to serve at Passchendale ! Jimmy Gibbons then became an active member of the union movement to the end of his life.

[Gibbo]

According to Holmes in Tommy (pp. 212-3), nine Briitsh division commanders were killed on the Western Front in WWI; Hubert Hamilton & Samuel Lomax in October 1914, Tommy Capper, Frederick Wing & George Thesiger at Loos, Edward Ingouville-Williams at the Somme, Robert Broadwood in Flanders, Edward Feetham in March 1918 & Louis Lipsett in the Hundred Days. A Canadian, Malcolm Mercer, & an Australian, William Holmes, were also killed. This compares with three division commanders killed in WWII, only one of them Tom Rennie of the 51st) in North West Europe. Holmes says that, counting brigadier generals, 58 generals were killed on the Western Front; it's not clear if this figure refers to British only or includes Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans & Canadians.

Brigadier General Nickalls, as said by armourersergeant above, was also killed at Loos where two more brigadier generals were wounded & another captured. Given that nine British divisions were committed at Loos, it seems that general was one of the riskier ranks in that battle at least, with three out of nine division commnaders dying!

[neutrino]

At last some figures.

I haven't reached that part of Tommy yet.

So just looking at Loos.

What was the ratio of other ranks killed to the total number commited to the battle.

Anyone know.

I can see that if I'm so interested in this then maybe I should do some of the investigation rather than leave it to others.

But I don't know where to look for the answers and you guys may have the answers at your fingertips :-)

[squirrel]

Try Niall Cherry's book Most Unfavorable Ground for numbers of casualties and an excellent account of the battle.

[Gilgamesh of Uruk]

It would be even more instructive, in my view, to compare the ratios for officers of field rank, subalterns, and rankers with those of comparable ranks in the RN and (combining the four) RFC, RNAS, IAF and RAF.

[snavek]

I'm just getting to the end of 'Tommy' and rate it in the top ten of my WW1 reads.

Regarding Generals being 'safe', this certainly was'nt the case at Mount Sorrel when Major-General Mercer, 3rd Canadian Div. and Brigadier-General Williams, 8th Canadian Brigade went up to the front line together having been instructed by the Corps. Commander to plan a local attack. Mercer was hit by shrapnel and killed, Williams was wounded and taken prisoner. In todays language I suspect this would not be considered 'best practice'.

Keith

[Roxy]

Although the rank of brigadier general was changed, a brigadier is still equivalent to a 1* general, as is air commodore (RAF) or commodore (RN).

Roxy

[Coldstreamer]

Hello

Several years ago my uncle had the VC group to Fitzclarence of the Irish Gds (?) he lead from the front

Ian

So much for senior officers being safe.

A quote from Tommy by R Holmes.

I found this quote quite strange as he only listed one BG killed at the some.

Has anyone done any statistics on this.

There were so many soldiers and so many generals.

The number of generals to soldiers was 1 in 5,000 say.

The number of generals to soldiers killed was 1in 50,000 say.

And maybe then comment how safe or otherewise it was for senior officers.

[PhilB]

There seem to be 2 primary factors influencing staff casualties. One was time at the front - the staff officer spent less time there, so reducing his chances of being hit. The other was the fact that HQs were prime targets, particularly when aircraft saw car tyre tracks, evidence of communications equipment, sentries and the like. This meant increased chance of being hit. Location and camouflaging of HQs assumed great significance as spotting progressed. Phil B

[n cherry]

I might be wrong but I seem to recall instructions being issued after Loos that Bigadiers and above were not

to go too far forward to prevent further casualties amnogst hte higher command. It is I feel often overlooked that senior officers were needed also due ot the rapid expansion of the Army and the amount of offficers who'd been through Staff College was obviously limited.

I must admit that I've never counted the number of 'senior officers' above half colonel killed/captured at Loos...certainly a number Capper, Wing and Thessigerimmediately come to mind.

I guess more seniors were killed/wounded/captured before Loos than after?????

Perhaps it's a job for someone over Christmas to count from 'Most Unfavourable Ground'....perhaps even me. After all I've seen 'The Great Escape' enough times.....

Finally possibly another forgotten fact that Medical officers were aslo in short supply and were ordered around the same time as the seniors not to 'hunt for wounded' in No Mans Land.....

[Druid_Ian]

In Martin Middlebrooks book "The first day of the Somme" he gives a list of senior officer casualties including acting battalion commanders.

this list gives 53 casualties of which 25 were killed, 6 died of wounds and 22 wounded. A break down of the casualties follows

Brig gen C.B. Prowse 11th brigade Killed, Brig Gen N.J.G. Cameron 103rd Brigade Wounded.

22 Lieut-Col's Killed, 5 died of Wounds and 18 Wounded

2 Maj. Killed 1 Died of wounds, 2 Wounded

1 Capt. Wounded

[Cuddles]

It always amazes me the depth of the "bloody red tabs" agenda. It is based on class envy or hatred, supported by misrepresentations of the work of generals versus that of the average Tommy and capped by ignorance of the real life of the Staff and the generals. There is rather too much "one Staff officer jumped right over the other Staff officer's back" or drinks cabinets being moved six inches nearer Berlin for my taste.

Given the hierarchical nature of the Army as an organisation, it is distinct and clear that general officers suffered a higher level of casualties than might be expected either by a paper-based knowledge of armies or an ignorance of the real nature of Great War combat. These days general officers do not need to go into Mk1 eyeball range of the frontline to get a clear tactical picture. Their recognised ground picture is provided by dozens of elements - humint, sigint, photographic recce et al - via many media, aircraft, UAVs, troops in contact and even CNN!

In 1914-1918, if you wanted to know what was actually happening and make a difference, then advancing into visual range was the only option. Just as in many cases, like Bradford's, to focus your troops on a task you had to provide a visual and physical focus. With the risk of consequences such as he entailed.

This idea that generals were evil, brutal men who cared little for their troops annoys me, because it is definitely incorrect and worse, intellectually lazy. Look at Inky bill's comments, some days before he was killed in action...

"My men did glorious deeds. Never have I seen men go through such a hell of a barrage of artillery. They advanced as on parade, and never flinched. I can't speak too highly of them. They earned a great record. But, alas ! at a great cost. I am very sad at losing all my brave fellows, but so glad that their grand work is appreciated by the Corps Commander, Army Commander and Sir Douglas Haig. My brave men had to face a long advance to reach their objective. They were swept by that awful barrage — double barrage. Some got through, but could not. remain so far off without support. They did their duty nobly. Never shall I cease singing the praises of my men, and I shall never have the same grand men to deal with again. I think they have done their part well, and their attack made all the subsequent success possible."

On the 22nd July Major- General Ingouville-Williams went with his ADC to the Bois-de-Mametz to make a personal reconnaissance of the ground where he was to take his Division into action the following week; on the bank at Queen’s Nullah, south-west of Mametz Wood, after having walked back from Contalmaison round the south side of the wood to meet his car which was at Montauban, he was caught in a barrage of fire and was hit by a piece of shell which killed him instantly. He was 54 years of age when he was killed."

Perhaps we can apply a bit more historical understanding in this issue and less of the deliberately contorted story-lines of Ben Elton and co?

[phil andrade]

A lot of British generals were killed in the Great War.

If it was their intention to keep themselves out of harm's way, then they really were terribly incompetent.

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

A lot of British generals were killed in the Great War.

If it was their intention to keep themselves out of harm's way, then they really were terribly incompetent.

Phil (PJA)

The original cleft stick, eh? I think that they were wrong to expose themselves to enemy fire.

[PhilB]

I think that they were wrong to expose themselves to enemy fire.

Certainly not part of a senior officer`s job description! It was an unfortunate fact of WW1 life that their job probably did call for them to operate frequently in the swept zone of much artillery fire. Shell fragments/shrapnel seem to have been the big killers. I suspect that few were hit by small arms fire and even fewer killed by bayonet.