The "machine guns" of Mons ?

[salesie]

Time for your tablets , old chap.

Not like you to lack imagination, Tom - thought better of you.

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

I was using absurdity to spotlight the gross absurdity of post no's 362, 363, 364 & 365

What gross absurdity?

Phil.

[Steven Broomfield]

I wondered that, too, Phil.

[salesie]

What gross absurdity?

Phil.

Read the rest of the relevant paragraph.

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

Read the rest of the relevant paragraph.

Cheers-salesie.

Your saying that Halder's posts, and my responses, were grossly absurd. Halder made a pertinent point - that recent research into official German statistcs has suggested that the losses tabulated might need to be revised upwards: that these occurred in the Second World War does not invalidate the point - the official records, whether they pertain to 1914 -18 or 1939-1945, are susceptible to revision. Yes, I was shocked by the casualties - the enormity of the loss of life beggars belief, and I have to admit that I find the statistics unbelievable. That does not make Halder's post absurd, any more than my response. Or are you saying that I shouldn't be shocked by the fact that 450,000 Germans were killed in January 1945, because the evils of Nazism needed to be avenged, and that I'm being grossly absurd by expressing incredulity?

Phil.

[Robert Dunlop]

Please can we drop this part of the discussion? There is still more to come. I am looking forward to any results that Ralph might come up with from his analysis of Le Cateau. FWIIW, I would like to post some more material on the Aisne and the Race to the Sea. Let's move on.

Robert

[Andrew Hesketh]

Please can we drop this part of the discussion?

Yes please. This is an outstanding thread that is getting sidetracked and has been the recipient of a few unecessary comments in the last 48 hours. I would hate to have to get the scissors out and prune it but any more forays into WWII and discussions about Nazi's will make that a necessity.

[salesie]

Your saying that Halder's posts, and my responses, were grossly absurd. Halder made a pertinent point - that recent research into official German statistcs has suggested that the losses tabulated might need to be revised upwards: that these occurred in the Second World War does not invalidate the point - the official records, whether they pertain to 1914 -18 or 1939-1945, are susceptible to revision. Yes, I was shocked by the casualties - the enormity of the loss of life beggars belief, and I have to admit that I find the statistics unbelievable. That does not make Halder's post absurd, any more than my response. Or are you saying that I shouldn't be shocked by the fact that 450,000 Germans were killed in January 1945, because the evils of Nazism needed to be avenged, and that I'm being grossly absurd by expressing incredulity?

Phil.

You do not see the absurdity, Phil, and that makes my point for me. It has nothing to do with statistical research or vengeance, but a lot to do with cause and effect, with culpability, with reaping what you sow, with an apparent lack of understanding of what lies beneath the surface of those figures, with a lack of sensitivity in not mentioning, even as an afterthought, the victims of those dead German soldiers whose loss were deemed so appalling.

Sure, you asked for clarification of the figures, but when satisfied of their veracity your exact words were, "Thank you Halder. Shocking figures, truly shocking.." So, it has nothing to do with your incredulity either - but a lot to do with knowing the cost of everything (especially to the German Army) and the value of nothing.

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

Yes please. This is an outstanding thread that is getting sidetracked and has been the recipient of a few unecessary comments in the last 48 hours. I would hate to have to get the scissors out and prune it but any more forays into WWII and discussions about Nazi's will make that a necessity.

Sorry, our posts crossed.

Cheers-salesie.

[Paul Hederer]

Please can we drop this part of the discussion? There is still more to come. I am looking forward to any results that Ralph might come up with from his analysis of Le Cateau. FWIIW, I would like to post some more material on the Aisne and the Race to the Sea. Let's move on.

Robert

Yes please. This has been an informative and interesting thread. I for one am looking forward to learning more through the continued discussion.

Paul

[Andrew Hesketh]

Sorry, our posts crossed.

Fair enough.

Can we keep the focus now chaps? Thanks.

[David Filsell]

Desdichado.

Maybe. But I was quoting Barrie. Not Montague. Anyway Barries dad was probably bigger than Montague's> The oint remains accurate.

David

[phil andrade]

Fair enough.

Can we keep the focus now chaps? Thanks.

Yes....Ralph's investigations into Le Cateau will be especially interesting. Much has been quoted from AJP Taylor on this thread. IIRC he wrote that Le Cateau was the biggest battle fought by the British since Waterloo, and he also commented that the numbers of British engaged, and their casualties, were roughly similar in both engagements - 32,000 and 8,000 respectivley. It's surprising to learn from Jack Sheldon and Nigel Cave that the generally accepted figure for the BEF's casualties at Le Cateau is a major exagerration. If the true figure was more like 5,000 than 8,000, what happened to the other 3,000, and when and where were they killed, wounded or captured?

Phil.

[Desdichado]

Desdichado.

Maybe. But I was quoting Barrie. Not Montague. Anyway Barries dad was probably bigger than Montague's> The oint remains accurate.

David

I know you were quoting Barrie. He got that wrong and I think his other point was wrong too.

[Jack Sheldon]

In the interests of moving the discussion back to where it belongs, I thought that it might be useful to list the overall casualties suffered by the six infantry regiments involved at Le Cateau together with the words used to describe them. Yes they are drawn from the histories, but this will, I feel, provide a a rough order of casualties, against which any information that Ralph can obtain may be compared. I had hoped to wait for George to post the outcome of his researches into the British regimental histories, but he is clearly not yet ready to do so.

Since I last posted on this, I have come across a statement in a British source dating from 1997 which states, 'German losses are not known. No figures are available and estimates range from 15,000 to 30,000 dead, wounded and missing.' Unfortunately the author does not state whose estimates those were, but it does, perhaps, provide an idea about what is generally understood by 'stupendous' or 'far greater than ours' when applied to German losses.

Just to recap, IR 72 attacked Le Cateau itself and moved round on the British right flank. IRs 26 and 66 attacked roughly along the line of the Montay - Reumont road. These were the men who clashed with the British 5th Division. Fusilier Regt 36 and IR 93 attacked east and west of Beaumont/Inchy respectively and IR 153 attacked towards Caudry. No infantry, other than four Jaeger battalions, attacked 4th Division positions. The German 14 Brigade (IRs 27 and 165) was delayed the previous night by the clash at Landrecies and did not arrive until after the battle and no units, other than some artillery of IV Res Corps, arrived early enough to have anything to do with the fighting at Le Cateau.

Here are the figures:

IR 26 KIA 4 offr, 57 OR; Wounded 12 offr, 247 OR; Missing 347 (of whom, the majority turned up later). 'The joy of the great success of the day was marred by the heavy casualties.'

Fusilier Regt 36 KIA 3 offr, 48 OR; Wounded 13 offr, 336 OR. 'The casualties in the firing line, which advanced in bounds against heavy British small arms fire were rather high.'

IR 66 KIA 5 offr, 75 OR; Wounded 11 offr, 398 OR (a further 7 offr were slightly wounded, but remained on duty). 'The battle was won but, unfortunately, the victory was bought at the cost of heavy casualties.'

IR 72 KIA 2 offr, 32 OR;Wounded 2 offr, 216 OR; Missing 3. 'The casualties were rather high in proportion to the relatively low intensity of the fighting.'

IR 93 KIA 6 offr, 112 OR; Wounded 9 offr, 306 OR. 'Unfortunately the regimental casualties were very significant... The victory was bought dearly.'

IR 153 KIA 3 offr, 51 OR; Wounded 5 offr, 235 OR. 'In Bethencourt the doctors had much sad work to do by the light of dim lamps - wounded, who had not been recovered during the day, continued to be carried in.

In rough terms, the worst percentage casualties at Le Cateau seem to have been suffered by IR 66 with +/- 16% and the lowest IR 72 with +/- 8%. Painful and a shock yes; disastrous, no. I think that the total German casualties for the day cannot have exceeded 3,000, but we shall have to wait and see what Ralph manages to find out.

Jack

[Desdichado]

Jack, many years ago, I corresponded with the German military attache in London regarding German casualty figures at Passchendaele and Loos. He told me that many of the documents relating to this had been destroyed in WWII so and accurate figure could not be given. So where does that leave us regarding the number of German casualties?

[Jack Sheldon]

We have covered this earlier in the thread; it was the cause of much of the dispute, so you might like to flick back through some of the earlier entries. The purpose of my current post is simply to suggest that, purely on the basis of a look through the histories of the infantry involved, it appears that the figures were very much lower than the British have believed and also to set up a rough base line against which Raph's work, which will based on the original published Verlustlisten can be viewed. Becaus he will be working with primary documentation, it may provide us with a check on the validity of the figures published in the histories, which would be very interesting.

Jack

[Desdichado]

We have covered this earlier in the thread; it was the cause of much of the dispute, so you might like to flick back through some of the earlier entries. The purpose of my current post is simply to suggest that, purely on the basis of a look through the histories of the infantry involved, it appears that the figures were very much lower than the British have believed and also to set up a rough base line against which Raph's work, which will based on the original published Verlustlisten can be viewed. Becaus he will be working with primary documentation, it may provide us with a check on the validity of the figures published in the histories, which would be very interesting.

Jack

Fair enough. I did arrive here late so I'll go back and take a gander.

Des

[Steven Broomfield]

Presumably "Heavy" (or any synonym) is a relative word. Losses were heavy for the regiments concerned (presumably spread across three battalions in most cases?) compared to what was expected. I wonder - purely out of interest - what the descriptive word would have been two or three years later.

[Jack Sheldon]

Steven

That is a good point. I shall try and find a couple of examples. I suspect, however, that any formation or unit taking 10% or more casualties in a day would think them 'heavy'. Remember, too, that some of the men who fell in the early battles had been together for years before the war. They would probably feel the loss of long term friends more keenly than some who came later and were not so well known. I have certainly noticed this in my examination of Cambrai. Some of the men killed with three years war service under their belts, were the subject of quite lengthy eulogies in the histories.

Jack

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks, Jack: it is an interesting point which, I think, needs remembering when considering early-war casualties. Your point about eulogies for long-service men at the end of the war has a resonance in British histories: Riddell and Clayton described the loss of CSM Harry Betts, MC, DCM (familiar name!) in late August 1918 thus: I found out why CSM Betts had not reported to HQ with the other CSMs. Just as the attack was starting, an enemy machine gun opened up only a short distance in front. Impulsive as ever, he could not resist the challenge and sprang over the parapet, doubtless intending to work round and take the machine gun from a flank. He had only gone a few yeards when he fell, and with him Cambridgeshire lost one of its bravest sons and the Battalion a devoted and fearless warrant officer (Riddell and Clayton, "The Cambridgeshires 1914-19").

The shock of early casualties and the loss of an old friend must have been huge.

[Robert Dunlop]

Reading Zuber's book on the Ardennes, I was reminded that some German units lost more in their first day of combat than the same units lost in the entire Franco-Prussian War. Cast a slightly different perspective on the same issue, reinforcing just how significant the losses were in such a short period of time.

Robert

[phil andrade]

For the record, Jack's post shows that the aggregate casualties of the six German regiments that bore the brunt of the Battle of Le Cateau amounted to 398 killed, 1791 wounded and 350 missing, a total of 2,539. Allowing for other units that suffered losses there might swell the total to about 3,000.

If Ralph Whitehead's analysis supports that total as reasonably correct, then we have pretty strong evidence that there has been an awful lot of poppycock written about that fighting.

Phil.

[Halder]

As intended, feathers have been ruffled. I was using absurdity to spotlight the gross absurdity of post no's 362, 363, 364 & 365 - in which not a thought was given to what those German casualty figures, that so shocked Phil, represented - not a mention of the great evil that those German soldiers were defending - the innocent casualties created by that infamous army, which far outnumbered the casualties that Hitler's criminally inclined forces suffered themselves, were not even an afterthought to any of those posts.

I have been away for the past three days so have not been able to respond to this, although thank you to all who chipped in in mea absentia.

These are not vae victis posts. They are intended to show that, through no fault of the recording authorities/officials, contemporary casualty records can be incorrect/incomplete - largely due to the chaotic situation prevalent at the time. If contemporary figures are incorrect, then it is not a case of deliberate massaging or falsification. I have found no evidence to suggest that casualty figures in the Wehrmacht were deliberately falsified... although the publically-announced figures may well be - and invariably were 'scaled down'.

My "shock" is at size of the figures; these are casualty rates which take the breath away - the only comparison I can really think of is the Red Army in the summer and early autumn of 1941. That said, I take absolutely no pleasure in seeing so many Germans die, however odious their regime (the casualty rate for German civilians in the winter of 1945 is equally terrible). We could all learn a lot from the humility of Ulysses S Grant, whose words have the power to move more than 120 years after he wrote them:

I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I hope to have the reported figures shortly for all of the regiments Jack kindly provided. The results will be taken from the 10 day returns sent in by each regiment, in many cases by individual battalions and at times companies. It will provide a look at the known, reported losses for these actions.

While some of the MIA will be switched to KIA there is often a lack of detail at first due to the frantic situation present at the time and I have recorded correction lists months and at times years after an action after the authorities received new details, reports from the Red Cross, hospital returns, etc. While never 100% it will provide a look at the type of losses, the severity of the casualty in many cases from severely wounded, slightly wounded, slightly wounded and remained with the regiment, etc.

The only result will be to provide the most accurate picture possible without the ability to review the wartime regimental returns and records of most of these units as a result of bombings, etc. during WWII.

Having relatives that served in three armies, the British, American and the Württemberg units of the German Army and a wife whose relatives also served from both sides I have no real interest in taking sides and only want to see the truth of the estimates. It is not uncommon in any war to have errors pop up when estimating enemy losses and there is always the desire to show the enemy suffered more. Let's see what the lists turn up.

Ralph