Gallipoli - Casualties and Non-Battle Casualties

[Guest]

Martin,

It's a pleasure to help you. With all these figures whizzing around, it's all too easy to get fatigued and take your eye off the ball.

I hope that you find your Medical Statistics answers the questions.

One feature I found singularly noteworthy in their tabulation for Gallipoli : on page 201 there is an analysis of British casualties ( again, it must be emphasised that these are for UK troops only, and do not include the 7,292 RND casualties) which breaks down the battle casualties into the usual categories, but with one significant addition..... Died of wounds, injury or exposure before admission to hospital . This is the only compilation I have seen which differentiates between died of wounds before evacuation and died of wounds in hospital....all the other tabulations that I have seen have lumped them together as "died of wounds". In this case, the died of wounds before admission amount to 2,264, and the died of wounds in hospital number 3,082. I suspect that the lower died of wounds figure for Gallipoli that you cited in your first post might be attributable to this. If the two categories are added together, then the mortality rate among the wounded aggregates nearly 10.7%; if only those who died in hospital are counted, the ratio drops to approx 6.5%.

I find the dual categorising system for the mortally wounded at Gallipoli is significant testimony to zealous and effective casualty evacuation : it suggests an immediacy of care, and a speed of counting and assessment....a consolation, I suppose, for the narrowness of the battlefield, and the proximity of the front line to the hospital. A nightmare on the one hand, and an assistance on the other. The aggregate per centage of deaths among the wounded is a good deal higher than that of the Western Front, which, ironically, suggests that recovery of wounded was more effective in the Dardanelles....a function, again, of the awful concentration of the field as the Allies were confined to small areas of coastal lodgements. A lower mortality rate, in all too many cases, indicates not better medical care, but a situation in which wounded men died before they could be brought in.

By any reckoning, though, the Gallipoli fighting was extremely deadly, with the proportion of killed running at a higher per centage rate than most battles on the Western Front - both in terms of its ratio to the numbers engaged, and as a proportion of the casualties incurred.

Bob : Thank you, too, for explaining why the Turkish deficiencies in the quantity and quality of artillery and ammunition account for the disproportionately heavy casualties suffered by the Turks at Gallipoli. That was informative and helpful.

Phil (PJA)

Phil - Thanks again. I appreciate the sentiments on getting word blind. I am so stupefied by the data I actually ordered the wrong book too, so I still don't have Casualties and Stats (yet)..

From my first post you will see that 6.45% (close to your 6.5%) of men who were Battle Casualties (allegedly) died after being admitted to 'British medical units'. I guess this is their attempts to illustrate/measure the survivability of the wounded once they had got into the system. Again a remarkably successful datapoint.

With regards to the deadliness at Gallipoli, I have not studied Helles or ANZAC in minute detail, but the 6th-21st Aug at Suvla has some horrific casualty rates, comparable to the worst of the Western Front when looking at casualty rates rather than the absolute amounts. I feel rather odd dealing with these numbers at times as I am mindful that we are dealing in the currency of death and there are humans we are talking about. Lots more data to study in detail...

I recently read Six Weeks - The Short and Gallant Life of a British Officer in the First World War by John Lewis Stemple who clains nothing outside the Western Front came close. I am not sure I would totally agree, but again it depends on how one measures this.... Regards MG

P.S. I assume Casualties and Statistics resolves MIA into KIA or survived... some Battalions had people still counted as KIA for a fair few days, or weeks...

[phil andrade]

The Mitchell and Smith team made a very precise analysis of the MIA. They were able to distill the huge returns for missing - so often inflated in immediate post battle reports by temporarilly absent - and reduce them to "hardcore" elements of POWs or those who were subsequently to be counted among the dead.

You will find some revealing stats about ratios of casualties among officers compared with those of ORs.

Yes, we're talking about human beings in extremis....but, if we flinch from that, what are we doing having a Great War Forum in the first place ?

Gallipoli pales in its overall toll compared with the Western Front. I'm probably not exaggerating if I state that the first month of the Battle of the Somme cost many more British lives than nine months in the Dardanelles....indeed, the first day probably accounted for at least half as many. But there is something uniquely hair raising about accounts of those battles against the Turks, and the statistics, although on a smaller scale, suggest an intensity and ferocity that was transcendental.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

The Mitchell and Smith team made a very precise analysis of the MIA. They were able to distill the huge returns for missing - so often inflated in immediate post battle reports by temporarilly absent - and reduce them to "hardcore" elements of POWs or those who were subsequently to be counted among the dead.

You will find some revealing stats about ratios of casualties among officers compared with those of ORs.

Yes, we're talking about human beings in extremis....but, if we flinch from that, what are we doing having a Great War Forum in the first place ?

Gallipoli pales in its overall toll compared with the Western Front. I'm probably not exaggerating if I state that the first month of the Battle of the Somme cost many more British lives than nine months in the Dardanelles....indeed, the first day probably accounted for at least half as many. But there is something uniquely hair raising about accounts of those battles against the Turks, and the statistics, although on a smaller scale, suggest an intensity and ferocity that was transcendental.

Phil (PJA)

Intensity or concentration of death seems to me to be the most disturbing data.

[phil andrade]

A mortality rate in the order of one and a half per cent among the sick is a remarkably low figure, considering how awful those conditions must have been. It attests a triumphant improvement in British medical services since the Boer War, which barely a decade before, had cost twelve or thirteen thousand British lives from disease alone. I think that the number of British Empire troops who were sent to South Africa in that war is roughly comparable with the number sent to Gallipoli, and so the contrast is all the more striking. Of course, this works two ways.....the battlefield slaughter was exponentially greater in 1915 than it had been in 1900.

Much is made of the way the British experience in the Boer War rendered the BEF of 1914 a battle wise and highly effective instrument.

I would contend that it was in the field of health care that the experience of South Africa gave Britain her most valuable benefits in the Great War.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

A mortality rate in the order of one and a half per cent among the sick is a remarkably low figure, considering how awful those conditions must have been. It attests a triumphant improvement in British medical services since the Boer War, which barely a decade before, had cost twelve or thirteen thousand British lives from disease alone. I think that the number of British Empire troops who were sent to South Africa in that war is roughly comparable with the number sent to Gallipoli, and so the contrast is all the more striking. Of course, this works two ways.....the battlefield slaughter was exponentially greater in 1915 than it had been in 1900.

Much is made of the way the British experience in the Boer War rendered the BEF of 1914 a battle wise and highly effective instrument.

I would contend that it was in the field of health care that the experience of South Africa gave Britain her most valuable benefits in the Great War.

Phil (PJA)

Phil - all agreed. I think the timeline of Crimea through South Africa to WWI shows remarkable progression...... My copy of Casualties and Statistics has just arrived on the doormat. Fantastic!. I see it has stats from the Boer War too...

The frostbite numbers in Gallipoli make for grim reading. I have an interesting account of the brutal impact this had on the Scottish Horse which I will post.....MG

[michaeldr]

'Defeat at Gallipoli: The Dardanelles Commission Part II, 1915-16" [iSBN 0 11 702455 4]

Re Canteens see page 228; 'If canteens had been established at an earlier date, there would have been a reduction in sickness.'

The first request for canteens was made on 27 May, however Kitchener was 'disinclined' to send them to Gallipoli. After pressure from the Quartermaster-General Sir John Cowans, it was eventually agreed to spend ₤10,000 and this was later raised to ₤50,000. The final total seems to have been ₤90,000 with ten ships of canteen stores going out to Gallipoli between 16th July and 4th November 1915.

One point which is not clear is - How much of this actually reached the peninsula and how much stayed on the islands?

A footnote in the British OH, Vol.II, page 369 adds a little more info to the above:

"All through the summer the need for a canteen, where minor luxuries could be purchased, had been felt very acutely. An Expedionary Force canteen was opened at Helles on 19th August and at Suvla a month later; but supplies were inadequate. Anzac had received a small quantity of stores as early as June; but it was not until late autumn that stores were available in any quantity at the beaches. Canteens were established by local contractors at Mudros, and there were Y. M. C. A. depots at Mudros and Imbros."

[kjharris]

Greetings,

This article might assist you: Paterson, Sarah, Conditions: Evacuation of The Sick And Wounded From Gallipoli, The Joint Imperial War Museum/Australian War Memorial Battlefield Study Tour to Gallipoli, September 2000, at www.iwm.org.uk/online/gallipoli/pdf_files/MedEvac.pdf, accessed 29 April 2003. It's not on the site anymore that I can see but I have a copy somewhere.

Lack of drinking and washing water for the troops was a problem throughout the campaign, not just in the beginning - til it started raining.

I believe that sickness numbers at Gallipoli are greatly under-reported. Many men were sent to the hospital ships anchored off shore for a few day's R&R (for food, bathing and sleep) but I've never seen this reported in personal files.

cheers

Kirsty

[bob lembke]

Lack of drinking and washing water for the troops was a problem throughout the campaign, not just in the beginning - til it started raining.

Kirsty

My father was there with the Turks and although sources say that the Turks had the advantage of lots of good water, Pop said that they had water that had been carried up for days in goat skins tied to camels; he said that the water was black, and Europeans could only drink it if it was laced with lots of oil of peppermint. Very soon after arriving his Pioneer company had 80% casualties, almost all from illness, my father went there as a replacement. He himself got malaria, although it seemed to be much less prevalant than dysentry and the like; I've seen statistics.

Bob Lembke

[Keith_history_buff]

The 2nd Battalion South Wales Borderers were in China when war broke out. They took part in the Siege of Tsingtao and returned to the UK, with other "overseas" battalions, to form the 29th Division. Paul Dixon's book contains a nominal roll of the battalion in China at the outbreak of war, as an appendix. He and Martin Everett, the curator at Brecon, worked on this roll. Most of these men would disembark at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915.

I have taken a look at their fatalities; about 30% of them (308 out of 903 ORs & 3 SNCOs) died at the time of the first world war, which is comparable with their oppos in the 1st Battalion. Most of the deaths of these Tsingtao veterans were at Gallipoli.

Death breakout: 
 

Sum - Fatalities		Country
Death year	Time Period	BE	EG	FR	GI	GR	MT	TR	UK	Total Result
1915	1915 1Q								1	1
	1915 2Q	1	6	1		1		122		131
	1915 3Q		2		1	1	1	23		28
	1915 4Q		1	1				1	1	4
Total Result		1	9	2	1	2	1	146	2	164

 

Death year
1914	19
1915	164
1916	59
1917	28
1918	29
1919	4
1920	4
1921	1
Total Result	308

Below is a breakout by quarter, each colour is a country. I have used the ISO two character code usually seen on the end of internet addesses i.e. TR, UK etc with GI and MT for Gibraltar & Malta respectively.


I have been able to use SDGW to determine the cause of death

 

Cause of death
Killed in Action	219
Died of wounds	57
Attributable to military service by CWGC	30
Not War Related	2
Total Result	308

 

 

Whilst there were men transferring to other regiments during the course of the war, most of the men died whilst serving in the South Wales Borderers.

I have some similar data on discharges, largely driven by silver war badge data. 

 

[Keith_history_buff]

I have similar data below for discharges. This is problematic as although I have the discharge date for the 205 recipients of Silver War Badges, it is difficult to pinpoint the date when a major wound was sustained, unless a detailed file has survived the Arnside Street fire. I can anecdotally say that I have seen a number of cases of a Blighty wound being sustained, the soldier then being transferred to a Reserve Battalion afterwards, and a year after injury the man is then given an honourable medical discharge under Para 392 KR.

In contrast with the deaths, there are more men whose final regiment was not the South Wales Borderers.



What I found of interest, with regard to surviving service records for Time Expired men is that upon being given a medical examination on their date of discharge, the records would record that at the time of the medical examination, the man in question was no longer fit to serve. 

It looks as though something similar is occurring when men, such as 10521 Sergeant William John Jackson, are being examined at the time of demobilisation to Class Z, the medical reports are likewise finding these men are no longer fit to serve. That said, I have come across men who were medically discharged and who re-enlisted for short service in the South Wales Borderers in 1919, the giveaway being the 80000 series service number they have been allocated.

When the late Martin Gillott transcribed the Gallipoli diaries, he included the following statement on the losses of the 2nd Battalion, South Wales Borderers.
 

Quote

On 10th Oct 1915 the Brigade took stock of its casualties to date and counted the number of the original cohort who had landed on 25th April some six months earlier. Only 200 of the 1,035 ‘originals’ of the 2nd Bn SWB answered the roll call that day. Most had at one stage been wounded or sick and evacuated, only to later recover and return to the peninsula. Only 98 of the original battalion had never left Gallipoli; less than one in every 10 who landed six months earlier.

The above, compared with the data from the SWB rolls, highlights how difficult it is to get back to those "actuals" mentioned above from the incomplete service records and SWB rolls.
 

[Keith_history_buff]

Some comments on the Hampshire Regiment, pertaining to Gallipoli, but getting mentioned for comparative purposes on a thread about the BEF

  

On 02/01/2018 at 16:10, Guest said:

2nd Bn Hampshire Regiment at Gallipoli. Breakdown by cohort.

 

Note that only 789 o the original 995 appear on the medal roll. There are another 34 who land  within the subsequent weeks (too small in number to constitute a reinforcement draft (usually around 95 men). If these are included the total 'Main Body' comes to 833 of whom  422 were killed or died. This barely moves the numbers. It is important to note that the 'missing' men from the rolls were probably serving elsewhere when the 1914-15 Star roll was compiled. Assuming these were all still alive, the fatality ratio o the Main Body would be 42%. . An alternative explanation is that some o these were men who had previously served on the Western Front with the 1st Bn and had already been awarded the 1914 Star.

 

A similar approach could be made on the subsequent drafts. In addition there are a few dozen loose individuals who can not really be  identified with any large reinforcement.

 

Overall, 68% o the fatalities occurred at Gallipoli i.e within the first year.  We see similar skews in the 1914 data and the Western Front or first Cohorts.  

 

 

 

  

On 04/01/2018 at 12:09, Guest said:

Hampshire Regiment at Gallipoli (regulars) - 2nd Bn and 10th Bn - Fates of men disembarking in the Dardanelles.

 

Note that the 2nd Bn landed on 25th April 1915 and departed Jan 1916. The 10th Bn landed on 5th Aug 1915 and departed 3 months later.  In both instances over two thirds of all fatalities occurred in the Dardanelles. Random sampling of SWB data indicates most of the Discharged were discharged for medical reasons; specifically wounds.