What does “Missing” actually mean?

[Seadog]

I expect the answer is simple, as most things are but what does the description “missing” actually mean when used in the context of describing casualties. I assume the obvious explanation is that they could not be traced after an action so would I presume be classified as killed which would then make a more accurate analysis of the losses suffered. I suppose the description could also apply to those taken POW but in that case there would be no need to include such on a memorial like the one below which was erected many years after. The description is used quite widely and this example is from Albert on the Somme, any ideas?

Norman

[seaforths]

If you look at how the casualty lists were worded, there were different classifications of missing as well as just missing. However someone missing might turn up later in the lists under another category depending on what happened to them.

[Seadog]

As an example of the scale of this the figure quoted by one source as "Missing or Captured" is 46,000 (round) for Allied losses in the Somme battle and whilst I accept that record-keeping was to put it mildly difficult due to the appalling losses the figure I quote for illustrative purposes must include those missing and presumed dead. If then we extrapolate this to its logical conclusion the number classified as killed must be understated. The accuracy of the figures is not a concern just the principle involved.

Regards

Norman

[phil andrade]

In the weekly returns of casualties submitted to GHQ the category of " Missing" included men who were both taken prisoner and those who were later presumed dead. The proportion varied according to the exigencies of battle. For example when the British armies were in retreat, as was the case in August 1914 and March and April 1918, the preponderance of the missing were prisoners of war.

In the offensives of 1915, 16 and 17, the implication of being posted as missing was more likely to be fatal. In initial post battle reports, many of the missing were temporarily absent. The monthly casualty returns were to a very large degree modified to allow for the return of these men. The most reliable source, which throws much light on what we're discussing, is the official Medical History, Casualties, which tabulated total casualties suffered by the British Empire armies on all fronts, and was compiled long after the Great War, thereby excluding the temporary absentees from the returns of missing.

I'l get a cup of tea,find the volume, and post the figures as an edit within the next hour or so.

Bearing in mind that these are purely British statistics, I'll try and contribute data about other belligerents' casualties, too.

Phil (PJA)

[Seadog]

Many thanks for your efforts, looking forward to getting a better understanding of this issue.

Norman

[phil andrade]

Norman, A rather brief summary of British missing, France and Flanders, 1914-18, differentiating between those who were prisoners, and those who were subsequently counted as fatalities :

1914 : 26,511 missing, of whom 25% were killed.

1915 : 23,754 missing, of whom 67% were killed

1916 : 43,675 missing, of whom 64.5% were killed

1917 : 53,794 missing, of whom 56% were killed

1918 : 171,288 missing, of whom 37% were killed.

The heavy loss in PoWs in 1914 and 1918 is very apparent. These are hardcore figures only, excluding the temporarily absent.

Gallipoli is astonishing : of 7,698 posted as missing, only 477 were PoWs, and 7,221 were dead !

My guess is that the MGC memorial plaque you allude to cites missing as including both PoWs and presumed dead. The proportion of killed to other casualties is rather small, otherwise.

Info on other nations available, if required.

Phil (PJA)

[Seadog]

Thanks Phil that info is really helpful. My figure for missing/captured during the battle of the Somme was extracted from Purnells History of the First World War, page 1693 where there is a comprehensive table of Allied losses which I guess is no less accurate or inaccurate than that from other sources. This table gives the somewhat precise figure for the UK as 38,013 which when based on your info for 1916 and as a rough calculation would add another 24,000 plus to the numbers killed. Although a bit of a “back of a fag packet” calculation on my part if I am correct in my assumptions then that additional number is not an insignificant amendment to the figures quoted in my example, whether this is repeated in other statistics I have no idea but if it is then the figures could be quite distorted as may have happened with by example from Albert.

Norman

Added: A quick search in SDGW gives a total of 15,022 Officers and Men killed in the MGC

Added: Geoff’s search engine returns a total of 16,076 for all Machine Gun Corps categories.

[PhilB]

Gallipoli is astonishing : of 7,698 posted as missing, only 477 were PoWs, and 7,221 were dead !

The high % of dead among the missing is probably indicative of attacks in which little or no progress was made so that anybody hit was left in nomansland and not recovered. After a successful attack, the casualties would have been gathered in, dead or wounded, so the number of still missing would have been low.

[centurion]

I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between "missing" in official returns and "missing" on memorials etc. In the latter case it can sometimes include those where a body is missing not that no one knows what happened to the man

[phil andrade]

Thanks Phil that info is really helpful. My figure for missing/captured during the battle of the Somme was extracted from Purnells History of the First World War, page 1693 where there is a comprehensive table of Allied losses which I guess is no less accurate or inaccurate than that from other sources. This table gives the somewhat precise figure for the UK as 38,013 which when based on your info for 1916 and as a rough calculation would add another 24,000 plus to the numbers killed. Although a bit of a “back of a fag packet” calculation on my part if I am correct in my assumptions then that additional number is not an insignificant amendment to the figures quoted in my example, whether this is repeated in other statistics I have no idea but if it is then the figures could be quite distorted as may have happened with by example from Albert.

Norman

Added: A quick search in SDGW gives a total of 15,022 Officers and Men killed in the MGC

Added: Geoff’s search engine returns a total of 16,076 for all Machine Gun Corps categories.

Norman,

Geoff's figure rather conforms with the notion that seven or eight thousand of the MGC casualties were missing, of whom a third or more were dead.....all a bit too back of the fag packet, but good enough to address your post's theme.

The Purnell figure you cite alludes to the entire Western Front, July to November, 1916. Roughly 85% of them were from the Battle of the Somme proper. Incidentally, I ought to mention the French account, by official tally, for the Somme, July to November 1916 :

Confirmed killed : 37,000 ; Missing : 29,000 ; Wounded : 130,000.

For the Germans, by official medical history tabulations, 1916 Battle of the Somme :

Confirmed kiiled : 57, 897 ; Missing : 85,683 ; Wounded : 273,132

In general, the missing figure for armies fighting on the defensive included a preponderance of prisoners. Those of the attackers tended to include a majority of killed.

The French at Verdun in 1916, for example, counted 61,000 killed, 101,000 missing and 215,000 wounded. A comparison with the proportions they suffered on the Somme will suggest that the majority of their missing at Verdun were prisoners, conforming with their defensive role there. All too many of the missing - perhaps one third - were dead, though.

Phil_B : Re. Gallipoli : You're right about the failed attacks resulting in the lethal consequences for those posted as missing ; but I'm sure that in this case the syndrome was compounded by absence of quarter in the fighting there.

Edit : The figures I cite for killed above do not include huge numbers who died from their wounds.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between "missing" in official returns and "missing" on memorials etc. In the latter case it can sometimes include those where a body is missing not that no one knows what happened to the man

Those huge memorials deal specifically with those to whom " The fortunes of war denied the honoured and identified burial " that was afforded their comrades in death....can't quite remember exact words. The inference is that we do know what happended to them, but we either failed to recover their bodies, or, if we did, we couldn't identify them.

Phil (PJA)

[centurion]

Those huge memorials deal specifically with those to whom " The fortunes of war denied the honoured and identified burial " that was afforded their comrades in death....can't quite remember exact words. The inference is that we do know what happended to them, but we either failed to recover their bodies, or, if we did, we couldn't identify them.

Phil (PJA)

I think more correctly we know what happened to many of them but not all but the assumption is that all were killed

[phil andrade]

Agreed. And your original point is crucial : we must differentiate between missing as posted in casualty returns, and the missing we associate with Thiepval, Menin Gate etc. There is, of course, a tragic relationship between the two. Pulverised ,intensely and protractedly fought over and static battlefields are unkind to those who seek to account for, recover and identify the dead.

I've found an extreme example of the distortive effect of the returns of the missing in interpreting casualty figures. The French official history tabulates huge casualties for September, 1914 : a total of 210,000...but only 18,000 posted as killed ; 82,000 disparus and 110,000 wounded. I wonder how many of those disparus were alive in German hands.

Phil (PJA)

[KevinBattle]

It would also be necessary to differentiate between the unit initial returns that they were missing (information) regarding the fate of men not answering the roll call at the time the return was made.

Men were frequently able to rejoin their unit after a day or so, sometimes having been mixed up in different units and become separated from their own portion of the line.

Others may have been lying wounded in No Mans Land until recovered, or captured but able to sneak away, or taken wounded to First Aid Posts and news not getting back to their own unit until the man was able to be identified.

Only some time later would the "official" term of Missing be used; to describe men still unaccounted for several days/weeks etc later and whose fate none of their comrades could account for accurately. "I saw him fall and bandaged his leg, but then went on" sort of thing, no one else survived with a better account, so he could have been captured, died of wounds but more importantly was no longer available to the fighting strength of his unit, and would need replacing. The same with sailors and airmen where no "proof" of their fate was known.

At our remove in time, we now know that "The Missing" are those that cannot be accounted for, they must be lying unidentified "somewhere" as they were never heard from again.

[Seadog]

Can we then make the assumption that when we read of casualties which include reference to “missing” that these are in fact composed of a mixture of both missing presumed dead and those taken POW but mainly the former. Here is an example, my local battalion the 12th Glosters fought at a place called Wedge Wood on the 3^rd Sept 1916, according to a book* concerning the city in the war this action resulted in 1 officer and 44 men being killed and 48 men missing total 93. Geoff’s search engine returns a total of 77 names killed on this date for the battalion therefore it would appear that the vast majority of the missing were in fact killed and 17 men were taken POW. By detailing the casualties in this way would appear to understate the deaths suffered by the battalions/regiments concerned. I would value member’s opinion on this point.

Norman

" The Forgotten Front P31, Pub 1986

[phil andrade]

In the episode you cite, Norman, exactly two thirds of the missing were dead. This more or less tallies with the proportion for 1916 that I cited above in post number 6.

At the risk of excessive generalisation, if you see a total posted for killed in action, you can assume that the real total of deaths is pretty nearly double that figure, if you take into account the missing who were in fact killed, and then add on the wounded who died from their wounds. That stands the test for the war as a whole, but there were obviously circumstances in which the ratio was distorted one way or another. That French tabulation for September, 1914( post number 13), for example : there's no doubt that you would need to treble - maybe even quadruple - the official total of confirmed killed to get a notion of how many actually died. And surely there were successful actions in which the numbers of confirmed killed were rendered complete by virtue of the fact that those who died could be properly accounted for.

Phil (PJA)

[Seadog]

Thanks for all the info Phil which has gone along way to explain things. I do not expect you to know this but was there a point in time when the casualty data was updated so that the killed included the missing in action and the POW numbers were excluded. I ask this because the MGC plaque dates from 1939 a full 21 years after the war ended and yet it still refers to the "missing". In the case of the 12th Glosters I am guessing that the author of the book took the info from a much earlier source and did not or could not clarify the figures which as you rightly point out almost doubles the original quoted number of dead.

The strange thing is that later in the book he quotes the losses to the battalion during 3rd Ypres 1917 which makes no mention of any "missing" at all viz: during a period of 11 days, 4 officers and 59 men were killed, six officers and 177 men wounded and four officers and 91 men gassed, on the basis of previous examples the number of killed could be well understated. I imply no criticism of the author whatsoever as the book is a very good albeit brief overview of the City of Bristol during WW1.

Regards

Norman

[phil andrade]

Norman,

Regarding the 3rd Ypres example you cite, I will venture a speculation. There were units that were rotated through the battle, and endured bombardment and attrition, without being committed to actual attack. They took heavy casualties, but were passive in so far as they were engaged in " holding" the line rather than going over the top. Such a unit might be heavily punished, but would be able to keep a tally on the whereabouts and fate of every casualty. Hence the lack of men posted as missing. The very high number of gas casualties attests to that : the suggestion here is more in the nature of routine warfare, allowing for proper accounting and evacuation. This is purely suppositional on my part, and I hope I'm not talking testicles.

Incidentally, 3rd Ypres is a good benchmark for the points I've made earlier. The official tally for the British Empire casualties in that battle:

Killed : 36,000 ; missing : 30,000 ; wounded : 172,000.

Allow for about 60% of the missing being killed - i.e. about 18,000 - and about 9% of the wounded dying - i.e. approaching 16,000....and you reach a total of 70,000 dead : again, virtually double the initial total of confirmed killed in action, The evidence of CWGC registers will, I suspect, bear this out.

PhiI (PJA)

[Khaki]

I would have thought that the first evidence of missing, was to having failed to answer the company role call following an action and with no witnesses to the contrary, a soldier would be listed as missing.

khaki

[Seadog]

Many thanks to all those who by their contributions have certainly improved my understanding of this subject. This is just thinking out load so please to not feel obliged to respond, I wonder why when all the information was available, missing presumed dead, POW etc the casualty figures were not updated to reflect this by adding the “Missing” to the killed figures and excluding the POW total or reporting that as a separate figure. Perhaps either the information systems were not adequate to cope with such a big job or indeed the will was not there to undertake it. The fact is that from the excellent replies here it would be wise to take a circumspect view on those “missing” figures which appear to include those taken prisoner and who eventually returned home and to bear in mind that the “killed” totals are much higher given that a large proportion of those so-called missing must be included to give a more accurate figure.

Regards

Norman

[bill24chev]

To recap from the above replys

Missing means different things the further in time we go from the action that created the missing.

At the first roll call after the action missing will include, lost soldiers, wounded in no mans land, wounded in the casualty care system not yet reported to unit, POW's, the Dead and possibly Deserters.

Overtime The lost will RTU , the wounded will be accounted ,reports of POW's will be received, some of the dead will be accounted for and deserters will be captured and Court Martial.

The collection of the dead both after battle and post war will account for more of the missing until we end up with the names on the various memorials to the missing. Of course this can change as occasionally a body is found that can be identified.

A very small minority of the missing may be deserters who avoided capture and changed their identity and of course there may be some who actuary did, as some relatives believe, became POW's who lost their mind and became unknowns in the mental health system of Germany.

[phil andrade]

Norman,

This has been a rewarding thread, and I , for one, have been happy to try and contribute my tuppence worth.

Let me confess that in the course of posting I have become aware of significant anomalies, and that I must attempt to discuss them here and now.

It appears that when casualty returns were finalised, a great many of those posted as missing were re-allocated according to their fate.

The effort and staff work involved must have been colossal.

The individual armies that submitted returns after specific battles counted far greater numbers of missing than the total that was computed in the final account. For example, if we take the year 1915, there were 16,422 reported as missing from 2nd Ypres alone; there were another 16,151 posted as missing at Loos : a total of 32,573 from just two battles. The final reckoning for France and Flanders, 1915, however, as submitted in the aggregate of monthly returns which were published in the Statistics of the Military Effort comes to a total of 23,145 for the whole year for the entire front ( the Medical Statistics - probably the more reliable of the two sources - gives a total of 24,556). The implication is that a staggering number of men who were initially posted as missing had to be re-alocated to categories of killed, presumed killed, wounded/gassed and prisoner as their fate became clearer after investigation. The individual battle returns did not exaggerate the casualty totals, but they did include a very significantly inflated category of missing that had to be sorted out at a different level of accounting. I do not know the mechanism involved, but it must have been a monstrously intricate and demanding job. The casualty figures for 3rd Ypres that I cited above come from the former method - i.e. individual army, specific battle reports - and indicate that 12.5% of the casualties were missing. The latter method, as indicated by the Medical Statistics, show that for France and Flanders, 1917, the total missing/pow amounted to 7% of the total battle casualties. There is absolutely no doubt that the official figure of c 240,000 for Passchendaele is not an exaggeration - indeed, it might be a significant understatement - but it is clear that the number of missing posted therein needs to be viewed with circumspection.

Phil (PJA)

[Seadog]

Phil please continue the good work as I for one find your posts on this subject extremely interesting.

Norman

[phil andrade]

Decent of you to say so, Norman, thanks.

I would like to try and assemble some figures from different battles, and compare how the British, French and Germans assessed their missing as a proportion of the total casualties. That might throw some light on whether there are consistencies or otherwise. As we know only too well, discussion about casualties can generate more heat than light, but I think on this thread we're going to make progress and I intend to make my best efforts here.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Here's some stuff I've thrown together. A bit " random", I'm afraid, with one or two glaring omissions which I might try and rectify later.

These are the prportions of missing, expressed as a percentage of total casualties, as reported by the several different armies as they engaged in offensive or defensive operations. In the case of the British, the rate was higher in these specific cases than it was to be when returns were synthesised and finalised in the general totals tabulated in the Statistics of the Military effort and the Medical History. The interesting thing, I think, is that while we would expect that a desperate defense, entailing significant loss of ground and many prisoners, is bound to produce a high ratio of missing, an offensive, if properly managed, might yield a relatively low proportion of missing. There appear to be one or two of what Monty a generation later described as " dogs' breakfasts", when an attacking force suffered an inordinately high percentage of missing among its casualties. First Ypres for the Germans, and Loos for the British, stand out in this respect.

Proportions of missing expressed as a percentage of total casualties reported :

British on the Offensive :

1915

Neuve Chapelle : 13.7

Festubert : 16.6

Loos : 32.0 ( A "dog's breakfast", surely ! )

Apologies for failure to include the Somme : I've yet to find a breakdown of the 416,000 casualties by category.

1917

Arras : 12.6

3rd Ypres : 12.5

1918

August September ( 1st, 3rd, 4th Armies ) : 6.7

British on the Defensive :

1914

1st Ypres : 32.25

1915

2nd Ypres : 27.7

1918

Somme : 50.2 !!

Lys : 38.9

No wonder Haig was motivated to issue his " backs to the wall" order of the day in April 1918 ! Actually, these last two missing figures were inflated by inclusion of thousands of temporarily absent men ; Edmonds, the Official Historian, analysed the figures and made that caveat....all the same, when allowance is made for those men, the " hardcore" missing figure was still very high indeed.

Some French experiences

On the Offensive

1915

Artois : 20

2nd Champagne Artois : 26.4

1916

Somme : 14.8

1917

Nivelle : 14.6

Malmaison : 12.3

1918

Picardy, August, 1st, 3rd, 10th Armies : 8.7

On the Defensive

1914

September : 39

1916

Verdun : 26.7

And now for the Germans

On the Offensive

1914 :

Ist Ypres : 23.27 ( Germany's "dog's breakfast "of an offensive ? )

1915 :

2nd Ypres : 12.3

1916:

Verdun ( up until September 10th) : 8.62 ( Remarkably low : was this a function of meticulous preparation and organisation ? Mind you, in the October - December period, there would be a drastic change !)

1918 :

Michael Offensive , March 21st - April 10th : 9.46

On the Defensive :

1916 :

Somme : 20.56

1917 :

3rd Ypres : 16.1

There you are, then.

At the risk of attributing too much importance to the significance of the proportion of missing among casualties, it does seem to reach out as a criterion for " badness" in the exigencies of battle.

Phil (PJA)