What was the ratio between wounded & KIA?

[POC]

Hi Guys

I realise that the first day of the Somme was unusual in that 33% of the casualties (approx 20,000) were killed in action on that day. This being an unusually high figure, I was wondering what the normal, or more usual ration would be between those killed in action and those wounded and got off of the battlefield via the CCS's?

If 3/10 is high, what about 1/10 as a reasonable estimate?

Also, what was the recovery rates once wounded? How many of those wounded and got off the field would later die of their wounds compared to those who did not?

[Chris_Baker]

"Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War", an HSMO publication which you can find free to download, gives a total for 4 August 1914 to 31 December 1920 of 908371 dead and 2090212 wounded. These figures are broken down in detail in the book. It's a good start in answering a very difficult question.

[centurion]

The Official History of the War, Medical Services, Casualties and Medical Statistics has a lengthy chapter (II) that will tell you what the casualties were by arm of service across a whole series of battles. Elsewhere you can also see how men recovered or did not. There was significant variation between battles and between theatres of war. Just started reading Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme and the Making of the Twentieth Century by William Philpott which makes the point that an individual soldier's chance of getting killed was at it's highest in the opening months of the war when armies were clashing in the open. The last tutorial I attended at Birmingham University's WW1 studies made much the same point. According to Spencer Jones "Tactical reform of the British Army 1902 -1914" only the British Army had developed sensible open order tactics and use of cover by 1914 (as a response to the mauling they took in South Africa) so if you were a French or German soldier at that time you had a higher chance of copping it.

So the answer to your question I'm afraid is an unhelpful "it depends on where and when".

[kenneth505]

Was momentarily excited by the thought that there was another book by Philpott on the Somme until I realized that over here it's published under a different title, Three Armies on the Somme.

Another consideration is survival rates after receiving medical care. Better at the start of the 20th century but nothing like current rates.

[darlig01]

Hi

I use the 'Big Book of WW1 Stats' (as I like to call it) for British/Empire deaths/injuries etc but is there such a thing for German/Central Powers stats? I'm always being asked by work 'How Many' whatevers so I can compare British and German figures - I know it's like comparing apples with pears - but is there a German equivalent of the British Big Book of WW1 Stats?

thanks

[bill24chev]

Hi

- I know it's like comparing apples with pears - but is there a German equivalent of the British Big Book of WW1 Stats?

thanks

There as been a lot of discussion/argument in the past about German casualties.

You could try a search of the GWF.

[Tony Wizzz]

I've been researching B Company 1st Btn DCLI at the Battle of Broodseinde, they were in the first wave the casualty figures so far I have are KIA 32 (inc 27 originally posted as missing) Wounded 54. I have yet to identify the companies of a further 21 men KIA so they figure may go higher. I understand that a full company complement would be in the region of 230.

[Guest]

Hi Guys

I realise that the first day of the Somme was unusual in that 33% of the casualties (approx 20,000) were killed in action on that day. This being an unusually high figure, I was wondering what the normal, or more usual ration would be between those killed in action and those wounded and got off of the battlefield via the CCS's?

If 3/10 is high, what about 1/10 as a reasonable estimate?

Also, what was the recovery rates once wounded? How many of those wounded and got off the field would later die of their wounds compared to those who did not?

Just started reading Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme and the Making of the Twentieth Century by William Philpott which makes the point that an individual soldier's chance of getting killed was at it's highest in the opening months of the war when armies were clashing in the open.

Centurion - what page does William Philpott mention this? It seems a rather loose statement that could do with some tighter parameters. Trying to identify lethal periods is quite a tricky exercise.

1914 as an example: As a good proxy for numbers served in the first 3 months of 1914; there were 378,000 1914 Stars issued to British personnel*. CWGC shows 22,760 British Military fatalities to end 22nd Nov 1914** implying a fatality ratio of 6.0% for this period. This might suggest William Philpott's statement is a bit off the mark. However, if we look at the infantry, they represented at least 18,800 of the 22,760 fatalities (82.6%) but represented around 60% of the BEF to that date. Roughly speaking that would imply a fatality ratio of 8.2% which still does not seem particularly high.

The challenge with Dr Philpott's claim is that the denominator of the equation is constantly growing (reinforcements) as is the numerator (fatalities). They are both moving targets and unless they are tightly defined (and aligned) the claim is rather hollow. The CWGC or SDGW data does not allow us to align the casualty with a disembarkation dates of the men. Rather a lot of work with medal rolls is required to properly align them.

If we were to isolate the cohorts of Infantry battalions' main bodies that landed in August 1914, we do see fatality and overall casualty ratios significantly higher***. The worst case I have found so far is that of the 1,066 men who landed on 14th Aug 1914 with the 1st Bn Cameron Highlanders. 351 were dead by the end of Dec 1914 or nearly one-in-three. The fatalities ratio for this cohort for the whole war was 447 or 41.9%. What is pertinent to this thread is that nearly 80% of this cohort's fatalities happened in 1914, reinforcing the idea it was a particularly lethal period. The 1st Bn Black Watch, 1st Bn Scots Guards, 2nd Bn Royal Sussex Regt, and other battalions had similar experiences.

This is what Dr Philpott might be alluding to, but it does not apply to the whole of the BEF in 1914. The infantry bore a disproportionately large part of the fatalities.

Some preliminary work on Kitchener Battalions might indicate that their fatality and battle casualty ratios within a similar period of reaching the front line (3 months) were in the same order of magnitude as that of the August 1914 cohorts. Certainly for K1 at Gallipoli and (work in progress) for some K1 and K2 at on the Western Front (Loos)

MG

* Source: British Battles and Medals page 498

** CWGC data for France, Belgium and the UK 4th Aug-22nd Nov. British Army.

*** There is another thread on this see that has data for half a dozen battalions, isolating the men who landed in Aug 1914 as well as the reinforcement drafts - see here.

[paulgranger]

Martin

I don't think you'll get a response from Centurion, he's no longer active on the Forum, though he does still lurk, I believe.

[Guest]

Martin

I don't think you'll get a response from Centurion, he's no longer active on the Forum, though he does still lurk, I believe.

Thanks. just realised the date was 2014 not 2015. I thought Centurion had posted today...and now i see its the 23rd not 24th. Only 364 days out. Ho hum. MG

[Muerrisch]

Martin

I don't think you'll get a response from Centurion, he's no longer active on the Forum, though he does still lurk, I believe.

From a GOON SHOW, more than 364 days ago:

............. That was the last tram. Those taking part were the Mayor of Westminster and the counsellors, and Anna Neagle led the Chelsea pensioners. Also taking part were the last tram driver Norris Lurker and the conductress Madje Thumd, Leader Paul Beard. Produced by Melly Strained Bullshine, script by William Shakespeare, edited by Jimmy Grafton, additional dialogue by Geraldo, the hotel bill was by Gilbert Harding.

[paulgranger]

Martin

I've had a look into Bloody Victory and on page 94, there's reference to casualty rates being greater in 1914 and 1918, due to the scale of the fighting, and that in both periods , it was open warfare, without the shelter of trenches. The comment isn't specific to the British, and is the opening passage to a description of the battle of Verdun.

[Guest]

Martin

I've had a look into Bloody Victory and on page 94, there's reference to casualty rates being greater in 1914 and 1918, due to the scale of the fighting, and that in both periods , it was open warfare, without the shelter of trenches. The comment isn't specific to the British, and is the opening passage to a description of the battle of Verdun.

Thank you Paul. For the British I think 1914 will likely prove to be the most lethal year if casualties are measured as a per cent of numbers engaged. I would go a s far as to say on this measure, the fisrt day of the Somme might be seen in a different light. The challenge is that no-one appears to have done the hard yards across the whole war. It can be very misleading to lump all casualties in one period and try and relate them to the mass of troops in theatre in that period - even if date parameters are set. The ebb and flow of troops arriving, fighting and leaving the theatre to be replaced by others makes accurate and meaningful calculations extremely complex.

My preferred approach is to look at cohorts and see what happened to them. A number of GWF comrades have shared their hard work on this aspect for 1914 (using medal rolls) and it is revealing some quite extraordinary results - way beyond anything that I would have guessed. It perhaps shows the GWF at its best when complete strangers are able to pool their research and come up with something significant. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

Thanks for the reference. MG

[phil andrade]

Resurrecting a thread here - brought to my attention on account of the lamentations about our departed Guest - I note that the original theme of the post has been distorted.

 

The OP was asking for info about the proportion of deaths among the casualties ; or, more accurately, the percentage of men who were hit who were killed or died from wounds.

 

Rule of thumb suggests that between one quarter and one third of all men struck down in battle were either killed outright,left to die on the field, or died from their wounds after they had been taken into medical care.

 

Thirty per cent is the “ norm” for the Western Front.

 

It was lower than this when there were a lot of gas casualties  ; it was higher than this after a murderous repulse, or a disorderly retreat or rout, which entailed abandonment of wounded and inability to reach those who were left to die.  First day of the Somme is the best example.

 

Phil

[KevinBattle]

My gut feeling is about 1 killed to 3 wounded.

It's sobering that many of these wounded were wounded again (and again, multiple times in some cases) before being killed.

Variables include certain situations, as described, when an attack repulsed or Gallipoli etc where sickness also claimed many casualties with or without enemy action.

 

But that's not knowledge based, just what it seems to me.

[phil andrade]

The OP cites killed in action , which by definition might exclude died of wounds : so much depends on who and how you count.

 

There are certainly the most striking variations in the ratios.

 

Even with those classified as died of wounds , there were different criteria applied : a man who was wounded and died hours - or a day - after being hit might be counted as killed in action  in one case, and died from wounds in another.

 

And, of course, so many men who were initially reported missing were subsequently posted as killed, even though they might have lingered for days in No Man’s Land.  I’m sure that accounts for the abnormally large proportion of dead attributable to the first day of the Somme.....I wonder how many of the twenty thousand British who lost their lives in that fighting did not actually get killed that day, but perished in the following days.

 

The last year of the war  - especially the Hundred Days - saw a very considerable skew in the ratio on account of the huge numbers of gas casualties : the proportion of killed seems low, until you take into account that more men were gassed in 1918 than in all the other years put together.  With gassed and wounded being lumped together - and the preponderance of gas cases being temporarily disabled - the fatality rates among the casualties dropped from thirty to twenty per cent.  I allude here to the British figures.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[adk46canada]

The ratio of dead to wounded could vary considerably during the war depending on the conditions and circumstances. Using Canadian statistics which can reasonably be applied to the larger BEF, the overall ration of dead to wounded was 1 to 2.9 but on the Somme it was 1 to 1.96 overall. In the final battle on 18 November it was close to 1 to 1 because of the terrible conditions meant many wounded died of exposure. In contrast, at the Second Battle of Arras from 26 August to 3 September 1918 the number was closer to 1 to 4. A key factor in the decline in the ratio was the reduced effectiveness of German artillery due to supply shortages and improved counter-battery efforts.

 

Bill

[phil andrade]

Thanks, Bill.

 

You mention Second Arras : this was otherwise known as Lens ?

 

Interesting to note that at Vimy, the Canadian fatality ratio was relatively high, despite the success.  Something like 1 to 2.2 ?

 

A couple of posts back KevinBattle alluded to the high incidence of disease among the casualties at Gallipoli .

 

Many will be surprised to learn that of all the British deaths at Gallipoli, only just over seven per cent were due to disease, and less than one per cent to accidental injury.  This should not obscure how dangerous the squalour there was : it reflects very forcibly just how deadly and intense the fighting was .  More than that, the ratio of killed ( and died of wounds) to wounded was shocking at 1 to 1.88.

 

A ghastly business.

 

Phil

[German IR 169]

From the perspective of a single German regiment, IR 169, which was an active regiment at the very beginning of the war, the below stats are from my book, Germany's Iron Regiment of the First World War, History of Infantry Regiment 169 (www.ironregiment.com).   Another way to look at these figures were the odds facing those  who were on the rolls in August 1914.    They stood a 400% chance of being a casualty before the war was over!   My grandfather was among those who were wounded twice, once in the Battle of Frontiers (outside Baccarat) on 27 August 1914, and again at La Bassee in early January 1915.   I imagine the overall stats for a similar British regiment was similar?

------------------------------------------------

The IR 169 Regimental History summarized the cost of the war:  Between August 1914 – November 1918, 440 Officers and 22,100 enlisted men were listed as having served with the regiment.  Of these, the regiment suffered the following losses.  [Factoring in the men missing who never returned, those who later died of wounds and replacements who were killed before they could be placed on the rolls, the mortality rate was likely significantly higher.] 

 

                                                       Officers           Enlisted men

 

 

Killed in action:                              105                  2,555

Missing                                       25                   1,041

Wounded multiple times             25                     203

Wounded twice                           60                    967

Wounded once                         103                  5,883

Captured                                    19                    916 

 

Total                                               337                  11,565

 

 

Edited 5 March , 2018 by German IR 169
format

[Wexflyer]

2 hours ago, phil andrade said:

 

Many will be surprised to learn that of all the British deaths at Gallipoli, only just over seven per cent were due to disease, and less than one per cent to accidental injury.  This should not obscure how dangerous the squalour there was : it reflects very forcibly just how deadly and intense the fighting was .  

Phil

 

But one wonders how many of those who died of wounds died from infections....

[Wexflyer]

1 hour ago, German IR 169 said:

 

The IR 169 Regimental History summarized the cost of the war:  Between August 1914 – November 1918, 440 Officers and 22,100 enlisted men were listed as having served with the regiment. 

 

That is a ratio of 50:1 between enlisted men and officers. In the British army, the ratio was approximately 20:1. Was the Germany army that different?

[adk46canada]

Phil,

 

My reference to Second Arras was the battle that followed Amiens when the Canadian Corps moved north back to the Arras sector.

 

One aspect of casualty figures for the entire war period that needs to be taken into account is, at least in the case of Canadian statistics (most likely that of British as well), that the number of wounded refers not to individuals but instances. Thus, a soldier who suffered two wounds and was later killed counted as two wound instances and one death. In the case of the 3rd Battalion, CEF on 1 May 1918, 116 all ranks serving in the battle had suffered two wounds. They would count as 232 wounds in the war time casualty totals. Thus, you should not conflate wound statistics to individuals unless dealing with a short time period, such as battle.

 

Bill Stewart

[Perth Digger]

In the German and British armies the roles of subalterns differed. In the former, NCOs tended to do the more dangerous work in the field that British subalterns performed. I don't know about the French army.

 

Mike

[phil andrade]

4 hours ago, Wexflyer said:

 

But one wonders how many of those who died of wounds died from infections....

 

Yes, fair point....it brings to mind the fate of Stonewall Jackson, victim of friendly fire, who succumbed to pneumonia after having his arm amputated.

 

Gallipoli was appallingly squalid , and thousands of men perished as a result....but I wanted to make the point that more than ninety per cent of all British troops who died there were casualties of battle.  The sheer ferocity of the fighting was apparent in that figure, especially since the ravage of disease was so extant. Again, that ferocity is indicated by the fact that the number  of combat fatalities exceeded half that of the wounded who recovered. This speaks of intense fighting at close quarters. It does also imply - as you remind us - that wounds were perhaps  rendered more fatal by exposure to horribly unsanitary conditions.

 

Phil

[phil andrade]

German IR 169, and Bill Stewart,

 

Thanks so much for helping me here : these specific examples - be they German or Canadian -  and the data about multiple wounding etc., are invaluable, and will prevent me from jumping to conclusions too quickly when it comes to that capricious ratio between killed and wounded.

 

There are some startling examples in the French history, which I would like to discuss.

 

I'll try and present some summaries without bombarding with an excess of stats, and hope that they might arouse comment and invite further investigation.

 

Phil