BEF 1914 - Early Disembarkation and Survivability

[Drew-1918]

Chris many thanks again. First year fatalities as a per cent of total are indeed high. The fact that there were four times as many fatalities in the first 12 months compared to the subsequent 40 months is a very large skew in the data. Again this might support the idea that many of the survivors who were evacuated in this period were never to return to the front. MG

Martin,

I had another look back over the thread, and I see what you mean about the figure being high. Especially compared to other Battalions with a higher overall total of fatalities. I can't quite get my head around this. It doesn't seem quite right to me, though I think I just about grasp your point about it possibly being due to a high number of wounded not returning (If a high number of this cohort did not return to theatre, then they would not get killed in subsequent years, which would therefore skew the data towards 1914?). O'Neill does say in the History, that the 4th Bn suffered 1,900 OR killed, wounded, sick and missing in the first 4 months. Since the CWGC shows fatalities of about 395, there would have to be a high number of sick and wounded to account for the rest of this figure (I think), though it is not clear how many of these would have subsequently returned.

I was unhappy with the numbers so I checked again. I now realise that I gave you figures purely from the 1914 Star Roll. I should have also included the follow-up work I did as it brings the skew down slightly. The fatalities should be 66.1% for 1914, and 77.4% for Aug 1914 to Aug 1915. Though, I think perhaps this is still quite high anyway. Many apologies for all the chopping and changing, I find it very complicated to hold all the different permutations in my head at any one time. I think I will move on to the reinforcements now as it may clarify things. If I have to alter anything further, I will just update the original post and note it as an edit, rather than interrupting the flow of the thread any more.

Apologies,

Chris

[Guest]

Martin,

I had another look back over the thread, and I see what you mean about the figure being high. Especially compared to other Battalions with a higher overall total of fatalities. I can't quite get my head around this. It doesn't seem quite right to me, though I think I just about grasp your point about it possibly being due to a high number of wounded not returning (If a high number of this cohort did not return to theatre, then they would not get killed in subsequent years, which would therefore skew the data towards 1914?). O'Neill does say in the History, that the 4th Bn suffered 1,900 OR killed, wounded, sick and missing in the first 4 months. Since the CWGC shows fatalities of about 395, there would have to be a high number of sick and wounded to account for the rest of this figure (I think), though it is not clear how many of these would have subsequently returned.

I was unhappy with the numbers so I checked again. I now realise that I gave you figures purely from the 1914 Star Roll. I should have also included the follow-up work I did as it brings the skew down slightly. The fatalities should be 66.1% for 1914, and 77.4% for Aug 1914 to Aug 1915. Though, I think perhaps this is still quite high anyway. Many apologies for all the chopping and changing, I find it very complicated to hold all the different permutations in my head at any one time. I think I will move on to the reinforcements now as it may clarify things. If I have to alter anything further, I will just update the original post and note it as an edit, rather than interrupting the flow of the thread any more.

Apologies,

Chris

Chris - I merely mentioned them being high as an observation. I expect the data to be high in the first year. I don't doubt the data for a second.

What is becoming very clear is that the other permanent casualties - POWs and Medically discharged - have a profound impact on the data. The GARBA data suggest for every man 1000 infantrymen killed, 968 infantrymen were medically discharged. - nearly a 1:1 ratio. One might reasonably expect cohorts with exceptionally high fatalities to also have exceptionally high non-fatal casualties, and by extension exceptionally high numbers of men medically discharged. This means that the base of the original 1,000 or so men gets eroded very quickly, leaving ever fewer men to become fatalities. If we also consider men medically downgraded and taken away from the front line, the combination of fatalities, medically discharged and medically downgraded men begins to climb rapidly. This manifold impact of these three factors plus the compounding effect over multiple years means the residual number of these cohorts' men remaining in the battalion diminishes very rapidly.

These cohorts were being eroded by all three factors at alarming rates. Fatalities are tangible (CWGC and SDGW data) as are the medically discharged (campaign medal rolls - but this requires a lot of work)...but the medically downgraded are even more elusive, although transfers shown in the medal rolls may well prove to be an excellent proxy. It will require lots of hard work to collate. This is why I think the subject is not well understood - it is very difficult to find the hard data and even more difficult to reconstruct it. I hope as time goes by and as access to online data becomes easier we will gather more evidence. Between a few strangers we have managed to put together data for half a dozen battalions that landed in August 1914 - that is almost a 9% sample of the 64 battalions that disembarked that month.

So, I am extremely grateful to you and the others who have taken the time and considerable effort to help reconstruct an area that has been in the dark for some time.

[Drew-1918]

Ok Martin, cheers. Nearly 9% sounds pretty good. And the thread is only a few months old. Hopefully we can increase that sample figure quite a bit.

Chris

[Guest]

Some anecdotal evidence from the 1st Bn Wiltshire Regiment, written in their war diary on 4th Nov some 12 weeks after disembarking in France.

4th Nov 1914. Wednesday. Halted at LOCRE. Battalion warned to hold itself in readiness to support the line if required. Lt G S BROWNE assumed the duties of Acting Adjutant to the Battalion vice Capt P S ROWAN wounded.

I have a rough estimate of our wastage since the campaign started i.e. in first 3 months, which I attach. It shows that we have practically lost or temporarily lost the services of 26 Officers and 1000 men. A copy of the special order of the day 2nd Nov 1914 by C in C British Army in field is attached. Rough estimate of our wastage since the beginning of the campaign (3 months today, 4th Nov, since receipt of order to mobilize)

Officers Rank and file

Went into field 27 977

Losses up to 23rd Sep 1914 10 360

Casualties: Officers

killed 4, Capt W R A DAWES, Lt H W ROSEVEARE, E O CRUICKSHANK, Capt H C C REYNOLDS,

wounded, Lt Col HASTED, Capt P S ROWAN, Lt BROWNE, LODER-SYMONDS, CARRINGTON.

Reserve Capt J H M MEE and 2 Lt LLOYD slightly wounded and didn't report sick are not included.

17 617

7 Reinforcements up to 1st Nov 13* 550

* includes Capt ROWAN, Lt BROWNE, LT CARRINGTON, returned from being wounded.

30 1167

Losses in action and sick up to 1st Nov 1914 16 640

Casualties: Officers killed 3, Capts F W STODDART, C L FORMBY, R F M GEE (since died)

Wounded 4, Capts P S ROWAN, H R A DAVIES, Lt RICHARDSON, 2 Lt CASKELL.

Missing believed prisoners 7, Lts OLIPHANT, WAND-TETLEY, 2 Lts ROSE, LLOYD, RILEY, WATSON and MARTIN.

Invalided sick 2 STEWART and LOVELL-HEWITT.

Total 16.

Balance 14 527

Present state shows 14 Officers including Medical Officer. 521 rank and file.

Total wastage up to date in first 3 months appears to be 26 Officers and 1000 men or practically a whole Battalion.

[Drew-1918]

Thanks for posting that Martin. It is very sobering. I have seen mention of those kind of numbers in Battalion Histories, but it is interesting to see it in a war diary, even if it is anecdotal.

I was just reading the History of the Lincolnshire Regiment, which says that "In the British Battalions, which fought at the Marne and Ypres, there were, at the close of 1914, an average of only one officer and thirty other ranks, of those who landed in August, still with the colours." I just wondered if this could be regarded as an accurate figure. Isn't this similar to some of the numbers given in this thread for those surviving to the Armistice in 1918?

Chris

[Guest]

Thanks for posting that Martin. It is very sobering. I have seen mention of those kind of numbers in Battalion Histories, but it is interesting to see it in a war diary, even if it is anecdotal.

I was just reading the History of the Lincolnshire Regiment, which says that "In the British Battalions, which fought at the Marne and Ypres, there were, at the close of 1914, an average of only one officer and thirty other ranks, of those who landed in August, still with the colours." I just wondered if this could be regarded as an accurate figure. Isn't this similar to some of the numbers given in this thread for those surviving to the Armistice in 1918?

Chris

The quote of One Officer and 30 ORs is from the British Official History of the War 1914 Vol II in the Retrospect chapter. I assume it was based on some kind of official data but the OH was known to be unreliable with some of its data, particularly with regards to casualties. That said, this level of attrition would be nothing to really want to flag other than to illustrate the tragic reality. It was this quote that really started the thread, trying to verify it. MG

There are a number of units that recorded the number of men who served continually in the same unit, and the numbers are understandably very small. Typically less than 20. My interest on this thread is to better understand the probabilities of the Aug 1914 cohort getting to Armistice day without becoming a battle casualty, say to the cohorts of 1915 or 1916 etc..

Clearly battalions reduced to very small numbers in 1914 would automatically fall into the extreme end of the range. I recently discovered a battalion reduced to 40 men in 1914. I will dig it up. MG

[Drew-1918]

Many thanks for thinking about my query.

Whilst I could well imagine a number of Battalions having such losses, I suppose I just wondered whether it was possible for the Infantry to have averaged those kinds of figures by the end of 1914. But, as I think you say, it certainly highlights the tragic reality, and anyway this thread is in the process of investigating such things.

Thanks again,

Chris

[Guest]

I just wondered whether it was possible for the Infantry to have averaged those kinds of figures by the end of 1914.

Chris

I think casualty rates for Infantry Officers who disembarked in Aug 1914 will exceed 75% on average and probably more. There are at least 12 battalion that were reduced to a single officer at one stage during 1914, which represents just under a quarter of the original battalions of the BEF in Aug 1914.

The challenge is that the number of infantry battalions simply kept growing, so it is arithmetically challenging to calculate an average unless one defines a specific date - this is the flaw in the Six Weeks argument. This is why I have chosen to freeze-frame the Aug 1914 cohorts. Four Divisions' worth of Infantry plus 6 other battalions (Army Troops of which 4 later formed the 19th Inf Bde). This provides us with a sample of 54 battalions or roughly speaking 1,500 Officers and 58,000 ORs who were on the ground before the Battle on Mons. By focusing on this group we at least know that they started at the very beginning of the War.

For obvious reasons the Officers will be easier to analyse. It will take about a month to do, but should be an interesting exercise to explore the fates of these men. Thank the Lord for Ancestry's medal rolls. MG

[Derek Black]

Here's part of a letter sent from the front by an Alexander Stewart of the 1st Btn Black Watch that was published in a local newspaper of January 1st, 1915.

"...By this time our numbers were being reduced fast, and at Ypres when i got wounded we had 90 left out of our 1300, which had been reinforced by at least 800 - 90 out of 2200."

Staggering losses.

Derek.

[Lincolnsreg]

Hello all,

This is a very interesting topic ... well done! I've never had the time to do the research, plus I'm awful at maths, but it's something that I've often wondered about. My Great Great Grandfather landed in early November 1914 (8th Division - being a regular, en-route from Bermuda), and was finally demobbed in January 1919 aged 52. I have often wondered how many of the men he went into the trenches with in 1914 actually came out again. He had four periods of leave, three of which were to family funerals, and was never wounded. I think he was moved out of the trenches in late 1917 due to "bad teeth" - I suspect an officer perhaps got 'him out' - maybe he was breaking, or they respected his age and service (having joined in 1896). One thing I do know is that he never spoke a word of his experiences to any of the family. Next Friday is the 100th year anniversary of his closest friend's death at Neuve Chapelle. I'm doing a lot of thinking at the moment!

I know the 2nd Lincs were decimated in 1915, at Neuve Chapelle, Rouge Bancs and Bois Grenier, but he still came through. He went through 1st July 1916 and even Westhoek Ridge in 1917.

He is and always will be Bairnsfather's 'Old Bill' in my mind.

Cheers,

Dave

[charlesmessenger]

Martin and others

Henry Rawlinson in a letter to Kitchener dated 1 December complains of too many elderly reinforcements - 'men of over 40 years of age and sometimes 50'. Further evidence of thgis comes from the commandant of No 3 Indantry Base Depot. This indicates to me that Class I, and maybe even Class II men of the National Reserve, were being sent to France late in 1914. Have any of you come across evidence of this in your in-depth 1914 battalion studies?

Charles M

[Guest]

Martin and others

Henry Rawlinson in a letter to Kitchener dated 1 December complains of too many elderly reinforcements - 'men of over 40 years of age and sometimes 50'. Further evidence of thgis comes from the commandant of No 3 Indantry Base Depot. This indicates to me that Class I, and maybe even Class II men of the National Reserve, were being sent to France late in 1914. Have any of you come across evidence of this in your in-depth 1914 battalion studies?

Charles M

Charles-thank you for that reference. There is one diary entry that refers to a Scottish Highland regiment reinforcement OR who had fought at Tel el Kebir. Technically possible but it had all the characteristics of embellishment. Camerons if memory serves.

With regards to the 30-40 year olds, my assumption has always been (and recently this view has grown stronger) that they were time-expired re-enlisted men in the main. There are sufficient number of references to re-enlisted men in the diaries and histories to confirm that they must have been arriving in France in significant numbers. We know that the Infantry took in 64,000 by end Sept 1914 and 117,00 by the same date a year later. While anecdotal evidence indicates many ended up in training establishments for the K1,K2 and K3, with 64,000 or nearly 800 per infantry regiment, there would have been large surpluses.

If these men are one and the same as the National Reserve then I would concur.

I may well revert with some examples. The diaries can now search the whole BEF infantry in one go. I have been distracted by the Cavalry of late. MG

[charlesmessenger]

Martin

Thanks for that. I have assumed that those in their Thirties were Section D men, but perhaps I am wrong to think this?

Charles M

[Muerrisch]

Charles, you [like many of us!] are assuming that all soldiers enlisted at about the 17 to 20 years old mark.

Be that as it may, Martin was referring to the appeal made within days of Declaration for time-expired men [those with no further obligation, not Section D] to enlist anew. This brought a massive [and very needed] response. They can be easily identified because, as distinct from the D men [who retained their original low regimental numbers] the time-expired men were/ should have been allocated numbers further downstream.

[charlesmessenger]

David

Point taken. I had assumed that these 'old soldiers' had been encouraged to re-enlist to help train the New Armies.

Charles M

[Guest]

David

Point taken. I had assumed that these 'old soldiers' had been encouraged to re-enlist to help train the New Armies.

Charles M

Charles - I think thousands of them ended up in the front line in late 1914 and early 1915. The evidence is embedded in the casualty data of men aged over 30 with post declaration Army Numbers. Spot checks on the service records (where available) shows a substantial proportion with prior service. MG

[Guest]

Further evidence of re-enlisted men - this from the 2nd Bn OBLI on 15th Nov 1915 - just over 13% of the Battalion were re-enlisted men.

Composition of the Battalion 15th Nov 1915

.................................Sgts & Cpls...Rank & File

Serving Soldiers.................47.........169

Regular Reserve...............19..........139

Special Reserve..................5............69

Re-enlisted Soldiers............1..........113

New Army...........................5...........286

Totals.................................77.........776

Edited: added column headings.

[charlesmessenger]

Martin

You've convinced me. Many thanks.

Charles M

[Muerrisch]

Further evidence of re-enlisted men - this from the 2nd Bn OBLI on 15th Nov 1915 - just over 13% of the Battalion were re-enlisted men.

Composition of the Battalion 15th Nov 1915

Serving Soldiers.................47.........169

Regular Reserve...............19..........139

Special Reserve..................5............69

Re-enlisted Soldiers............1..........113

New Army...........................5...........286

Totals.................................77.........776

[Muerrisch]

Further evidence of re-enlisted men - this from the 2nd Bn OBLI on 15th Nov 1915 - just over 13% of the Battalion were re-enlisted men.

Composition of the Battalion 15th Nov 1915

Serving Soldiers.................47.........169

Regular Reserve...............19..........139

Special Reserve..................5............69

Re-enlisted Soldiers............1..........113

New Army...........................5...........286

Totals.................................77.........776

Martin please explain left column. I have puzzled over it for hours!

[Guest]

Martin please explain left column. I have puzzled over it for hours!

Sorry.. First column is Sgts and Cpls the second column is Rank and File... now amended in the original.

[Guest]

By way of expanding the concept of 'survivability' (or remaining unscathed) to other theatres here are some statistics from a corner of a foreign field; the 1st Bn Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers kept a record of their battle casualties while serving in the Dardanelles. Between landing on 25th April 1915 and 6th Dec 1915 (224 days in case anyone is wondering) the battalion recorded:

Original Strength.........................990

Drafts.......................................1,205

Total served in Dardanelles.....2,195

Killed...........................................267.....12.2% of total served in Dardanelles

Missing.........................................79........3.6% ditto

Wounded.................................1,001......45.6% ditto

Total Battle Casualties.............1,347......61.4% ditto

The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers in the World War by Sir Frank Fox states that only 2 Officers and 114 ORs who had left India remained with the battalion when they left the peninsula. The War Diary records 27 Officers and 975 ORs departed Alexandria for the Dardanelles in April 1915. This implies 93% Officer casualties and 88% OR casualties for the original cohort during the period. This will of course include non-battle casualties, many of whom would return to duty.

Of note, on 11th October 1915 when the battalion was returning to the peninsula after 5 days rest, the strength was 11 Officers (including the MO) and just 244 ORs.

What is noteworthy however is that the battalion's battle casualties at Gallipoli were equivalent to 136% of its original strength.

[phil andrade]

That Dardanelles example, Martin.....my take on those stats is that the missing were probably dead, too ; and that the wounded figure includes those who were mortally wounded : in other words, a total battle fatality in excess of 400 ; perhaps approaching twenty per cent of the total who served there.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

That Dardanelles example, Martin.....my take on those stats is that the missing were probably dead, too ; and that the wounded figure includes those who were mortally wounded : in other words, a total battle fatality in excess of 400 ; perhaps approaching twenty per cent of the total who served there.

Phil (PJA)

Phil - Indeed. CWGC shows 563 fatalities for 1st Bn commemorated in Gallipoli up to end Dec 1915. Note this excludes 5th and 6th Bn men who also fell in Gallipoli.

The re-based stats using CWGC data:

Original Strength....................................990

Drafts..................................................1,205

Total served in Dardanelles................2,195

Killed, DOW...........................................563.....25.6% of total served in Dardanelles

Other battle casualties (WIA, POW)......784.....35.7% ditto

Total Battle Casualties.......................1,347.....61.4% ditto

Interestingly 516 died before the end of August, meaning 92% of the battalion's casualties occurred in the first four months.*

Total numbers may differ slightly due to rounding errors

However, if the diarist simply added up the drafts, the casualty rates might be understated. A few of the drafts included recovered wounded and sick, and therefore there is a risk that the drafts of 1,205 men might include some double-counting. Without a painstaking amount of research it will be difficult to establish the exact numbers. The 1914-15 Star medal roll does not differentaite battalions so it would be difficult to separate the 1st Bn men from the 5th and 6th Bn men after 7th Aug 1915.

Trawling the diary I can only find drafts totalling 742 men and this includes an unspecified number of recovered sick and wounded. Record keeping between 25th April and 20th Jul fails to record a single reinforcement draft, while neighbouring battalions (2/SWB and 1/KOSB) record drafts in May and June. Divisions and Brigade in Gallipoli tended to send reinforcement drafts to all battalions within their unit on the same date, so it seems unlikely that the 1st Bn R Inniskillig Fus were without a draft for May, Jun and most of July when other units were being reinforced.

Some units kept excellent records. I will trawl the data for the most complete example I can find. MG

* Edit: some 483 reinforcements arrived between the end of August and the end of Dec 1915 - a period when only 26 men from 1st Bn R Inniskilling Fus died. If we look at the other 1712 men, they suffered 516 fatalities or 30% fatality ratio. This is a similar order of magnitude to first cohorts in the BEF in France and Flanders, and at 117 days very similar time periods. We know from the BEF fisrt cohort analysis that roughly 30% of August 1914 infantry men died. I strongly suspect the first cohort Gallipoli infantrymen (Apr 1915 landing) saw a much higher fatality ratio. I may well crunch the R Inniskilling Fus numbers for their first cohort men. MG

[Guest]

Initial sample of the first 100 men on the 1914-15 Star medal roll of the 1st Royal Inniskilling Fus who embarked on 17 Mar 1915* in the Dardanelles:

63% fatalities

51% fatalities on the Gallipoli Peninsula

28% discharged before the end of the war

* Note the medal roll records the embarkation date rather than the date of arrival in theatre. We know from the diaries that 98% of these men subsequently landed on 25th Apr 1915 on the Gallipoli peninsula.