BEF 1914 - Early Disembarkation and Survivability

[Willh1664]

2 hours ago, QGE said:

 

Your analysis of the Scots Guards data will be interesting. They allegedly has the highest battle casualty ratios of any Regiment in the British Army - something that itself is cause for analysis. The first cohort data will be grim reading. It is (I think) important to add the disembarkation date as we will then be able to see if the fates of the Originals and the subsequent reinforcements differed in any way. One can also do some interesting analysis on when the Reservists started to dominate the data and the later drafts of post Aug 1914 recruits. The Guards are a useful area of study as the data is relatively clean and not mixed with TF data. 

 

The medal rolls contain some fascinating but hidden information which can only be seen when the data is transcribed into a format that can be sorted and sifted. There are underlying patterns in the shifting sands of the data which become clear when it is filtered or manipulated (in a good way). It can tell us a lot about the intensity of the war at Battalion level and importantly often tells us a lot about the non-fatal casualties. My interest is in the early part of the war and how the regular Army, Army Reservists, Special Reservists and their Kitchener replacements were systematically annihilated in turn. 

 

I think an infantryman serving in a front line unit on the Western Front for the duration of the war had about a one in three chance of being killed and a nine in ten chance of being wounded at some stage. I think these are conservative figures. What is very clear from the analysis is the disproportionate burden of battle casualties borne by the infantry on the Western Front: 65% by number and 85% of the fatalities. One might add Gallipoli to that group as well. 

 

There is a marked characteristic that 'First Cohorts' were generally the hardest hit - whether they were the Old Contemptibles of Aug 1914 or the later arrivals (7th Div Oct 1914) or the Kitchener Battalions in Aug 1915 (Gallipoli) or Sep 1915 (Loos). I have not yet studied the early TF formations on the Western Front and it would be interesting to see their 'first cohort' data.  The data for the 42nd (East Lancs) Div TF battalions at Gallipoli was as bad as anything I have seen on the Western Front.

 

If there was a 'learning curve', the lessons were not being applied effectively in 1915. The ghastly attrition of 1914 was repeated in the subsequent reinforcement drafts in late 1914 and throughout 1915. The Grenadier Guards are interesting in this aspect as we can analyse and compare the fates of the 2nd Bn (Aug 1914), 1st Bn (Oct 1914),  - both battalions annihilated - with the 3rd and 4th Bns (Aug 1915). The fatality data of the 1915 first cohorts looks slightly worse than the 1914 cohorts. By tomorrow I should have a breakdown of all the data in minute detail. When you have done the Scots Guards it would be interesting to compare given they fought in the same formations.

 

The History of the Grenadier Guards Vol III has an appendix with a table  of the casualties sustained by each of the Foot Guards regiments. The ratio of killed: wounded is markedly different across units. The differences are extremely large and warrant some detailed investigation.

 

It is worth noting that different regiments maintained their records in slightly different ways. Some consolidated every battalion into one roll, others separated them. Some annotated them with details such as Discharged Time Expired or Discharged Medically Unfit etc. Some were not quite as diligent. Most 1914 Star and 1915 Star rolls are incomplete records and need to be refined. I am close to finishing a mammoth task of the Grenadier Guards rolls; 24,000 separate records and about 200,000 data points. The Grenadiers kept good records relating to DTE and DMU and transferred.  Roughly speaking 17% of Grenadier Guards on the 1914 Star roll were Discharged, including 13% Discharged Medically Unfit - a reasonable proxy for those who were wounded and did not fully recover. At risk of stating the obvious, men who were discharged were less likely to become fatal casualties; as the base diminishes there are fewer and fewer 'original' men left to become casualties. This 'diminishing base effect' heavily skews the fatality data towards the start period and we have to be cautious about drawing any conclusions from this base effect; is not well understood, particularly as it relates to permanent non-fatal battle casualties (discharged wounded). 

 

What is interesting is that the rolls are exposing gaps between other data sets, particularly the CWGC data. I have a number of men who were recorded as killed on the rolls who do not appear on the CWGC data. 

 

Martin

 

These medal rolls are a massive under taking, but quite honestly i'm shocked that this hasn't been done before?! with all of this data freely available to the public, why hasn't anyone attempted this?

 

As i've had a spare 10 minutes i've sampled 50 men from each battalion (A very small sample i know) and have come away with the following.

 

1st Battalion from 13.08.14:

(Out of 50 men over 4 years)

38% were with the battalion until the end of the war

34% died in action or died of wounds

14% were discharged due to wounds

2% discharged due to termination of service

8% taken as POW's

4% transferred to other units

 

2nd Battalion from 7.10.14:

37% were with the battalion until the end of the war

18.4% died in action or of wounds

20.2% discharged due to wounds

2% discharge due to termination of service

13.2% taken as POW's

3.7% deserted

5.5% transferred to other units.

 

But whilst looking through the rest of my data (500 names) there is a potential for the 2nd battalions casualties to jump 30%, i will sample a bigger dissection at a later point!

Thanks,

 

Will 

 

 

 

 

 

[Derek Black]

33 minutes ago, Willh1664 said:

 

These medal rolls are a massive under taking, but quite honestly i'm shocked that this hasn't been done before?! with all of this data freely available to the public, why hasn't anyone attempted this?

 

As i've had a spare 10 minutes i've sampled 50 men from each battalion (A very small sample i know) and have come away with the following.

 

1st Battalion from 13.08.14:

(Out of 50 men over 4 years)

38% were with the battalion until the end of the war

34% died in action or died of wounds

14% were discharged due to wounds

2% discharged due to termination of service

8% taken as POW's

4% transferred to other units

 

2nd Battalion from 7.10.14:

37% were with the battalion until the end of the war

18.4% died in action or of wounds

20.2% discharged due to wounds

2% discharge due to termination of service

13.2% taken as POW's

3.7% deserted

5.5% transferred to other units.

 

But whilst looking through the rest of my data (500 names) there is a potential for the 2nd battalions casualties to jump 30%, i will sample a bigger dissection at a later point!

Thanks,

 

Will

 

Until a few years ago a trip the Kew would hve been required to copy the rolls, so it's still quite recent they've been online for people to access.

 

Will,

 

A few members of the forum have transcribed 1914 star rolls, I've done the Black Watch 1st, 2nd and 5th Btn. I understand several forum members have sent a few along to Martin.

It depends on how much info you want to populate it with as to how much of an effort is required.

As has been previously stated, a lot of info my be absent in the rolls with regard to discharges, deaths, transfers, everyhting really, but it's a great starting point from which to then add using CWGC, SDGW, SNWM, SEF, SWB, Soldiers Wills, Regiment or Battalion History, rolls of honour, service/pension records and newspaper articles.

So I imagine more people have undertaken to transcribe the rolls, 14 and 15 stars, not to mention the BV&WM ones, than is generally known.

 

Cheeers,
Derek.

[Guest]

Grenadier Guards 1915 Star and 1914-15 Star Summary.

 

The table below shows the fatality ratios of the Grenadier Guards, by battalion, who were awarded the 1914 Star and the 1914-15 Star. In short, one in three men were killed or died during the Great War - a casualty ratio three times higher than the average for the British Army during the war. Samples size is 8,200 men and is statistically meaningful. 

 

The sample is interesting as it covers four separate Battalions that disembarked in August 1914, October 1914, July 1915 and August 1915. A whole year separates the first battalion to disembark (2nd Bn - 13th Aug 1914) and the last battalion to disembark (4th Bn - 15th Aug 1915), yet their fates seem rather similar. The skew in fatalities towards the early encounters is ever present. The attrition of the men who disembarked within the dates of the 1914-15 Star fared slightly worse than the men of 1914. This might be easily explained by random factors and the misfortunes of war; being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In particular the experience of the 4th Bn when separated into the 4th Guards Brigade which formed part of 31st Division from Feb 1918. The Battalion was annihilated on 13th April 1918 in what was probably one of the more extreme fights to the last man of the Great War. A VC action. 

 

The data will be refined as it is resolved with CWGC, SWB and the BWM & VM Rolls. I expect that any further adjustments will have a negligible impact on the summary data. 

 

Any mistake are mine. MG

 

Slightly related is the concentration of fatalities. The table is self-explanatory. Not that the 4th Battalion suffered half of its total casualties in just 8 separate dates, or just 3% of the time it was on the Western Front. 

 

Edited 14 December , 2017 by Guest

[phil andrade]

Martin,

 

Earlier on you alluded to the preponderance of infantry losses, and you cited 85% of all fatalities being sustained by them, but only 65% of total casualty numbers.  Did I misread this, or have I misunderstood ?

 

To illustrate my confusion, the above arithmetic suggests that - on a notional and rounded three thousand casualties ( say one thousand dead  and two thousand wounded ) the infantry would have suffered 850 dead and 1,100 wounded, an aggregate of 1,950 - hence the 65% of the three thousand.  The corollary being that the other units would have lost only 150 dead, but 900 wounded....a very low proportion of killed, since the wounded outnumber them by six to one, compared with an infantry ratio of 1.3 to one.

 

Am I being thick ?

 

Editing : re your post number 299 : 65 per cent by number and 85 per cent of fatalities

 

Phil

Edited 24 March , 2017 by phil andrade

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

Martin,

 

Earlier on you alluded to the preponderance of infantry losses, and you cited 85% of all fatalities being sustained by them, but only 65% of total casualty numbers.  Did I misread this, or have I misunderstood ?

 

To illustrate my confusion, the above arithmetic suggests that - on a notional and rounded three thousand casualties ( say one thousand dead  and two thousand wounded ) the infantry would have suffered 850 dead and 1,100 wounded, an aggregate of 1,950 - hence the 65% of the three thousand.  The corollary being that the other units would have lost only 150 dead, but 900 wounded....a very low proportion of killed, since the wounded outnumber them by six to one, compared with an infantry ratio of 1.3 to one.

 

Am I being thick ?

 

Editing : re your post number 299 : 65 per cent by number and 85 per cent of fatalities

 

Phil

 

 

Phil - my lack of clarity. Apologies.  'by number' I meant served in the infantry as a percent of all arms. i.e 65% of the men who served on the Western Front served in the infantry (initially). The infantry sustained 81% (not 85%, my error) of fatal casualties. This implies that the other arms (35% of the Army) sustained 19% of Fatalities. Proportionally the Infantry. I am working from memory but the point is that the PBI took the brunt of the fatal casualties. This should be no revelation. 

 

Stats have no meaning without definitions and context. In the case of the PBI it is clear that the experiences of some Battalions differed dramatically, so 'averages' have little meaning here. This exercise is simply an attempt to understand how lethal the war was for the men who first disembarked with an infantry battalion, and by extension how this compared to the experience of those who disembarked later. We are confined by the available data which limits accurate analysis to the men who disembarked in 1914 and 1915 (and even then there are caveats as to whether the data is completely captured).

 

I would be confident in stating that an infantryman on the western front was two to three times more likely to be become a fatal casualty during the war. I would also say that the earlier one disembarked the greater the probability of becoming a casualty. Not surprising but the magnitude of lethality continues to surprise me. Nearly as surprising is the fact that the ratios hardly changed for the men of the volunteer period. The tactical and doctrinal changes appear to have had little effect on the outcomes from a human perspective.

 

[phil andrade]

Thanks Martin.

 

Got that.

 

Phil

[Guest]

Some analysis of the Medal Rolls. Up to the end of the 1914 Star period (22nd  Nov 1914) some 99% of Grenadier Guards who disembarked were pre-War Regulars: serving men or Army Reservists. The first reinforcement draft of the 1914-15 Star period consisted of 90% Regulars and 10% post declaration Recruits (men numbers higher than No. 17152). Thereafter things change quite quickly as the Grenadiers' supply of regulars began to dry up and the urgent task of rebuilding the shattered 1st and 2nd Bns began.  The table below shows all the major drafts and the split between pre war Regulars (and Army Reservist) and the post declaration (trained) recruits. This latter group will include an unknown number of re-enlisted men who had been discharged prior to 5th Aug 1914. 

Some observations.

 

1. 23rd Nov 1914: 89% Regulars and Army Reservists

2. 22nd Jan 1915: 87% trained recruits

3. 26th-28th Jul 1915. 3rd Bn disembarked with 42% regulars and 58% trained recruits *

4. 15th- 17th Aug 1915: 4tn Bn disembarked with 89% trained recruits*

5. Post Aug 1915: 95% trained recruits

6. Totals for 1914-15 Star Grenadier Guards show 74% trained recruits.

 

* The 3rd and 4th Bn totals are somewhat shy of War Establishment. The gaps are likely to be explained by men transferred elsewhere and regulars from the 1st and 2nd Bns posted to the 3rd and 4th Bns who had already disembarked prior to these dates. 

 

My sense is that even if the discrepancies were accounted for by 1st or 2nd Bn men, the 4th Bn would have had at least two thirds of its men drawn from post declaration recruits. It is worth noting that pre-war a Grenadier Guards Battalion's Peace Establishment was 708 Other Ranks, and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions would requite 374 Other Ranks (on average) to reach War Establishment. The 4th Bn was effectively a Kitchener Battalion raised in Aug 1914. It is also worth noting that the Grenadier Guards provided the newly formed Welsh Guards with over 300 men in March 1915, further draining its limited supply of trained men. 

 

Any mistakes are mine. Martin.

 

 

 

[Guest]

.

[Guest]

Grenadier Guards: Fate of over 8,000 men on the 1914 and 1914-15 Star medal roll. Data adjusted downwards for duplications. 

 

 

Edited 28 March , 2017 by Guest
typos

[Guest]

An interesting snippet from the March 1915 edition of the Queen's Own Gazette:

 

The 1st Bn Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regt disembarked with around 1,000 men on 15th Aug 1914. On Sep 5th some 84 Other ranks joined as First Reinforcements. By March 1915 there were only 215 of the original Battalion (plus First Reinforcements) left.

 

Of the three officers, one had been wounded and returned, and one had been commissioned from the ranks. The third was the QM. Among the 212 Other Ranks only 11 had been wounded and returned. This suggest attrition of over 80% among the original Cohort in just over 6 months.

 

Separately, and by way of indication of the massive turnover in the ranks of the Battalion, the 1914 Star medal roll records the names of 1,957 men or close to two Battalions worth of men disembarking by 22nd Nov 1914. To save you the calculation this is only 99 days. Cross referencing with the diary indicates that 926 reinforcements had reached the Battalion by 12th Dec 1914, barely 4 months after the Battalion initially disembarked.  By this date the Battalion had lost 270 men killed and another 14 would be killed before the end of the Year. Three times as many were wounded. 

 

MG

 

[phil andrade]

So they got off relatively lightly then ?

 

Only about fourteen per cent killed, with the added luxury that the wounded outnumbered the dead by three to one...compared with other units where fatalities numbered nearly as many as the wounded.

 

Perhaps died of wounds not included?

 

Phil

[Guest]

1 hour ago, phil andrade said:

So they got off relatively lightly then ?

 

Only about fourteen per cent killed, with the added luxury that the wounded outnumbered the dead by three to one...compared with other units where fatalities numbered nearly as many as the wounded.

 

Perhaps died of wounds not included?

 

Phil

 

No. The average fatality ratios for the 76 Battalions of the first 6 Divisions plus 19th Inf Bde between disembarking and end Dec 1914 was 243, so the 1st Bn QORWKR (13th Inf Bde, 5th Div) experienced fatality ratios slightly higher than the average for the period (most Battalions' 1914 Star rolls run beyond 1,700 men). It is worth remembering that the first cohorts typically experienced 40% fatalities through the whole War, so this battalions' 'survivors' to end Dec 1914 still had a lot of fighting to get through. I would expect at least another 100 fatalities, possibly 150 among the Survivors of 1914. This will include returned wounded who were subsequently killed. 

 

Fatal: Non fatal battle casualty ratios bounce around a bit. The QORWKR maintained meticulous records on a monthly basis. Over time the ratio tended towards 3 and this ratio seems fairly constant. On occasion one might see distortions where the ratio was closer to 2...but these are anomalies and over time the ratio tends towards 3 in most of the data I have analysed. The ratio can be distorted depending on how DOWs and MIAs are treated over time and whether a battalion lost men as POWs in some of the less successful rearguard actions and the debacle on the right flank of Le Cateau (incidentally the 1st QORWKR was immediately behind the 2nd KOYLI and 2nd Suffolks which both met with near annihilation). A ratio of 3 on the day might change radically as wounded men die of wounds and missing men are later presumed dead. 

 

In Dec 1914 the 1st Bn QORWKR own estimated for KIA were just 147. In fact they were 243 - a figure that is 63% higher and explained almost entirely by MIA later being acknowledged as 'presumed killed'.

 

Averages of course have no meaning without context. Comparing fatality ratios is arguably pointless. I would argue that it only tells us a small part of a much more complex story. In the case of the 1st Bn QORWKR 1915 was to prove to be particularly hard. 

 

'Luxury' is not a word I would use in this context. Perhaps 'fortune'.

 

What struck me was the sheer  number of men that processed through the Battalion in such a short period, despite fatality ratios being only slightly higher than average. MG

Edited 13 May , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1st Bn QORWKR - data complied in the Queen's Own Gazette

 

Note how some of the data bounces around as it is revised. I have added the KIA/WIA ratio (unadjusted for later revisions) to illustrate how this ratio fluctuates. Note the data stops being reported in early 1916. I am surprised the Gazette was still able to publish such sensitive information for the first two years of the War.

 

 

 

Edited 13 May , 2017 by Guest

[phil andrade]

Excellent tabulation!

 

Thanks, Martin.

 

A very important criterion, in my opinion, this ratio of killed to wounded: it says much about the nature of the fighting, and also about how meticulous the compilations were.

 

The latter, of course, depends on the exigencies of battle: retreat or abandonment of the field making it difficult or impossible to give proper account.

 

Phil

[Guest]

1st Bn Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders - 1914 Star Medal Roll

 

• Total  1,973 names.......................41% Fatalities
• Main Body: 1,092 names.............44% fatalities
• 80% of the Fatalities were killed within 12 months of disembarking

 

Edited 14 December , 2017 by Guest

[phil andrade]

And that’s just for Other Ranks !

 

If the Officer fatalities for QOCH have already been tabulated in this thread, forgive me if I’ve overlooked them.

 

Did they exceed fifty percent ?

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, phil andrade said:

And that’s just for Other Ranks !

If the Officer fatalities for QOCH have already been tabulated in this thread, forgive me if I’ve overlooked them.

Did they exceed fifty percent ?

Phil

 

 

Yes. 17 of the 27 were killed:: 63.0% ... If added to the main Body it takes the fatalities to 47.2%. 

[Guest]

A summary Table of the Battalions tabulated for the 1914 Star Roll. Total disembarkations and Main Body (separate. The 10 regular battalions represent a 9% sample of the regular battalions that qualified for the 1914 Star. A Small sample covering over 17,000 named individuals. The data indicates that possibly as many as one in three of the men who disembarked with the regular infantry in Aug 1914 died during the war. 

 

I am sure there are some small adjustments to be made, however I believe this will prove to be very close to the actual numbers. During my research I realised that the fatalities recorded on the medal rolls were on the light side as the 1914 Star Rolls were compiled during the War and did not include fatalities that occurred after they were compiled. For example the Cameron Highlanders roll was compiled in March 1918 (date stamped). 3.8% of the fatalities were missing from the roll when cross referenced with CWGC data. 

 

A big thank you to all who have contributed so far. I will post 1914-15 Star rolls separately (I only have 3GG, 4GG, 1 Border (Gallipoli) and Craig's 6th DLI).

 

 

 

[Drew-1918]

Very impressive work. I believe it corroborates what you had predicted in the your first post on the 2nd Royal Sussex. Many thanks.

 

Can I just ask if you used the figures I researched for the 4th Bn. Royal Fusiliers? I did not want to presume, but the reason that I ask is because the figure of 40.4% I got was a combined one for fatalities and those permanently discharged. The actual fatalities alone came to 27.1%. Apologies, as I think that part of the data is a little misleading. 

 

Perhaps the slightly lower fatality rate than some other battalions can be accounted for by the high number of men who became prisoner at Mons. Admittedly, I do not know the POW numbers for other battalions. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris

[Guest]

On 16/12/2017 at 17:53, Drew-1918 said:

Very impressive work, Martin. I believe it corroborates what you had predicted in the your first post on the 2nd Royal Sussex. Many thanks.

 

Can I just ask if you used the figures I researched for the 4th Bn. Royal Fusiliers? I did not want to presume, but the reason that I ask is because the figure of 40.4% I got was a combined one for fatalities and those permanently discharged. The actual fatalities alone came to 27.1%. Apologies, as I think that part of the data is a little misleading. 

 

Perhaps the slightly lower fatality rate than some other battalions can be accounted for by the high number of men who became prisoner at Mons. Admittedly, I do not know the POW numbers for other battalions. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris

 Thanks Chris... I will amend the table and repost. In order to get accurate figures Imwould be grateful it you could provide the number of fatalities for the original cohort.

 

separately, have you by any chance analysed the whole 1914 Star medal roll, as it would then provide the figures for the all who qualified.it is the only gap in the table. 

 

Edit. I have data for the 2nd Bn Suffolk Regt which was annihilated at Le Cateau due to poor command and control at Div and Brigade level. "Fight to the last" when in fact the orders were to eventually withdraw. 600 casualties in a single day. Consequently the battalion saw 15% fatalities and a heap of POWS. This raises other questions whether it is also worth looking at Permanent Casualties - men who survived but we made permanent casualties either as POWs, Discharged Medically Unfit or Discharged for other reasons. None would be available to the CO and would need to be replaced... 

 

A general plea: I am am working on more rolls. If anyone has transcribed a 1914 Star roll or 1914-15 Star roll I would be a grateful recipient of the summary stats. It would increase the statistical relevance of this work. Given the variance in the data I would estimate I need at least a 20-30% sample in order to draw any meaningful conclusions. I am particularly interested in the battalion's that disembarked in August 1914 as the first cohort of the BEF. The first four Divisions plus 19th Inf Bde plus Army Troops comes to 54 battalions that disembarked in August 1914. So far I have data on 8.

 

[Drew-1918]

The original cohort had 274 fatalities (27.1%). There were also 134 men (13.3%) permanently discharged, which is where I got a total of 408 (40.4%). To be honest, I cannot now remember why I grouped them together in this way (and did not also included POWs etc). I hope this is what you wanted to know.    

 

Regarding the rest of the roll: I am very sorry, but despite previously indicating to you that I would provide that information, I have not managed to finish it yet. It may seem like quite a poor excuse, but at the time I was also compiling a nominal roll for another battalion and also analysing the '14 Star Roll for the London Scottish; something about the way I repeatedly negotiated back and forth between screens gave me some sort of RSI in my hand. The irony of studying the records of men who had undergone such hardships only to complain about such a trifling thing is not lost on me, nevertheless, I had to give it a rest for quite a while as it impinged on my work. However, that was a while ago, and if you can bear with me for a little longer I would like to finish what I started, now that I have had a little jog.

 

I agree that it might be important to look at 'permanent casualties' as well. When I was thinking about the 4th Bn. RF POWs, I certainly felt there was something akin to the fatalities in terms of the fact they were no longer available and that if they had not been taken prisoner/surrendered, presumably they would have been killed. I think it is important to get an idea, as well as this, of the other figures- medically downgraded, permanently discharged etc. In the case of the 4th Bn. RF, I think that would be about 70% 'no longer available to the CO'. I think you mentioned all of these aspects, of course, in a few main points in the OP. Easy for me to go on about it though, in fact it is all extra work to do. 

 

I mentioned the London Scottish above. I had analysed the main body cohort for this battalion as well. I did not think it was really what you were looking for as they were not regular troops and they joined the BEF a little later, however, I wondered if they may have been of interest in a comparative sense. As the London Rgt. medal roll has dates to and from theatre, I thought it would perhaps be easier to pick out those men with no gaps in their service. I was also lucky in that I managed to find a lot of the service records of these 'unscathed' men. The reason I ultimately decided not to post was because there was a major caveat in that about 50% of the men who first landed with the London Scottish were later commissioned. I thought perhaps this would render the information of less use to this thread.

 

Chris

Edited 17 December , 2017 by Drew-1918
Format

[Guest]

One aspect of the survivability debate has eluded me-though I suspect Martin has the statistics to hand. That is,  a ranking of  the original BEF units/Regualr Army  ranked by number of POWs in 1914.  The rankings for those units which took a thumping in terms of casualties-dead and wounded-are well established- but those which lost a lot as POWs?   

     I suspect that the the levels of POWs in some units in 1914 were not matched again until the Spring of 1918.  Of course, the number of POW deaths would have to be factored in as well to give a true figure for mortality by end of hostilities.  After all, being a POW was a means-generally-of survivability.

 

        Just a thought

[phil andrade]

..the levels of POWs in some units were not matched again until the Spring of 1918.

 

Fifty seven per cent of all BEF casualties in August 1914 are confirmed as POWs ( SMEBE ).

 

Not even March 1918 yielded such a high ratio of prisoners among total casualties : not by a long chalk.

 

Phil

Edited 16 December , 2017 by phil andrade

[Guest]

1 hour ago, phil andrade said:

..the levels of POWs in some units were not matched again until the Spring of 1918.

 

Fifty seven per cent of all BEF casualties in August 1914 are confirmed as POWs ( SMEBE ).

 

Not even March 1918 yielded such a high ratio of prisoners among total casualties : not by a long chalk.

 

Phil

 

     Thanks Phil-   Again, I suspect that  these figures are slewed by  internment figures for RND (or are they? Does SMEBE distinguish between POW and interned?)   I think factoring total strength by battalion, minus casualties-then minus POWs might prove illuminating as a league table. Conventional wisdom seems to be that the Regular Army was largely destroyed by the end of 1914 but in terms of absolute manpower losses, this might have to be qualified by the POW factor.  If one had a greater chance of becoming a POW in 1914 than in the trench warfare of 1915-1917, then it might well affect survivability figures overall-that is, those who "survived" the war, even if returned from captivity.

     As a moot point, it may well be that as from 11th November 1918, more pre-war regulars had survived the war by being early POWs than had survived by serving throughout.

[Wexflyer]

 

     As a moot point, it may well be that as from 11th November 1918, more pre-war regulars had survived the war by being early POWs than had survived by serving throughout.

A very interesting point, and hardly moot. If true, it is shocking. Does it also suggest that the pre-war regulars were smart soldiers, and far more of them took the logical route to self-preservation than their successors?