Casualties at Beaumont Hamel - July 1st, 1916.

[Guest aeq670]

Hello!

I'm a student in Newfoundland doing a project on Beaumont Hamel. I found this website while doing some research and it's been quite helpful so far

I was wondering if you guys may be able to help me out a bit. You see, I am looking into casualties that occurred during the battle of Beaumont Hamel. I was wondering about the casualty rates for each of the following battalions:

16th Middlesex Regiment

1st Royal Dublin Fusiliers

2nd Royal Fusiliers

1st Worcestershire Regiment

2nd South Wales Borderers

1st Inniskilling Fusiliers

1st King's Own Scottish Borderers

2nd Hampshire

For each battalion, I would like to know how many soldiers went into battle that day, and how many became casualties. I found data for a few units (Royal Newfoundland Regiment was easy!) so far, but it's surprisingly hard to find information about the rest!

If anyone has any information about these regiments, I would greatly appreciate it! Anything helps

Thanks for your time

A

[J Banning]

Casualty summaries taken from WO95/2280 29th Division Gen Staff HQ - there may be a revised version but this is good starting point.

JB

And here's the same for 4th Division - taken from WO95/1445 4th Division General Staff from July 1916 onwards.

[bill24chev]

Does that sugest that three officers "left out of Battle" still became casualties (23 officers took part in assault and there were 26 casualties)

Assuming a Battalion had around 25 or 26 officers on establishment , the Newfoundlanders had 100% officer casualties with seven of 29th Divs. Bn,suffering over 70% officer casualties..

[Guest aeq670]

J Banning: Thank you SO MUCH! I have been looking for this for so long. You are the hero of the day here

[PhilB]

The first photo in post #2 indicates that battalions were directed to send 22 officers over the top irrespective of the total number of officers they had. So, number of officers to reinforce varied from 5 to 23. Number of ORs to reinforce varied from 69 to 100 but a typical battalion would have about 12 officers and 90 men held back to reinforce. Any suggestions as to how these might usually be selected? I would guess they would be men like signallers, cooks, QMs, transport.

[Ravrick]

Hi,

these officers and men selected to stay behind were a mixture of all trades and ranks, collectively known as the "10%" whose purpose was to be a nucleus to reform the battalion in the event of an attack resulting in massive casualties. Earlier in the war this practice was not in place and in some cases battalions were totally destroyed with no officers and very few men remaining, hence the 10% was instigated to keep a battalion alive.

Several Battalions required the use of the 10% after the 1st July as you can imagine.

cheers.

Rick

[ianw]

The cold figures illustrate just what a dreadful time was had by the 11th Brigade - killed and missing outnumbering the wounded almost every time.

[DarrellDuthie]

https://www.greatwarforum.org/profile/35436-phil-andrade/

 

As an aficionado of casualty rates I thought you might find this interesting in light of your calculations elsewhere: "I wanted to check my suggestion above that New Zealand took the biggest hit.  In terms of actual deaths, per 100,000 of  total national population in 1914, the UK lost 149 ; Canada 140, Australia 112 and New Zealand 204.  I had not expected that degree of Kiwi sacrificial supremacy."

 

On a single day, most in the space of roughly 30 minutes from 9.15 to 9.45 a.m., the Dominion of Newfoundland suffered 708 casualties. Per 100,000 of the 1914 population this was 331. Of these roughly 1/2 were killed. Per 100,000 of population this equates to 151 deaths.

 

On the caribou memorial at Newfoundland park are inscribed the names of 820 men from the Dominion, whose bodies were never found: 383 per 100,000 population.

 

To speak of sacrifice...

[phil andrade]

Good grief, yes !

 

Newfoundland’s experience was catastrophic : of all the Dominion contingents, none was so hard hit on a single day in proportionate terms.

 

Am I right when I state that about 1,400 Newfoundlanders died in the course of the Great War ?  If your assessment is correct, about one quarter of them are attributable to half an hour of appalling fighting.

 

New Zealand’s worst single  day was at Passchendaele in October 1917 : probably about five per cent of her total Great War dead perished there and then.

 

For Great Britain, the first day of the Somme cost about two and a half per cent of her total war dead.

 

But, I suppose we could select individual localities in the UK which had their Newfoundland experience and suffered an awful proportion of their wartime loss on a single day.

 

Phil

 

 

Edited 6 December , 2019 by phil andrade

[DarrellDuthie]

On 06/12/2019 at 08:54, phil andrade said:

I suppose we could select individual localities in the UK which had their Newfoundland experience and suffered an awful proportion of their wartime loss on a single day

Hi Phil,

 

Undoubtedly true. I suspect 1400 is about right for Newfie fatalities, I've seen figures of c. 1300. As a percentage of 1914 population (214,000) it's horrific. Which was sort of my point regarding the hugely higher number of NZ casualties in WW1 compared to others. To some extent the same effect that you've put your finger on above.

 

I believe they still call October 12th NZ's Black Day - back when Haig hadn't figured out much of anything... It was a costly learning curve.

 

All the best,

Darrell

 

 

[phil andrade]

Darrell,

 

When it comes to the “ Bad Day” syndrome, nothing in the British Empire experience in the Great War compares with Newfoundland’s catastrophe of I July 1916, if we assess on the per capita basis.

 

This must not obscure the fact that, for the war as a whole, the United Kingdom took the heaviest punishment in the Empire : a population 200 times the size of Newfoundland’s suffered nearly 600 times as many deaths.  Not even New Zealand exceeded the British death rate. 

 

Editing again here : it would be revealing to compare the experience of one of the hardest hit British communities on the First Day of the Somme - let’s select the town of Accrington - with that of St John’s, Newfoundland .

 

Do you have the population figure  of St John’s in 1914 to hand, Darrell ?

 

Thanks for bearing with me here.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Edited 8 December , 2019 by phil andrade

[MikeMeech]

Hi

 

I am a bit 'wary' about  discussions on 'national sacrifice', especially on British and Empire casualties.  How do we class a 'British' death rate as many 'British' men were serving in the ranks of Dominion contingents.  To take one famous example, Lt. Gordon Flowerdew, VC, serving in Lord Strathcona's Horse when he was KIA.  While he had been living in Canada his NOK on his attestation form was his mother living in Norfolk.  He was one of 14 children, I would surmise that the personal grief felt over his death was probably more found in Norfolk rather than Canada.  We see on War Memorials around the UK alongside names the units they served in including the CEF, AIF (even AEF) etc. so the families had something to remember them by, despite not being in the 'British' military.  In many cases the family grief over their loss may well have been greater in Britain than in the countries where they were living so would have been seen as a 'British' loss?  Sometimes I feel that individuals and their families tend to disappear when 'what country suffered more' appears on the agenda, it is always more complicated than simple numbers.

 

Mike

[DarrellDuthie]

8 hours ago, phil andrade said:

Do you have the population figure  of St John’s in 1914 to hand, Darrell ?

Hi Phil,

 

I think about 30,000. No idea what the casualties were however. I tend to agree with Mike a bit about the whole topic. I am a little puzzled however about your conclusion on death rates: re the UK experience. I recall distinctly from earlier figures you presented that the UK had markedly fewer deaths per 100,000 population than, say, NZ? In absolute terms, there is no question the UK had by far the largest number. Am I missing something? Anyhow, what I find interesting about the statistics is the story behind them - why they are as they are.

 

All the best,

Darrell

[phil andrade]

Hello Darrell,

 

The figures you allude to were for the Hundred Days only : and yes, I did discover that, in that campaign alone, the NZ death rate - per 100,000 of population - exceeded that of the UK, Australia and Canada....and I confess that I was surprised at the size of the excess.

 

For the war as a whole, the UK death rate exceeded those of all the Dominions in per capita terms ; although NZ came close.

 

With a population of forty five million, the UK suffered three quarters of a million military deaths, one in sixty of the entire population, equating to 1,667 per 100,000.  New Zealand lost seventeen thousand out of one million one hundred thousand, or one in sixty five, equating to 1,538 per 100,000.  More than two hundred of these Kiwi dead were lost in the Hundred days. 

 

Newfoundland , I reckon, lost about 600 per 100,000 : the striking feature being that about one quarter of them were struck down in half an hour at Beaumont Hamel.

 

I hope I’ve clarified this, and I’ll be the first to repent if I’ve got things wrong.

 

Please keep tabs on me !

 

Editing again - forgive me - I did check on google to learn about Accrington. It was a big town in 1914, with a population of forty five thousand.  That’s equivalent to a one thousandth part of the population of the UK.  The town lost 865 of its men in the Great War - rather more than the per capita national average, and, again, it’s noteworthy that more than one quarter of them were killed in front of Serre on 1 July 1916.

 

Phil

Edited 8 December , 2019 by phil andrade

[DarrellDuthie]

Hi Phil,

 

Of course. I ought to have known it was specific to the 100 Days!!

 

The casualty figures are very interesting but naturally tell only one side of the story. The other side of the coin is what an army achieves - I believe this is how the whole discussion began in 100 Days - trying to maximise casualties to the enemy whilst minimalising your own. Something the Canadian Corps was extremely successful in. Sadly, in this respect, the Newfoundland experience on July 1st was dismal. A defeat, a disaster, a futility. And not the only one that dreadful day, as your figures on Accrington attest.  

 

Darrell

[phil andrade]

3 hours ago, DarrellDuthie said:

Hi Phil,

 

Of course. I ought to have known it was specific to the 100 Days!!

 

The casualty figures are very interesting but naturally tell only one side of the story. The other side of the coin is what an army achieves - I believe this is how the whole discussion began in 100 Days - trying to maximise casualties to the enemy whilst minimalising your own. Something the Canadian Corps was extremely successful in. Sadly, in this respect, the Newfoundland experience on July 1st was dismal. A defeat, a disaster, a futility. And not the only one that dreadful day, as your figures on Accrington attest.  

 

Darrell

 

This is a crucial aspect, isn’t it, Darrell ?

 

The notoriety of a particular place, or date, is the preponderant influence in the folklore, when terrible loss is accompanied by failure.

 

When such loss of life is incurred in successful operations, the perception changes. The death toll of the Hundred Days does not excite the same sense of outrage, although it was immense.

 

Fromelles for Australians, Beaumont Hamel for Newfoundlanders.....the impact on popular memory is all too understandable .

 

I think that this applies especially for British people : how far it is extant among the former Dominions is moot.

 

Phil

[DarrellDuthie]

11 hours ago, phil andrade said:

I think that this applies especially for British people : how far it is extant among the former Dominions is moot.

You've hit the nail on the head here I think, Phil. The Dominions can in instances such as the 100 Days at least have the satisfaction that the massive losses achieved something; that it was not in vain. Soldiers at the time also felt this from what I read. Something that can't be said of 1 July. I've always been puzzled by the singular focus in the UK on the Somme (Passchendaele to a lesser extent), but this explains it. 

[phil andrade]

Hi Darrell,

 

Thanks for indulging me in my observations and interpretations regarding the casualty figures.

 

In the meantime, here’s something that I can’t stop thinking about....

 

We read about the awful business at Beaumont Hamel on 1 July 1916.  We associate it with the final stages of the Battle of the Somme in mid November, when the 51st(?) Highland Division took Y Ravine.  But what was happening there in between those dates ?  Was there constant and quite intense fighting going on there for nearly twenty weeks that intervened ?  The same question applies to the other place names and sectors that the battle nomenclature apply to the great battle.  What, I wonder, did a tour of duty in the Beaumont Hamel sector entail in , say, August 1916 ?

 

I know from diaries that the dead of the first day were still lying there when the battle was officially terminated on the 18th November; this suggests constant battle of greater or lesser scale and intensity.

 

The entire British frontage of fifteen miles or so, from Gommecourt in the north to Carnoy in the south, would, presumably, have allowed for various “quiet” sectors after the fiercest fighting had abated there.  Or was there constant and deadly shelling exacting a steady toll everywhere for 141 days ?

 

Phil

[horrocks]

The fighting in the Serre-Beaumont-Hamel sector continued, albeit at a lower intensity, not only throughout the battle, but extended beyond it through the winter and until the German withdrawal in February. By this time the ragged front line was still only a couple of hundred yards beyond the site of the village up on the Redan, and battalion HQs were still located in White City.

Edited 9 December , 2019 by horrocks

[DarrellDuthie]

Phil,

 

Your thoughts are interesting. As part of my research for a new book, I've been doing a lot of reading of war diaries and the like, during this period. One thing that strikes me is that the Somme (much like Verdun) is often viewed as one big amorphous battle, although I find it's very helpful to break it down in it's constituent parts - major battles in their own right. I for instance, have been concentrating on the area of the Thiepval Ridge, Mouquet Farm, Courcelette, etc. where the Cdn Corps was active from Sept. to Nov. The intensity of battle in this area was quite high, major operations being carried out twice in September, October and later in November. I believe it was General Falkenhayn that described this intensity as unsustainable. However, in addition to the major operations there were, of course, numerous local operations, raids, etc. Reading the various battalion diaries, however, there is hardly a "quiet" day on the front where a battalion wouldn't suffer a half-dozen casualties or more, from shelling, a supply party being caught in the open, sniping, and during reliefs themselves. Similar to what Horrocks relates above. Although my impression is very much that where tactical objectives were being fought over (e.g. Thiepval, the ridge, etc.) the fighting was of a whole different character than simply holding the line - and in itself not entirely different to holding the line in the Salient. In other words, not one continuous bout of fighting. My thoughts, for what they're worth!

 

Darrell

[phil andrade]

Thank you, Darrell. Your thoughts are worth a lot.

 

I remember reading - I think it was in Leon Wolfe’s Flanders Fields - that in the Third Ypres Offensive of 1917, the constituent battles that are associated with that affair accounted for roughly two thirds of all the British casualties that are officially  attributed to the frontage and forces involved between 31 July and 12 November 1917.  The implication is that, in between the big attacks, there was a severe and protracted “ wastage “ that accounted for the best part of a hundred thousand casualties in addition to those ascribed to the most intense periods of battle.....and that was just for the sectors of the offensive , not the entire British held front in France and Flanders.

 

The same is surely true for the Somme in 1916. While Haig was attempting to develop the initial success of the southern sector of the first British attack, and there was a titanic fight for those hellish woods in mid July, there must still have been thousands of victims of enemy fire in the area of the Thiepval Spur to the north , where the first attacks had been so severely repulsed.

 

Phil

[DarrellDuthie]

Thank you, Phil

 

I'm positive you're right about the "wastage" (such a term...) between battles. At the Somme and in the Salient the situation holding the front (and occasionally support) trenches was quite similar in that respect. If one were to spend the time, you'd only have to go through all the battalion war diaries and add up the numbers. Day in, day out. They were substantial. One anecdote: during the Spring offensives in 1918 the 4 divisions of the Canadian Corps had 9,000 casualties, despite - with the exception of the 2nd Div. who were helping the Brits at Telegraph Hill near Arras  - they neither attacked or were attacked in any major way. I think that's why, among others reasons, trench warfare has become so infamous!

 

Darrell

[phil andrade]

Darrell,

 

Do you know how many of those 9,000  Canadian casualties you allude to were gas cases ?

 

Gas was effective as a means of diversion and disruption.

 

Phil

[DarrellDuthie]

Hi Phil,

 

Sorry, I looked back but couldn't find those details. Gassing doesn't often seem to be broken out in Cdn statistics. I would say, however, that I'd guess they were not a huge number - gas discipline was very well entrenched in the Cdn Corps by this stage of the war. Although the Germans opposite were flooded in gas at intervals. Finally, I should mention this number also included the cavalry brigade, the machine gun brigade and other units thrown in to help the British elsewhere.

 

Darrell

Edited 13 December , 2019 by DarrellDuthie