9 KIA, 246 wounded unusual?

[Skipman]

On the 31st of August 1918 the 7th battalion The Leicestershire Regiment were in action near Beaulencourt. the diary says N.14.a. Brigade conference 10 am-2 pm. The Battalion received orders to attack Sugar Factory N.24.d. The 6th & 1st Wilts were to attack Beaulencourt from North. Zero 2 am 1st September - Beaulencourt was captured-the Sugar Factory was not taken. 2 officers K, 9 officers W. 9 OR K, 246 W, 10 missing. Total 278.

Diary Ancestry.co.uk

Does 9 killed and 246 wounded seem an unusually high proportion of wounded to killed?

Mike

[ss002d6252]

It seems unusual from the figures I've come across Mike, the death rate seems very low in proportion to the wounded.

Craig

[Guest]

Thanks Craig, that's what I thought. I will check the brigade diary and Official History when I get time.

Mike

[johnboy]

I wonder how many of the wounded survived?

[Guest]

I wonder how many of the wounded survived?

Between the 31st of August and the 3rd September 1918, the 7th battalion had 14 KIA. CWGC

Mike

[johnboy]

Only 2 shown on CWGC for 31/8/1918. Both on Vis=En=Artois Memorial.

[ss002d6252]

Thanks Craig, that's what I thought. I will check the brigade diary and Official History when I get time.

Mike

It may be a good idea to also look at the Div diaries as well - it may simply be an artefact of a cut off time in the diaries as to when the data was recorded.

Craig

[johnboy]

If the Germans were using gas is it possible that every man who received treatment was listed by the writer as wounded?

[Loader]

I read the standard ratio was thought to be 3 wia for every 1 kia. Of course certainly not always the case in war.

[phil andrade]

Very important to remember that in the final victorious phase of the war - The Hundred Days - British casualties were enormous ; but - and this is of note - the proportion of fatalites among those casualties was a good deal lower than it had been in the more notorious static battles of previous years.

To illustrate this, take a look at the British casualties of the periods July to November 1916 and July to November 1918.

Very similar totals.

In the earlier sample, a good thirty per cent were killed ( including died of wounds and missing presumed dead). In the 1918 sample, barely twenty per cent were fatal.

This reflects the difference between successful attacks in open warfare and protracted fighting in confined areas on the Somme, where attacks were repulsed, wounded men hit again and again until they were killed, or - in too many cases - were left to die in No Man's Land.

Another very significant factor was the enormous number of gas cases in the last phase of the war. More men were gassed in 1918 than in all the previous years combined. These were conflated with the wounded in terms of casualty counts, and since a relatively tiny amount of those admitted with gas poisoning died, the ratio of fatalites was bound to be reduced.

The other extreme can be found in the statistics for Gallipoli : the proportion of men who were killed was appallingly high - about a third of all the men hit in battle.

Editing : apologies, johnboy - I see that you've already identified the importance of the gassed being included with the wounded.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

Thanks Phil, interesting. My first thoughts were gas, but I haven't seen it specifically mentioned in this case. It's just something I came across in research and is not important to what I am doing, but thought it of interest. The answer may lie in all the above.

Cheers Mike

[phil andrade]

A pleasure to be of any use, Mike.

It's always troubled me that historians just look at the numbers, rather than how they're comprised.

Ratios of wounded to killed differed ; although the three to one applied overall, there were many variations. The Hundred Days, with their notorious 350,000 British and Dominion casualties, at least afforded the chance for a large proportion of those casualties to live to tell the tale.

At least seventy thousand of them did not, though.

Editing : Despite what I'm writing, I have to agree that the proportion killed in the sample you cite is conspicuously low. Even if all the missing were dead, there would still be fifteen wounded for every one killed. Allow for ten per cent of the wounded dying, and the fatality rate would still be well below what fighting on the Western Front normally produced. Note the difference between officers and men in this respect in the sample. No officers posted as missing. It's clear that the fate of the officers was more conspicuous - or every effort was made to make it so. The abnormal ratio between wounded and killed ORs is, I suspect, attributable to gas. But who's to say ? The exigencies of battle were so various....it's quite feasible that, for whatever reasons, a great many men were wounded - more or less severely - and very few killed. I note from Australian medical statistics that casualties in 1918 allowed for slightly wounded men remaining with units, and that these had been excluded from the tabulations for the 1916/17 battles.

Phil (PJA)

[Ellis1918]

Matthew Richardsons " The Tigers" states that 7th battn Leics were in reserve during this phase of Battle of Bapaume. No specific mention of heavy casualties other than " enemy defenders with machine guns could wreak havoc"

The figures shown in the extract from the war diary are from 1st Aug to 31st Aug