Number missing' first day of the Somme

[phil andrade]

Thanks for this, tharkin56, that really goes a long way to solving the riddle of numbers cited by CWGC compared with the stats cited by the official history.

 

If there was a disparity of days for officers, it's reasonable to assume that it was at least as great - greater, probably - for other ranks.

 

Your help much appreciated.

 

Phil

[Phil Wood]

Does the traditional figure for the 1st Day of the Somme mean casualties on 1 July, or casualties in the first 24 hours of the battle?  The latter would be a much closer fit with CWGC figures. 

 

[Chris_B]

An interesting thread, which to my mind serves to illustrate the need for healthy scepticism when dealing with statistics. I don’t have access to Martin Middlebrook’s book, nor have I read it. But it was first published in 1971, long before the computer/internet age and from other’s comments the data on pp262-3 was derived from the British Official History.

 

I can’t make sense of the “2,152 were not accounted for” number. Who couldn’t account for them and when? Does this number come from the statistical analysis conducted by those working on the Official History? What was their methodology and it’s limitations? What does “not accounted for” actually mean in this case? Are we talking about a discrepancy in figures, totals that could not be reconciled, or another set of circumstances?

 

A simple example: Pte. 22678 Sidney Lawrence Dann, 1st Bn. Border Regiment, born Balham, family home Colliers Wood, suffered a compound fracture of his left leg due to gunshot wounds on 1st July 1916. He had been transferred to Cambridge Hospital, Aldershot by 6th July 1916 but died of complications on 21st July 1916. He was buried at Church Road Cemetery, Mitcham, on 26th July 1916.

 

So how should Sidney Dann be counted? Just as wounded on 1^st July, or in the deads? My guess is he is not in the 19,249 figure. But both Isaiah Lemon and Victor Stokes, two other ex. East Surrey men in the 1^st Bn. Border Regiment probably (or at least should have been) were counted in the 19,249. Isaiah Lemon has a known grave, but Victor Stokes does not. The lottery of war and possibly simply because Victor Stokes got a little further into no man’s land on that fateful day.

 

Major Lewis Farewell Jones, C.O. “D” Coy. 1st/12th London (The Rangers), was first reported missing on 1^st July, believed to have been seen fallen wounded close to the German wire at Gommecourt. Desperate for news, his family made enquiries through the Red Cross, and finally on 24.1.1917 they were informed that British POWs had first hand accounts that Major Jones had been found and buried by the Germans. So he at that time he should have been officially counted as having died on 1^st July 1916. CWGC records show his remains were discovered in 1953 at Hebuterne, when only his sisters were still alive. Major Lewis Farewell Jones was re-buried at London Cemetery and Extension, Longueval. That begs the questions as to whether his name actually appears on the Thiepval memorial.

 

In my tiny sample, it’s fairly clear how they should have been counted in the statistics, but knowing if and where they appear in the figures is another matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[phil andrade]

Chris,

 

In one of my earlier posts here I alluded to the figure of 2,152 unaccounted for missing, and commented that I do not know what to make of it.

 

It's an anomaly.

 

Perhaps Middlebrook was being a bit too black and white in his assertion that they were dead.

 

Phil

[Chris_B]

PDF copies of the "Official History" can still be found at the Digital Library of India - http://www.dli.ernet.in/http://www.dli.ernet.in/

 

The 2,152 figures does in fact come from the Military Operations France And Belgium 1916 Vol-i  p483  the methodology of correction is not stated ( or least, I have not found it).

[Chris_B]

Page ix preface:

 

 

 

 

[Bart150]

Chris_B

Thanks for that pointer. I'm having some difficulty finding my way around the Digital Library of India.

Could you perhaps post a link to the page from which I can download the PDF that contains the text relevant to this discussion?

Bart

[phil andrade]

Thanks for posting the BOH tabulation, Chris.

 

On second thoughts, it does persuade me to conclude that the 2,152 left outstanding as missing were very probably dead.

 

Bearing in mind the enormous number of confirmed deaths ( 19,240 ) , and the fact that only six months had elapsed by the time the corrected figures were presented, I'm surprised that the number of unaccounted for missing was not higher.

 

I might be labouring under a misapprehension here....did those six months allude to the six months after the actual date of 1st July 1916 ; or did it refer to the time, post war, that was devoted to a special investigation of the casualties of the first day of the Somme ?

 

If the latter, then you would have thought that the 2,152 would have been long since presumed dead.

 

If the former, then, as I mentioned, the figure seems rather small.

 

Phil

[Guest]

Alexander MacDonald of the London Scottish was reported missing 1/7/1916. There is a report that states he is " now officially presumed killed on that date. " in a newspaper dated 28/4/1917. Might it be worth checking for Territorials killed on that date who were re-numbered?

 

Mike

[Chris_B]

55 minutes ago, Bart150 said:

Chris_B

Thanks for that pointer. I'm having some difficulty finding my way around the Digital Library of India.

Could you perhaps post a link to the page from which I can download the PDF that contains the text relevant to this discussion?

Bart

 

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/210679

 

A search on "Military Operations France And Belgium 1916" should lead to the other relevant parts of the "Official History".

 

(There was a thread about these docs iin 2015 but the urls given are no longer valid. )

[Bart150]

Thanks Chris. I still can't find the Preface, but never mind.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Bart150 said:

Thanks Chris. I still can't find the Preface, but never mind.

 

The preface starts on page 22/634

 

Mike

[Chris_B]

51 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

Thanks for posting the BOH tabulation, Chris.

 

On second thoughts, it does persuade me to conclude that the 2,152 left outstanding as missing were very probably dead.

 

Bearing in mind the enormous number of confirmed deaths ( 19,240 ) , and the fact that only six months had elapsed by the time the corrected figures were presented, I'm surprised that the number of unaccounted for missing was not higher.

 

I might be labouring under a misapprehension here....did those six months allude to the six months after the actual date of 1st July 1916 ; or did it refer to the time, post war, that was devoted to a special investigation of the casualties of the first day of the Somme ?

 

If the latter, then you would have thought that the 2,152 would have been long since presumed dead.

 

If the former, then, as I mentioned, the figure seems rather small.

 

Phil

 

This part of the Official History was published in 1932 and I believe the analysis was undertaken not long prior to its publication, and so many years after the War’s end.

 

The comments in the preface seem to say that the only means to correct the original “Missing” figures was to examine “Part ii Battalion Orders”. But it’s not clear whether a researcher literally examined the part II orders for every Battalion in action on 1^st July 1916 over an unspecified following period ( As Skipman points out, this really should have been well into 1917 due to the length of time before MPD cases were officially recognised ), or some kind of statistical sampling method was applied. The comment “for reasons of economy ...” raises other questions.

 

It does seem that the “2,152 were not accounted for” number does derive directly from the inability of this analysis to re-classify a large number of originally “missing” men as either dead, wounded or taken prisoner on or since 1^st July 1916. So from the original grand total of 61,186, roughly 3.5% cannot be accounted for in this analysis. The Official History makes not mention of whether they consider the 61,186 to be reliable and accurate.

 

 

[Chris_B]

1 hour ago, Skipman said:

Alexander MacDonald of the London Scottish was reported missing 1/7/1916. There is a report that states he is " now officially presumed killed on that date. " in a newspaper dated 28/4/1917. Might it be worth checking for Territorials killed on that date who were re-numbered?

 

Mike

2310 Cpl Alexander MacDonald (missing at Gommecourt?) commemorated on Thiepval Memorial, did appear in HMSO publication as KIA 1st July 1916 and more informatively as "on or since 1st July, death presumed" in the Soliders' Effects register.

 

The CWGC figure of 18,548 deaths on 1st July was quoted earlier in this thread.  By comparison SDGW lists 18,242 and the UK, Army Registers of Soldiers' Effects, 1901-1929 , lists 18,881.  Mind you, the indexing on Ancestry is far from perfect. Modern Technology does at least offer the potential to attempt to reconcile these different totals.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Chris_B said:

2310 Cpl Alexander MacDonald (missing at Gommecourt?) commemorated on Thiepval Memorial, did appear in HMSO publication as KIA 1st July 1916 and more informatively as "on or since 1st July, death presumed" in the Soliders' Effects register.

 

 

 

But not officially until April 1917, as far as I know, and he was re-numbered.

 

Mike

[Chris_B]

3 hours ago, Skipman said:

 

But not officially until April 1917, as far as I know, and he was re-numbered.

 

Mike

I'm sure you are right, but my point was that SDGW shows MPD as KIA on the presumed data whereas at least in some instances the Soldier's Effects register actually shows a solider was MPD.  Even when service papers exist, the change of status from "missing" to MPD is not always clearly recorded.  The re-numbering can be misleading, weren't you re-numbered dead or alive, doesn't that show on the 14th London medal roll?  e.g. Pte 1979 John Alexander MacKenzie. KIA 25/09/1915 at LOOS.

[Guest]

Hi Chris. " weren't you re-numbered dead or alive " To be honest I'm not sure. Maybe this is a question for another thread, or if anyone can point me to an old thread would appreciate.

 

Mike

[ss002d6252]

Dead men shouldn't have been renumbered but if they weren't know to be conclusively dead they were renumbered on the basis they were still alive (somewhere).

 

Craig