Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Zuber & Co V Traditional narrative. German tactics during the advance from mons.


dansparky

Recommended Posts

Zuber's alternate account of events has informed the work of Adrian Gilbert and Max Hastings who both concurred with large parts of Zuber's work. To my knowledge, no established historian has given to much credence to his claims as of yet. 

Anyway.   I think as Zuber took casualty figures from regimental histories (which may contain errors), his figures do deserve merit.  Casualties stated in previous work are along the lines of : 6,000 Possibly as much as 10,000 (Richard Holmes).  Must have reached nearly 5,000 as 75IR lost 371 at Bremen (Keegan).  'Must have' and 'nearly' do not strike me as carrying much merit compared.  It is a bit of a guess based on anecdotes of men being mowed down.  Much smaller german figures do not match up with this. 

I do not think though that all British servicemen would have been fooled by men diving for cover and riflemen thinking each time they had hit them.  At no point did they notice men rising from the ground that they thought they had hit?  The British facing bloem were not fooled by this and at one point withheld their fire waiting for the enemy to get closer for maximum effect.  The one thing I think Ascoli gets right (certainly those approaching between oburg and Ghlin) is that the enemy adopted different tactics very early on.  Initially, enemy formations in this area may have suffered to a certain extent approaching blindly en masse and then some bulling forward as soon as they hear bullets whistle past them. If zuber is then right, from this point on German casualties are much lighter as they slowly make their way forward.

Ultimately then even if german casualties were 10,000 this was not enough to prevent the  German bulldozer.  Whatever the casualties were those initial casualties, however, may be very important.  The accuracy and volume of British fire may have induced such caution that it reduced the german advance to a creep. Bloem tells us that they advanced, in short, rushed with long pauses.  This in all likelihood is due to the weight of fire, from whichever source.

Just Thoughts :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that Zuber contents which can be linked to the mass scenario and is linked with casualties.  Is the question of the size of the opposing forces.  Zuber states that forces on each side were essentially equal in number at mons and that the British outnumbered the germans at le cateau.   This obviously ties in well with the idea that if forces are equal the defence is in the better position.  So then tactical superiority and fire and movement must have been key.  I asked an historian about this once and he said that the British were able to identify the insignias of different units which back up the large size of forces v the British.  This must have been insignia in prisoners of war.  Not sure how reliable this is as we were the retreating force, therefore ability to capture p.o.w that are representative is reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/02/2017 at 23:30, phil andrade said:

 

Dan,

 

Both German and British wounded outnumbered the killed by three to one ; after some of the wounded died, the ratio between wounded and dead dropped to about 2.3- 2.5 to one.

 

This would apply to the 1914 fighting ; things were different later.

 

Phil

 

 

 

Hi Phill

The ratio of German wounded, which source is that based on.  Since casualties is hotly debated just wondering where wounded are taken from?  Is it Zuber? 

DS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

The  statistics from the Central Enquiries Office - Zentral Nachweiseant - which painstakingly compiled all the German records for fifteen years after the war, arrived at a total of 2.0 million deaths from the army and 4.25 million wounded.  Among the two million dead, slightly more than ten per cent were non battle fatalities : deaths from illness , accident and whilst POW etc.  A bit rough and ready, I know, but therein lies my reckoning for the ratio of German wounded : 1.75 to 1.8 million killed or died from wounds, 4.25 million wounded = 1 killed in battle for roughly 2.4 wounded ; British figures indicate a very similar ratio, which lends support to my guess.

 

In the 1914 fighting , the ratio of killed might well have been rather higher.

 

Zuber does give breakdowns of numerous German regimental casualties into KIA, WIA, MIA which do get a bit bewildering at times....I just use that government source : it certainly yields a degree of harmony with the British ratios for the war.

 

Phil

Edited by phil andrade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Phil :-)

 

That reasoning makes perfect sense.  Would have been good if Zuber totalled all figures.  If will take a closer look at the breakdowns he mentions.  Takes a while to follow Zuber sometimes as he has to flitter between all the individual companies etc.  The P.O.Ws of 1914 must have been lower as they were the pursuers. 

 

Did Churchill use this for his breakdown in the world crisis.  Can one refer to that?  being in English it is easier to get to grips with.

 

Regards

DS

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dan,

 

Yes, you're supposition is correct : Churchill did use the tabulations from the Zentral Nachweisant to formulate his casualty analyses in his World Crisis ; he relied principally on the data from the Reichsarciv which he synthesised with the information from the Nachweisant in order to try and get a grip on the daunting task of assessing the casualty exchange rate for that crucial chapter THE BLOOD TEST.  Apparently , he commissioned a team of historians to research the German figures, and relied on the help of a German official in the Reichsarciv , who, if memory serves me, was a certain Herr Stinger.

 

I note that Churchill took a stab at the casualties suffered by the Germans against the British in 1914 : he suggested that they totalled 100,000 against the 96,000 suffered by the British. Bearing in mind that barely six thousand Germans were taken prisoner by the British in the whole of 1914, while twenty thousand British POWs were taken by the Germans, such a figure would imply that German losses in killed and wounded were significantly heavier than those they inflicted on the BEF ; although this covers First Ypres, in which most would probably agree that the Germans shed their blood more lavishly than the British.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, interesting... I quoted Holmes yesterday but failed to read further on.  Having looked at it again he states that the casualties were so great north of that the canal, that some burial parties had yo resort to mass cremations due to the piles of dead.  No source stated at all:-(, must have read that before but never took it in( Artistic licence perhaps?).  Not seen this anywhere else.   Dead south of the canal would include a higher percentage of British. Dead would be on more equal terms here, but would there still not be piles?

 

Ridding the Retreat p 130

 

 

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point of doubt on Zuber's figures.  Whilst it is true that his figure of no more than 2,000 is based on ten out of 12 regiment's (seriously engaged) there is an say it an issue with this. 

 

1. What of other units that were not as he stated seriously engaged?

 

2. BOH states that we were outnumbered, 8 versus 4 with 2 of the British practically not engaged (taken from zuber).  Zuber argues that 2 german divisions were engaged all day, 3 corps did not engage until 2pm and 4 corps did not engage until late in the day. This means he firstly argues it was 6 divisions not 8 and then omits a further 4 divisions from the equation. 

 

So firstly it must be established were the forces equal?  is he correct here.  Were 3 corps and 4 corps of such a token figure it is not worth adding into the equation?  These numbers once added and if the British faced a larger force than Zuber argues his figures may be a little off?  I am not suggesting the are to the extent of what Richard Holmes quoted but all the same Zuber's figure may be an underestimation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dansparky said:

Hmm, interesting... I quoted Holmes yesterday but failed to read further on.  Having looked at it again he states that the casualties were so great north of that the canal, that some burial parties had yo resort to mass cremations due to the piles of dead.  No source stated at all:-(, must have read that before but never took it in( Artistic licence perhaps?).  Not seen this anywhere else.   Dead south of the canal would include a higher percentage of British. Dead would be on more equal terms here, but would there still not be piles?

 

Ridding the Retreat p 130

 

 

 

Oh, the famous barbaric Huns cremating their dead... It is a very well known propaganda item from during the war. The French did some kind of experiment and then used that (in magzines) to say that the Germans had cremated dead in 1914. It was a way of trying to accuse the Germans that their casualty figures were faked as no graves existed for these dead. (the same accusation sometimes comes about about 1st Ypres when allegedly whole trains filled with corpses were taken to the cement factories in Hainaut to be cremated). It is one of those myths that doesn't seem to go away.

 

The German army didn't cremate anyone. Only at the request of the family could dead be taken back to Germany and cremated there individually by the family (like f.i. Max Immelmann was cremated).

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Sheldon's book , THE GERMAN ARMY ON THE SOMME, contains a photograph of a German field crematorium.

 

A tasteless pun : but no smoke without a fire ?

 

My suggestion is that the Germans did burn bodies ; but they were those of horses, not men.

 

Phil

Edited by phil andrade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jan and Phill

 

Mass cremations in 1914 does seem little far fetched.  Any thoughts on my post above and the validity of Zuber's casualty claims.    Whilst they may be somewhat closer than the figures often guessed at in British sources, it is likely still an underestimation.  Due to emissions and could a tad more off if Zuber is wrong about what German units were actively engaged.  Going to see what Von Kluck says, if memory serves does not go into to much detail

 

DS

 

Von Kluck, not enough detail  OBH states that German III Korps was in action by 11 am.  With regard to IV Korps, the BOH states that they did not cross the canal although some patrols managed to cross by midnight.  Up to 9 pm the fire from here was a strong as ever (Indicating that although late to the party?? Not sure when?  they still played a part).

 

Dependent on when IV came into play and their casualties that do appear light, allied with the British History insistence that III Korps came into play three hours before Zuber states that they did figures may, in reality, be a little different.  

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

Zuber's two thousand looks plausible to me. It might seem a tad low, but it certainly looks more likely than the five or six thousands we read about in Ascoli etc.

 

The two thousand probably implies that twice as many Germans as British were killed or wounded, with the heavy British loss in prisoners bringing the figures closer to parity.

 

As for the numbers engaged, I reckon Martin is spot on : this was a battle of battalions, in which relatively small numbers were at the sharp end, while large contingents, although present, did not really get into the battle.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Phil,

 

Yes, I agree, I wasn't questioning of the overall implications of Zuber's figures or the fact that it is closer to the mark than the OBH, and I agreed above that figures often cited in anglophone histories may well be of the mark.  The disparity between timings of those engaged, though small may affect the figures.  If Zuber was incorrect it may have led to an underestimation although admittedly small.

 

Martin was spot on?  was this earlier in the thread? will have another look.  So this would indicate the OBH, historians since and many contemporary historians still try to demonstrate that the BEF was overwhelmed (by numbers) and rely on OBH accounts and those that agree to back this up? 

 

This would all indicate it was largely artillery and Mg fire that began to tell for the German Army.  Although more emphasis was placed on the offensive in Battalion training, at battalion level the 10th brigade, in particular, do not indicate that at the tactical level they were below par in comparison with the german army.  So while I am beginning to become more and more sympathetic with Zuber  British tactical doctrine at brigade level and below was reasonably sound.  By the same token, it also demonstrates that by in large German tactical doctrine was sound. 

DS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interestingly Von Bloem Grenadier Regiment "Prince Carl von Prussia" No 2 Brandenburg No.12. was part of III corps, 6 division.  Approaching in between the 2nd duke of wellingtons and the 1st royal scots: towards Jemapes with Tertre to their right approx.  Fighting in and around here is described as heavy many casualties. He hears gun-fire etc away to the front which indicates they were not the first on the scene, makes sense.  However, III corps is omitted from Zuber's figures as they did not join the party until after 2pm! As we know from that account (i know accusations of artistic licence) the above brigade suffered heavily.  This gets more and more interesting. 

 

DS

 

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey, Dan !  Are you sure about this ?

 

I've taken Zuber's estimate at face value.

 

If it transpires that he's missed out all III Corps units, then the omission is pretty damned big.

 

I'll revisit the famous Machine Guns at Mons thread to total up the figures that Jack Sheldon provided, and see what that gives us.

 

Editing : From 5 regiments, III Corps : 176 killed ; 782 wounded ; 158 missing ; Total : 1,1116

 

And this does not include casualties from IR 24 and IR 64, which include the losses suffered the next day.

 

Are you saying that well over one thousand German casualties have been excluded from Zuber's assessment of the battle of 23 August ?

 

Another edit : if Zuber fails to include the casualties suffered by III corps, it's a bit like giving an estimate for British casuaties at the Battle of Balaclava without counting the losses of the Light Brigade.

 

Phil

 

 

Edited by phil andrade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just started reading this thread and see many similarities between it and an earlier thread along the same lines. I do not have the opportunity to dig deeper but what I can say is that while some German regimental histories list only the dead and at times statistics for wounded, etc. these numbers were taken from the 10 day casualty reports which were extremely accurate at the time they were written. These show up as the entries on the Stammrolle entries and if info was unknown or incorrect, a later correction was made. These records show many times the nature of the wound or cause of death, subsequent history for the wounded or missing and in all of the cases I have checked so far, match the details in the regimental accounts that have the casualty details.   Ralph

Edited by Ralph J. Whitehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ralph J. Whitehead said:

I have just started reading this thread and see many similarities between it and an earlier thread along the same lines. I do not have the opportunity to dig deeper but what I can say is that while some German regimental histories list only the dead and at times statistics for wounded, etc. these numbers were taken from the 10 day casualty reports which were extremely accurate at the time they were written. These show up as the entries on the Stammrolle entries and if info was unknown or incorrect, a later correction was made. These records show many times the nature of the wound or cause of death, subsequent history for the wounded or missing and in all of the cases I have checked so far, match the details in the regimental accounts that have the casualty details.   Ralph

 
 
 

This would be fascinating.  Can these be applied to 1914?  Types of wounds could tell us an awful lot, where hit and by what could provide some very interesting information, is this accessible?  I had read somewhere that no such evidence existed so there was no way to tell.  I am very interested in exploring further.  The entries themselves or any analysis of could be like gold.

 

I did see a similar thread about casualties, this was originally about mass advances but they are tied together.   The thread I did try to read through get very personal.  Surely we all have the same goal?  the pursuit of knowledge - even if the truth shatters your beliefs.   I must add that I am very thankful that this site exists-research can be a lonely pursuit it's great to share ideas and information with so many knowledgeable people.

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

German IX Coprs which consisted of 17 division =Infantry Brigade (IB) which comprised of 2 Infantry regiments (IR).  34 IB = 2 IR and a jager battalion.  17 Field artillery units, squadron 2 hannover dragoon regiment (mounted infantry, i think) and 1 company of pioneer battalion.

18 division 35 IR = 2IR, 36 IR=2IR, 18 field artillery 2 reg   2 & 3 Companies  Schleswig-Holsteinisches pioneer battalions, no3 squadron of Hannover dragoons.

 

III corps = 5th division = 9 IB = 2IR, 10 IB = 2IR + A Jager batt, "1/2" Husare-Regiment, field artillery 2 reg, and 1 and 3 battalions of pioneer battalions.  6th division =11 IB = 2IR, 12 IB = 2IR + A Jager batt, "1/2" Husare-Regiment, field artillery 2 reg, and 2 battalion of pioneer battalions. 

 

12 regiments out  IX and III Corps were seriously engaged (apparently) with casualty figures taken from ten of these.   Apart from establishing if only 12 reg were seriously engaged, there appear to be 16 Infantry regiments with quite a few other units.  I wonder if this is a true sample it seems that it is fairly reflective of the composition.

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, phil andrade said:

Blimey, Dan !  Are you sure about this ?

 

I've taken Zuber's estimate at face value.

 

If it transpires that he's missed out all III Corps units, then the omission is pretty damned big.


 

Don't fret Phil, for the most part Jack and T. Zuber agree on the casualty figures. I found three differences; Jack lists casualties on the 23rd August for I.R. 20 that according to Zuber should be for 24th August (Frameries), and Jack delved into "the roll of honour" of I.R. 24 for fatal casualties at Jemappes (23rd) and found 22 officers and other ranks while Zuber stated that the I.R. 24 history didn't mention casualties. The final discrepancy is in regards to casualties for I.R. 48; Jack shows 3 killed, 25 wounded while Zuber remarks that "The regiment does not appear to have taken significant casualties."  (page 160, "The Mons Myth"). In summary, Jack shows a total of 25 killed and 25 wounded in excess of Zuber's figures for III A.K.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phill,

 

Apologies, I was looking at this very late at night.  I fear the tiredness induce a bit of a mistake.  I confused the two pages attached here. He includes figures from 10 and educated guess of two =12 out of the 16 infantry regiments, not including other units of III and IX, IV is not included at all.  If Gen Amande was as helpful here as at le cateau I would have thought these were at least partially relevant.

 

It looks to me that casualty figures are between 2000-3000. I would love to be able to know how much the figures are off, probably not by much.  The slightly higher figure still means Zuber in all probability far closer to the mark than the traditional narrative.

 

The Stammrolle angle has me very intrigued I did not know wounds were recorded reliably for either side if indeed they were in 1914.

DS.

 

IMG_20170207_165349830_HDR.jpg

IMG_20170207_133704041.jpg

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

You have my sympathy :  Zuber can be a hard read at the best of times.

 

He does, perhaps, exert a bit of spin when he alludes to the casualties of IR 12 : he states that the regiment reported 490 killed and wounded, and omits to mention the significant fact that it also returned 137 missing.

 

Judging by the low number reported killed compared with the number of wounded in the regiment - nearly six times as many wounded as killed  - I think it's legitimate to assume that a significant portion of those missing were dead.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Phill,

I thought I had found something really interesting.  Then read it again today, he can be difficult to read sometimes, on occasion more so if you are tired and dyslexic.

 

I think he did indeed use a little spin, not the only one guilty of this.  Those 137 missing he simply states some of which later returned, of those that didn't maybe the odd one ran off with a french milkmaid of but I think it's safe to say there continued absence meant they were dead.  Also the missing in IR12 are about twice as much as those reported killed.

 

Other regiments do not list much M.I.A for the 23rd and who knows how many W.I.A later passed away, but these would still be out of action.  M.I.A and W.I.A I have tried to piece together below :-)

 

ir84 6 Off (officers I guess), 55 EM (other ranks?) WIA

IR85 3 OFF WIA + EM 184 K.I.A + W.I.A Bundled together.

IR76 79 W.I.A

IR 75 5 OFF + 232 W.I.A

IR 90 75 W.I.A

IR 24 (NO RECORD)

IR64 1 OFF 10 EM W.i.A.

IR8 6 OFF 56 EM W.I.A

IR 52 3 OFF 125 EM W.I.A  11 M.I.A

IR 66 3 W.I.A

1 & 2/93?  1 OFF AND 24 EM W.I.A.

 

D.S.

 

Edited by dansparky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early Stammrolle books were kept by each company. While some details were delayed, it was only due to the mass of information being produced. MIA entries were later corrected as info was received or declared killed if no further knowledge was ever heard of the man, which took some years in most cases and an investigation into each man. I will see if I can supply some concrete examples.   Ralph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Set against the scale of the Great War, the Battle of Mons , 23 August 1914, is a tiny affair.

 

I would guess that the number of British soldiers who died there that day was not very different from the number who had died at the Battle of Spion Kop in the Boer War.

 

For the Germans, the loss of a couple of thousand men killed or wounded at Mons  would equate to barely one per cent of their total losses on the Western Front that month.

 

As for the French, we can can confidently state that they lost more dead on the single day before the fight at Mons than Britain was to lose on the Western Front in the first five months of the war.

 

Yet Mons has engendered so much folklore and controversy....at least, for British people it has.

 

In this respect, it might be unique. Has there ever been such a relatively small engagement that has been so amplified in its reputation ?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Le cateau not too far behind, they are connected though.  They were small engagements for the German Army and for us in the greater context of the war.  At the time they probably seemed fairly big.  Past battles, hmmm got me thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...