ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 (edited) Having had some free time I have cross reference the monthly totals from the Soldiers' Effects and the CWGC in respect of the British Army and Air Force. Records show an average variance between the Soldier's Effects Records and CWGC of +782 men in favour of the Effects Records. This is explained by the fact that the Effects Records include some small duplication of records and some records which do not come under the CWGC for UK forces. What is interesting is the very close correlation between the two record sets. In total from Aug 14 to Aug 19: CWGC: 754,012 records Effects Records:800,949 records Craig Edited 18 July , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 July , 2018 (edited) @Derek Black I have had a much better look through the Effects and the CWGC today. If we look at just the Aug to Nov 18 period for the British Army and Air Force we get: CWGC 732,055 records Effects 775,971 records This is again explained by the fact that the Effects Records include some small duplication of records and some records which do not come under the CWGC for UK forces. Craig Edited 18 July , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clk Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 Hi Craig, Thanks for posting. It's an interesting piece of work that shows a remarkably close correlation between the two data sets with little apparent significant variance in percentage terms. Am I missing something though other than either can be used wrt reasonably accurate casualty (death) stats; or perhaps illustrating the integrity of the Effects records? Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 July , 2018 6 minutes ago, clk said: Am I missing something though other than either can be used wrt reasonably accurate casualty (death) stats; or perhaps illustrating the integrity of the Effects records? For now, both but there is some other information I hope to extract once the veracity has been shown - plus I think it would be nice to have at least one more source that can be regarded as accurate in respect of war dead (I have my doubts, which are increasing, over the veracity of SDGW). It came out of something me and Derek were briefly discussing the other day. The actual match between the two surprised me as to how well it fits (it still hasn't been tweaked to a fully comparable Effects dataset) and I may be able to cross check other data sets for accuracy against it to some extent. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clk Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 Cheers Craig, As they say around these parts 'more power to your elbow' - translates as well done you. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 July , 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, clk said: Cheers Craig, As they say around these parts 'more power to your elbow' - translates as well done you. Regards Chris Hopefully it will provide something useful - if not at least it backs up my admiration for the effects branch. Craig Edited 18 July , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragoon Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 (edited) Craig, A very interesting and informative piece of research,and impressive on the records side of things all that time ago, must have been very difficult to do under the circumstances. Thank you for posting. Chris Edited 18 July , 2018 by Dragoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 5 hours ago, ss002d6252 said: and some records which do not come under the CWGC for UK forces. Can you explain a bit more about this cohort Craig? Good work (as usual) by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 July , 2018 2 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: Can you explain a bit more about this cohort Craig? Good work (as usual) by the way. The effects includes a range of men not listed as UK forces by the CWGC - By far the largest component that you see in the effects are the South African's but that is causing me an issue as there doesn't seem to be a 1:1 on those men with the CWGC for some, as yet, unknown reason. Overall though the non-UK parties in the effects are not enough to skew the data too much but I like to try and get it as close as possible ... Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 July , 2018 (edited) Adding in the SDGW data from Ancestry that I've gathered so far shows a far better fit than I had expected. I think it also shows the amount of records that had to be dealt with (and this is only for the British Army and RAF). SDGW is accurate until Dec 1918 when the record keeping drops off (and it seems to be primarily home deaths only recorded after that point). Craig Edited 18 July , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Nulty Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 Hey Craig Now there’s an expression not often trotted out on GWF - ‘SDGW is accrate’ 😀 Great work as always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 Ta Craig. So they're in the CWGC database though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 July , 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: Ta Craig. So they're in the CWGC database though? They should be, but by country. The CWGC data I have used is for British Army and AIrforce so to use the other nations accurately would mean checking them on CWGC and removing any men who wouldn't then qualify for the war gratuity scheme (or alternatively doing similar to the effects). Either way however the numbers don't seem big enough to distort the overall data too much. Craig Edited 18 July , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 July , 2018 7 minutes ago, Stephen Nulty said: Hey Craig Now there’s an expression not often trotted out on GWF - ‘SDGW is accrate’ 😀 Great work as always By volume, not always by date Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Black Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Good analysis Craig, It's surprising really how they marry up so well. Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 19 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2018 31 minutes ago, Derek Black said: Good analysis Craig, It's surprising really how they marry up so well. Derek I certainly feel more confident about the overall figures now. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now