Somme casualty figures

[Terry Carter]

Hi folks

Can any kind person tell me what the British, German and French casulaty figures were for the Somme battle of 1916 please.

Regards

Terry

[Michelle Young]

Hi Terry

Only looking at this yesterday with my son Tom who is studying WW1 in year 9.

British and Dominion 419, 654

French 204,654

German estimates 437,00 to 680,000

taken from Chris Mc Carthy The Somme The Day by Day Account

Regards, Michelle

[paul guthrie]

The IWM Book of the Somme says about 1000000 to 1300000. Germans not counting lightly wounded is one problem. After July 1 it was far from one sided, Terrains says something like 330 German counteattacks.

[bmac]

Estimates of killed are:

German 164055

French 50756

British etc 95675

Total 146431

[Terry Carter]

Thanks very much for the prompt replies.

Regards

Terry

[Arnie]

Have we not been getting the figure for the dead?

According to Nial Ferguson's 'Pity of War'he gives the following total figures:-

British 419,654

French 204,253

Total 623,907

German 450,000 (Official German casualties)

Even if we take the British estimate of German casualties of 680,000, the battle can only be seen as a draw!

I think any student of the Great War will find that Ferguson's statistics always seem to be very accurate.

[Muerrisch]

Even if we take the British estimate of German casualties of 680,000, the battle can only be seen as a draw!

But war is not about the score, it is about the result. The Allied Army's political aim was [it usually is] to defeat the main body of the enemy. Setting aside losses [a dreadfully inappropriate way to look at it, and I apologise for the clumsiness] there can surely be little doubt that the enemy were defeated both in the short term [by November 1916 on that battlefield] and in the long term [November 1918].

My tentative belief is that, had the nation not been scarred to the nth generation by 1 July, the Somme would be seen as just a typical nasty 1914-18 struggle between well-matched and brave forces totally out of their depth in the face of so much assymetrical innovation. I say assymetrical because that vital aspect, communication, was dreadfully behind developements such as aviation, tanks, artillery.

[PhilB]

Estimates of killed are:

German 164055

French 50756

British etc 95675

Total 146431

If these figures are correct , then 164055-146431=17624 and hence a great stategic victory in this acknowledged battle of attrition!

Or, taking Arnie`s figures, 680,000-623,907=56,093, still a great strategic victory!

I am, of course, being ironic. To have 8 of your own men killed to kill 9 enemy, or 11 casualties to inflict 12 casualties on your enemy is not my idea of generalship.

However, all this was recently discussed under the "Attrition as a Strategy" thread and I thank all those who contributed. I`ll get my coat! Phil B

[tonycad]

An Appendix in Martin and Mary Middlebrook's "The Somme Battlefields" gives the figure of 127,751 deaths of British and Empire troops, and has an explanation as to how he arrived at these figures.

They give the total number of deaths on the Somme from 1915 - 1918 as:-

British 207,007

French 90,158

German 119,672

This gives a ratio of 3 Allies to 1 German, which does surprise me.

According to these figures the Britain and its Empire lost about 80,000 men in 1915 and 1916 up to 1st July, and post November 1916. I presume the high figure is due to the 1918 retreat and offensive.

Tony

[bmac]

Have we not been getting the figure for the dead?

According to Nial Ferguson's 'Pity of War'he gives the following total figures:-

British 419,654

French 204,253

Total 623,907

German 450,000 (Official German casualties)

Even if we take the British estimate of German casualties of 680,000, the battle can only be seen as a draw!

I think any student of the Great War will find that Ferguson's statistics always seem to be very accurate.

Niall Ferguson's figures are for total casualties (not just dead) and are, as far as the British and French are concerned, the numbers given in the Official History. His figures for the German casualties are not what are given in the Official History (France and Belgium, Vol II, Preface, page XV). Here, the gross German losses (from official German sources) are given as 582,919 for July-October. For November German sources give a net figure of 45,000, estimated at 58,500 gross. Added to this should be 40,000 prisoners, giving a total of 680,000.

I cannot see, from a cursory glance, where Ferguson gets his 450,000 figures from nor can I understand why, except to make a point, why he should accept the Official History's analysis of Allied casualties and reject their analysis of German ones, based, as they are, on official German histories and other sources. As it seems some German figures excluded "wounded whose recovery was to be expected in a reasonable time" (not the case with Allied casualties) then Ferguson's estimate of 450,000 is not comparing like with like (and should, as a result, be at leat 30% higher). A perplexing error for a leading academic to make.

[Muerrisch]

As it seems some German figures excluded "wounded whose recovery was to be expected in a reasonable time" (not the case with Allied casualties)

but we need to consider if the British "wounded at duty" [a category which cropped up in a sound unit] is not a sub-set of these "expected to recover" cases, surely?

[bmac]

British casualties include those who returned to service (quickly or otherwise). SO I don't think that makes a difference.

[Guest Filipe Décio]

Have we not been getting the figure for the dead?

According to Nial Ferguson's 'Pity of War'he gives the following total figures:-

British        419,654

French       204,253

Total          623,907

German      450,000 (Official German casualties)

Even if we take the British estimate of German casualties of 680,000, the battle can only be seen as a draw!

I think any student of the Great War will find that Ferguson's statistics always seem to be very accurate.

Niall Ferguson's figures are for total casualties (not just dead) and are, as far as the British and French are concerned, the numbers given in the Official History. His figures for the German casualties are not what are given in the Official History (France and Belgium, Vol II, Preface, page XV). Here, the gross German losses (from official German sources) are given as 582,919 for July-October. For November German sources give a net figure of 45,000, estimated at 58,500 gross. Added to this should be 40,000 prisoners, giving a total of 680,000.

I cannot see, from a cursory glance, where Ferguson gets his 450,000 figures from nor can I understand why, except to make a point, why he should accept the Official History's analysis of Allied casualties and reject their analysis of German ones, based, as they are, on official German histories and other sources. As it seems some German figures excluded "wounded whose recovery was to be expected in a reasonable time" (not the case with Allied casualties) then Ferguson's estimate of 450,000 is not comparing like with like (and should, as a result, be at leat 30% higher). A perplexing error for a leading academic to make.

The 450.000 figure for German losses is probably drawn from the German official history, published in the late 1930's-early 1940's.

The title is Der Weltkrieg 1914 bis 1918, the compiler/editor's name is Wendt, and the Somme should be covered by vol. XI (?), published some time around 1936-1937. I know vol. X covers Verdun.

This history gives German losses on the Somme (1 July - 30 November) as 437.222. Of these, 164.055 were killed or taken prisoner.

You can dismiss this official history's figures as propaganda, but then again so can the figures given by the British official history. But usually, the more accurate figures for losses tend to be those given for its own losses by each side; those given for the other side's losses are estimates, which tend to be inflated and unreliable.

Anyway, the calculations used by the British official history to reach the figure of 680.000, if they are indeed made in the way you describe them, can only be described as daft.

What are those "official German sources" used? Not the German official history, since it gives a different figure; and not actual German army, corps or divisional records/returns, since those weren't captured by the Entente powers.

And wouldn't the German figures of 582.919 quoted include those Germans taken prisoner as "missing", as usual? Why then are 40.000 prisoners added to that total? (and 40.000 isn't even the total number of prisoners taken by the British and French - those were around 80.000).

And who, and according to what criteria, decides

I) which German figures for the wounded include only those deemed impossible to recover (you admit that only "some" German figures "seem" to do such)

II) by what factor should those figures be multiplied to give the total number of wounded - why 30% and not lower, or higher?

I'm not surprised that the British official history plays with numbers like this. There were reputations to preserve after all.

What I'm surprised is that people still regard it as gospel, even when it's clear truth underwent some cosmetic surgery for political purposes.

[bmac]

I suggest you read the reference I gave (Official History (France and Belgium, Vol II, Preface, page XV) as this would clear up most of your comments.

Anyway, assuming you have not been able to read the actual reference here is what is says in brief:

1. The German Official History (Vol XI, p 41) states: "the great losses in the summer of 1916 since the beginning of the year, without the wounded whose recovery was to be expected with a reasonable time amounted to a round figures of 1,400,000 of whom 800,000 were between July and October".

2. For the Somme, the German Official History puts the casualties, excluding the 7 days' bombardment, at "about 500,000". There is a footnote that explains a figure of 465,181 can be derived from adding up the numbers given in a table of Divisional casualties. This table, it is suggested, excludes missing and certainly excludes bombardment casualties and any within Corps and Army troops.

3. Direct quote: "According to German statistics, the less seriously wounded amounted to frm 27 to 33%: thus an average of 30% must be added". This explains where that figure comes from.

4. The British History therefore derives totals of: 500,000 + 150,000 (30% wounded not included) + 10,000 total casualties during the bombardment (which I suspect may be a bit high).

5. Zentral Nachweiseamt, the Casualty Enquiry Office, gives the gross Somme losses for July-October as 582,919. The Official History gives net losses for November as 45,000 to which needs to be added an approximate 13,500 to take account of less seriously wounded, i.e 58,500. This gives a total to the end of November of 641,419.

6. The British history then adds 40,000 prisoners giving the final estimated total as 680,000.

A footnote reports the German Official History as saying the Army consistently under-reported casualties when compared to the reports of its own medical authorities with reference to the 1916 Russian campaign, with an example showing a 60% discrepancy. The German history goes on to say: "the figures of the medical report are regarded as more accurate". There are other examples given of under-reporting.

Clear?

Lastly, let me say I hold no particular brief for the British Official History and I certainly am no fan of Sir Douglas Haig, however, these figures seem to stack up given that they rely mainly on the German's own official numbers whislt taking into account their own caveats (i.e. lightly wounded).

As for these numbers being massaged for political purposes well, all I can say is that I believe there would have been a less fevered atmosphere regarding using Official Histories as propaganda in 1938 Britain (when France and Belgium 1916 Vol II was published) than in Nazi Germany. The more so when one consider that most of the leading British protagonists were long since dead and anti-war feeling has been running pretty high for some time whilst in Germany, a certain Corporal who had served on the Western Front was in charge and his chum Goebbels was busy churning out propaganda of the most virulent kind..