Chances of surviving in an infantry battalion ?

[Simon Cains]

Hi, I was thinking about Dan Snow's calculation that only 10% of men in the British army died in WW1.  My great uncle was in the 10th Essex, which typically had around 720 men, but the CWGC shows that 1124 men in this battalion were killed during the war.  I am not an expert in stats but that sounds like pretty bad odds of being killed in this infantry battalion.  The only way the men's chances would be better is if they were regularly rotated into safer units ( e.g. pioneer corps ? ) working behind the front line.  Did this really happen much, or did men stay with their battalion through their service ?    I suspect that death rates in other army units such as artillery or home defense units were much less, and the 10% figure may include men recruited late in the war, so the overall average for the army may be as low as 10%, but the chances in an infantry unit seem pretty dire.  Any thoughts ?   Thanks.

[ss002d6252]

Looking at the Annual Army return for the war years to Sep 1919

 

573,500 Total Army deaths
557,600 - Army - including Cavalry, RE, RA, Infantry, MGC and Tank Corps - not including other arms and services
15,900 - Other Army arms and services

 

Total recruited to the Army - 4,100,000

 

Overall chance of death ~ 14%

 

This excludes adjustments for those who never served overseas, the large number killed due to Flu in 1918/19, those killed other than by enemy action, those who would have died anyway etc etc.

 

Craig

 

[Guest]

  Slightly false statistic.   Yes, the total of casualties (fatal) for 10th  Essex is 1124 on CWGC.   Yes, the average strength of an infantry battalion  may be c. 720. But total casualties to 10th Essex must be computed against TOTAL number who served with 10th Essex during 1914-1918.  Even then, stats are not reliable.

 

1)  Many battalions had support from specialists badged for other units- eg support from a company of the Machine Gun Corps. Thus, looking at battalion casualties for an action can be misleading if there were others tagged along for an attack. 

2)  Battalions routinely had to keep a "cadre" held back from action, usually 10%- usually specific ranks, such as the 2i/c. Thus, for any "battalion" action computing the casualty rate is awkward because of "extras" from other units, the starting strength and the numbers held back as the cadre.

3)  All statistics produce paradox effects- the Great War is no different. Roughly half of all front line fatalities were  from "random" yet persistent shelling.  Shove over X amount of shells and on average you generate Y amount of casualties.  Thus, a seriously understrength battalion would-as a paradox-tend to suffer LOWER casualties during a turn in the front line as there weer simply fewer men for German shells to hit. Thus, the optimum time for the Germans to pound British front line trenches was just before "Zero Hour"-when it could be assumed that trenches were fuller as men moved forward to their jumping off points.  The solution to the problem was that often battalions in the front line kept the front trenches pretty much empty. There are numerous accounts from both sides of attacks finding enemy trenches empty.

 4)  Every army needs a lot of support to provide services-rations, munitions,etc. Montgomery in WW2 was particularly fond of dentists- can't go into battle with a bad tooth. But the statistical sleight of hand is at work here- In the UK there were all sorts of hangers-on-especially local militias who paraded and drilled for the duration of the war- yet never went near even a slightly irate hedgehog let alone the Imperial German Army. Again, magnifying the numbers who were in the "Army" to include all these stay-at-home duffers and,in France, the huge raft of "base wallahs", skews the statistics of percentage casualty rates.

   The generalisation, founded on serious work, that I stick to is that about 2 out of 5 men who came under fire in the front line at some point were casualties.

 

 

 

Edited 18 September , 2020 by Guest

[ss002d6252]

I think an additional point, following from Mike's, is that a lot of figures you see also fail to account for the difference between 'casualties' and 'deaths'. Likewise, you also often see the 'total number of wounds' being used as the total number 'wounded' - neglecting that many men were wounded multiple times.

Craig

[DavidOwen]

And, as well as those transferred into a unit there were those who were transferred out to another unit who may have subsequently died or been killed,

For example those transferred to the MGC 

[FROGSMILE]

  Slightly false statistic.   Yes, the total of casualties (fatal) for 10th  Essex is 1124 on CWGC.   Yes, the average strength of an infantry battalion  may be c. 720. But total casualties to 10th Essex must be computed against TOTAL number who served with 10th Essex during 1914-1918.  Even then, stats are not reliable.

 

1)  Many battalions had support from specialists badged for other units- eg support from a company of the Machine Gun Corps. Thus, looking at battalion casualties for an action can be misleading if there were others tagged along for an attack. 

2)  Battalions routinely had to keep a "cadre" held back from action, usually 10%- usually specific ranks, such as the 2i/c. Thus, for any "battalion" action computing the casualty rate is awkward because of "extras" from other units, the starting strength and the numbers held back as the cadre.

3)  All statistics produce paradox effects- the Great War is no different. Roughly half of all front line fatalities were  from "random" yet persistent shelling.  Shove over X amount of shells and on average you generate Y amount of casualties.  Thus, a seriously understrength battalion would-as a paradox-tend to suffer LOWER casualties during a turn in the front line as there weer simply fewer men for German shells to hit. Thus, the optimum time for the Germans to pound British front line trenches was just before "Zero Hour"-when it could be assumed that trenches were fuller as men moved forward to their jumping off points.  The solution to the problem was that often battalions in the front line kept the front trenches pretty much empty. There are numerous accounts from both sides of attacks finding enemy trenches empty.

 4)  Every army needs a lot of support to provide services-rations, munitions,etc. Montgomery in WW2 was particularly fond of dentists- can't go into battle with a bad tooth. But the statistical sleight of hand is at work here- In the UK there were all sorts of hangers-on-especially local militias who paraded and drilled for the duration of the war- yet never went near even a slightly irate hedgehog let alone the Imperial German Army. Again, magnifying the numbers who were in the "Army" to include all these stay-at-home duffers and,in France, the huge raft of "base wallahs", skews the statistics of percentage casualty rates.

   The generalisation, founded on serious work, that I stick to is that about 2 out of 5 men who came under fire in the front line at some point were casualties.

I think you have put that very well and your final paragraph is in my view the most important one vis-a-vis the infantry.  The fact for both World Wars was that attrition rates in the infantry were higher than in the other arms, and it’s well recorded that it was always a struggle to maintain infantry battalions at fighting strength.  It’s also very salutary to compare the casualty rates for infantry officers with those of the other arms.  It wasn’t just about casualties due to enemy action, but also those created by the sheer physicality of an average infantryman’s life.  He mainly marched to and from the line apart from when he was transferred to other sectors, he carried significant weight upon his back, including into action, and he lived in unpleasant conditions that made him susceptible to illness and injury when up the line in the trenches.  Reconstituting continually depleted infantry battalions in late 1915, late 1916 and mid-1918 was a major headache for the general staff, to the extent that numerous battalions were merged, others disbanded and the remnants used to reinforce others and latterly, brigades reduced to 3 instead of 4 battalions (albeit partly because the line was extended, but also Lloyd George refused to continually feed the attrition with large reinforcements of conscripts).  In the weeks following Normandy in 1944 a similar situation applied.

[EastSurrey]

1 hour ago, Simon Cains said:

Hi, I was thinking about Dan Snow's calculation that only 10% of men in the British army died in WW1.  My great uncle was in the 10th Essex, which typically had around 720 men, but the CWGC shows that 1124 men in this battalion were killed during the war.  I am not an expert in stats but that sounds like pretty bad odds of being killed in this infantry battalion.  The only way the men's chances would be better is if they were regularly rotated into safer units ( e.g. pioneer corps ? ) working behind the front line.  Did this really happen much, or did men stay with their battalion through their service ?    I suspect that death rates in other army units such as artillery or home defense units were much less, and the 10% figure may include men recruited late in the war, so the overall average for the army may be as low as 10%, but the chances in an infantry unit seem pretty dire.  Any thoughts ?   Thanks.

Few men served with the same battalion on the Western Front throughout their service. Those medically downgraded might be transferred to such as the Labour Corps  or garrison units. Quite a number of sick and wounded were discharged from the Army altogether as no longer fit for military service. A few were commissioned. Some became instructors. However, from 1916, the Army became less concerned to return sick and wounded to their own units, instead sending them to wherever they were needed most to make up casualties. 

Some years ago I did work for a book on 9/E. Surrey , which served on the Western Front 8/1915-11/1918 and was badly hit at Loos (around 50% casualties-killed, wounded, POWs), then on the Somme, at Ypres summer 1917, Kaiserschlacht 3/1918 and Haussy 10/1918. Fatalities amounted to 868, including some from disease or accidents. Unfortunately I've not been able to establish how many O.Rs. served with the battalion on the Western Front, but it must have been several thousand, some of whom would have died serving later with other units. Officers  were easier as there was a list of those who served 8/15-11/18. According to this there were 232. Of those who left before the Armistice, I established 55 died, including in an accident and of illness; 41 left through wounds, but in many cases served elsewhere later; 12 survived as POWs (some of whom had been wounded); 47 left through sickness, including those sent to Medical Boards, and again may have served elsewhere later; 35 were transferred to other units-mostly other infantry battalions, tanks, RFC/RAF; one was sent on a Senior Officer's Course and returned  after the Armistice; one was sent home as an inadequate CO and not re-employed; 1 was dismissed for going AWOL; and for 1 I could find no details. Being a junior infantry officer, in particular, on the Western Front was a dangerous business , but I think the 'six weeks' frontline service sometimes claimed is a considerable exaggeration. For the  9/E. Surrey subalterns killed in 1917, I found the average was around 30 weeks since their arrival with the battalion.

Michael

[regimentalrogue]

I can provide one example for an infantry battalion in France and Flanders. Fom my examination of the Part II Daily Orders of The Royal Canadian Regiment, I found these statistics for the battalion with three years of front line service:

 

Of the approximately 4700 officers, NCOs and soldiers who served in The RCR during the First World War:

 

    • 1432 (30%) were evacuated to England wounded,
    • 538 (11.4%) were evacuated to England sick.
    • 443 (9.4%) were reported Killed in Action.
    • 165 (3.5%) were reported "Died of Wounds" before being transferred out of the unit.

 

In comparing the Regiment's CEF nominal roll to Wigney's "CEF Roll of Honour," I found not only that 818 Royal Canadians were casualties of the War, but also another 39 soldiers who served in the field with the Regiment died after having served with other units.

 

Once the duplicate cases where a man might be evacuated sick or wounded, returned to duty, and was later evacuated again or killed are eliminated, I found that approximately 51% of those who served in The RCR during the First World War were listed as a casualty at least once.

Edited 18 September , 2020 by regimentalrogue

[stiletto_33853]

Placed this before in a thread called life in the trenches, however

 

[ss002d6252]

I think the ultimate answer, which is very difficult to do, would be to trace the entirety of an original battalion from landing - including where they ended up and their final outcome as that tells us how many survived etc after going to other units. I have assembled almost the entire nominal roll of the 6th DLI from April 1915 and I probably have sufficient data to trace outcomes, given the time to do so (which I do plan to do at some point).

 

Without knowing the fate of every single man it's difficult not to double count with other units but I think it's the best that's going to be determined. From work done several years back it was determined that about 60% of all wounded men made it back in to service.

 

Craig

[Muerrisch]

To save the same rabbits disappearing down the same holes, I recommend participants to read two threads, both extremely well debated and both graced by several trained mathematicians and statisticians.  Health warning: the subject is far from trivial, and the conclusions heart-breaking.

 

 

 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/210819-how-common-was-it-to-go-the-entire-war-unwounded/

[Matlock1418]

7 hours ago, Simon Cains said:

I was thinking about Dan Snow's calculation that only 10% of men in the British army died in WW1

Statistics - All complicated by the various datasets and various intentions for such work - much discussed elsewhere

 

At a very local level - I offer a basic example for the infantry:

Nine members of a family [uncle/nephews/brothers/cousins] served 1914-18 for various periods in various infantry battalions O/S in several ToW - all but one in F&F at some time [all in infantry - no changes to other arms or services at any time]

  Four - Dead/died [most KiA, or at least described as such - three in F&F] = 44%, [of that family - that seems clear enough, I think! Or is it? (see below for another variant(s) based on wider service)]

  Two - Wounded and had a level of permanent disability [survived but returned to UK - one early discharge, other until demobbed]

  One - Wounded [survived & continued with a wound stripe - as for other woundings for him, and others, not yet discovered - there surely must have been others/more]

  One - PoW [survived]

  One - unknown [survived - though apart from brief movements between three ToW and leave(s) he managed pretty much all 1915-1918, incl. in a ToW!]

Proud of all their service and sacrifice

[and of the three others of their relatives who only did H/S too - Heaven forefend, one was an engineer, not infantry!].

Make of those what you feel is appropriate - The rate(s) can be worked out in various different ways I think.  Which is the 'most correct'?

 

I don't know the right answer for WW1 infantry or for a specific unit(s) - close guess or otherwise overall

Given the rotation and other 'churn' experienced by units and all the other issues relating to the dataset(s) I find it hard to think anyone could with any degree of real confidence.

 

Regardless of the above, for many being PBI certainly wasn't a sinecure - as so many other accounts and posts here generally indicate = Respect.

:-/ M

 

Edit:  For anyone who cares to crunch the numbers on the above family [there are certainly various ways]: The two disabled wounded who served O/S served with Canadian units, as did the H/S Engineer also serve with the Canadians.  11 out of 12 had origins in one town but at the time were from six places of residence in three countries - Will wholly change the statistics / answers and completely change the interpretation of any results.

One has to be wholly clear on your methodology & all parameters with your results otherwise much confusion can reign.

Certainly the above quoted Dan Snow calculation is lacking in further details - not least if O/S and/or H/S and if from battle and/or disease etc.

I am very wary of any statistics presented in a very partial [potentially shallow and/or even glib] manner.

Right to ask the question, but you will have to drill down for decent answers.  GWF certainly is the place to start. :-)

Edited 18 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
correction and edit addition

[FROGSMILE]

There is a rather interesting thesis that has some relevance to this matter here: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/6775/1/Hine16PhD.pdf

 

It focuses largely on regiments of Wales and the Marches.

[Matlock1418]

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

There is a rather interesting thesis that has some relevance to this matter here: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/6775/1/Hine16PhD.pdf

I have not read this work in full - it's quite long and too much for the moment [and I emphasise I am not commenting on, let alone challenging, it as a piece of research]

However I skimmed the introduction and the figure of 20% death-toll is used for the British Army - but not explained [On p8 - source not fully identified but seemed to suggest CWGC and SDIGW I think]

                  "Extensive use has been made of Soldiers Died in the Great War (SDGW) and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) website in order to analyse the composition of units.²¹ Both these sources contain errors but overall there is sufficient information to enable broad conclusions to be drawn. Given that the death-toll during the Great War was roughly 20 per cent of those who served in the British Army, the details contained in these two sources represent a sample of that size"

I wonder where this figure came from/how was calculated?

Though not a statistician, nor having done much work in this field, I generally agree with the difficulty of dealing with any statistics and for WW1 [and other] military purposes there is always the difference between Killed and Died [of wounds or sickness] - and what about Accidentally killed etc. and DoW? 

All KiA, Died, Accidentally killed etc., and DoW = Dead/died - at least "Died" is what you used above and not became a "casualty".

The definition(s) of 'casualty' is fraught for many [a common cause for misunderstanding by many commentators it would seem] and even for wound/wounds/wounding & repetitions - For wounds it certainly seems to become even more complicated.  [I tend to use official mentions in Casualty Lists & wound stripes that can be officially credited - but is that way really correct?  How do they compare with mentions in War Diaries etc.?]

And multiples of of various events for a single man - one can easily see how multiple events [perhaps usually only including a single death!] could rack up along the way.

It certainly did vary according to your unit and when &

where serving

I am still very wary of any datasets, statistics, and their possible underlying motives/intentions - full transparent disclosure of all is always required imo. - then I and/or others can evaluate and/or draw up our own conclusion(s)!

Therein also lies a rub - imo we can't always interpret correctly what we see either!

Statistics eh!? = almost as bad as forecasting based on past performance!!! = largely a guess, and/or built upon foundations already laid

[How good, can any one really tell for sure? - I know there are things called confidence levels! But ... ????]

Remember there are, to quote a common phrase: 'Lies, Damned lies & Statistics!' = Beware!!!

:-/ M

[FROGSMILE]

I wasn’t commenting on the veracity of the statistics, as I’m aware that their worth can be in the eye of the beholder.  Merely that it was an interesting thesis, which you appear not to have read.  Its subject is the management of battle casualty replacements.  

Edited 18 September , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Muerrisch]

10 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I have not read this work in full - it's quite long and too much for the moment [and I emphasise I am not commenting on, let alone challenging, it as a piece of research]

However I skimmed the introduction and the figure of 20% death-toll is used for the British Army - but not explained [On p8 - source not fully identified but seemed to suggest CWGC and SDIGW I think]

                  "Extensive use has been made of Soldiers Died in the Great War (SDGW) and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) website in order to analyse the composition of units.²¹ Both these sources contain errors but overall there is sufficient information to enable broad conclusions to be drawn. Given that the death-toll during the Great War was roughly 20 per cent of those who served in the British Army, the details contained in these two sources represent a sample of that size"

I wonder where this figure came from/how was calculated?

Though not a statistician, nor having done much work in this field, I generally agree with the difficulty of dealing with any statistics and for WW1 [and other] military purposes there is always the difference between Killed and Died [of wounds or sickness] - and what about Accidentally killed etc. and DoW? 

All KiA, Died, Accidentally killed etc., and DoW = Dead/died - at least "Died" is what you used above and not became a "casualty".

The definition(s) of 'casualty' is fraught for many [a common cause for misunderstanding by many commentators it would seem] and even for wound/wounds/wounding & repetitions - For wounds it certainly seems to become even more complicated.  [I tend to use official mentions in Casualty Lists & wound stripes that can be officially credited - but is that way really correct?  How do they compare with mentions in War Diaries etc.?]

And multiples of of various events for a single man - one can easily see how multiple events [perhaps usually only including a single death!] could rack up along the way.

It certainly did vary according to your unit and when &

where serving

I am still very wary of any datasets, statistics, and their possible underlying motives/intentions - full transparent disclosure of all is always required imo. - then I and/or others can evaluate and/or draw up our own conclusion(s)!

Therein also lies a rub - imo we can't always interpret correctly what we see either!

Statistics eh!? = almost as bad as forecasting based on past performance!!! = largely a guess, and/or built upon foundations already laid

[How good, can any one really tell for sure? - I know there are things called confidence levels! But ... ????]

Remember there are, to quote a common phrase: 'Lies, Damned lies & Statistics!' = Beware!!!

:-/ M

 

I quote below a small sample of work done by a qualified mathematician and statistician . The maths are simple, we do not even need an O Level or a GCSE. They use official sources and define terms. Later work done by the author exposes a few problem assumptions, which are confessed to, such as the very difficult area of Missing in Action/POW etc. My two references given upstream are a very good broad treatment by the GWF at its best. Worth wading through: there is some good cut and thrust. My poor qualification to make this judgement is that I used to teach The Theory of Experiments. Nevertheless, as suggested above, there will certainly be mistakes in the detail, and the truth [whatever that is] will never be known. I do recommend the two threads, and have speed-read the thesis referred to and found nothing to take exception to: it is a little tangential to this thread but is very good on the preparation for war and the adjustment to the harsh facts.

 

• • 
     

Posted 1 May , 2014

Using the stats in the OH Medical services for F&F 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 we can use the following methodology:

1. Using 1914 data as the example:

Average Ration Strength.....................190,000 [a]

Killed and Died of Wounds....................15,499 (b]

Survived...............................................174,501 [c] = [a-b]

Wounded less DOW..............................52,739 [d]

(Wounded less DOW)/Survived...............38.9% [e] = [d]/[c] x 100

Survivors not wounded.............................69.8% [f] = 1- [e]

If we then do the same calculation for the subsequent years using the aggregate data in each calendar year we get:

1914 Survived and not wounded.............69.8%... i.e for every 1,000 men who started in 1914, in theory (on average) 698 survived without being wounded

1915 Survived and not wounded.............61.1%....i.e for every 1,000 men who started in 1915, in theory (on average) 611 survived without being wounded

1916 Survived and not wounded.............61.1%....i.e for every 1,000 men who started in 1916, in theory (on average) 611 survived without being wounded

1917 Survived and not wounded.............71.2%....i.e for every 1,000 men who started in 1917, in theory (on average) 712 survived without being wounded

1918 Survived and not wounded.............69.0%....i.e for every 1,000 men who started in 1918, in theory (on average) 690 survived without being wounded

The critical part to this calculation is the compounding effect of the attrition year after year. Compounding these for every 1000 men who started in 1914 and survived to Armistice Day (remember we are only dealing with survivors) only 128 would in theory have escaped being wounded

Calc: 1,000 x 69.8% x 61.1% x 61.1% x 71.2% x 69.0% = 128

So my rough answer would be that only 12.8% of survivors of 52 months of war would have survived without being wounded. Clearly if we change the parameters and include fatalities from 1915 onwards for example the numbers is going to shrink.

This methodology is reasonably rough and could be refined a bit with some small adjustments (multiple wounds - double and treble counting will inflate the wounded number slightly). It certainly is consistent with the few examples given in published regimental and battalion histories of the numbers of old contemptibles still standing on Armistice day. Given these are aggregate numbers that include the logistic tail, I think it is reasonable to assume Infantry data would show much lower figures. In a sample of 1,043,653 ccasualties, including 206,976 wounded, some 67.3% of the wounds were suffered by the infantry or slightly over two-thirds. The Infantry (in aggregate represented around 55% of the Army, so it would be reasonable to assume that the Infantry 'skew' in the wounded data is around 22% (calc: 67.3/55.0) ie. I would expect the 128 figure to drop by 22% for the infantry and be somewhere in the region of 100 i.e only a 10.2% chance of survivors not having been wounded.

All theoretical of course but at least anchored in some data.

Any mistakes are mine.

MG

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I wasn’t commenting on the veracity of the statistics, as I’m aware that their worth can be in the eye of the beholder.  Merely that it was an interesting thesis, which you appear not to have read.  Its subject is the management of battle casualty replacements.  

FS - I wasn't criticising your belief or understanding of statistics and certainly not your choice of example - just commenting on a figure that was provided within [in a rather unsupported manner - not being overly critical of that either - just cautionary] and with a wider final caution I admit.

I had intended to insert a break between ."... How was calculated?" and "Though not a Statistician ...", but I slipped up. - I wonder how that might have alternatively been received??

I hope no criticism was taken [though I do fear it was perceived by you] - it was not intended.

 

As for the extent of me reading the work offered - that was fully disclosed in my post [so now I perceive criticism from you!]

For whole battle casualty matter [of the selected units] the thesis will make an interesting later read I feel sure - Pleased to have had it brought to my/all's attention by you - Thank you

 

Now, onwards ...

:-) M

Edited 18 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
clarification

[IRC Kevin]

Statistics for three infantry battalions who served in 55 Division from Jan 1916 onwards. (All three served in other divisions from early 1915 until Jan 1916). I'm too lazy to type out the stats so have just put a screen print below.

 

Edited to add: the percentage wounded is the actual percentage of individuals wounded. Men wounded more than once have not been counted twice.

 

 

 

Edited 18 September , 2020 by IRC Kevin

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, Muerrisch said:

I quote below a small sample of work done by a qualified mathematician and statistician . The maths are simple, we do not even need an O Level or a GCSE. They use official sources and define terms. Later work done by the author exposes a few problem assumptions, which are confessed to, such as the very difficult area of Missing in Action/POW etc. My two references given upstream are a very good broad treatment by the GWF at its best. Worth wading through: there is some good cut and thrust. My poor qualification to make this judgement is that I used to teach The Theory of Experiments. Nevertheless, as suggested above, there will certainly be mistakes in the detail, and the truth [whatever that is] will never be known. I do recommend the two threads, and have speed-read the thesis referred to and found nothing to take exception to: it is a little tangential to this thread but is very good on the preparation for war and the adjustment to the harsh facts.

M- As per recent posts from/to Frogsmile [and from you earlier] - Arising from this thread there is much more reading to be done!

I always prefer it when people show their full[er] hand so 'assumptions' and 'workings' are always valuable.

 

I would however suggest, without criticising, that the example you gave above as a starter which i have just dipped into [I am not sure I know where the red text came from] but to take the final figure it was for woundings of initial strength and not deaths overall which were the original topic - I am sure mathematicians and statisticians have tackled deaths too.

1 hour ago, Muerrisch said:

only 12.8% of survivors of 52 months of war would have survived without being wounded

and

1 hour ago, Muerrisch said:

for the infantry and be somewhere in the region of 100 i.e only a 10.2% chance of survivors not having been wounded.

 

[Not said, but quoted I believe!]

So that being the case ...

If x% were not wounded, then 100-x% were wounded - which are truly staggering figures in their own right.

I do struggle with the maths however simple [and have with the above example!] - And any errors are not only for others to make!! ;-/

 

Not withstanding [and allowing for some errors] - the many figures [from many varied sources] for many various types of casualty do usually offer a very daunting figures ;-(

Being PBI wasn't a picnic by most accounts!

Now off to do some more reading - Keeping a further eye on this thread.

:-) M

[Matlock1418]

14 minutes ago, IRC Kevin said:

Statistics for three infantry battalions who served in 55 Division from Jan 1916 onwards. (All three served in other divisions from early 1915 until Jan 1916). I'm too lazy to type out the stats so have just put a screen print below.

Of course we don't know the whole background to these statistics but taking them at face value & as the author commented - The first three months certainly seemed the most likely time to get killed - seems rather stable and less likely thereafter - but still high!

 

Just so some of us may add to our reading - what is the source please?

 

"In the trenches" rather suggests static positional warfare [with both attacking and defensive phases I would expect] but what about later open warfare?  [The latter was reputed to be even more costly when later out of the trenches and generally more attacking in open pursuit] Or did it mean both?

I know nothing of KLR or KORL actual campaign services - but all these sort of factors in scope complicate matters [and a wider read rather than a screenshot may have expanded on assumptions and scenarios etc. - I wasn't expecting the full monty from a screenshot!] - but as presented here they don't look particularly healthy figures for any of the battalions

;-( M

Edited 18 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
expansion

[IRC Kevin]

Just now, Matlock1418 said:

Of course we don't know the whole background to these statistics but taking them at face value & as the author commented - The first three months certainly seemed the most likely time to get killed - seems rather stable and less likely thereafter - but still high!

;-( M

 

Well actually I do know the background as I'm the author- perhaps I should have explained better.  When I was writing my various battalion biographies I set up an Excel database for each battalion (covering 10,914 men for the three battalions above). As each database contained 34 separate 'fields' plus a 'comments' column for each man, it enabled me to do a lot of statistical number crunching the easy way. (The hard bit was the five years it took to compile the three databases). As mentioned in the screen print, the figures for the two KORL battalions are based on a statistically significant number of the surviving records-some 1,700 in total. The records for the Liverpool Rifles are 100% complete, covering everyone who served overseas with the battalion, as I was fortunate enough to locate the three volumes of their Casualty Books in Liverpool Maritime Museum and photograph the entire lot.

[Matlock1418]

Kevin, we have crossed a bit so don't know if you saw my addition below the bit you quoted.

And - for the avoidance of doubt - I wasn't suggesting the figures [Edit: Yours K] were incorrectly high - just that the were high i.e. a lot of casualties

:-) M

Edited 18 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
edit:

[IRC Kevin]

Just now, Matlock1418 said:

Kevin, we have crossed a bit so don't know if you saw my addition below the bit you quoted.

And - for the avoidance of doubt - I wasn't suggesting the figures were incorrectly high - just that the were high i.e. a lot of casualties

:-) M

 

 no problem- I wasn't going off on one, just kicking myself for not explaining origins of the info in the original post better.  

[Muerrisch]

For the avoidance of doubt the red emphases were made red by me. No original text was altered. I would not presume to edit the work of an expert.

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, Muerrisch said:

For the avoidance of doubt the red emphases were made red by me. No original text was altered. I would not presume to edit the work of an expert.

Was just asking - not criticising - they did look like for emphasis and certainly no aspersions on attribution

:-) M

1 minute ago, IRC Kevin said:

no problem- I wasn't going off on one, just kicking myself for not explaining origins of the info in the original post better.  

Phew - thank goodness [I'm feeling a bit anxious/defensive here today]

Any comment on the figures and/or variations over the passing of the years 1916-1918? - in and out of the trenches??

:-) M