Chances of surviving in an infantry battalion ?

[IRC Kevin]

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.

 

 

I think we've got definitely got some crossed lines here. The screen print I put on (and you quoted from ) was nothing to do with Muerrish's post and completely independent of his source . Didn't realise you were actually referring to both our posts.

 

[Matlock1418]

4 minutes ago, IRC Kevin said:

Didn't realise you were actually referring to both our posts.

K - There does seem to be a bit of a mix-up going on

My latest 'defensive' & 'relief' posts for you both got merged - the earlier comment about "high" figures would apply to you both though - was meant to be observational and regretful that so many lads became casualties

My question on In and Out of the trenches was for you really - but others may care to answer too!

:-) M

[Muerrisch]

6 minutes ago, IRC Kevin said:

 

 

I think we've got definitely got some crossed lines here. The screen print I put on (and you quoted from ) was nothing to do with Muerrish's post and completely independent of his source . Didn't realise you were actually referring to both our posts.

 

Who is the "you" referred to please?

Perhaps a pause to gather thoughts might be appropriate.

Meanwhile I shall step back: I have offered plenty of material to study,  please everybody have a long look at it. We have been here before, with many distinguished contributors.

[IPT]

How do we put into context the 1124 casualties of the 10th Essex for the OP?  Is it possible to simply calculate the total number of men that served abroad in the battalion, by splitting off the VM/BMW roll from the star roll?

[Simon Cains]

Hello, thank you for all your replies, that certainly created a lot of interest.

I asked partly thinking of my own family, my great grandfather and his brother were both killed, both were in an infantry regiment.  If the average chance of being killed was only 10%, then certainly it was very unlucky, 1/10 x 1/10 = 1 in 100 to lose both brothers.  But it does seem that the rate in the infantry was higher.  

I didn't realise the normal number in a battalion was 1,000, the war diaries don't usually give a number but the 12th West Yorks on 8th April 1917 just before the battle of Arras had strength only 720 all ranks, so were battalions becoming weaker by then ?  The 10th Essex on 29th June 1916 had fighting strength officers 38 and OR 973, total 1011, so just about right. 

It is difficult to find out how many men were based in Britain for home defense, one source says there were still 400,000 men in the home army in January 1918, before there was a large transfer to France.  But the battalions for home defense are often also called training battalions, suggesting that these men wouldn't be kept at home through the war.  Can anyone confirm that ? If any battalions were based in the UK for home defense and not just training, it would be strange if units or men were not rotated through this home duty to give them a break from active service ?

My own great grandfather was a colour sergeant in the 3rd battalion of the West Yorks, which stayed in the UK throughout the war. The family legend is that he would have been kept there throughout the war if he hadn't volunteered for active service in August 1916, I am not sure if this is true.  Although he was a expert marksman, so obviously useful for training.

Anyway I can believe that a man about to be called up for the army had a 10% chance of dying as Dan Snow says, but as soon as he was assigned or volunteered for an active service infantry unit overseas, it seems that his odds of dying went up considerably.

The cavalry were also mentioned, they didn't fight as cavalry much, but I thought they were often used as infantry, e.g. in the early battles around Ypres ?

I didn't want to confuse things by talking about casualties, although in stories about the war we always hear of soldiers very envious of someone getting a "blighty one", a wound sufficient to get them out of the active units to safety, it might have seemed the only way to get out alive.

Thanks

[phil andrade]

At the risk of oversimplifying , about half of all British soldiers who served in the war were infantrymen.

 

The British Army suffered 705,000 deaths from all causes : of these, 88% were killed in action or died from wounds.

 

If I cite the figure of 5.4 million who served in the army, and attribute half of them to the infantry, I get a figure of 2.7 million.

 

I am sure that more than 80% of the battle deaths were suffered by the infantry : it might have been as high as 85%.

 

Let me settle for 82.5%. I know that the percentage dropped as the war progressed and more technology substituted metal for flesh.

 

Killed or mortally wounded = 705,000 X 88% = 620,400

 

620,400 x 82.5% = 512,000 approx

 

512,000 equates to just under 19% of the 2.7 million.

 

So, if I were to suggest that at least one in six, and, at most, one in five , of all British infantrymen were battle fatalities, it might be a plausible stab at an answer.

 

Hope that I’m not talking cobblers’ !

 

Phil

[Muerrisch]

48 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

At the risk of oversimplifying , about half of all British soldiers who served in the war were infantrymen.

 

The British Army suffered 705,000 deaths from all causes : of these, 88% were killed in action or died from wounds.

 

If I cite the figure of 5.4 million who served in the army, and attribute half of them to the infantry, I get a figure of 2.7 million.

 

I am sure that more than 80% of the battle deaths were suffered by the infantry : it might have been as high as 85%.

 

Let me settle for 82.5%. I know that the percentage dropped as the war progressed and more technology substituted metal for flesh.

 

Killed or mortally wounded = 705,000 X 88% = 620,400

 

620,400 x 82.5% = 512,000 approx

 

512,000 equates to just under 19% of the 2.7 million.

 

So, if I were to suggest that at least one in six, and, at most, one in five , of all British infantrymen were battle fatalities, it might be a plausible stab at an answer.

 

Hope that I’m not talking cobblers’ !

 

Phil

Possibly, although I don't see the need for simplification when the facts are out there, HOWEVER it does not answer the OP question " Chances of surviving in an infantry battalion ?"

[phil andrade]

Simplifying things does help : well....it stops me going mad trying to deal with too many intricate figures.  I think that most would agree that the ten per cent figure is too low ; and that was for the Army overall.  For the PBI, it must have been significantly worse than mere decimation.

 

Phil

[Muerrisch]

To be truthful, the OP question is so unanswerable. The variables are almost beyond number. Even my extracts below tell us nothing of value regarding the chances of one Private Yanto Williams, 2nd Royal Welch Fusiliers.

Nevertheless, here we have an elite regular unit, the second unit to arrive in F & F August 1914, continuously on the Western Front. It was widely regarded as lucky in regard to losses, but was used unsparingly where reliable men were needed. It was almost unscathed by Mons, Le Cateau, the Aisne and 1st Ypres. [1st RWF was virtually wiped out: by November, fewer than 100 men standing]

Since I wrote my book the work of MG has exposed a few small errors of numbers and logic, but my thrust remains valid. The conclusion is that of the 5000 or so men who served at same stage or another, in one battle or another, exactly 1139 gave their lives.

 

Drafts and other reinforcements, Other Ranks., 2nd RWF

 

Month/ Year	1914	1915	1916	1917	1918
Jan	-	100	49	28	+
Feb	-	50	Nil	Nil	Not known
Mar	-	67	Nil	Nil	Not known
Apr	-	69	Nil	136	Not known
May	-	Nil	* 157	120	Not known
Jun	-	50	Nil	Nil	Not known
Jul	-	20	545	326	Not known
Aug	-	45	13	71	Not known
Sep	# 189	25	129	53	Not known
Oct	54	100	Nil	Nil	+
Nov	57	nil	152	168	Not known
Dec	95	Nil	203	Nil	Not known
Total	395	526	* 1248	902	+
Grand Total	First 12 months total 796				3071 at least

 

#            at least, and excludes First Reinforcement which was included in the planning.

*             includes 120 noted in The War the Infantry Knew but not WD

+            The War the Infantry Knew notes ‘reinforcements’ without giving numerical detail

The grand total of the above is at least 3071, excluding officers, probably (even allowing for Prime Minister Lloyd-George’s notorious parsimony with reinforcements in 1918) as many as 4000.  These, added to the 1065 originals, including First Reinforcement (and making no attempt to quantify those recycled at least once through the system) suggest that some 5000 Other Ranks (and indeed about 250 officers, fought with Second Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers in the Great War.  At least 1139 Other Ranks lost their lives, including the missing, together with 68 officers (48 officers whilst on duty with the battalion, 20 after serving with it). 

 

Attrition of the battalion during the war

 

The causes of death for all Other Ranks as given by SDIGW are as follows:

Killed in Action                                        822

Died of Wounds (includes gassed)         229

Died of Wounds at Home                        21

Died at Sea                                                 1

Died                                                          31

Died at Home                                           12

Missing                                                       3

Not in SDIGW but in CWGC or other listings,

cause of death not therefore known       20

TOTAL                                                    1139

 

 

Attrition of the battalion by death year

 

1914                                                              83

1915                                                            137

1916                                                            310

1917                                                            311

1918                                                            284

later                                                              11

(Missing (no death date))                             (3)

TOTAL                                                     1139

[Interested]

In my opinion the Table is exceptional, and deserves thanks.

No two Battalions went through the same experience for the 4 years of conflict and consequently each would have differing "statistics". 

There are experts here who can better explain the attrition (i.e. Simon's comment on 720 men instead of 1000) and the re-organisation of the Army to compensate, as well as the widening of selection criteria that took place, and calling up men who had been put on reserve.

I don't suppose this helps answer the question though.

[phil andrade]

As Muerrisch tells me, the facts are out there.

 

They’re so difficult to pin down, and equally difficult to interpret properly.

 

So much depends on where - and when - the soldiers served.

 

That table he’s been kind enough to share is remarkable in showing us the extent to which deaths in the Great War were attributable to enemy action rather than disease. About 95% of all deaths among the other ranks are confirmed as killed in action, or died from wounds or gas.

 

I reckon that we can attribute roughly half a million battle fatalities to British infantry in the Great War, out of two and a half to three million who served at one time or another.  My guess of between one fifth and one sixth might stand.

 

To serve in an infantry Bn at Gallipoli entailed a much higher risk of being killed than serving in Macedonia, but even in the latter there were one or two battalions  which came to grief in fighting at Lake Doiran and suffered badly.

 

Phil

 

 

[phil andrade]

Wheeling out an old citation here....John Terraine’s THE SMOKE AND THE FIRE : Myths and anti myths of war 1861-1945. Page 210, gives a tabulation of one of the regular battalions that served on the Western Front from August 1914, a period of nearly fifty-two moths :

 

Numbers who served ....8,313

Killed and died of wounds....1,462

 

That certainly fits my wing and a prayer suggestion of between one fifth and one sixth : it doesn’t match the more fatal experience of Muerrisch’s example, which exceeds one fifth.

 

I know that the purpose of Terrian’s work was to demolish the folklore about the Great War being uniquely deadly ; he was out to prove the point, and could have picked a more striking example of the awful experience of the infantry 1914-18.

 

Phil

[FROGSMILE]

4 hours ago, phil andrade said:

Wheeling out an old citation here....John Terraine’s THE SMOKE AND THE FIRE : Myths and anti myths of war 1861-1945. Page 210, gives a tabulation of one of the regular battalions that served on the Western Front from August 1914, a period of nearly fifty-two moths :

 

Numbers who served ....8,313

Killed and died of wounds....1,462

 

That certainly fits my wing and a prayer suggestion of between one fifth and one sixth : it doesn’t match the more fatal experience of Muerrisch’s example, which exceeds one fifth.

 

I know that the purpose of Terrian’s work was to demolish the folklore about the Great War being uniquely deadly ; he was out to prove the point, and could have picked a more striking example of the awful experience of the infantry 1914-18.

 

Phil

 

It would be interesting and salutary I think to do a study of 2nd Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers. 

[phil andrade]

22 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

It would be interesting and salutary I think to do a study of 2nd Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers. 

 

Please tell us !

 

Phil

[stiletto_33853]

Oh hell, it will take a lot of scanning but the Rifle Brigade Chronicles during the war years go through a similar process. Although the 1918 Chronicle compiled near the end of 1918 does not give accurate fatalities, you have to revert to CWGC and SDGW to come out with final totals.

 

Andy

[stiletto_33853]

Will have to separate the Service battalions when they arrived. Just means a lot of scanning.

[FROGSMILE]

40 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

 

Please tell us !

 

Phil

I’m sorry Phil, I’m not planning to do the study myself.  I’m just aware that they suffered a lot and I think that for political reasons the experiences of the regiments’ of Southern Ireland have not been as well examined (or more specifically published) as those of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  I have no axe to grind, I just think that it would be interesting.

Edited 23 September , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Keith_history_buff]

On 18/09/2020 at 09:59, Simon Cains said:

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

I think the man is the Tony Blair of the historian community, but wanted to get back to these figures, which appear to come from this article

Quote

In the UK around six million men were mobilised, and of those just over 700,000 were killed. That's around 11.5%.

In fact, as a British soldier you were more likely to die during the Crimean War (1853-56) than in WW1.

Quoted from:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

 

The same bloke's domain has the following article mentioning 979.498 British and Empire soldiers dying
https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-world-war-one-casualties/

The following from primary source material, recounted by the late Martin Gillott:

  

On 12/07/2013 at 20:00, Guest said:

I think it is impossible to answer this question. Anyone who has tried to analyse casualty data on this scale will understand immediately that the data simply does not exist. Neither the mighty "Statistics 1914-18" or the "History of the Great War: Medical Services - Casualties and Medical Statistics" recorded the data in this way. Given most of the service records were destroyed, I would argue that it is an impossible question to answer.

To attempt to answer this question from the available data requires just too many assumptions. The more refined the data, the longer the definitions become.

[removed]...

It is worth noting that the OP states "survived" which I assume would imply the question is about the numbers who died of all causes rather than those wounded or injured or gassed. Many survived the War but were not present in their original battalion or unit at the end.

As a reference point, the nearest you will get for the British (all Arms) is this: 5,704,416 men and women from the British Isles were enlisted (out of 8,586,202 British, Dominion, Indian and Colonial Troops) of which 662,083 British troops were killed, died or wounds or died. This implies that 5,042,333 'survived' i.e 88.39% survived. The calculation for the British Empire is 90.09% survived. [source: Statistics 1914-19120 page 756 Tables 1 and 2.]

MG

Edited for typos. Any mistakes are mine.

 

Now the search glitch has been remedied, I tried to call up some threads that Martin Gillott had contributed to. I came across this thread whilst looking for something specific that Martin had posted. It was a rabbit-hole, and I wondered where I had seen the figure of about 11%. Lo and behold, Martin delivered the goods once more.



 

[Muerrisch]

We all need something to cheer us up.

 

Thus "ONLY 10% died"

 

If you want an event confidently labelled a catastrophe, it is apparently the continuing closure of some swimming baths. It must be true, I read it yesterday.

[healdav]

11 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

 apparently the continuing closure of some swimming baths. It must be true, I read it yesterday.

On which subject, why stop people swimming in disinfectant, when they tell you to use the same thing on your hands as frequently as possible?