Arras deaths

[David Prestidge]

Wikipedia tells me that there were about 159,000 casualties at Arras, 9th April to 16th May 1917. Can anyone point me in the direction of information about how many of those were deaths? Thanks in advance.

[Knotty]

Hi David

Yes the attrition rate during the battle was the highest throughout the war. There are a couple of books other than the Official History that’s worth a look at to get some perspective:-

”Cheerful Sacrifice” by John Nicholson, it’s some 30 years old now, but informative all the same. A newer tome is “Arras” by Peter Barton & J Banning (off this Forum),they used first hand accounts and as was then newly discovered panoramas to show the overall battle and casualty rate.

I’m sure others will be along with suggestions.

John

[phil andrade]

19 hours ago, David Prestidge said:

Wikipedia tells me that there were about 159,000 casualties at Arras, 9th April to 16th May 1917. Can anyone point me in the direction of information about how many of those were deaths? Thanks in advance.

 

The official history gives us the breakdown, which I cite from memory and in rounded figures : Killed, 30,000, missing, 20,000, wounded, 108,000.

That, of course, cites the killed as only those officially confirmed as such, and it’s beyond doubt that a large number of the missing were also dead. As for the wounded, we can be sure that thousands of them were mortal cases, too.  I would hazard a guess and suggest that the officially returned 158,660 casualties implied  a death toll of between forty five and fifty thousand : with that in mind, I’ll look at the CWGC database for deaths in France, and see what kind of extrapolation might be plausible.  There must have been significant numbers of deaths in France that occurred in other sectors, but the great majority would be attributable to Arras.

Let me do that now, and attach an edit with the result.

 

Edit : CWGC, France, 9 April to 16 May 1917, Army only, 48,052.   That rather endorses a reckoning of forty five thousand for the Battle of Arras.  Not precise, obviously .....but something of a help to you, I hope, David.

 

 

 

Phil

 

Edited 22 August , 2021 by phil andrade

[David Prestidge]

Many thanks for this information.

 

Best - David

[phil andrade]

A pleasure to help, David.

As a parting observation, it’s apparent that in all three of the most notorious Western Front battles fought by the BEF - the Somme, Arras and Third Ypres - the number of killed, died of wounds and missing subsequently posted as dead amounted to approximately thirty per cent of the total casualties reported in each of them.

 

Phil

[squirrel]

21 hours ago, Knotty said:

Hi David

Yes the attrition rate during the battle was the highest throughout the war. There are a couple of books other than the Official History that’s worth a look at to get some perspective:-

”Cheerful Sacrifice” by John Nicholson, it’s some 30 years old now, but informative all the same. A newer tome is “Arras” by Peter Barton & J Banning (off this Forum),they used first hand accounts and as was then newly discovered panoramas to show the overall battle and casualty rate.

I’m sure others will be along with suggestions.

John

A battle Too Far Arras 1917 Dan Farr is worth a read.

[phil andrade]

Arras attrition rate the highest of the war ?  For the BEF, perhaps.

 

French experiences in August and September 1914, and in September 1915, would make the toll of Arras look moderate.

 

Even in the case of the BEF , the claim for Arras appears dubious if you consider the remit of time periods.

 

For example , the British casualties of the Somme in July 1916, a period of thirty one days, rivalled or exceeded those suffered in thirty eight days at Arras, although, of course, this is attributable to the freakishly high loss of the first day.

 

The sixteen days of the Michael Offensive battles between late March and early April 1918 cost the BEF in excess of 160,000 casualties, two and a half times the daily rate of Arras 1917. In the 1918 example the mitigation was that so many of them were prisoners  who lived to return : but all too many of them were killed.

 

I make these quibbles with best intentions : my point being that the way casualty figures are deployed by historians and commentators mustn’t obscure how susceptible these figures are to different interpretations.

 

Phil