Training Fatalities in Britain

[Perth Digger]

The reference shown gives the following totals - Sep 1918: 119; Oct 1918: 108; Nov 1918: 21. It also shows that all Training Brigades suffered 229 casualties for the period July thru December 1917.

Sorry, Quemerford, how do these figures align? If those fatalities per months are correct, the new Gosport did not seem to be very effective.

Mike

[PRC]

5 hours ago, Perth Digger said:

I don't know the ins and outs of changing DORA policy during the war, but my extensive reading of newspapers throughout the country does not suggest to me that editors were banned from publishing lists of deaths, In Memoriams, individual case histories and coroners' inquests.

Agreed - although undoubtedly there was an element of self-censorship even when it came to those inquest reports such as no mention of specific aerodromes, aircraft types or units. There were also other factors at play - a paper shortage and printers ink black shortage, both materials in demand for the war effort, meant newspapers, particularly low circulation local press ones, contracted in size. Several of my local titles started the war with 12 pages but by 1917 were down to four. So long casualty lists could not only have a depressing effect on the morale of the population but would be a very easy thing to drop to make way for more paid ads, paid for in memoriam notices and reader provided items of local war news,  in the limited space available. And gory accident details used as column fillers would be a 'good' way to keep the readership engaged, sadly.

I mentioned DORA only in the sense that training accidents in the army / navy don't receive the same degree of prominence, unless once again a coroners inquest is involved. For me one thing that is notable by its absence in the local press is the lack of mentions of army deaths in the large military training area around Thetford. (A remnant of it is now the MoD Stanford Battle Area).  It may be that the area had a remarkable record and not one fatality occurred - but I suspect that is not the case.

So if newspapers helped form opinion then generations that grew up reading them through WW1 and WW2 might well have come to the erroneous conclusion that 50% plus of air service fatalities occurred in the home islands and on that basis they would not have automatically questioned the figures put forward by Winter when first published. You asked how anyone could believe it was plausible and I merely put that forward as a example of what is now deemed "confirmation bias". Of course if you mean how could any self-respecting researcher subsequently accept Winter's stats at face-value, then I would suggest a mixture confirmation bias \ laziness \ desire for high impact may also be at play and in turn calls into question the validity of the rest of their research.

Cheers,
Peter

[Perth Digger]

I certainly agree with your last sentence, Peter. 

Edited 23 December , 2023 by Perth Digger

[fetubi]

I did a lot of research on this Matter - Training Casualties, back in around 2018, and published it on my Facebook page, for my book The Sky Their Battlefield II - feel free to explore... Important to read all the text, I suggest. Pretty much everything is covered.

https://www.facebook.com/theskytheirbattlefield2/photos/a.1380356385622463/2007295232928572/

 

 

[Perth Digger]

Hi Trevor

Thanks for the fascinating chart. Is it strange that the monthly pattern of deaths on the Western Front in 1918 mirrors the monthly pattern of accidental deaths? Should this be expected?

I presume that the significant increase in accidental deaths in 1918 is caused by the significant increase in numbers under training? The TS deaths are embedded within your data. Again, I presume that the numbers, proportionately, killed in these squadrons fell in 1918. Otherwise, why is the Gosport system seen as a success?

Mike