Casualties: Discrepancy SDGW vs. War diaries ?

[Aurel Sercu]

My question : is it possible that with regard to a certain military action on a certain day there is a more or less considerable difference between the number of casualties (KIA and DOW) found in SDGW and the War diaries (or Regimental Histories) ?

Right now I am focussing on 1/10th Bn. King's Regiment (Liverpool) who lost heavily on 16 June 1915 in the First Attack on Bellewaarde (near Ypres).

SDGW for that day gives 150 names (9 officers and 141 other ranks). With 3 exceptions I found all of them in the CWGC records.

The Liverpool Scottish Memorial Stone at Bellewaarde however says :

(...) "4 officers and 75 other ranks were killed, 11 officers and 201 other ranks were wounded and 6 officers and 103 other were missing. Of the missing all the officiers and - with a very few exceptions - all the men were subsequently reported killed".

For the fatal casualties this gives a total of 4 + 75 + 6 + 103 (or 'a very few' less) = 188 (or a few less).

That means that there is a difference of 188 - 150 = 38 (25 %).

My intention is not really to find out which source is right or wrong. This is only meant as a (representative ?) example. All I want to know is if other Forum members have experienced the same discrepancy between SDGW and War diaries when researching on other units.

I do not know where the numbers on the Liverpool Scottish Memorial Stone come from, but I suppose from the War Diaries ? (Is there a Forum member who has the War Diaries ?) The Regimental History (E. Wyrall) does not give extensive casualty numbers. Only : Casualties in officers alone 21. And : "in other ranks the bn. had lost 379 killed, wounded and missing." This number of 379 other ranks is consistent with what the Bellewaarde Memorial Stone says.

This may seem nothing but a technicality, but the fact is that I count numbers of fatal casualties in SDGW very often, and so far I have always assumed that SDGW is more or less correct. So : is there reason to believe that SDGW 'underestimates' the numbers ?

I can also add that checking (in SDGW) the number of DOWs in the 2 remaining weeks of the month of June hardly makes any difference. (This adds only 10 officers + other ranks killed.)

Or have I overlooked something ?

Aurel

[Terry Denham]

Aurel

You must bear in mind that SDGW is not a complete record. There are many names missing particularly from those that died in the UK or late in the war but also at other times.

It is always best to take its figures as a good guide rather than a definitive number for any particular day/unit/location.

[Max]

Hello Aurel

Discrepancies found in war diaries can possibly be put down to their contemporaneous nature. Information was generally written down at the time of an event or very shortly afterward when maybe the author was not in full possesion of the facts.

Andy

[Guest stevebec]

The problem I found with the difference sourses of AIF casulties is the same.

Comparing the War Diary and other records always leaves differences that can not be explaned.

I was lucky in that I found in the Australian War Memorial copies of the Camel Corps Companies strenght returns.

It appears that each week every Australian Camel Company submitted a return to Bde HQ on the strenght of their companies. This included all attachments and detachments.

If there was a battle all names were recorded of casulties and in some cases of how they were wounded. There are still some problems but these can be almost always found as some soldiers may have died of wounds or such.

I can only surpose that these were done by all companies and so there would have been ones for the British Companies but I have so far not located any such record for them.

These returns were not done for Light Horse units, that I can find, so I wonder were such reports done for companies or Bn's in France?

I take it we did it because it was a British practice to do it and since the Camel Corps was British we followed the same line. Thankfully so for me.

S.B

[Aurel Sercu]

Terry,

That SDGW is not complete is understandable. So you tend to believe that in many cases reality has higher numbers than given in SDGW ? (Unfortunately one can only go to CWGC and find confirmation there of the soldiers found before in SDGW. Not the other way round. It would be nice if in the CWGC records one could find all the soldiers died on a certain day in a certain battalion, and then go to SDGW to find confirmation. This would show and prove which of both is more complete.)

I still wonder if other Forum members have had the same experience that SDGW tends to underestimate.

Andy,

That the numbers mentioned in war diaries cannot really be accurate, due to circumstances, makes sense too. Right now I 'm just wondering if these tended to be higher or lower than in reality. (Soldiers believed to be killed or missing at first might have shown up after all.)

Thanks.

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

The problem I found with the difference sourses of AIF casulties is the same.

Comparing the War Diary and other records always leaves differences that can not be explaned.

Thanks, Steve.

So there appear to be differences indeed. Quite understandable of course.

And does it seem to you that the real figures are higher than the ones given by SDGW ?

Aurel

[AOK4]

Can't the difference be explained by people who DOW in the next days/weeks or missing soldiers returning in the next days (who were afraid and hid or got mixed up with other units)?

[Terry Denham]

Aurel

You can ask CWGC to produce a print out of those who died on a specific day but there is usually a charge.

Also this would include deaths from all causes including wounds received on an earlier date - but then that is the same with SDGW. I would put money on it that the CWGC list is nearly always higher in number.

[Aurel Sercu]

You can ask CWGC to produce a print out of those who died on a specific day but there is usually a charge.

Also this would include deaths from all causes including wounds received on an earlier date - but then that is the same with SDGW.

I would put money on it that the CWGC list is nearly always higher in number.

Terry,

Yes, I will ask the CWGC Ypres to do that. Just to satisfy my curiosity.

And I will let you know what the result is. (I mean if indeed the CWGC figures are indeed higher.)

And yes, I noticed (both SDGW and CWGC) that once in a while there was a DOW who must have sustained his wounds in an earlier military action, his grave or name being on a memorial too far away.

Aurel

[Promenade]

Hi Aurel

The information on the stone came from the Battalion history ‘The Liverpool Scottish 1900-1909' by AM McGilchrist. This states ‘In detail the casualties were :─ 4 Officers and 75 other ranks killed; 11 Officers and 201 other ranks wounded; 6 Officers and 103 other ranks missing. Of the missing all the officers and - with a very few exceptions - all the men were subsequently reported killed. The Liverpool Scottish had practically ceased to exist but they had definitely proved themselves as a fighting unit and set the seal to their previous record in the Brigade.’

I have checked the 10 KLR War Diary and no mention is made of casualties other than ‘the casualties amongst our officers were particularly heavy and of the 24 officers who went up only Lieutenant Wall, 2nd Lieutenant Roddick and Lieutenant Chavasse came back unscathed’. I have also looked at my database, which includes information provided by the CWGC, SDGW and other sources including unique material from the Battalion archives and newspapers, and I list 151 casualties for the Liverpool Scottish on 16/6/15 - one is a ‘dow’ buried in France so I revise this to 150. As an aside evidence has recently been provided to the CWGC and the name of Charles William Ormesher has now been added to the addenda panel on the Menin Gate.

One other source of confusion is that many men were officially listed as died on or since 16/6/15 sometime a year after they were originally reported missing. I think that the real source of confusion is McGilchrist’s history, especially his statement ‘of the missing all the officers and - with a very few exceptions - all the men were subsequently reported killed’ - what was his source? His casualty statements were probably compiled anecdotally and from various scraps of information brought back from France - he did not have the benefit of computers or the internet and it was the best that he could do at the time. I respect him for that - after all he was there on the day being wounded in the foot! Even with the use of computers WW1 casualty research is not an exact science. For example McGilchrist’s list of the original men who arrived in France with the Battalion on 1/11/14 is somewhat at odds with the 14 Star rolls at the National Archives.

Joe

[Guest stevebec]

Mate,

In line with my last posting do you know of or do the Pal's know of the use of strenght return's for units in France?

Is this just the pratice of the Australian Camel Companies in Egypt/Palestine.

Purhaps these lie hidden in some deep recease of the IWM or other place?

S.B

[Aurel Sercu]

The information on the stone came from the Battalion history ‘The Liverpool Scottish 1900-1909' by AM McGilchrist. This states ‘In detail the casualties were :- 4 Officers and 75 other ranks killed; 11 Officers and 201 other ranks wounded; 6 Officers and 103 other ranks missing. Of the missing all the officers and - with a very few exceptions - all the men were subsequently reported killed. (...)

I have also looked at my database, which includes information provided by the CWGC, SDGW and other sources including unique material from the Battalion archives and newspapers, and I list 151 casualties for the Liverpool Scottish on 16/6/15 - one is a ‘dow’ buried in France so I revise this to 150. (...)

Thanks, Joe.

And yes, I read the same extract in McGilchrist. (I didn't discover this source until yesterday.)

I counted the casualties of 16 June 1915 in the Liverpool Scottish too, and I have the same number of 150. (Though 3 of those mentioned in SDGW I could not find in CWGC.)

This morning I went to CWGC Ypres and asked them to produce a print out of the Liv. Scottish who died 16 June 1915 (I wanted to compare the numbers given by CWGC and SDGW). However, it appears to be impossible to do that.

Aurel

[Bayne]

To add to the confusion the following are the kia of the 1st batt Northumberland Fusiliers for the 23 Aug 1914.

casualties.xls

[Terry Denham]

Aurel

Your contact at CWGC Ypres was mistaken. Maidenhead confirmed to me this morning that it is very easy to produce a list of casualties on a specific day from a specific unit.

In fact, I gave them your requirments and they have sent such a list to me which I have emailed to you off Forum.

Hope that helps.

[Aurel Sercu]

Terry,

I must say I was very sceptical myself when I heard that this was not possible.

Of course it should be possible with the Maidenhead and Ypres database.

But as the person who helped me said that actually someone else who happened to be on holiday until next week knew more about working with the database, I decided to go back next week.

I will let you and the other forum members know more later.

Aurel

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Aurel

Another factor when it comes to the casualty figures in War Diaries not matching CWGC and Soldiers Died records, is the fact that men of other units who were attached to the said unit and killed may be recorded killed/died under there original Regiment. See below an example that I’ve found in resent weeks.

I made a post a few weeks ago about four men who are recorded in Soldiers Died as being killed on the 30th July, 1916 with the 7th K.S.L.I., I had the Medal Roll entry for one of them which made no mention of him ever being in the 7th K.S.L.I. but the last entry records that he was attached to the 19th King’s Liverpool. I then chequed the Shropshire Regt. History to see if the 7th Batt. had been in action on the 30th and they had not nor is there any mention of them being shelled/bombed while in billets ? But the 19/K.L.R. were in action on that day. I have since obtain the Medal Roll entries for another two of the men who are recorded in SD as being killed with the 7th Batt. on the 30th and they are also recorded as being attached to the 19/K.L.R. and there is no mention of them being in the 7th K.S.L.I. So I am now 99% surer that they were killed with the Liverpool's on the 30th of July. I have another example with the 1st K.S.L.I. but will not go into details to save my typing finger .

Aurel this may not be the case with the 1/10/K.L.R. but it may be so in many other cases ?. So if anyone out there is working on a case were the tally in the War Diary is more then the C.W.G.C./SD records for that unit, then it would be worth bearing in mind the above case.

Annette

[Muerrisch]

Discrepancies are the name of the game. We are dealing with several groups that might be excused making errors:

1. Exhausted, hungry, frightened, perhaps a little tipsy, drafters of War Diary [CO ultimately responsible, Adjt. or Assistant Adjt. usually signed, daily]. Quality of War Diaries varies hugely, not only battalion to battalion, but within the Diary.

2. bored-out of their brains underpaid clerical staff [although far more diligent than their modern counterpart I suspect] compiling SDIGW and ODIGW.

3. ditto CWGC records.

4. ditto Medal Rolls [which usually carry info. on fate]

5. slightly less-so ditto keepers of Brigade War Diary, a day later than WD and a bit safer.

6. even less ditto compilers of rolls-of-honour, regeimental, school or whatever]

It would be remarkable if they agreed, never mind the overwhelming complication of Died of Wounds falling on a day of battle.

The only way I keep sane on the subject is to try to relax.