Divisional Losses on 1st July 1916

[J Banning]

I wondered if anyone had Peter Hart's 'Somme' book to hand as I recall him ending each chapter or sector with figures of losses in each attacking division?

Unfortunately my copy has been lent to someone who is now on holiday so I can't call him!

I only need this for the 1st July.

Does anyone have these figures 'to hand'? Have tried the web and also the search facility on the Forum but have had no luck.

Thanks in advance

Ralph

[delta]

Have not got the Hart figures but will send a similar list to you email address if it would help

Stephen

[Desmond7]

36th Ulster - casualty figure usually 'rounded off' to 5,100 - from memory it is either slightly under or over that figure (I'm talking 10-20 either way). Of these I believe the region of dead to be in the 1950-1980 region? Again from memory, that is out of a total of about 9,500-10,000 bayonet strength?

Subject to correction.

Des

Edited 3 February , 2006 by Desmond7

[griffy]

I don't have the figures for the first day to hand but during the whole course of the Somme offensive the highest and lowest casualties for British Divisions were.....

30th - 17374

18th - 13,323

21st - 13,044

5th - 12667

17th - 12,613

The lowest

37th - 2000

46th - 2648

38th - 3876

63rd - 4075

Of the Dominion forces the New Zealand Division suffered the highest casualties - 9408

[bmac]

According to Hart (from south to north)

30 3011

18 3115

7 3380

21 4256

8 6380

34 5121

32 3949

36 5104

29 5240

4 5752

31 3600

56 4314

46 2455

[J Banning]

Many thanks for this. Very useful indeed!

Cheers

[RodB]

Maybe this is the place to ask a question that has been in my mind for a while. I read commonly that both sides (British & French, German) had suffered +- 640,000 casualties by the time winter ended the campaign. Horrifying and depressing. But if the British started the campaign so badly, and were constantly attacking, how did the Germans manage to lose so many men in what is commonly seen as a defensive campaign ?

If casualties were indeed similar on both sides, and we put aside the obscenity of the numbers, the resulting strategic withdrawal forced on the Germans constitutes a major allied victory rather than the "pointless slaughter" commonly used to describe the campaign by non-military historians.

[bmac]

You are unlikely to get any agreement on the casualties suffered by both sides on the Somme. The Official History arrives at broadly neutral figures, i.e. c. 600,000+ for each side. Prior and Wilson in their recent book suggest figures of 432,000 British v 230,000 Germans fighting opposite them (they exclude the French) which are based on Churchill's figures from The World Crisis. P&W are scathing about the Official History's figures and Niall Ferguson tends towards this interpretation. On the other hand, Terraine, Farrar-Hockley, Neillands and Keegan support the Official History's totals although Keegan qualifies this by saying the Germans "may have lost...".

Certainly German casualties were made worse by Falkenhayn's decision that every yard of ground lost had to be regained and so they were involved in many costly counter-attacks which helped rack up the total lost.

The retirement to the Hindenburg Line can be seen in a variety of lights but, as the strategic position was that the Germans were happy to sit on French and Belgian soil whilst they finished off the Russians at which point they would move these troops to the Western Front, then shortening their line behind the most complex and comprehensive defences constructed during the war can be seen as a sensible decision pending a decision in the East.

As the British strategy on the Somme eventually became a 'wearing out' battle then whichever set of figures you choose suggests that this was not achieved as the 'wearing out' process applied to both sides. And, whilst the loss of experienced German NCOs and junior officers did impact on the German Army so did the loss of the 'best and brightest' 1914 volunteers similarly affect the BEF.

If Prior and Wilson are correct, however, and the casualt figures were nearly 2:1 in favour of the Germans then it would be difficult to describe the Somme as 'a major allied victory'. If one accepts that the Germans then made a tactical withdrawal at the time and to the location of their choice to a position of greater strength then the Somme begins to look less like a victory and more like at best, a stand off, and, at worst, a defeat given the objectives set out and later amended by Haig in the Spring and early Summer of 1916 none of which were met either on the basis of P&W's numbers or the position of the front line in mid-November 1916.

[RodB]

It always seems to be the Official History figures I see quoted. I agree that the Prior & Wilson figures seem more plausible, but I suppose the truth had to be hushed up or questions would have been asked.

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

I am tired of all the pro German crap. Especially from Englishmen.

The Germans had formidable defences at the Somme. They weren't dug merely to finish off the Russians in the east in the meantime.

The figures of just 95,575 dead (improvment from the first day of 19,000) for the whole episode, to 164,055 Germans is impressive. Especially when the numbers of Divisions were roughly equal in an enduring offensive.

Wikipedia:

When a final tally was compiled after the war, a count of 419,654 British Empire and 204,253 French killed, wounded and prisoners was reached; a total loss 623,907 of which 146,431 were killed or missing.

Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice was supplied by the German Reichsarchiv with a figure of 164,055 for the German killed or missing.

I'd be careful to belittle a virtual citizen army on their first major battle against the cream of the German army. And an established army before 1914, unlike Britain.

Falkenhayn was sacked after Somme & Verdun. Germany Army retreated 50 miles. If that ain't an enemy with a bloody nose then i don't know what is. Their armies could have been destroyed if they had stayed.

It was a massive British acheivement.

Man, you guys should changed nationality.

[Chris_Baker]

While you can argue all you like about the statistic given in the OH, it is clear that the team compiling it did not treat the subject lightly. They had access to literally tons of paperwork and records of casualty returns. Edmonds correspondence with officers who had taken part was prodigious. Much of the work is there to see, in the National Archives. Cross check the numbers given in any part of the OH at unit level and you'll see that they correspond with first hand sources such as operational records. Recently I had cause to examine the figures for Fromelles: the numbers given could be completely and accurately substantiated, assuming you believe the operational records were accurate in the first place.

Which modern historians have made any kind of detailed, "bottom up" assessment of this nature? Hmm, let me see ... yup, none.

[truthergw]

It always seems to be the Official History figures I see quoted. I agree that the Prior & Wilson figures seem more plausible, but I suppose the truth had to be hushed up or questions would have been asked.

The Official History is exactly that, the findings of the people given the job of recording the history of the war. There are known errors and there is perceived bias in it but I would need to see very good reason for accepting a radically different set of figures.

[truthergw]

Wikipedia:

.................

quote]

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for information. Anyone, yes, anyone at all, can edit any part for any reason. There has been recent controversy about this.

[Chris_Baker]

Yes, and Wikipedia pinches content from any old website they can find, without permission. Like mine.

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

I think that ONLY controversy recently with Wikipedia wasn't exactly manipulation. I can't remember what it was about.

Wikipedia survives research test:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good

(Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder)

I use the Wikipedia a lot. It is a good starting point for serious research, but I would never accept something that I read there without checking.

If the fuss over Siegenthaler, Stoltenberg and Curry means that other readers do the same then it will have been worthwhile. We should not dismiss Wikipedia, but we should not venerate it either.

(Bill Thompson is a regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Go Digital)

Besides you haven't clarified the figures, you've only disparaged them. The author of the Somme acount from Wikipedia has a very detailed essay on the battle and scrutinizes pro war figues.

Besides here are his references for the acount:

The First Day on the Somme, Martin Middlebrook, 1971, Penguin Books, ISBN 0141390719

Somme 1916, Lyn MacDonald, 1983, Penguin Books, ISBN 0140178678

The 1916 Battle of the Somme, Peter Liddle, 1992, Pen & Sword, ISBN 1840222409

The Somme, Gary Sheffield, 2003, Cassell, ISBN 030436649

The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme, John Keegan, 1976, Penguin Books, ISBN 0140048979

[Desmond7]

Evans - seriously - can you explain what you mean by 'all this pro-German crap'?

I fail to understand that comment and its relevance to balanced study. Des

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

"here are his references for the acount:

The First Day on the Somme, Martin Middlebrook, 1971, Penguin Books, ISBN 0141390719

Somme 1916, Lyn MacDonald, 1983, Penguin Books, ISBN 0140178678

The 1916 Battle of the Somme, Peter Liddle, 1992, Pen & Sword, ISBN 1840222409

The Somme, Gary Sheffield, 2003, Cassell, ISBN 030436649

The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme, John Keegan, 1976, Penguin Books, ISBN 0140048979"

These are secondary sources at best, no primary source as far as I can tell.

"I'd be careful to belittle a virtual citizen army on their first major battle against the cream of the German army. And an established army before 1914, unlike Britain."

The German Army on the Somme on July 1st 1916 was not the cream of the German Army, it was primarily reserve units made up of older men. The fact that they had greater overall experience than the bulk of the British forces can explain some of the events of that day.

No one on this forum that I am aware of belittles a particular country or events that occurred decades ago and that none of us were alive to witness. We have different backgrounds and different interests. On this subject, the forum was designed to study and discuss the events of the Great War, not simply the British Army. No one was being pro-German as far as I can tell, but, your comments are definitely pro-British. Each person is entitled to their opinion and should maintain an open mind. Hopefully we can restrict the discussion to an adult level.

Casualty records and their issues in the war is currently being prepared for a Stand To! article by a well known author and should expand on the issues that have plagued this subject for decades.

Ralph

[bmac]

While you can argue all you like about the statistic given in the OH, it is clear that the team compiling it did not treat the subject lightly.

Which modern historians have made any kind of detailed, "bottom up" assessment of this nature? Hmm, let me see ... yup, none.

Chris,

I don't think anyone is seriously quibbling with the British casualty figures. There was, and still is, considerable discussion about the scale of German casualties. Prior and Wilson, for whom I hold no brief, say "M J Williams and others have effectively demolished the arguments put forward by Edmonds in his desperate attempts to establish some equivalence between the British and German figures." Sadly there is then no reference that I can see in their sources to anything by an M J Williams. It is not a name known to me. Does anyone else know who this is, what they wrote and where? Might be useful in this discussion, if we can keep it at this level.

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

I'm not trying to be pro British but if this was an American (now i know why you have to label me pro brit) website discussing their involvement in the Great War, there would still be some infringement of nationalism.

I personally believe this forum is too conservative and doesn't actually praise the achievments of the British army as much. It's like the black mark of paranoia you find all over the internet. We need more praise where due. People are always excusing the Germans. British people are prone to whining instead of giving commendation. Like the flamboyant praise of the CEF capture of vimy, when all it was, a carefully planned and rehearsed attack using the "creeping barrage" and where targets were specific: artillery and machine gun emplacements and wire entanglements. I believe anyone countries troops could have done it. The CEF had the benefit, due to this, of being on top of the Germans before they knew what was happening. The 1st Lancashires did a better job at Cape Helles against tougher odds and you don't see that published all over the net in euphoria.

The German Army on the Somme on July 1st 1916 was not the cream of the German Army, it was primarily reserve units made up of older men. The fact that they had greater overall experience than the bulk of the British forces can explain some of the events of that day

Isn't the main event, that troops were left 'hung up' in front of MG's because the counter battery work of the RA in the south was applied efficiently whereas in the north it wasn't. Which in turn meant barbed wire wasn't cut and was deeper than expected. Aswell as the fact integrating the Lewis gun, trench mortars, rifle and hand grenades and Horne's creeping barrage in August, into the process of fire and movement as the war went on, was not understood?

Going back on another thread on elsatic defence by a German General who was appointed on the 1st July. Well, Germans stationed large numbers of troops in the front line itself that caused very heavy casualties from the British artillery. The policy was later changed to one of elastic defence. Wasn't it rather during the oncoming months this strategy was in place?

I would genuinely like someone to form 2 catagories for the Somme, and leave no stone unturned, of advanages and disadvantages for the British on one side and the Germans on the other.

[RodB]

To me any Official History is just that - the view that those in charge wish to perpetuate, with warts painted out, not an example of impartial academic research. I could not consider it as an authentic reference if I were writing a paper such as "WWI, worthwhile or not ?".

There are known cases where contributors were pressured to toe the party line and eventually refused to have their names mentioned.

My duty to my ancestors' memory is to seek the truth about what they did and why. I raised my question in that spirit. If I understand the replies, the Germans claimed about 1/4 the casualties the British claimed they incurred - this figure seems far too low, again appears to be biased.

Ralph, are there indeed any "bottom - up" figures for Germany ? Does the coming Standto article address this ?

Is it generally held that the Prior & Wilson figures are suspect ?

Also, if we take the big picture, and wonder what this meant for the German army, in the light of Ralph's information, the action could be viewed as a magnificent achievement by those involved. Except that if you lose your deeds aren't honoured. And people don't forget these things, they take the memories home, and it has an impact on subsequent history.

[Jack Sheldon]

When this thread first appeared I was very reluctant to get involved, because following some recent exchanges on the Forum, I was far from certain that a reasoned discussion would be possible. The general drift of contributions, however, suggests that there is some scope for exploring the matter a little. Just to make my own position clear, as an historian I am interested in all the factors and events which shaped the outcome of the Great War, but as a human being I find myself continually appalled, truly appalled, by the blood-letting of these great battles and the thought that anybody can talk in terms of 'winnning' or 'losing' a battle on the basis of a crude summation of the cost in blood.

My impression, after long study and reflection, is that following the failure to break through on the Somme and the ensuing immense Allied casualty figures, there was a continuing need in Britain for years to come to justify to the relatives of the fallen their sacrifice during the Battle of the Somme; by putting forward the proposition that the imperial German army had suffered far worse; that through their death they had paved the way to victory. The compilers of the relevant volumes of the British Official History which appeared in 1932 and 1938 made selective, not to say manipulative, use of information published in Germany after the war to bolster this argument. Their view is contained in pp xiii - xvii of the preface to the 1938 volume and should be read by anybody interested in this discussion. The whole thrust of the text and footnoting is to come up with results which will cast doubt on the accuracy of German accounting and boost the German casualty figures.

What the historians did not do (at least not publicly), however, was to use, or even acknowledge the exitence of, the very detailed analysis contained in Sanitatsbericht ueber das Deutsche Heer [Medical Report concerning the German Army], published by Mittler, Berlin, in 1934. Most of their remarks concerning the disparity or alleged deficiencies in casualty reporting between the two armies are covered in Tables 42 and 44 of this document which concern the casualties of First and Second Armies between 24 June and 26 November 1916. Note the dates. The tables I have mentioned include the bombardment and Edmonds could have used them if he had wanted to. Instead he claims that they were not available, so he arbitrarily dumps another 10,000 on his total - and so it goes on. For example, it is entirely true that the lightly wounded who were treated and remained in the forward combat area, did not feature as 'wounded', but the figures are all listed in the Sanitaetsbericht for all to see, as are medical evacuations due to illness (where do they appear in the British casualty lists?). These medical figures are included in the German figures. If anybody would like to plough throuigh all the figures, I will supply them with copies of the tables and if anyone has specific queries I shall try to answer them.

One obvious question is, 'Can we trust the Medical Report?' Well I for one do not see why not. It even goes into losses caused by accidents, illness and suicide, both inside and outside the military medical chain.

Jack

[bmac]

Jack,

Thanks for this. Broadly speaking, excluding evacuations due to illness, what total for battle casualties does Sanitatsbericht ueber das Deutsche Heer give for 24th June to 19th November 1916?

[Jack Sheldon]

Here's a selection of figures. These are arrived at by adding together the figures for each 10 day period (in the case of Second Army from 21 June - 26 November 1916 and for First Army 21 July - 26 November 1916)

Second Army

Killed (includes missing)

70,692

Wounded and evacuated

118,545

Ill and evacuated

146,451

Ill or slightly wounded and not struck off unit strength

107,713

Total killed, wounded or ill 335,688

First Army

Killed (includes missing)

72,978

Wounded and evacuated

154,587

Ill and evacuated

168,071

Ill or slightly wounded and not struck off unit strength

120,908

Total killed, wounded or ill 395,636

Jack

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

Here's a selection of figures. These are arrived at by adding together the figures for each 10 day period (in the case of Second Army from 21 June - 26 November 1916 and for First Army 21 July - 26 November 1916)

Second Army

Killed (includes missing)

70,692

Wounded and evacuated

118,545

Ill and evacuated

146,451

Ill or slightly wounded and not struck off unit strength

107,713

Total killed, wounded or ill 335,688

First Army

Killed (includes missing)

72,978

Wounded and evacuated

154,587

Ill and evacuated

168,071

Ill or slightly wounded and not struck off unit strength

120,908

Total killed, wounded or ill 395,636

Jack

Thx Jack.

Taking 1st and 2nd army total KIA, MIA and WIA then: 416,802 casualties. Of which KIA and MIA: 143,670

But the above is only from the 21st July as you stated. So more can be added.

[Jack Sheldon]

I apologise for any misunderstanding. I should perhaps have added an explanatory note to my last post. About mid-July 1916, it was clear to the German High Command that the rapid increase in formations within Second Army (which was the only one on the Somme front when the battle began) from 14 Divisions during the bombardment and the beginning of July, to 21, then a peak of 25 by around mid-July was too great a span of command for one army headquarters to handle. General von Below, the commander of Second Army was placed in charge of a new First Army based at Bourlon and General von Gallwitz was brought in as Commander Second Army and, simultaneously, Commander of Army Group Gallwitz to co-ordinate both HQs. To say that Below was hacked off is a major understatement, but the situation became a little less fraught when Crown Prince Rupprecht arrived in late August 1916 to assume the role of Army Group Commander. As a result the first 'ten day tranche' of casualty returns relating to First Army was 20 - 31 July. I hope that this clears that articular difficulty up.

Jack