Somme Units decimated

[Guest crueler]

Can someone tell me which British units got the worst of it on the Somme in 1916? I am writing a screenplay that includes a short scene on the first day of the assault and need some historical accuracy as it pertains to unit designations. I am interested in first wave units that lost upwards of 80% of their men.

Thanks.

[paul guthrie]

Get First Day on the Somme by Martin Middlebrook since I assume you are speaking of July 1. Otherwise get the two Somme books by Barry Cuttell. All are easy to get.

[Tom Morgan]

According to Martin Middlebrook in "The First Day on the Somme" Appendix 5:

10th West Yorks 22 officers 668 men total 710

1st Newfoundland 26 - 658 - 684

4th Tyneside Scottish 19 - 610 - 629

1st Tyneside Irish 18 - 602 - 620

8th Yorks & Lancs 21 - 576 - 597

Co. Down Volunteers 17 - 578 - 595

Donegal & Fermanagh Volunteers 12 - 577 - 589

1/8th Royal Warwicks 25 - 563 - 588

He goes on to list a further 24 Battalions which suffered more than 500 casualties.

[Guest Hill 60]

Although it doesn't inform you in which wave the casualties were in and also that you have to count the casualties yourself I have found Soldiers Killed on the First Day of the Somme by Ernest W. Bell to be a good book.

[Chris_Baker]

The war was 52 months long, and the British army was engaged on virtually every day of it. Why this continued and almost exclusive focus on that one day?

[Tim Birch]

You make an interesting point Chris. There seems to be an almost morbid interest in just this one day. One wonders at the reason for this? Yes, it was the Blackest Day in the history of the British Army in terms of killed and wounded, although in terms of sheer numbers killed, wounded or captured in one day the Fall of Hongkong in WW2 exceeds it (although they didn't die in the fighting, many of those captured were destined to die in captivity).

1st July 1916 is, in my opinion, a relatively modern obsession, probably dating from about when Martin Middlebrook published his book. Older histories and accounts certainly mention it, it was an important and horrific event, but it is the War as a whole which the earlier generations recalled with such horror. My grandparents (my grandfather was a surviving soldier), and my parents spoke of "The Somme" and "Passchendaele" rather than particular days. A possible historical exception to this might be in the Pals Battalions' home towns, maybe forum members living in some of these could express an opinion on whether this date has become more important and symbolic than other Great War events, and if so whether this perception developed in the latter half of the last century?

It was a shattering of all the optimistic expectations of the planners, but at the time, although seen as a setback, it did not phase Haig and his commanders to the extent that they hesitated or even considered calling off the offensive. Inspite of the pre-attack hype and optimism, casualties were most certainly expected. Hospital trains were prepared, and more added just prior to the attack (in the event still not enough), grave pits were dug and, you only have to read some of the first hand accounts and last letters home to appreciate that on the eve of the Big Push many of the troops involved had no illusions that the morning held great danger to them as individuals.

July 1 was the first day of what was to turn out to be the bloodiest battle the British Army had ever been involved in, and the battle was to rage on until November. Very little is known in public circles about the fighting which continued on over the next few days. The venom directed by many of the misinformed against Haig and his Staff often cites the horrors of day one, yet overlooks the fact that it was the same team, particularly Rawlinson which planned and saw the successful execution of the night attack on the Bazentin Ridge only two weeks later.

Another Battle which has captured public imagination is the attack on Vimy Ridge in 1917. Full credit to the Canadians who aceived their objectives, but what seems to be almost completely forgotten is that the Canadian Corps' attack was just one sector of a massive British Offensive. How many people know anything about events in the British 1st Corps or 51st Highland Division either side of the Canadian Corps?

Tim

[bmac]

Two replies in one message.

1. Soldiers Killed on the First Day of the Somme by Ernest W. Bell is useful but inaccurate. It seems to be based on the printed equivalent of the Soldiers Died data and consequently includes everyone killed on 1st July 1916 from regiments that had a battalion involved. For my sins I compiled a list of the dead of the 56th London Division from Bells' book and then checked their graves/memorials from the CWGC site. A significant number proved to be members of 2nd battalions, etc., who were located a long way from Gommecourt on July 1st. Treat the information with care, therefore.

2. "Why this continued and almost exclusive focus on that one day?" I don't think this site's visitors exhibit any such exclusivity but I will admit to this event to be the 'entry point' for my interest in WW1 (and still one of my main areas of interest).

The 1st July 1916 was not just a calamitous military event it also had major political and social repercussions. A few points which might explain its enduring interest:

i. It was the first time in British history that a mass volunteer citizen army had taken the field;

ii. it remains the worst day for casualties (as opposed to prisoners) in British military history; and

iii. the destruction of many of the Pals battalions had a significant impact on many communities, an impact which lasted for generations.

Lastly, to be blunt, no-one, in my experience, has written a better popular history of a WW1 event than Middlebrook's First Day of the Somme. It is immediate, accessible, highly readable and hugely personal. It's what got me started (along with some stop overs at battlefields on the way home from French holidays) and there is a terrible mesmeric fascination in events as they move inexorably to the catastrophe of that day. It got me hooked.

[Paul Reed]

One point in response to the post above; 1st July 1916 was not the first time a "mass citzen army had taken the field"; that was the much forgotten Battle of Loos in September 1915, when the majority of units attacking were from the K1 divisions, or were TF supplemented by war-time enlistments. Casualties at Loos in several divisions were also on a par with 1/7/16 - something also forgotten.

The late Ernest Bell's book was indeed compiled from the printed SWD, and he himself stated that he estimated that he had missed out thousands of names - the reason is that many were missing and were, for official purposes, stated to have died the next day. As he couldn't distinguish them from men who had been KIA on 2/7/16, Bell didn't list them - thus the desprecancy in numbers.

Finally, as stated above by Tom Morgan, 10th West Yorks lost the most - there is a debate over the Newfoundland casualties. There battalion history states they lost more than 10/WYR. As do the current guides in the Newfoundland Park! (but that's another story...)

[Hedley Malloch]

As with so many of these key dates what happened on them was important for what it was seen to symbolise later on. It may not have been the first time Kitchener's volunteers were deployed, but it was the day the penny dropped - that however else the war would be won it would not come about through a combination of a volunteer army and a high command devoid of the key skills needed to fight a continental land war. The intensity and character of the war, and of the people and armies who fought it, would have to change. It would not be all over by Christmas - even if the Yuletide in question was 1916.

After July 1916 it is more or less inevitable that the war will be fought not just by pals, professionals and territorials, but by conscripts. Who would volunteer for 1 July again? It marked a benchmark for UK involvement, too. 1 July was roughly the mid-point of the war. Of the total UK casualites suffered in WW1, 25% occured before that date; 75% afterwards. Looked at this way there is a sense in which 1 July is a curtain-raiser for what is to come in terms of slaughter and of the army that will sustain them: the rest of the Somme; Cambrai; 3rd Ypres and the 1918 campaigns.

But of course this was not known until after the war. Often dates seem to have an epoch-making or ending quality at the time, but later turn out to have no great significance at all (eg 22 November 1963); others we think are going to be important, but we can't yet say how or why (11 September 2001); others only assume their full importance in the light of consequences which flowed from them; July 1 1916 was such a date.

Here endeth the lesson ... .

[Tim Birch]

It was not 1/7/16 that brought in Conscription, it had already been enacted in May '16. The fall off in volunteers was already becoming a problem and had begun as soon as the initial euphoria turned to a realisation that this was a war where people were dying and being wounded in very large numbers. The decimation of the Regular army in the first two years of the war underlined this, coupled with the losses at Loos, which at the time were shocking.

Tim

[Hedley Malloch]

It was not 1/7/16 that brought in Conscription, it had already been enacted in May '16. The fall off in volunteers was already becoming a problem ... (snip)

Yes, I knew that, but conscription had not really taken off in July 1916.

Fixing periods and milestones in history is difficult, isn't it? It's not so much a question of fixed markers in time for black and white events; it's rather that after certain dates some things become more apparent or obvious than they were before. Certainly there was a realisation before 1 July that we needed a conscript army. But if that idea still needed confirmation then 1 July certainly provided it.

I think ...

[Terry_Reeves]

I must admit I am not a great believer that the first day of anything in WW1 proves very much in the greater scheme of things, although this does not lessen Martin Middlebrook's contribution, which I personally found quite fascinating.

Tim and Hedley make some some interesting points about the move towards conscription however. The recruiting returns after January 1915 show a general turn downwards from February onwards. One of the reasons for this was based simply on economics, particularly in respect of married men who feared for the welfare of their families.

The 1916 Military Service Act which introduced conscription, became law on 27th January of that year and took effect from 10th February. Interestingly between 1 March 1916 and 31st March 1917, although 371,500 men were conscripted almost 780,000 men were given exemptions by the Military Service Tribunals up to 30 April 1917.

There is also a problem sorting out manpower statistics in terms of the volunteer/conscript issue. The Derby Scheme ceased to recruit after the second week of December 1915, but continued to call men up under the group system which ran in parallel with the conscription class system until mid-1916.

Sorry if this has gone off topic a bit.

Terry Reeves

[Guest crueler]

"The war was 52 months long, and the British army was engaged on virtually every day of it. Why this continued and almost exclusive focus on that one day?"

For my screenplay, this one day is important.

[Guest crueler]

According to Martin Middlebrook in "The First Day on the Somme" Appendix 5:

10th West Yorks            22 officers  668 men      total   710

1st Newfoundland          26 - 658 - 684

4th Tyneside Scottish     19 - 610 - 629

1st Tyneside Irish   18 - 602 - 620

8th Yorks & Lancs  21 - 576 - 597

Co. Down Volunteers  17 - 578 - 595

Donegal & Fermanagh Volunteers  12 - 577 - 589

1/8th Royal Warwicks  25 - 563 - 588

He goes on to list a further 24 Battalions which suffered more than 500 casualties.

Thanks!

[Simon Furnell]

Most of the 20,000 killed on the first day of the Somme were killed in the first 5 hours,between 7.30 in the morning and 12.30pm.

The exact hourly figure i am not sure of,but it numbered the thousands.

This may be the reason that this is many peoples first at look at World War One.

Imagine us losing 20,000 people in a war at all nowdays,let alone in the first few hours.

A tragic event,that need not have happened.

We learn by our mistakes.

Regards.

Simon.

[kevin]

Crueler

Back to your point which British units got the worst the West yorkshire Regimemt as a whole had 10 Battalions in the Front line on 1st July and suffered 2900+ casualties that day, killed 1022.

(10th Batt .officer killed 9. o/ranks 361. Total Casualties killed,wounded or missing 22 officers,. o/ranks 750).

Regards Kevin

[Guest Hill 60]

The war was 52 months long, and the British army was engaged on virtually every day of it. Why this continued and almost exclusive focus on that one day?

When I was 12 years old my history teacher read the class letters from one of her uncles who was serving in the Great War, he was killed on the 1st July 1916.

Listening to her reading the letters and then the accounts of this infamous day got me very interested in the Great War, to such an extent that I became top pupil in the school in history. This is why I have an interest about this particular day. However, as my interest in the Great War has grown, and after visiting the Somme region, I have found myself drawn to the Ypres Salient area. I don't have a fixation about '1st day battles', be it Loos, the Somme, Scarpe or even Mons; the first day of the war is of as much interest to me as the last day and every day in between.

[bmac]

One point in response to the post above; 1st July 1916 was not the first time a "mass citzen army had taken the field"; that was the much forgotten Battle of Loos in September 1915, when the majority of units attacking were from the K1 divisions, or were TF supplemented by war-time enlistments. Casualties at Loos in several divisions were also on a par with 1/7/16 - something also forgotten.

The late Ernest Bell's book was indeed compiled from the printed SWD, and he himself stated that he estimated that he had missed out thousands of names - the reason is that many were missing and were, for official purposes, stated to have died the next day. As he couldn't distinguish them from men who had been KIA on 2/7/16, Bell didn't list them - thus the desprecancy in numbers.

Paul,

I take your point - to an extent. 6 of the 11 infantry divisions in the first two days at Loos were New Army (but only 4 on the first day, two arrived on the 26th). On 25th September 1915, less than 50% of the infantry were from New Army divisions.

I'm not sure how accurate is the description of the 47th Division as "TF supplemented by war-time enlistments". My grandfather was in the 1/20th Londons and had been in the TF since 1912. He left the UK on 19th August 1915 and other elements left the day before. This was a predominantly pre-war recruited battalion at the time of Loos. Can't speak for the other battalions in the division.

But we are also talking about a matter of scale here. On the first two days of Loos there were 11 infantry divisions involved (4 regular, 1 TF and 6 New). Over the same period for the Somme there were 24: 4 regular (in which were 9 TF or New Army battalions), 4 TF (certainly supplemented by large volunteer drafts by then) and 16 New divisions (of which only 5 had seen any serious action).

So, the attack on July 1st 1916 contained at least 3 times the number of men recuited since 1914 than at Loos and the attack involved more than twice as many men overall. On July 1st 70+% of the men of a much larger force were post 1914 recruits.

Of course, we can argue the toss about what constitutes a 'mass army' but in terms of the numbers of recent civilians committed to action the first day of the Somme leaves anything else standing.

On Bell, I take the point about those who died of wounds (though I added some by checking where they were buried which, in the case of the 56th Division is OK to do as they weren't in any serious action for some time after). The problem of people being included who shouldn't be also distorts the numbers appreciably.

[Paul Reed]

While your relative in the 20th Londons may have been a pre-war TF man, he would have been in the minority in the 47th (London) Division by September 1915. This division's battalions were well under strength by August 1914, and began recruiting as soon as war started - many of them (like the rest of London Regt) forming second and third line battalions. While all these men joined under the terms of a TF engagement, they were wartime enlistments, and not 'territorials' in the sense that men who joined before August 1914 were.

The division had also suffered casualties since coming to France in March 1915, which had been made up from men in the 2/X and 3/X Bns of the units at home - again wartime enlistees.

The same applies to some of the regular battalions at Loos - in the 2nd Royal Sussex (which like rest of 1st Div had been in France since August 1914), the majority of their casualties on 25/9/15 were soldiers with a 'G' prefix to the rglt number - i.e. men who had joined since the outbreak of war.

While I agree that the 1st July 1916 saw far greater numbers of volunteers going over the top, your statement implied this was the first time they had ever done this, which as we agree, was not the case.

[IanB58]

As regards the peoples' fixation with the 1st July I suspect no one at the time or since (except people like us) have thought about it in terms of a debate as to whether this was the first time a predominantly volunteer army had gone over the top. The answer lies, I believe as has already been alluded to, in the war memorials in Accrington, Leeds, Bradford, Salford etc. The life and death of the Pals Battalions are what stick in most peoples' minds.

An interesting debate is whether the scheme should have been allowed in the first place. Certainly it aided recruitment at the time but did anyone really take the time to think it through and consider the potential effect one battle could have on a small community.

[Alan Lines]

Crueler. as you have seen the figures vary a lot. The Official War Diary like (Martin Middlebrook's book) for the Newfoundland Regiment lists them as having suffered 684 casualties. Some diary entries are way out because they were written very shortly after the attack before some men had found their way back to their Regiment. However there is a good chance this figure is fairly accurate because it was not written until the end of the month.

All the battalions mentioned by Tom were New Army ones. The first regular army battalion and next on the list are the 1st Hampshire's who after watching the 1st East Lancashires get slaughtered (502 casualties) followed them over ten minutes later. They suffered 585 casualties for no gain.

What courage those men must have had. The first wave at least had the slight comfort of possibly not knowing the full extent of what to expect especially if they had listened and believed the lies they were fed, but the subsequent waves knew exactly what was coming. It's nearly always the first lads over that the media focuses on which is perfectly understandable, but it would be interesting to see a scene that focused on the men who followed knowing what was about to happen to them.

Good luck.

[Tim Birch]

Alan

Different campaign, but same war, and although fictional, the film "Gallipoli" vividly depicts the gut wrenching last moments of a second wave waiting to go over the top after it has just witnessed the annihilation of the preceding wave.

Tim

[Alan Lines]

Thanks Tim, I put nearly always because I knew I would forget one, and I've actually got a copy of it! Must be time for a factual British depiction then?

[Paul Reed]

To add some further information to this subject, I quote from W.David Parson's Pilgrimage: A Guide to the Royal Newfoundland Regiment in World War One (Creative Publishers, Newfoundland, 1994):

"The total list of casualties varies from one source to another. The best numbers available indicate that 790 officers and men went over the top on July 1. Of these, 272 were killed, died of wounds or were missing, and presumed dead. There were 11 officers and 427 men wounded. A total of 710 killed or wounded of the 790 present. This was the highest casulty list of any battalion that fought that day - equal to the casualty list of the 10th West Yorkshire Regiment at Fricourt... The next day, sixty-eight men answered the roll call, though another twelve did survive the battle unscathed." (p.35)

[Joe Sweeney]

Every battalion's story of 1 July is different and far more than just a number tally.

The case of the 10th Bn West Yorks, given the top listing for casualties, is an interesting story because it does not fall into the steriotypical story of massed waves getting shot down with result that no-one reached the German lines.

It's attack was on a 600yrd front with the Battalion arranged in echelon with two companies abreast. Each Company attacked in two waves. It's first two companies left the British line entered the German position and pushed on to "Red Cottage" in the northern part of Fricourt with little loss. These two companies took their objective.

In the mean time the Germans had recovered and with possibly only two German Emma Gees at Fricourt and at the Tambour decimated the trailing two companies. Even with this some of these men reached the German Front trench (which had limited German presence)

The two companies at "Red Cottage" which had taken few casualties up until now were then totally cut-off. The Germans effectively isolated these two companies and destroyed them, except for a limited number of survivors who linked with the 63rd Bde to the north, through counterattack .

The survivors of the trailing companies in the German Front trench could not be supported until night fell.

So a depiction of the 10th West Yorks being decimated in No mans land is only part of the story, if depicted only that way inaccurate, with that battalion.

In the case of the Newfoundland Regiment, a great deal of its casualties were taken before it actually reached the British Front line! It along with the 1st Essex (these were two hard luck Battalions with disaster at Monchy) were ordered to continue the attack of the 29th Division later in the day. Both Battalions were located in support lines. The 1st Essex tried to reach its own front line via the communications trenches and its attack was delayed with far fewere casualties. The Newfoundlanders advanced directly over the open from the support lines giving the Germans a far longer exposure to the Battalion advance than most Battalions.

Joe Sweeney