Not everyone was in the front line

[Clive Maier]

Does anyone know, or can offer an estimate, of the proportion of British Great War troops who were not directly exposed to fighting and passed their war more or less in safety?

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Clive,

I believe the statistic is that for every man in the line there were 8 in a supporting role, such as supply, bakers, MPs, drivers, mechanics, vets etc. However many of these soldiers faced some of the dangers such as shelling and being gassed. The Labour Corps is a prime example. Ivor Lee has an interesting example on his website about a Coy who suffered some 100 casualties in a single gas attack. From my own researches one of my great-uncles who was in the line on the Western Front from 1915-1918 was wounded twice (shrapnel & GSW), his older brother who was Western Front 1917-1918 and was in the Labour Corps, was wounded by shrapnel once but stayed at post, gassed twice and buried alive at least once. OK the older brother never had to go over the top but I think it is fair to say the risk of injury or death didn't discriminate.

Of course there were some soldiers who passed the war in complete safety like French, Haig, Byng

Ian

[kevin]

Clive i wrote this down awhile ago and i cannot remember the book i took the infomation from.

U/K. Troops raised. 5,704,416. Sent overseas 5,000,000.

Canda.-------------. 628,964. ----------------- 416,809.

Australia.-----------. 416,809. ----------------- 343,250.

New Zealand.------. 105,629. ----------------- 97,822.

South Africa.-------. 228,907. ----------------- 228,907.

Newfoundland.-----. 11,922. ----------------- 11,922.

India.---------------. 1,401,350. ----------------- 953,374.

Regards Kevin

[Robert Dunlop]

many of these soldiers faced some of the dangers such as shelling and being gassed

And, increasingly, the problem of being bombed. (I was going to say '... in the rear areas' but not sure how this would be received?)

[Bob Coulson]

Clive,

Out of a typical battalion in the line of 1200 men approximately 800 would be fighting strength.

Bob.

[plant-pilot]

From my limited research I have found that my Great Grandfather joined Royal Warwickshire Regiment in 1914 and spent the whole war until his discharge in 1918 in mainland UK. No medals at all as he never left the country.

I suspect that it may have had something to do with the fact that on joining at the outbreak of the war he gave a false age in order to be accepted. He was 48 at the time.

I'm sure he's not the only one to have served his time in the UK.

[Clive Maier]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Ian’s 8:1 figure means that 88.9 percent were in a support role. If we guess that a quarter of those were in no great danger, that means 22 percent might have had a ‘safe’ war.

Kevin’s interesting figures show that 12.3 percent remained in the UK. A proportion of those who went abroad will have had a ‘safe’ war too, so the total ‘safe’ figure might be around 20 percent.

Bob’s battalion figure says that 33.3 percent were in support. But when the battalion was engaged in fighting, I would guess that virtually all of these were in significant danger.

I would prefer more to go on, but at this stage would it be ridiculous to suggest that a good 15 percent or more had a ‘safe’ war?

As a follow on I would like to ask whether anyone with personal knowledge of the following books can give an opinion of how likely the volumes are to provide solid evidence of those who had a ‘safe’ war?

Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914-1920.

Departments of State and Official Bodies. War Office, London, 1922

Medical Services: Casualties and Medical Statistics of the Great War

[History of the Great War based on official documents.]

MITCHELL. Thomas John. and SMITH. G. M.. M.B.E., London, 1931

[Ivor Lee]

Clive

I have been following this thread with great interest. At the risk of upsetting anyone I would suggest that it is impossible to talk about a 'safe' war.

Of course there were men who never heard to sound of guns and men who never left the UK but that does not necessarily mean they did not face danger.

IMHO every man of the Labour Corps who often worked, unarmed, for several weeks at a time within the range of German guns did not have a safe war. Indeed it could be argued that these old and unfit men, whilst not faccing the dangers of the sniper, had a life equally as unpleasant as the front line soldiers who was given a period of R & R every couple of weeks.

What of Private Charles Timmins who was killed when filling sandbags. His shovel hit a grenade that had been buried in the heap of soil he was digging in?

What of the men killed in 1919 when, during battlefield clearances, they lit a fire over a pile of unexploded ammunition?

What of the thousands of men who having served in places like Gallipoli, Mesopotamia and Africa returned to the UK with diseases that they would live with and often die from?

Even those who remained in the UK did not necessarily have a 'safe' war. As an example Pte Waugh killed when felling a tree whilst a member of an agricultural company.

Whilst I would be the first to agree that many men did not face the same danger as the soldier in a front line trench in the Salient or on the Somme I would suggest we should not forget the other dangers men faced.

[michaeldr]

What of the thousands of men who having served in places like Gallipoli, Mesopotamia and Africa returned to the UK with diseases that they would live with and often die from?

Just a little amplification on Gallipoli since it has been mentioned by Ivor

There was no 'rear' area on the peninsula

There was no R & R every few weeks

There were no farm-house billets or village estaminet

The best a man could hope for was a swim in the sea every now and again

and even there he was subjected to shell-fire, shrapnel and rifle or machine-gun overshoots from the near-by front line

There was no escape from the war, its filthy smell, its sounds or its dangers. Even if you were lucky enough to have escaped death or wounding, then the nervous exhaustion of just living for months on end under those strains must have left an indelible mark on a man

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Clive Maier]

It is not my intention to belittle what people went through. On the contrary, I want to arrive at a better understanding of the Great War experience. But it does seem clear to me that out of the very large number who served, there will have been a proportion who had a ‘safe’ war. I don’t know what that proportion is, so I am trying to find out. I did not define ‘safe’ and that is obviously hard to do in any precise way. I suggest that one’s war was ‘safe’ if one’s experiences viewed in retrospect were such as to offer a high chance of escaping significant war-related injury or illness, whether physical or mental.

Clearly some sectors and theatres were much more exacting than others. Michael is right to remind us that there was no remission for those trapped on the peninsula. But the other side of this coin is that there will have been some places and postings that were not very exacting.

Ivor’s special interest in the Labour Corps has my full respect. How right it is that he should recover their history. That history was overlooked because they were not seen as being ‘in the thick of it’ but they played their part just the same. In a sense, I am on the same tack as Ivor by inquiring into service out of the limelight.

I have to depart from Ivor in some respects though. I feel it is going too far to hold that there were no ‘safe’ wars. And if the service risk was no greater than that faced by many a working person in peacetime, I would not hesitate to call that a ‘safe’ war.

I can give a personal illustration from WWII. My brother and I were playing in a park when it was strafed by a German aircraft. We were bombed too. The nearest bomb fell 30 yards from our house – and did not explode. We were woken, three times I think it was, by showers of broken glass driven by blast from the bedroom window. A post-war generation would consider these extraordinary and high-risk experiences. But in retrospect our chance of being hurt was not great. We were not risk free but I think we can be said to have had a ‘safe’ war.

[Guest sbecker]

Mate,

I am glad you corrected some what as I also got the impression that you may have been belittleing the servce of those who may have not seen much action in War.

I left my countries shore's to war over thirty years ago now in an Armoured Cavarly unit while my cousin went with the AAOC (as a blanket flolder).

In our war I may have been up front getting shot at but he also had the problem of survival which may not be the same as myself was just as frightening and played on his chances of going home.

I don't think he had it any easyer then me and I don't like to belittle his war but I do fun him about it in jest when we have a beer on Anzac Day. But only as one survivor to another.

I am Human I surpose. Wasn't some one who said "He also serves who sits and waits".

S.B

[Ivor Lee]

Michael

Sorry for the error re Gallipoli - I do not know what I was thinking when I added it to Salonika!

I think it was Salonika where 1 in 3 men out there suffered from major illness?

[Ivor Lee]

Clive

I know only too well that your question was not meant to belittle what people went through.

The difficulty, I suppose, is how do we define what is 'safe'?

if the service risk was no greater than that faced by many a working person in peacetime, I would not hesitate to call that a ‘safe’ war

I take your point. On a general level I agree with you but when one looks at it from an individual's point of view I have some difficulties.

If you take a 50 year old man with heart disease who has spent his working like in a shop or office and ask him to undertake physically demanding agricultural work does he have a 'safe' war?

[michaeldr]

Ivor,

Don't worry; I feel that your comments about sickness do in fact also apply to Gallipoli. My grandfather's bullet wound earned him a month in hospital on Malta, but after that he returned to the peninsula and to the fray. However the stomach problems which he picked up there as the campaign dragged on were a recurring problem for him for years to come. In 1916-1918 he was in and out of hospital several times and on two occasions he was even sent back to England for treatment. And I don't imagine for a minute that it all suddenly cleared-up for him in November 1918!

Clive,

I may be off on another tangent here,

but for what it's worth, I took a couple of minutes to flick through R. W. Walker's "To What End Did They Die - Officers Died at Gallipoli". This is quite literally 'back of an envelope' stuff. Figures include Australian, NZ, Indian & British and are what may have been called "safe" jobs. It's only the officers [3% - 5% ?] and does not include ORs, but I think it at least gives a sense of the scale of the risks which all who were involved had to endure out there

Medical Corps - 30

Service Corps - 10

Chaplains - 3

Vet. Corps - 2

Ordnance Corps - 1

[E & E O]

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Chris_Baker]

From the statistics on this page.

British Army, including Dominion and Empire troops:

Approx 8.7m men available for deployment.

If we took a very simplistic view of the number of men who served in a theatre of war and counted only the numbers for the Western Front and Egypt/Palestine, that would give 6.5m actually deployed to a theatre. This may be overdoing it some, as there were 5.7m Victory medals issued. So let's call it 6m deployed. On this admittedly very 'back of fag packet' basis, 2.7m men did not deploy in a theatre of war.

956,703 died. 2,272,998 were wounded, but this includes 'double counts' where a man was unfortunate enough to be wounded more than once. Let us err on the safe side and say that this gave us 'only' 1m men who were wounded and did not die. That makes approx 2m individual men who suffered.

Some of course died and no doubt were injured while being part of those not in a theatre of war. But overall it must be getting on for a 1 in 3 chance of being wounded or killed, from the total population of 6m in a theatre. In other words , a 2 in 3 chance of not being hit.

[Terry_Reeves]

Clive

Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire has tables for the estimated strength of forces abroad and at home from November 1916 to November 1918. I'm not sure how these will help in your particular quest though. As an example:

Nov 1916 - 1,683,796 British (UK) troops were serving with expeditionary forces

1,573,800 were serving at home

Nov 1917 - the figures were 2,208,259 and 1,523,501 respectively

Nov 1918 - 2, 090, 573 and 1,383,311 respectively.

These figures exclude "volunteers" whose strength on 1 November 1918 was 256, 826 all ranks. The publication does not make clear what constituted these volunteers however. These figures do not break down into fighting areas or safe areas as it were.

There is also another section which deals with "States of Troops at Home" in various categories. Just a quick glimpse of the various categories will show that this will not be an easy one to solve.

Terry Reeves

[Mark Hone]

There is an interesting discussion on this in 'The Sharp end' by John Ellis. I don't have my copy of this very interesting book in front of me but at one point he compares the ratio of front line soldiers to support people. His conclusion is that in the Second World War the admin 'tail' was much longer and that therefore the brunt of the fighting (and casualties) were borne by a much smaller proportion of men in that conflict.