Middle East theatre - ratio of fit / unfit troops

[SKBob]

Bit of a basic question please but I have been given a sweeping statement that only approx 1 in 4 soldiers sent to the Middle East theatre actually made it to the front, the rest succumbing to illness etc. Has anyone got a comment / can you advise good references that might support / refute this ?

Thanks people

[centurion]

I could believe the sick to wounded ratio being 4:1 but sick to combat 4:1 sounds too much.

[michaeldr]

quote: only approx 1 in 4 soldiers sent to the Middle East theatre actually made it to the front, the rest succumbing to illness etc.

I rather think that this statement is too sweeping to answer

The first response must be a couple of questions: where & when;

Gallipoli?

Mesopotamia?

Salonika?

Egypt/Palestine?

Some theatres had a much better record than others

Some may even have benefited from the earlier mistakes of others

eg: Palestine was then known as a Malaria black-spot and definite steps were taken to deal with the problem

The RE and the ELC worked together draining marshes and oiling wells and cisterns. Further, each regiment had to provide a malaria squad to tackle the area around its own camp. The medical services ran small diagnosis stations throughout the theatre and examined 40,000 blood slides to ensure early treatment and save lives. This kept the problem well in check until the advance of the front meant the men entering 'uncontrolled areas'

The sickness rate prior to the offensive was less than three per cent, but after the beginning of the offensive it was just over five-and-a-half per cent.

Other problems were kept in check with inoculations and proper sanitation (as far as was possible under the circumstances)

One history claims that 'It may well be said that the incinerator and disinfector have helped to win this war.'

I do not think that Egypt/Palestine came anywhere near the figure suggested in the first post above

regards

Michael

[Ron]

It was certainly true of Mesopotamia during the summer months when many reinforcement arriving at Basra never got any further. They were evacuated after falling sick in the intense heat. Sick and wounded were sent to Bombay - there were some hospitals in Mesopotamia but they didn't have the capacity to treat so many who suffered from heat stroke The Indian Medical Service ran a regular and constant service by hospital ship from Basra to Bombay (now Mumbai).

Ron

[centurion]

I can believe it for the summer months in Mespot. Having worked in Kuwait I know from personal experience just how hot it can get (and what makes it worse very humid when near the coast). Hoever I believe for that very reason, as far as possible major troop movements were made outside the summer period.

[Jim_Grundy]

There's some interesting statistics contained in volume one of, "History of the Great War Based on Official Documents. Medical Services. Diseases of the Great War" about rates of illness within the armed forces by theatre/year. There's too much detail but some figures for dysentry and malaria are instructive:

Taking 1917 as an example, the rates of malaria per 1,000 personnel were:

Egypt & Palestine - 44.66

Macedonia - 353.18

Mesopotamia - 94.2

East Africa - 2,880.9 (!!!!)

For dysentry, the figures were:

Egypt & Palestine - 23.13

Macedonia - 28.89

Mesopotamia - 60.34

East Africa - 486.56

For the British it seems that von Lettow was the last of their worries in East Africa!

Cheers,

Jim

[centurion]

Dystentry was always a problem on African campaigns and was the biggest killer in the Boer War exceeding KIAs. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that the water borne disease agent can be taken up by plants and lurk inside many fresh fruits so that the soldier who has been a good lad and drunk only chlorinated water can still catch it by picking a tempting fruit and eating it.

Jim's figures support the view that the figures SKBob is asking about are likely to be exagerated, except in certain limited circumstances, with regard to the Middle East (and I would exclude both Salonika and Gallipoli from the Middle East in any case. I can think of a number of Greeks would be very eager to straighten out anybody who considered Salonika as Middle East - after which you would need to be straightened out!). Even these figures do not give the whole story as some may have taken sick after reaching the front and many would recover and go on to see (or resume) action. Even Malaria which can be fatal is not always permenantly disabling as I can vouch personally (its still a b****r when you come down with it).

Interestingly the historical author Georgre Shipway argues that the success of the Greeks besieging Troy was not due to horses wooden of otherwise or the intervention of the gods but simply to improved camp organisation and hygene (specific latrine lines etc) that allowed an army to sit down before a besieged town for more that a week or two before sucumbing to a variety of diseases from the trots to cholera. It has been said that the British Army's ability to wage successful colonial campaigns was likewise due to some some very basic improvements in organisation.

[bushfighter]

Bob

Certainly sick troops were being transferred from East Africa to Egypt in 1917.

General Smuts left the East African theatre & gave the impression that the campaign there was all but over. London jumped on this & ordered several units in East Africa to be sent to Egypt where Lines of Communication troops were urgently needed.

General Hoskins, the new GOC in East Africa argued (until he was dismissed for arguing too much & sent to command a Division in Mesopotamia) successfully to retain his Indian Mountain Gunners & RAF planes and crews, but London wanted troops in Egypt & so even Indian units that needed recuperation in India went to Egypt, where they recuperated on the L of C.

The 2nd Bn The Loyal North Lancashires, decimated by sickness, moved to Egypt from East Africa in January 1917 after two years in theatre. It took them another year in Egypt before the Bn was medically boarded as operational.

Harry

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

As to the AIF in Egypt its fair to say that this maybe close to the total numbers on operations from those in country and one in four sonds right.

First there are many reasons for this,

Many reinforcements to the LH were after a month at sea found to be sick on arrival in Egypt and had to spend time getting better.

Then there was the state of troops arriving and their lack of training which again forced then to be sent to training units untill they could go to the units at the front.

next we have those troops on operations who through wounds or illness were returned to hosp then to rest units untill fit.

There were a large floating population around Cario during the war of unattached aussies from all the above areas I have given.

Fighting strenght within aussie LHR's were around 400 to 500 men at best but around 300-400 most of the time.

About 40,000 horseman were sent to Egypt of which a third went to France either as LH or to other units, the remainder served in the field or never made it to a unit being returned to home throught illness.

Of cause we should not forget that reinforcements by 1917 to 1918 were on the whole of poor quality and a percentage of each never made it to a unit instead were medicaly boarded and RTA, some after getting off the boat.

So yes I can understand the figure of one in four being on the front line and the rest either in rest or training units and in hospitals.

We should also not forget that for ever soldier in the field there remains so many to suport that soldier by the supply system, many of these soldiers who were medical down graded found themselves as part of this supply and maintence system.

Cheers

S.B

[SKBob]

Really interesting stuff - many thanks folks. I think the original statement given to me referred mainly to Palestine but it is very useful to have all the comments and opinions.

Bob

[centurion]

SB

Interesting, however I would argue that having to recuperate after disembarcation before proceeding it to the front is not the same as "only approx 1 in 4 soldiers sent to the Middle East theatre actually made it to the front, the rest succumbing to illness" It is possible that there was a large number of troops in the rear at any one time (rotated out of the line, training, sick etc) however a substantial number would have already been at or would at some time procede to the front. In any theatre it would be unsual (out side of a major offensive) to have all of ones forces at the front. It would be interesting to see figures for the Western front to see what proportion of the army was actually in the front line at any one time (as opposed to the proportion who would be at the front at some time).

[Jim_Grundy]

Here's some more figures regarding hospital admissions and subsequent deaths taken from the same source as those posted previously:

France, 1918

Wounded: Admissions - 574,803; Deaths - 46,084.

Sickness: Admissions - 980,980; Deaths - 8,988

Egypt & Palestine 1917-1918

Wounded: Admissions - 32,255; Deaths - 9,451.

Sickness: Admissions - 359,855; Deaths - 3,360.

Macedonia 1917-1918

Wounded: Admissions - 12,552; Deaths - 2,843.

Sickness: Admissions - 331,753; Deaths - 3,031.

Italy, 1918

Wounded: Admissions - 4,671; Deaths - 470.

Sickness: Admissions - 54,626; Deaths - 661.

Mespotamia 1916-1918 (excluding Indian Army)

Wounded: Admissions - 16,793; Deaths - 6,752.

Sickness: Admissions - 242,159; Deaths - 2,752.

Jim

[centurion]

Interesting figures Jim

So in all these theatres the proportion of sick that died was under 1% (apart from Italy where it was just over 1%) but the Middle East was clearly not a good place to be wounded as the propotion of wounded who died was about 3 times higher than on the WF. I wonder if that is a reflection on the standard of care available or perhaps the time taken to evacuate wounded to hospital? There is an account by one Britsh oficer on arriving at a field hospital in Palestine being given a bottle of port by an Australian orderly with the comment "you'll be right mate" but receiving no other atention until the following morning

[michaeldr]

Jim,

Thanks for those very interesting figures

Are they inclusive of cases repatriated to the UK for further treatment?

I am thinking of France in particular,

[but in fact there was movement to UK hospitals from all fronts, to a greater or lesser extent]

regards

Michael

[michaeldr]

quote: I think the original statement given to me referred mainly to Palestine

The worst of the problems regarding sickness [as opposed to wounds] in the Egypt/Palestine theatre seem to have been encountered after the cessation of hostilities

details from The Advance of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force... , HMSO, 1919

the problem of sick prisoners was very great due to their shortage of food, malaria and influenza: of c.100,000 captured,* it is estimated that "more than 20,000 passed into medical charge. For their accommodation three large 2,000 bedded hospitals were rapidly prepared in Egypt and the permanent prisoner-of-war hospitals were also greatly expanded. Several of the Egyptian Hospitals - a service which has done splendid work throughout the campaign - were also devoted to their treatment, and for a short time the British General Hospital at Giza was set free for the accommodation of the more serious cases."

And at this same time there was a rise in the allied sick rate, again, mainly from malaria and influenzer. Admisions went up from 600 to 1,000 per day, even reaching 1,400 at one point. Men were shipped to Egyptian hospitals, from Haifa and ports in Syria

and 'Superhuman efforts were made in Cairo and Alexandria to open new hospitals and expand existing ones. By these means it was found just possible to keep pace with the increasing sickness."

[*note: the OH gives a more conservative figure of "over 75,000, of whom about 200 officers and 3,500 rank and file were Germans and Austrians."]

regards

Michael

[Jim_Grundy]

Are they inclusive of cases repatriated to the UK for further treatment?

I am thinking of France in particular,

Good question, Michael. The book is not clear on that part. I'll see if there's something in the supporting text but a quick scan hasn't produced anything. I'm guessing that the figures do not include subsequent transfers to UK hospitals.

Jim

[SteveE]

Jim

Interesting stats in post #12, do you have the East Africa theatre as well to compare?

Steve

[Jim_Grundy]

Steve

Sorry, the table doesn't include East Africa on those statistics. They're a little random in the introductory chapters. If there's anything specific about East Africa that you're interested in, I can look it up for you.

Cheers,

Jim

[SteveE]

Jim

Many thanks, no specific requests but it would have been interesting to see how that theatre compared as well, the sickness admissions would be significantly higher than those wounded but the ratio of admissions to deaths would have been interesting to know.

Regards

Steve

[centurion]

I have some figures for bearers, porters etc which are shocking. I may also have some figures for military personel - I'll have a look in the morning

Happy new Year

[centurion]

As promised some East Africa figures (British) for comparison

Porters 390,000 of whom 78,000 died or deserted

European soldiers KIA 931 died of disease 2,225

African soldiers KIA 1,377 died of disease 2,923

Deaths due to Malaria 263, Dysentry 3,795 (42% of all cases admitted to hospital)

Typical wastage through sickness (invalided out etc) 20% per month average

Source The first world war in Africa - Hew Strachan

[SteveE]

Centurion

Thanks for the details, I didn't think about Strachan, should have looked in my own copy .

Regards

Steve