Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
WW1 Death Rate
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Harloshred (U3731128) on Tuesday, 13th November 2007
Firstly, please excuse any inaccuracies in this post!
I think the UK/GB & NI lost roughly 700,000 men in WW1 (or does this include Commonwealth too?).
My question is that if the population of UK was about 44 million; half of whom were women and a significant number were children and those too old, disabled to fight etc are we looking at around 1 in 30 "able-bodied" men dead, never mind severely wounded?
I'm just trying to get a feel for the true impact on communities to which I can grasp.
Thanks for any replies! -
Message 2
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 13th November 2007
Wikipedia has some figures
MB -
Message 3
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
It's also worth remembering that military death statistics do not generally include the many who died of wounds after the war; this was especially a factor amongst mustard gas cases.
-
Message 4
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
Comparing the stats of the various combatants provides some remarkable results.
For example let's compare the UK to, say, Italy.
The UK lost approximately 885,000 military dead during the First World War while Italy lost 650,000. The population of the UK at the time was about 45,000,000 while that of Italy was about 35,000,000. In percentage terms, therefore, both countries lost about 2% of their population in combat.
This is a remarkable stat when one considers that Italy does not really feature in the story of the 'major fronts' of that war - i.e the Western Front and the Eastern Front.
To think that Italy's losses in the First World War were actually, and proportionally, more or less the same as those of the UK's is quite astonishing.
The reason I highlight this is that I was in Venice at the weekend with my partner. We were struck by how virtually every church we passed, (and needless to say there are a lot of them in that city), had a substantial First World War memorial on the side of the building. The memorials tended to take the form of a plaque listing the names of the parishioners who had fallen in the war. Our attention was drawn to these as (it being Sunday 11 November) the memorials were bedecked with wreaths and rbbons etc.
It was quite a moving sight. -
Message 5
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
To my mind, the casualty stats for the UK in WWII just illustrate that trench warfare was utterly futile. The vast majority of the UK casualties were in France and Belgium, with a few others (relatively speaking) in other theatres.
In WWII, Britain fought battles on may different fronts, in the air, and at sea (to a greater extent than in WWI). The casualties were significantly less though.
Warfare had moved on - there was no point in committing troops to unwinnable campaigns, and thankfully so had the thinking of the commanders.
I know it's fashionable these days to exonerate Haig and co, but he must have been a most obdurate and senseless man. -
Message 6
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
But one mustn't forget the far higher number of civilian casualties in WWII, as a result of aerial bombardment.
-
Message 7
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
Trench warfare was futile but what do you suggest that the army leadership did when faced with trench warfare?
MB -
Message 8
Posted by Harloshred (U3731128) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
Thanks for the replies, the Italy stats are very surprising!
Going slightly off point, whatever Haig's failings he was not alone surely as the other nations' generals were equally "guilty" and I think I've read Richard Holmes saying he was unsure about Haig's culpability. -
Message 9
Posted by dmatt43 (U7656541) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
It is said that the Scottish regiments suffered more deaths in comparison to their counterparts in the United Kingdom and the larger the number in the smaller communities the more the effect. You would need to count in those injured and also those who died from the Spanish Flu in 1918. A number of soldiers died up to 1923, so it is not just up to 1918 or 1919.
I was under the impression more people died during the First World War than in the Second World War. One should not forget the people who were killed in Zeppelin air-raids and the women who worked in and died from working in the munitions factories. -
Message 10
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
"...I was under the impression more people died during the First World War than in the Second World War..."
That depends on what you are counting. More British soldiers died in WW1 than WW2, but civilians were deliberately targetted on a huge scale in WW2(including by allied bombers) in a way that was not done in WW1. Zeppelin raids or atrocities against Belgian civilians were a pin prick in comparison to the later war.
On trench warfare, it depends what you mean by futile. The mass casualties tended to occur when soldiers were ordered out of the trenches. In that sense, trenches worked to save soldiers.
For a breakdown of WW2 casualties.
WW1 :
-
Message 11
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
But northern Italy was invaded in the First World War and the Italians had to fight the Austrian-Hungarians from 1915 to 1918 on their soil. This theatre of the war is covered very little in Britain from what I can gather - it certainly was never mentioned when I was at school, and I only learnt that there was a major Italian theatre years later (in the book Military Blunders).
29 -
Message 12
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Yes, it's easy to forget the Italians were fighting on the Austrian border pretty much the whole time. The Italian collapse at Caporetto of 1917 (in the face of a major Austrian/German assault) was one of the big turning points in the war. One gets some impression of the following chaos reading Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms".
Later that year British, French and US troops would arrive to bolster the Italian frontline. I believe my grandfather, a fieldgunner, was amongst them. -
Message 13
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Trench warfare.
To our way of thinking totally pointless, yet it was the strategy adopted by all commanders, on both sides, in all the various theatres of war during the First World War.
The Great War marked a watershed as far as combat was concerned. Where as major wars previous to this war had been dominantly Infantry/Cavalry campaigns. The First World War was the first war where modern industry began to eclipse and over-ride all previous 'puny' efferts. -
Message 14
Posted by Harloshred (U3731128) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Re dmatt, I'm reading Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War in which he says just over 25% of 557,000 Scots who served in WW1 died; only Serbian and Turkish armies suffered more but Ferguson notes the latter two probably lost more men to disease.
It's also a shame that the Italians have such a poor stereotype re war -
Message 15
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Sunday, 18th November 2007
I think the 'strategy adopted' by almost all commanders in all arimes was the idea of glorious cavalry charges across open country, sweeping all before them, with the infantry coming along and driving the enemy before them with the bayonet. Unfortunately, after a month or so of reality, they realised it did not work, and were forced into trench warfare, much against their will. The biggest slaughters of the next few years were caused by trying to break out of these trenches, to 'open country', to let the cavalry 'exploit' behind the enemy again! None of them 'chose' trench warfare. It was the only option, given the technology of the time, and all armies took time to learn the new ways, the British being slower, as most of them were 'amateur' soldiers. When they did learn, by 1918, when some of the newer commanders finally got some influence, they proved better at it than any of the others.
-
Message 16
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 19th November 2007
How was the Franco-Prussian war fought? Was there any trench warfare fought in that war? The reason for asking is that I have got the impression from looking at other wars leading up to the First World War is that there was a tendency to "dig-in" - certainly in the American Civil War there was some digging in (and so what could be called trench warfare to a degree) and aslo in the Boer Wars. Did the trench warfare of the 1914-1918 conflaguration have an inevitability to it with the increasing mechanisation of war? The first few months of the war showed that the rapid cavalry charges and fluid battles were no longer viable, and without armoured vehicles (yet) or good air power (yet) I don't think you can blame the commanders for instigating trench warfare.
-
Message 17
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 19th November 2007
Trench warfare was obviously largely a consequence of the machine gun; similarly defence-in-depth was largely a consequence of improved artillery technology and shell mass-production.
-
Message 18
Posted by tony_19680 (U5835599) on Monday, 19th November 2007
It wasn't the commanders who instigated trench warfare but the soldiers themselves. Given that standing up in front of machine guns or in a barrage was suicidal any troop would naturally dug in, to hold ground and reduce casualties.
In WW1 the western front better resemble siege warfare. In sieges troops had been digging trenches for centuries (well least from the advent of gunpowder).
The eastern front was more fluid and allowed for a more mobile tactics.
My issue with the ever-increasing volume of British and French WW1 commanders bashing is What else would you have had them do?
I see three options
1. Seek an Armistice (up to the politicians and voting public)
2. Defend the line and await a scientific break through to break the deadlock. (possible but with complications)
3. Engage in a war of attrition to ware down the opponent to a point where you can breakthrough the line and bring the war to a successful conclusion. (Not very appetizing)
At the time only 2 and 3 are serious contenders for serious discussion as the voting public and politicians obviously didn't want to resolve the war peacefully.
2 sounds like a good idea on the face of it until you ask the question what would the enemy be doing whilst you are building your wonder weapon.
a. They may be building a bigger and better weapon
b. They could be thrashing your allies on the eastern front, thus allowing them to bring all their forces to bear against you in the spring.
Looks like 3 get my vote. What do you all think? Was there another way? -
Message 19
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 19th November 2007
I'll go for option 4.
Use your one area of overwhelming strength - sea power - to strangle their trade and cut off their supplies of raw materials.
It took until 1917 (and the German riposte with their U-boats tends to mask it), but by the time of the "turnip winter" Germany's leaders had to win quickly, or lose. They came close to breaking through the Anglo-French lines, but even their successes worked against them - extending the line and making the break back easier, and the morale of their troops is claimed to have plummetted when they saw the plenitude of supplies on the Allied side. -
Message 20
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Wednesday, 21st November 2007
hi everyone,
re casualty and fatalities in ww1-the statistics can be very misleading re varying countries,and who lost the most men etc.
as a frequent visitor to the battlefields of france and belgium i spend a lot of time reading the cemetery registers,not only because they give a potted history of that site and it`s role in the bigger picture,but also i feel i can get a little closer to the men within the place by seeing their names ,their next of kin and where they were born and lived.
if figures taken for the uk show that scottish regiments took the largest losses this should be more closely looked at as it does not always mean that each soldier was necessarily scottish.
also the same for commonwealth losses, many can be seen as recently emigrated from the uk to commonwealth countries.this is confirmed on the canadian monument at vimy ridge.
as for consequences to the communities-this is demonstrated by the pals brigades,eg accrington pals when there was hardly a family in that town that didn`t loose some-one on the first day of the somme-1/07/1916.this is repeated in many of the other pals brigades-some attached to towns/villages and others to works.
trench warfare was not new to ww1 it was evident in the ameican civl war 50yrs earlier.
the british army first became entrenched in ww1 in sept. 1914 on the marne in response to the german amy entrenching themselves.these trenches were not very sophisticated at this point due to the lack of decent entrenching equipment and were probably no more than shallow ditches at this time.
vera -
Message 21
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 21st November 2007
Hi Harloshred,
I went to Bruges in Belgium last week, and whilst there did a tour of the battlefields and military cemeteries in Flanders. Seeing the memorials, graves and registers takes the figure of casualties away from being a mere number in a book and brings it into stark reality. As Vera said, it makes you feel closer to them, and it also brings home the fact that each name and gravestone commemorates an individual who had a family, dreams, life etc. just like each of us.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 22
Posted by Fureys (U7828610) on Wednesday, 21st November 2007
Reply to messg 16.
The initial phases of the Franco-Prussion war were very much battles of movement. But at least on one occasion, the battle of Gravelotte-St Privat, the French infantry dug rudimentary trenches and rifle pits connecting a series of fortified villages and farms to make a pretty formidable defence line. The Prussian Guard attacked this line and suffered 8,000 casualties out of a total force of 18,000 in one single afternoon. And this was against a single shot breech loading rifle. In 1870 the worst features of the First World War were already there for the commanders to see. Did they? -
Message 23
Posted by docsdiamonds (U1803003) on Wednesday, 21st November 2007
Apologies for taking this off at a tangent.
I remember being stupified to read that if you were a 19 year old Russian Male in 1942 you had a 99% chance of being dead by the end of WW2.
(I don't have a source for this, it's just a quote from a book that's stuck with me as it seems so extraordinary) -
Message 24
Posted by tony_19680 (U5835599) on Thursday, 22nd November 2007
Option four is a strategic initiative. Sea power along cannot defeat a continental enemy. That had been shown during the Napoleonic wars and was re-confirmed in WWII.
I believe if the Allies had stood on the defensive from 1915-late 1917 the Germans would have beaten the Russians and Italians and would have only 1 front to fight. I don't see why the Germans would have been forced into fighting unrestricted submarine warfare, which leads to USA entering the war.
Germany was more than a match for France and Britain ecconomically and would have had the resources of Eastern Europe, Middle East and Russia to boot (Ok I'm assuming that would be part of the surrender terms). -
Message 25
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
British Casualties in WW1
There a few points nobody seems to have noticed.
Casualties were initially bound to be heavy amongst Scottish regiments as they went into action with bright coloured kilts. These made splendid targets for German machine gunners.
Until 1916 each regimental paymaster had his own system for issuing service numbers. With the action in France lots of these regimental records were destroyed by shellfire so it looks as if these are now lost for good.
It was just before the Somme that the central government took over issuing service numbers witha central record and a regimental copy. At the same time all combatents had noticed the severe affects of minor head wounds and issued steel helmets, so some casuatlies were reduced.
By 1914 whole generations had grown up with cavalry as the decisive weapon, but Europe had moved on from being agricultural to industrial and capable of producing a whole range of new weapons from poison gas, tanks and machine guns.
The final defeat of Germany was really as a result of the almost now unknown distant blockade, which slowly starved Germany into defeat.
I am reminded of the strongest medieval castle which could eventually be starved into submission if the seige went on long enough -
Message 26
Posted by tony_19680 (U5835599) on Saturday, 15th December 2007
Can anyone (perhaps in the military) shed light on the term casualties? One the first day of the somme the British army took 20,000 dead and 40,000 causalities. Is there a cut off point between when a soldier is severely wounded and will probably not re-enter service and one who has a minor injury which can be fixed with a little 1st aid.
-
Message 27
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
hi tony,
thats an interesting point. the casualty figures for 1/7/1916 are always gien as 60,000.
whilst we know that the dead are part of that we do not know what was constituted as a casualty.
As for scots regiments going into battle in brightly coloured kilts -I always thought the battle kilts in WW1 were khaki.
vera -
Message 28
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
I suspect the truth is more that Scottish regiments, such as the Black Watch, were well-known for being particularly tough and aggressive, and hence were put into some of the most dangerous situations. Losses were also very heavy in other elite regiments, such as the Royal Welch Fusiliers.
-
Message 29
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
hi,I appreciate your point, but sometimes I get sick of how much English regiments are disregarded in these sorts of conversations.
If you were to look in the death registers in WW1 cems it would strike you as not all scotish/wesh regts were populated by that country-there were many English men within those regts.
on the 1st day of the Somme only 1 objective was succesful-the liberation of the vilage of MONTAUBON and guess by who -the Manchesters and Liverpools-this seems to be conveniently forgot.Many of these men came from my area.
Manchester Hill near St. Quentin-so called because of the heroic defence of it by -the Manchesters,it was defended down to thelast man,despite repeated pleas from the German attackers to
end the skirmish.They held the hill down to the last man standing-Col. W. Elstrob-a Manchester man -who was asked to surrender ,him being the last one alive- he replied ''never'' and was shot.
Devonshire trench cem,motto-this trench was held by the Devonshires and they hold it still.
Lancashire fusl. 6 VC's before breakfast at Gallipoli.
The Accrington Pals -all but wiped out on the Serre road.
There are many more examples but all seem to be pushed into obscurity ..Lets have some fairness and equality in our praises.
Vera -
Message 30
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Thursday, 20th December 2007
Sorry Vera - didn't mean to imply that English regiments were in any way inferior. It is clear however, that some regiments (or at least certain battalions of some regiments) were regarded as elite fighting units and those often tended to be in the thick of the fighting and had the heaviest losses (though often the highest morales).
Many Germans had a rough picture of who they'd least like to be fighting, and the Scots regiments were pretty much at the top of that list, followed closely by regiments from the North of England.
Likewise the British would far sooner find themselves facing Saxons than Prussians.
Of course this is just rule-of-thumb stuff, and may reflect irrational prejudices of the combatants as much as anything else. -
Message 31
Posted by Lee (U8097024) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
Harloshred.
Have you had a chance to read " mud, blood and poppycock" A slightly different view of the first world war,If you get hold of a copy(sorry can not remember the Auther)it has breakdowns of weekly casualty rates for 5/6 different regiments,throughout the war,plus it talks about the"missing generation".Lions led by donkeys,etc etc .Very interesting book.
Lee
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.