German losses at Messines & at 3rd Ypres.

[monk2002uk]

I thought I had managed to get hold of volume 10 today. Unfortunately, the bookseller replied:

"Leider ist der von Ihnen gewünschte Artikel nicht mehr lieferbar."

Another day...

Robert

[Michate]

Looked at in this way, and assuming that 125 divisions is correct for the Somme, we might expect Third Ypres to have involved 93 divisions. It wasn't far off that number, and across a much narrower front. There is no getting away from the impact of Third Ypres.

IIRC, the Reichsarchive lists 97 divisions engaged during the Somme battle, many of them twice and a handful even three times, to arrive at 159 division engagements/reliefs during the Somme battle.

[Peter H]

The so called Battle of Flanders as mentioned by Rupprecht would entail Messines,Ypres,Lens.

The figure of 86 divisions he mentions might be as follows---Messines(9 divs--204,35,2,3 Bav,4 Bav,1 Gd Res,7,11,16 Bav)Ypres(73 divs),Lens(4 Divs).

[monk2002uk]

Thank you, Michate.

Peter, the Reichsarchiv figures for the Battle of Flanders do not include Messines. This will add more divisions to the total. I need to check the action around Lens but 4 divisions seems too low as well.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Peter,

Furthermore, I have gone back to Kronprinz Rupprecht's diary entry for 31st July 1917 (Mein Kriegstagebuch. Band II). Here is Jack Sheldon's translation of the relevant section:

'This morning the attack, supported by a great many tanks, opened on a front of eighteen kilometres between Steenstraat and the Lys on the Flanders front. I find that I can face this offensive in a calm state of mind, because never before have we had deployed along a front under attack such strong reserve forces, which have been so well trained in their role.'

Rupprecht did not include Messines in the Battle for Flanders. The Reichsarchiv figures for the German divisions rotated into and out of Third Ypres only, excluding Messines and Lens, are consistent with Rupprecht's figure as well.

I noted that the specific OOBs that you created for Third Ypres were related to specific battles within that campaign - Pilckem Ridge, Langemarck, Menin Road, etc. Perhaps this is where the difference lies? Rotation of divisions occurred between these battles as well.

Robert

[Peter H]

Thanks Robert.

Things are becoming a bit clearer now.

/Peter

[Attrition]

Landrecies to Cambrai: Case Studies of German Offensive and Defensive Operations on the Western Front 1914-17 (Helion Studies in Military History No 3) by Duncan Rogers is out at last, which I hope will be a help to us monoglots.

[monk2002uk]

Peter,

I agree. It has been an excellent collective effort.

Robert

[Attrition]

Landrecies to Cambrai: Case Studies of German Offensive and Defensive Operations on the Western Front 1914-17 (Helion Studies in Military History No 3) by Duncan Rogers is out at last, which I hope will be a help to us monoglots.

Actually no, it's slipped to the end of October.

[Attrition]

Landrecies to Cambrai: Case Studies of German Offensive and Defensive Operations on the Western Front 1914-17 (Helion Studies in Military History No 3) by Duncan Rogers is out at last, which I hope will be a help to us monoglots.

No it isn't but perhaps it will be out this month.

[Attrition]

It finally arrived, not as helpful as I'd hoped but still a useful addition to the historiography of the war.

[Attrition]

'The German Army at Paaschendaele' by Jack Sheldon (2007) has ".... For the period 7 June to 10 November it would be possible to get close to Edmonds's assertion of 400,000 casualties... but it would be necessary to include all men with minor cuts and wounds, who were treated in the forward areas... and those who... were given 'medicine and duties'." P.315.

Does anyone know if the British army was still counting casualties in the manner described in OH1916I? If the British used a head count of people receiving medical attention then the passage seems to endorse Edmonds's claim to have made German casualty claims equivalent.

On a side note, does anyone know why Jack Sheldon's books keep their value second hand? I bet he and his publisher are pleased but I'm not.;O)

[Terry Duncan]

As far as I am aware the British army continued to use this method until quite late, possibly until after the war ended in some units. I may be wrong, but in many discussions I have seen online over about fifteen years seems to run into the same problem of very minor wounds counting towards casualty figures. This seems to have been the case with figures from the Somme through Third Ypres and even into the 100 Days.

[Attrition]

Has anyone tried to render British casualties using the German method (apart from doing Edmonds's 'add 30%' calculation backwards)?

[Terry Duncan]

I have seen it done, and it usually leads to the casualties on all sides being relatively balanced, with little difference between British and German losses other than those associated with circumstances.