Trench Warfare - Average Losses

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Larso
Member
Posts: 1974
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 03:18
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#16

Post by Larso » 26 Jun 2003, 09:49

Thanks Moulded. Something I've always wondered about is, of the original members of those battalions which landed at Gallipoli, how many survived the war? With many Bn's having 5,000 odd troops pass through them it seems likely that there must only have been a handful of 'originals' left in Nov 1918. I know efforts were made to bring Gallipoli vets back to Aust when it was realised they were disappearing. Anyway I always thought it would be interesting to know how many of those first 1,000 men in each battalion ever came home.

By the way which Bn was your grandfather in? My people (Dad's uncle & uncles's dad) were in the 25th and then the 26th when it absorbed the survivors.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#17

Post by Peter H » 26 Jun 2003, 11:29

Larso,
The so called 'Anzac Leave' for the 1914 originals was presented to the British GHQ as a leave of two months,then the veterans were to return to action in Europe.In reality,with two month's of sea voyage,to home and back, added to the total there was no way these men would have returned at all unless hostilities had carried on past mid 1919.Monash calculated the 1914 originals as totalling 6,000 soldiers.This sounds a lot but:

(1)With an AIF strength of around 100,000 in France,and 40,000 convalescents in England,this represented only 4% of his total force.'Originals' were mainly concentrated in the 1st Division and the brigade of the 4th Division that made up the Anzac 1914 convoys.

(2)Many of these men carried multiple wounds(Albert Jacka would be in this category),and many more were by then in support roles,rather than front line infantry units.The training schools that sprang up from 1917 onwards also held a lot of these men.Many were actually still in hospital in England;it wasn't uncommon for someone wounded in 1917,to still be based in Blighty until the end of the war.

(3)Exemptions even applied for Senior officers like Monash and Elliott as it was.

(4)The proportion of 'Originals' was higher in the 'Tail' rather than the 'teeth' of units anyway.You had a better chance of survival in a support unit,like a driver,artillerymen,or signals etc.With an average Division of 16,000 men in 1918,infantrymen would comprise 10,000,artillerymen 2,000,Pioneers 1,000,and the rest service & support.

My grandfather was in the 39th Battalion. :)


mars
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 20:50
Location: Shanghai

#18

Post by mars » 27 Jun 2003, 06:30

Wehrmacht wrote:
mars wrote:I heard if there was NO major action, the French army would suffered 2500 casualities per day on the whole front line.
there were some extrem bloody day in WWI: July 1, 1916, the first date of the British's Somme offensive, British army suffered nearly 60,000 casualites included 20,000 killed in a SINGLE day.
How many troops did the French Army had deployed all the time?
In 1917, French army was consist of 109 infantry divisions and 7 cavalry divisions, about 50,000 officers and 2 million enlisted men

User avatar
Wehrmacht
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 17 Oct 2002, 13:33
Location: Italy

#19

Post by Wehrmacht » 27 Jun 2003, 09:54

mars wrote: In 1917, French army was consist of 109 infantry divisions and 7 cavalry divisions, about 50,000 officers and 2 million enlisted men
Thanks, I thinked that was at least 3/4 million. Now I know why they were so exhaust in 1917...

mars
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 20:50
Location: Shanghai

#20

Post by mars » 27 Jun 2003, 15:35

Wehrmacht: French army was not just exhaust in 1917, they bursted into munity, the reason for this was not because they suffered heavy loss, it was because they suffered heavy loss and achieved nothing, On Apr 17, French army launched the so-called "Nevil offensive", in just 2 days, they suffered 120,000 casualities, in return, they advanced less than 1 mile, few days later, the munity began.

User avatar
Wehrmacht
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 17 Oct 2002, 13:33
Location: Italy

#21

Post by Wehrmacht » 27 Jun 2003, 15:47

I used the term 'exhaust ' in a broad manner, that include exhaustion both on the material side and the morale.

I must continue to note, perhaps, that the heavy cumulative losses took their toll in the mutiny, because the last 120,000 casualties were the last of millions (in the same periods British and Italians have incurred in less casualties than french).

Thank for your point.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#22

Post by Qvist » 27 Jun 2003, 16:05

I had read that once a formation lost a 100% of its members it declined rapidly as an effective combat unit.
hehe, declined practically to the point of non-existence in fact :D

Sorry, just couldn't resist that, I know that's not what you meant to say.


cheers

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 1st Australian Division

#23

Post by Gwynn Compton » 30 Jun 2003, 13:44

Larso wrote:The twelve infantry battalions of the 1st Australian Division lost 13,196 KIA, the most, the 3rd Bn being 1302. Wounded/gassed was over 2,000 for each. So allowing for artillary and other support units the Div total may have been over 14,000 KIA. The New Zealanders only fielded one division and as their KIA were almost 20,000 (?) most must have been suffered by this one unit. These formations were only involved from April 1915 on, so the Brit regular Div's for instance may have recorded more casualties again.

These are interesting because moral in these units remained very high. I had read that once a formation lost a 100% of its members it declined rapidly as an effective combat unit. Certainly it was suggested that this was parly to blame for the German collapse.
My understanding is that the high casualty rates for ANZAC forces related directly to a large number of soldiers who were patched up and sent back into battle. But the fact that these divisions had up to 200% casualties is absolutely shocking. I'm not sure how those in Europe suffered, but those in Gallipoli suffered horribly.

Gwynn

Larso
Member
Posts: 1974
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 03:18
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#24

Post by Larso » 03 Jul 2003, 01:40

Another reason for the high Australian, and I assume Canadian and New Zealand figures, was that many support functions were provided by the British. This allowed a higher number of 'Empire' troops to serve in the front line and subseqently become casualties.

Does anyone have the NZ Divs casualty figures? In fact can anyone give me the number/variety of units that NZ sent to WW1.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#25

Post by Peter H » 03 Jul 2003, 05:12

NZ casualties in WW1:

16,711 dead
41,317 wounded
498 captured
58,526 total

112,223 NZs were sent overseas.

The New Zealand Division in France was unique in having 4 brigades,16 battalions and 5 MG companies(until February 1918).This structure had been imposed instead of NZ raising a second division.This proved an unpopular measure and normally the reserve brigade was despatched outside divisional control as an additional pool of labour.Another downside was that a 'superheavy' division would always be allocated for forthcoming operations.

Birdwood considered them tops--"they fight like Australians,but drill like British regulars."

Matt
Member
Posts: 244
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 12:39
Location: Australia
Contact:

Originals

#26

Post by Matt » 04 Jul 2003, 12:30

Lars:
I never knew my Grandfather, but I remember my mother saying not many of his comrades survived the war. He was in the 11th Btn. and landed on the 25th. He was repatriated to Australia after losing a leg at Lone Pine. He was apparently amazed that his two brothers survived Gallipoli & France.

Moulded:
I have read many accounts of the high Australian casualties being attributed to being used as 'shock troops' and continually put at the 'point' of attacking forces. What is your opinion of this, and what do you put the high casualty figures down to?
I notice you mentioned Jacka, I think Bean described him as the finest fighting man of the war - I would also like your opinion on this.

Thanks
Matt

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#27

Post by Peter H » 05 Jul 2003, 03:46

Matt,
The concept of 'Shock troops' was not limited to the Dominion divisions,as many British formations also held this status,the 51st Highland Division for example.However once a reputation was earnt it carried on from there.Officially GHQ did not recognise 'assault divisions',but the Germans soon woke up to the fact,and in 1917 started a propaganda campaign describing the Colonials as 'cannon-fodder for the British Empire'.Elsewhere high Anzac casualties have been attributed to their low ratio of support and service troops,as most of this role was carried out by BEF units...these included transport,labourer,heavy artillery and logistical
support.With an all volunteer force I consider the calibre of the Australians as above the run of mill and hence they paid for this in higher casualties.

Bert Jacka should have been awarded a bar to his first VC in 1915,based on his action on the Somme in 1916,described by Bean "as the most dramatic and effective act of individual audacity in the history of the AIF".Though not mentioned in detail,he was attributed in single-handedly killing around 30 Germans in the melee resulting from his charge on the Germans escorting the Australian Pows to the rear.Captain Jacka should have been promoted further as well;however his rock the boat behaviour,and his lowly origins(according to Elliott this was held against him) all came into play.Jacka died in 1932--the poisoning from his wounds,a slow and painful process,finally did him in.

The famous photo of Staff Officer Captain Jacka,VC MC,helping out in the pre Messines attack planning.

Image
http://www.chapter-one.com/vc/images/ex ... cka_a1.jpg

From Jacka's Mob:

I knew Jacka well. I served with him.

Born in the Winchelsea district, Geelong, in January 1893, he was employed by the Victorian Forestry Commission prior to the Great War. He was only thirty‑nine when he died in January 1932 at St. Kilda.

On the training grounds of Broadmeadows and of Egypt his superior officers saw no more military talent in him than they did in other strong personalities. It was the stress and strain of actual conflict that laid bare the superb fighting and other qualities he possessed. He was a lance corporal when at Gallipoli on 19 May 1915 he won the V.C. by jumping alone into a trench containing a party of Turks, of whom he shot five and bayoneted two.

Under wise leadership Jacka was, as an army in himself; under other circumstances little less than a problem. His pride and strength of character singled him out from his contemporaries; his brother officers naturally looked to him for leadership. He set a standard for battle discipline that others found hard to maintain. Jacka possessed that three o'clock in the morning brand of courage which his exploits on Pozieres Ridge amply demonstrated.

At the time he was a platoon commander and in charge of the 14th Battalion's right flank. No sooner had he taken over than a fearful bombardment fell on the ridge and continued throughout the night. The garrison, despite crippling losses, struggled to keep the trenches clear: it was an impossible task. Later, all who remained alive on the ridge sought shelter in a few captured enemy dugouts.

At dawn, a German bomb exploding at the bottom of the stairway in the dugout told Jacka that an attack had commenced. Racing up the stairs he assembled his men‑eight in all‑and surveyed the situation. Wherever he looked he saw the backs of large parties of Germans on their way to the Australian support line.

While planning a course of action he saw a party of about forty Australian prisoners under a strong escort coming towards him on their way to the rear. Calmly biding his time, he let them approach to within thirty yards and then, with a yell, the Australians led by Jacka charged; a free‑for‑all ensued.

Parties of Germans took to shell-holes and opened fire. One party of four was causing heavy casualties and Jacka made towards them. They put three bullets through him and knocked him down. Getting to his feet, he reached them and killed the lot; turning, he saw a huge man almost on him-he shot him in the guts.

The gallant behaviour of this extraordinary man came as a stimulant to the half-dazed prisoners. As they saw him shooting and killing right and left they took heart, and flung themselves on their captors. Some were killed in the attempt.

Jacka's timely action, starting as a ripple, spread into a wave, as little groups of men in the distance hurried to join in the fray. The Hun had the ridge in his hand, but before the fingers closed, his forces had been rounded up and taken off to the cages. Jacka's action prevented a costly counter‑attack and undoubtedly saved many lives. His action was the talk of the line; everyone said that surely he would receive a bar to his V.C. He received an MC.

In the official history of Australia in the 1914-18 war, it is stated that Jacka's action in this occasion "stands as the most dramatic and effective act of individual audacity in the history of the A.I.F."

A bar was added to his MC for a daring reconnaissance and gallantry under fire on 10 April 1917. He obtained valuable information, on which the success of the attack depended, captured a German officer and his orderly, and later personally guided and placed tanks and his battalion in position for the attack.

The pride he infused into others was demonstrated by a Lieutenant who was on loan from Jacka's company. Right or wrong he refused to discard his dressy uniform prior to going into the battle of Hamel. "We don't do things like that in Don Company," he said. An enemy sniper had the choice of killing what he thought was a private or an officer; he chose the officer.

The regard his men had for him was re­markable. At Messines a private picked him up as he would a child and dragged him into a trench away from snipers and shellfire. Shamefacedly he said, "Well, sir, I beg your pardon, but we can't afford to lose you."

No picture of Jacka would be complete without reference to his loyalty to his sub­ordinates-as well as to his seniors. His word was his bond. On one occasion a promise had been made by every staff officer from General Birdwood down to the effect that the battalion would be rested if they willingly undertook a long winter tour of duty while the rest of the Australians were enjoying a three months' rest. When he thought that the promise might be broken, Jacka saw red. Officers who assembled at a certain brigade conference will never forget the forthright manner in which he spoke up for his men. Threats of arrest did not deter him; he merely stormed the harder.

Such is the man I knew.

E. J. RULE (First A.I.F.)

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”