46 and 56 British Infantry Division at Salerno

[Tom from Cornwall]

Further significant levels of sickness being reported daily by X Corps:

Battle casualty and sick state ending 1600 hrs 23 Sep.
Battle casualties offrs 15 ORs 162.
Sick offrs 10 ORs 183
Evacuated by sea 332 incl 55 U.S.
Evacuated by air 11.

I'm not sure how these would be reported at the lower Division and unit levels. I guess if the sick were being recorded at Corps level they would have been recorded as deficient against war establishment at unit level.

Regards

Tom

[Tom from Cornwall]

And the 10 Corps sick state is still increasing:

25 Sep - 2350 DDMS
Battle casualty and Sick State period ending 1600 hrs, 25 Sep.
Battle casualties Offrs 3 ORs 134.
Sick Offrs 8 ORs 252.
Evacuated by sea 318, includes 63 U.S.
Evacuated by air 19.

Anyone got a copy of the relevant British Medical history from this period?

Regards

Tom

[Mori]

War by Numbers just arrived. With a whole chapter based on the Italian engagements.

I happen to be reading this book: I cannot believe how poor this is. It's really sub-level in terms of statistics, with such gross limitations it is almost unbelievable the author takes his work seriously.

I'm just 9 chapters in the book but here's what I see:
- the most advanced statistical tool is the average. Standard deviation is beyond the ability of the author. (Therefore Lawrence routinely compares averages of 2 series without ever asking whether the difference is large enough to have statistical significance)
(and there is one in-text standard deviation but it is larger than the average!)
- plotting 2 variables on a chart and drawing conclusions without calculating a linear regression R2... Someone's got to show him the excel button to have it automatic...

Every page it says "I take myself seriously but I do not master high-school mathematics".

And I'm not even talking of statistical tests like chi-square etc.

[Tom from Cornwall]

And no index which is unforgivable!

Tom

[Richard Anderson]

And I'm not even talking of statistical tests like chi-square etc.

Chris, while a mathematician, like Trevor always knows when he is right.

While we had an excellent statistician at TDI for awhile, I doubt she still works for Chris. Chris knows stats, but I suspect so need to go down the rabbit hole.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Hi,

I thought I'd have a look in the ADMS diary of 56 Div to see whether it was suffering particularly badly from sickness at Salerno and found:

Casualties collected to [56] Div Medical Units up to 2359 hrs 11 Sept 43.

Sick:
Offrs: 8
ORs: 136

Battle Casualties:
Offrs: 28
ORs: 526

The level of sick to wounded seems high to me, does anyone have more general statistics on this?

Incidentally, there is a bit about reinforcements arriving who have not been taking their anti-malaria tablets for several weeks, not sure if that was because they were in a non-malarial part of Africa and not expected to be deployed to Italy?

Regards

Tom

[Aber]

Incidentally, there is a bit about reinforcements arriving who have not been taking their anti-malaria tablets for several weeks, not sure if that was because they were in a non-malarial part of Africa and not expected to be deployed to Italy?

Regards

Tom

Possible cock-up on replacement planning? - this is of course close to the timing of the Salerno mutiny.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Aber,

Actually, I've got a feeling that those 'reinforcements' were those 1500 who came over on RN ships...

That the level of sickness was high is also suggested by a post-operation report generated by X Corps Signals branch who say that:

Casualties to [signal?] personnel in AVALANCHE were far higher than they were in purely land battles in the desert, the sick rate was particularly high, there being an average of at least four times as many officers and men sick as wounded each day....In AVALANCHE Beach Group Signal Sections had to be milked to keep Divisional Signals Operational.

I suppose, if the casualty figures for AVALANCHE actions used in the Dupuy models were skewed because of a higher sickness level amongst the allied troops who had previously been located in Middle East and North Africa then one reason for the putative combat performance differences may have been caused by the humble mosquito!

Regards

Tom

[Aber]

I suppose, if the casualty figures for AVALANCHE actions used in the Dupuy models were skewed because of a higher sickness level amongst the allied troops who had previously been located in Middle East and North Africa then one reason for the putative combat performance differences may have been caused by the humble mosquito!

Regards

Tom

See Post #21 - the casualty differences seem far greater than just the numbers of sick.

[Richard Anderson]

I suppose, if the casualty figures for AVALANCHE actions used in the Dupuy models were skewed because of a higher sickness level amongst the allied troops who had previously been located in Middle East and North Africa then one reason for the putative combat performance differences may have been caused by the humble mosquito!

Doubtful. British casualties were reported as X, Y, Z, sick were not included...but the Americans are a different matter.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Richard,

Thanks, I'll look in the X Corps AQ file.

Regards

Tom

[Richard Anderson]

Richard,

Thanks, I'll look in the X Corps AQ file.

Regards

Tom

Sorry, I just realized I never followed up my somewhat enigmatic statement regarding the American casualties...must be old age.

Anyway, what I meant was that the U.S. Army did not in fact report "wounded-in-action" separately until 1 July 1944. Prior to that they used the Great War reporting, which was "wounded, sick, and gassed".

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Anyway, what I meant was that the U.S. Army did not in fact report "wounded-in-action" separately until 1 July 1944. Prior to that they used the Great War reporting, which was "wounded, sick, and gassed".

Refresh my memory. Did the US Army count wounded/sick separately if evacuated from the battalion from those treated and released back to their company?

[Richard Anderson]

Refresh my memory. Did the US Army count wounded/sick separately if evacuated from the battalion from those treated and released back to their company?

In the U.S. Army if a soldier was wounded, but not evacuated from the division clearing station or attached field hospital and instead was returned to duty, he was counted as "WIA CRA" wound-in-action carded for record only. He was entitled to a Purple Heart, but was normally not accounted for as WIA. Some units did account for them in divisional records as "LWIA" lightly wounded-in-action, but that was not universal. Note also the evacuation policy that affected how the system worked varied by theater. The ETO and MTO were similar, but the SWPA, CBI, and CPA all varied a bit, mostly with regards to how long a patient was held before evacuation.

BTW, the Germans had a similar category. Verwündete bei der Truppen Verblieben.

[Carl Schwamberger]

I recall in the US civil war there was a comparison distorting difference between Confederate & Federal methods for counting wounded.

& Was there a difference in how the USN/Marines counted wounded during WWII? Evacuation is not a ready option aboard ships.