viewtopic.php?f=54&t=220721&p=2026061&h ... e#p2026061
So if I’m understanding, its just the Abgänge (evacuated) figures that don’t include lightly wounded. Since the meldung I posted does explicitly mention “verluste und sonstige abgange” (losses and others evacuated) that seems to settle that, although it couldn’t be that much of a difference if the ratio is already pretty similar to the American figures when accounting for “tote” being more than just “Gefallen”, unless I missed something. Based on that, is it possible the abgange figures in this case are just referring to the other and sick, but that the wounded includes more than just evac? It would make more sense with the ratio.As someone who has studied German casualty reports for years I can say that those wounded that were treated at divisional facilities, or remained with the troops were reported, though the exact reporting practice in this aspect varied from army to army, and sometimes from period to period.
They were not included in the Abgänge figures, but these explicitly refer to "wounded and ill, who are transported off theatre and transferred to the replacement army".
Anyways the question relevant to me is: by and large, do the Heeresarzt 10-day Army reports just use Abgänge for their wounded numbers or the “true wounded” figure? I get that Michate is saying “it varies” but what was common. I’m a bit confused.
EDIT: according to Qvist on another thread, IVb was the only one recorded centrally…it is neccessarily from something based on reports through the IVb channel, because these were the only ones who were compiled into overall data at the central level. Looks like i’ve had a conversation entirely with myself. Wouldn't be the first time…