20 replies to this topic

[wiking]

Looking over casualty statistics it has occurred to me that the bloodiest campaigns of the war were not on the Western Front.  The worst were on the Eastern.
Up until 1916 the Carpathian Winter Campaign officially cost 1.8 million casualties to three armies and probably over 2 million when the white washing is done.
The Brusilov Offensive cost the Russians over 1 million men, perhaps as much as 1.5 million, the AHs almost 800,000 and the German 350,000 men.  So far this seems to have been the bloodiest campaign of the war.

Even if one were to included the 100 days, the final Allied offensives from August to November, which I hesitate to do, as the fighting was a series of campaigns, the total losses 'only' come to about 1.8 million men, which is probably even less than the Carpathian Campaign.

Am I wrong in my perception, or was the Eastern Front the source of the worst campaigns of the war?

[truthergw]

I don't think anyone could deny the horrific extent of the butcher's bill on the Eastern Front. If one adds in Serbian, Bulgarian and Turkish losses, the numbers are staggering. The reason for concentrating on the Western Front is simply that the main contenders, Germany, France and the British, saw that as the most important theatre of war. The strategic results of victory and defeat in Europe outweighed the effect of casualties.

[Heid the Ba']

Then we get into "bloodiest" in absolute terms or as a percentage of those involved?

[Piorun]

I believe that the Russians and Romanians lost about 40% of the total Allied casualties in death. Germany and her allies lost about 70% of that total in death. The total Russian casualties by percentage of the population were pretty much in line with the Allies but the overall numbers for the Eastern campaigns are higher. Whether this alone makes the Eastern Front "worse" than the Western or the other fronts, I'm not sure. Antony

[wiking]

Piorun, on 01 February 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

I believe that the Russians and Romanians lost about 40% of the total Allied casualties in death. Germany and her allies lost about 70% of that total in death. The total Russian casualties by percentage of the population were pretty much in line with the Allies but the overall numbers for the Eastern campaigns are higher. Whether this alone makes the Eastern Front "worse" than the Western or the other fronts, I'm not sure. Antony

As a percentage of population Russian losses were probably the lowest, as the US of any major combatant.  Raw numbers made it the worst suffering combatant, but overall it got off lightly when proportions are taken into account.  

When referring to the bloodiest campaign, I don't mean Front.  I mean the bloodiest, largest campaigns, in absolute numbers, were on the Eastern Front.  The Somme and Verdun pale in comparison to the fighting in the East because of the raw body count, especially when comparing any campaign in the West with the Brusilov and Carpathian campaigns.

[truthergw]

I repeat that I don't think anyone could dispute what you say. I am simply pointing out that casualties are not the most important factor in judging a campaign. Campaigns are fought to attain a certain objective and casualties are incurred while doing so. Numbers of casualties are only important insofar as they affect the outcome of the campaign.

[Piorun]

I agree with Tom but, just for the record, Nick Cornish (Russia and the First World War) stated in 2005 or 2006 that the Russian casualties were about 5% of the male population between ages 15 and 50. This is pretty much the same as Britain and her Allies. Russia in those days was not as heavily populated as the Soviet Union later. Antony

[Ladislav Krejča]

Hello interesant question, but think is impossible compare West and East front, because on both fronts was fought in different reasoms. But sure think that East front was most bloody is maybe correct, because Rusian must correct not enought of guns and others military stores with simply infantery attacs in which they had very great losses. Yes russians losses in period Brussilov ofensiv in 1916 was very very terrible on Russian thinking too. And russians think with losses. I think russians had great figure of dead from injuring than other armiers.

With regard Ladislav

[wiking]

Ladislav Krejča, on 12 February 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

Hello interesant question, but think is impossible compare West and East front, because on both fronts was fought in different reasoms. But sure think that East front was most bloody is maybe correct, because Rusian must correct not enought of guns and others military stores with simply infantery attacs in which they had very great losses. Yes russians losses in period Brussilov ofensiv in 1916 was very very terrible on Russian thinking too. And russians think with losses. I think russians had great figure of dead from injuring than other armiers.

With regard Ladislav

I was recently presented with some interesting information about Russian losses on the Eastern Front during 1916, including the Brusilov offensive.  I've copied a post from another thread about the subject:

Accorrding to Nelipovich losses from 22 May/4 June to 18/31 August 1916 were:
South-West Front - 116 425 killed, 672 379 wounded, 96 225 missing, total 885 029 men
West Front - 39 130 killed, 308 642 wounded, 27 009 missing, total 364 781 men
North Front - 6 434 killed, 82 836 wounded, 1 603 missing, total 90 873 men
Total (without Caucasus) - 161 989 killed, 1 063 857 wounded, 124 837 missing, 1 350 683 men in all.

From 22 May/4 June to 18/31 December 1916:
South-West Front - 202 766 + 1 090 891 + 152 677 = 1 446 334
West Front - 44 284 + 340 941 + 40 629 = 425 854
North Front - 9 692 + 102 612 + 1 712 = 114 025
Romanian Front - 6 022 + 28 446 + 19 580 = 54 048
Total (without Caucasus) 262 764 + 1 562 890 + 214 607 = 2 040 261

As it was already mentioned, these numbers are caclulated from daily reports of fronts to Stavka (RGVIA archive in Moscow). The original article (in Russian):
http://www.august-19...elipovich2.html

So this goes to show that the Russians took about 1.5 million losses from about June 1916 to January 1917, during the Brusilov offensive.  The KIA to WIA total is probably a bit off given Russian medical service failings, so a number of WIAs probably died later and the majority of the MIAs were really KIAs as the Russians were on the offensive most of this period and I don't recall the AHs and Germans taking many PoWs during the offensive.  Still titanic losses for just 7 months and just one Front of several in the war.

[PJA]

The term "bloody" is applied to casualty statistics, without the commentators checking how many of those casualties actually shed their blood.

For example, huge losses were sustained by the Austro-Hungarian armies in the Carpathians, and we hear, for example, of 800,000 "casualties" being suffered in a few months in 1915.

Closer inspection reveals that many - indeed, most - of these men were evacuated sick or frostbitten.

Then there were millions of prisoners. They were, of course, casualties...but they did not shed their blood, unless they were wounded when taken prisoner.

We need to focus carefully here on how many men were actually killed or wounded in battle before we try to ascertain how bloody the Eastern Front actually was in comparison with the West.

On no account imagine that I'm trying to downplay the scale of the killing....I just want a little discernment to be applied to figures for wastage before we assume that they imply battlefield slaughter.


Edit :  wiking, sorry ! I failed to thank you for posting those figures.  They are indeed shocking.  I will try and collate some data from the Western Front for comparison.
I think it is important to remember that the Russian Front losses tended to be spread over a huge geographical area, whereas the battles in France and Belgium were fought in very confined sectors, and remained static at maximum intensity for a long time.  The ratio of dead to area was probably significantly higher on the Western front, particularly in the most notorious sectors, and this made those battles uniquely gruesome.



Phil (PJA)

[PJA]

Wiking,

Total German casualties on the Eastern Front for June to December 1916 inclusive :

35,262  Killed;  228,014 Wounded; 40,956 Missing; Total : 304,232

For the Western Front in the same period :

101,239 Killed; 589,351 Wounded; 136,955 Missing; Total : 827,545

These are from the sanitatsbericht tabulations.

We need to get some idea of Austro Hungarian casualties on the Russian Front, and Franco- British on the Western Front, in order to guage the relative bloodiness.

On the Western Front, the British armies from June to December inclusive, 1916, reported :

95,195 Killed; 420,180 Wounded; 37,863 Missing; Total : 553,238

I do not have any such precise figures for the French, but suspect that they would have returned about 465,000 casualties in this period on the Western Front.

1.85 million Allied and German casualties in seven months on the Western Front, then.....and the Russians alone reported  more than two million in that time.

A very large part of those Western Front losses were incurred in tiny areas, though, whereas Russian losses were dispersed over many hundreds of miles.  All the same, there were sectors on the Russian front where the same hideous compressions occurred.  I remember reading about the "Kowel Massacres" in the summer of 1916, when Russian soldoers attacked again and again through forests and marshes that were crammed with decomposing bodies. Ghastly !

An edit here, wiking, added a full day later, after some reflection .....that number of 2.040,000 casualties in seven months is phenomenal ,not only in absolute terms, but also in relative ones. Right from the start of the war, Russian armies suffered huge casualties : Tannenberg, Masurian lakes, Lemberg, Lodz, Carpathians, Gorlice Tarnow, Lake Naroch.  Yet nearly thirty per cent of total reported casualties occurred in less than twenty per cent of the time that Russian soldiers were fighting. This would not surprise me if the 1916 battles were conspicuously more prolific than, say, the desperate battles of 1915....but the cost of the earlier battles was also enormous. I find it remarkable that so much of Russia's sacrifice was attributed to such a short time span.  That link you posted might give me clues as to the other periods of the war, but I'm scared of the Russian text.  Is there a total for the whole war ?

Phil (PJA)

[marsyao]

hi, PJA, do you have information about the  Austro Hungarian and Romanian casualties in the last half of the 1916?

[wiking]

PJA, on 18 February 2011 - 06:56 PM, said:

Wiking,

Total German casualties on the Eastern Front for June to December 1916 inclusive :

35,262  Killed;  228,014 Wounded; 40,956 Missing; Total : 304,232

For the Western Front in the same period :

101,239 Killed; 589,351 Wounded; 136,955 Missing; Total : 827,545

These are from the sanitatsbericht tabulations.

We need to get some idea of Austro Hungarian casualties on the Russian Front, and Franco- British on the Western Front, in order to guage the relative bloodiness.

On the Western Front, the British armies from June to December inclusive, 1916, reported :

95,195 Killed; 420,180 Wounded; 37,863 Missing; Total : 553,238

I do not have any such precise figures for the French, but suspect that they would have returned about 465,000 casualties in this period on the Western Front.

1.85 million Allied and German casualties in seven months on the Western Front, then.....and the Russians alone reported  more than two million in that time.

A very large part of those Western Front losses were incurred in tiny areas, though, whereas Russian losses were dispersed over many hundreds of miles.  All the same, there were sectors on the Russian front where the same hideous compressions occurred.  I remember reading about the "Kowel Massacres" in the summer of 1916, when Russian soldoers attacked again and again through forests and marshes that were crammed with decomposing bodies. Ghastly !

An edit here, wiking, added a full day later, after some reflection .....that number of 2.040,000 casualties in seven months is phenomenal ,not only in absolute terms, but also in relative ones. Right from the start of the war, Russian armies suffered huge casualties : Tannenberg, Masurian lakes, Lemberg, Lodz, Carpathians, Gorlice Tarnow, Lake Naroch.  Yet nearly thirty per cent of total reported casualties occurred in less than twenty per cent of the time that Russian soldiers were fighting. This would not surprise me if the 1916 battles were conspicuously more prolific than, say, the desperate battles of 1915....but the cost of the earlier battles was also enormous. I find it remarkable that so much of Russia's sacrifice was attributed to such a short time span.  That link you posted might give me clues as to the other periods of the war, but I'm scared of the Russian text.  Is there a total for the whole war ?

Phil (PJA)

That is the point that I'm trying to make, not that the Eastern Front was bloodier in terms of total losses, as the Western Front obviously went on for a longer period of time, but the total casualties for a number of campaigns was higher than anything in the west.  Obviously the Eastern Front was far larger and more expansive, but as you mention about the Kowel massacre, which included the Russian Guards, the best soldiers in the army, there were moments of terrible slaughter that rival the Somme and Passchendaele.  
http://forum.axishis...olovin#p1467758
As for Russian losses over all, there are a number of problems in their reporting, which means that overall the Russians probably suffered even more than we are aware of because the relatively unprepared administration at STAVKA was just not capable of handling the reporting with such large numbers of men, especially when casualties took their toll.  Especially in 1914-1915 the system broke down and large numbers of losses were not even recorded.  Instead guesstimates were made.  Even today, because of the collapse of government and the Civil War blending with the Great War, losses for the Russians can only be guesstimated and have been at more than 2 million dead, nearly 4 million wounded, nearly 3.5 million PoWs and at least 1.5 million civilians dead (many if not most as a consequence of the scorched earth policy and the abuses by the cossaks and soldiers of refugees-rape, murder, theft, assault, etc).  

As a quick note about the losses during the Carpathian campaign, many, if not most of the frostbite casualties involved amputations and even if not psychiatric losses that saw nearly 500,000 unable to return to the front.  The Russians suffered nearly 1 million losses themselves during this period in the Carpathians, so it was truly terrible even if it did not involve enemy action.

[PJA]

[quote name='wiking' timestamp='1298152865' post='1551769']
nearly 3.5 million PoWs

No, surely not ?

That's the figure for missing, which included many dead and wounded, as well as prisoners.

Roughly two and a half million Russian prisoners were claimed by the Central Powers.

By the end of 1916, I think that we can reasonably assume that 1,500, 000 Russian soldiers had been killed in battle or died from wounds. By that time, on the Western Front, the Allied total of deaths in action had reached about 1,100,000.

Phil (PJA)

[PJA]

A brief summary of official statistics for the war on the Russian Front :

Russia - probably understated : 7,036,087 casualties . Only about 9% (626,440) confirmed as killed in action, but over 50% ( 3,638,271) reported missing.

General Golovin, who had first hand experience, estimated 1,300,000 killed in action and 350,000 died from wounds.

Austro - Hungary ( almost certainly incomplete) - 311,297 killed;  1,180, 869 wounded; 1,246,760 missing. Total : 2,738,926

Germany : 173,840 confirmed killed in action; 1,151,153 wounded ; 143,818 missing. Total 1,468,811

No precise details of Romanian casualties, nor those suffered by Turks and Bulgarians.

The total of Germans and Austro Hungarian killed and died from wounds probably exceeded one million, and equated to about two thirds of the Russian total.

The Germans suffered the great bulk of their battle casualties on the Western Front : probably more than three quarters of their total  losses were sustained in France and Belgium.

There were some months, however, when they suffered more casualties fighting the Russians than they did against the Franco- British armies, and it's significant that, in proportion to their average strength, their loss in killed on the Eastern Front was higher during the first two years of the war.

Between August 1st 1914 and July 31st 1915, the Germans returned  10.51% of their average troop strength on the Russian Front as confirmed killed in action.  The corresponding figure for the Western Front was 8.49%. For the year August 1915 to July 1916, the figure for the Russian Front was 4.26%; and for the Western Front it was 4.22%.


The bloodiness and intensity of the first year of fighting is very apparent in those statistcs. This was especially evident in the reports of the Austro -Hungarians, who returned nearly 60% of their total battle casualties on the Eastern Front in the first twelve months.

That is why I am taken back at the very high proportion of the Russian casualties that were attributed to 1916 : ironically, the year of Russia'a greatest battlefield success.

That official Russian tabulation that I cited gave a breakdown of the casualties in time periods, and just under half the seven million casualties were incurred by the end of 1915.  The fighting of 1916 cost 2.4 million casualties  Forgive me for "banging on" about this, but I am rather fixated on what appears anomalous.  The Germans returned 813,000 casualties on the Russian Front up until December 31st 1915. The Austro Hungarian figure was much greater - well over double the German, with more than 1.6 million already tabulated by the end of July 1915. And these, it should be noted, are battle casualties only and do not include sick or frostbitten troops.  It would appear that by the end of 1915, after the disasters of East Prussia in 1914 and the horrific pounding of Gorlice Tarnow and the loss of much of Poland,  the Russians had inflicted casualties that were pretty comparable with their own.  Yes, I know that they had really knocked the Austrians about at Lemberg and in the Carpathians.
Now, in 1916, when the Austro Hungarian Front was blown apart and several hundred thousand prisoners taken by the Russians, it appears that the Russians suffered at least double the losses they inflicted.

How can this be reconciled, or am I tilting at windmills here ?




Phil (PJA)

[wiking]

PJA, on 20 February 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

A brief summary of official statistics for the war on the Russian Front :

Russia - probably understated : 7,036,087 casualties . Only about 9% (626,440) confirmed as killed in action, but over 50% ( 3,638,271) reported missing.

General Golovin, who had first hand experience, estimated 1,300,000 killed in action and 350,000 died from wounds.

Austro - Hungary ( almost certainly incomplete) - 311,297 killed;  1,180, 869 wounded; 1,246,760 missing. Total : 2,738,926

Germany : 173,840 confirmed killed in action; 1,151,153 wounded ; 143,818 missing. Total 1,468,811

No precise details of Romanian casualties, nor those suffered by Turks and Bulgarians.

The total of Germans and Austro Hungarian killed and died from wounds probably exceeded one million, and equated to about two thirds of the Russian total.

The Germans suffered the great bulk of their battle casualties on the Western Front : probably more than three quarters of their total  losses were sustained in France and Belgium.

There were some months, however, when they suffered more casualties fighting the Russians than they did against the Franco- British armies, and it's significant that, in proportion to their average strength, their loss in killed on the Eastern Front was higher during the first two years of the war.

Between August 1st 1914 and July 31st 1915, the Germans returned  10.51% of their average troop strength on the Russian Front as confirmed killed in action.  The corresponding figure for the Western Front was 8.49%. For the year August 1915 to July 1916, the figure for the Russian Front was 4.26%; and for the Western Front it was 4.22%.


The bloodiness and intensity of the first year of fighting is very apparent in those statistcs. This was especially evident in the reports of the Austro -Hungarians, who returned nearly 60% of their total battle casualties on the Eastern Front in the first twelve months.

That is why I am taken back at the very high proportion of the Russian casualties that were attributed to 1916 : ironically, the year of Russia'a greatest battlefield success.

That official Russian tabulation that I cited gave a breakdown of the casualties in time periods, and just under half the seven million casualties were incurred by the end of 1915.  The fighting of 1916 cost 2.4 million casualties  Forgive me for "banging on" about this, but I am rather fixated on what appears anomalous.  The Germans returned 813,000 casualties on the Russian Front up until December 31st 1915. The Austro Hungarian figure was much greater - well over double the German, with more than 1.6 million already tabulated by the end of July 1915. And these, it should be noted, are battle casualties only and do not include sick or frostbitten troops.  It would appear that by the end of 1915, after the disasters of East Prussia in 1914 and the horrific pounding of Gorlice Tarnow and the loss of much of Poland,  the Russians had inflicted casualties that were pretty comparable with their own.  Yes, I know that they had really knocked the Austrians about at Lemberg and in the Carpathians.
Now, in 1916, when the Austro Hungarian Front was blown apart and several hundred thousand prisoners taken by the Russians, it appears that the Russians suffered at least double the losses they inflicted.

How can this be reconciled, or am I tilting at windmills here ?




Phil (PJA)

http://en.wikipedia....#endnote_Russia
Russian Empire Included in total are 1,451,000 killed or missing in action and died of wounds.[2]  The estimate of the 1,811,000 total Russian military and 1,500,00 civilian deaths was made by the Soviet demographer Boris Urlanis.6,46-57. Other estimates of Russian casualties are as follows: By UK War Office in 1922: Killed 1,700,00011,353-By the US War Dept in 1924 1,700,000 killed and died 25  A 2001 study by the Russian military historian G.F. Krivosheev provided these revised figures- Killed in action 1,200,000; missing in action 439,369; died of wounds 240,000, gassed 11,000., died from disease 155,000, POW deaths 190,000, deaths due to accidents and other causes.19,000. Total war dead 2,254,369. Wounded 3,749,000. POW 3,342,900. 34
Civilian deaths from 1914–1917 exceeded the prewar level by 1,500,000 due to famine and disease and military operations.6,268. The following estimate of civilian deaths on the eastern front during World War I was made by a Russian journalist in a 2004 handbook of human losses in the 20th century. Total civilian deaths on the territory of the former Soviet Union and Poland were estimated at 1,440,000, including 460,000 due to military operations.[3]

Krivosheev's numbers seem to be the most likely based on the link of a discussion I posted in my last post.  The prisoner totals probably also included the Caucasian front and include prisoners taken on the Eastern Front into 1918 when the Russian Front basically collapsed and the Central Powers advanced through most of Western Russia.  During hostilities up through 1917 the 2.5 million number makes sense for the Eastern Front, while these numbers are total Russian losses.  I don't know what Russia's losses were in Persia and the Caucasus to deduct from these estimates.

As to the Brusilov losses, remember too that the Russians were slaughtered up north during the Lake Naroch offensive, with 5:1 losses favoring the Germans there.  During the Brusilov offensive the Russians advanced quickly and completely through AH positions, but not all fell as quickly as commonly thought.  Often the AHs fought well in their fortified belts, but it was really the German and later AH counter attacks with troops brought in from Italy that made the big difference.  The major reason for the success of the Brusilov offensive initially was that the AHs drew off most of their heavy artillery and best divisions for use against Italy.  When the Russians attacked they found the AHs with incomplete defensive positions and many new replacements with little if any combat experience.  Where these units predominated corresponds with the large break-ins by Russian troops.  
I discuss this here a bit:
http://1914-1918.inv...c=135108&st=100

Basically the Russians penetrated into open country and found that their supply lines broke down.  At that point all the AH heavy artillery and quality divisions, along with German units and their commanders, who now were given a free hand to run the battle, arrived and counterattacked.  That should have been the end of the Russian advance, but instead STAVKA sent more troops and forced them to attack prepared positions, which caused things like the slaughter around Kowno.  This makes sense to me, because the AHs and Germans could concentrate thanks to falling back on their own supply lines while the Russians' had already reached its limit and collapsed.  Even after that happened the STAVKA insisted on thrusting more men into the situation, meaning already broken lines of supply ceased to function.

[PJA]

Thanks for the reply, wiking.

Yes, the fiasco at Lake Naroch had occurred to me as symptomatic of disporoportionatley heavy Russian losses : as you imply, about 110,000 Russian versus 20,000 German.  

Taking a very generalised view of the ratios, it's apparent that up until the end of 1915 the hard pressed Russians succeeded in inflicting about four casualties for every five they suffered.  You might have thought the ratio would have been worse for the Russians, wouldn't you ?

Brusilov is hailed as one of the greatest commanders of the war.  Forgive my failure to identify sources, but I hope you'll agree with me that his method was supposedly diligent, his command style enlightened, and his approach to battle somewhat radical.
In this, I have read, lay the secrets of his success. But look at those casualties !  More emphatically, look at the ratio....the exchange rate between the Russians and the soldiers of the Central Powers, especially in killed.  Of course, direct frontal assault tends to be more expensive in life and blood than positional defence, especially in that war.  That said, the disparity in the reported numbers of killed is almost outrageous : not two or even three to one, but significantly more.  This seems like prodigality, and does not square up with the image of Brusilov.  You are right to emphasise how persistent attacks against stiffening resistance, and fierce counter attacks, began to work against the Russians, and I like your reminder that some of those AH units made a better account of themselves than is generally acknowledged.  There is also, of course, the important fact that the loss in killed reported by the Austro Hungarian and, perhaps, the Germans was significantly under reported : we might expect that armies in retreat or rout fail to count their dead properly. But then the Russians also appear to have understated their numbers of dead, particularly when we allow for the missing and the died from wounds.

I would like to scrutinise those statistics in that wonderful Russian article you posted, and come back with some more comments.

Phil (PJA)

[PJA]

Much to my dismay, my google transaltor covered the entire script of that article, with the exception of the statistical tables !

This has left me having to try and guess what the figures say, although your earlier posts about Russian losses have clarified this, wiking.

My impression, for what it's worth, is that the overall immensity of those Russian casualties in the 1916 are unrivalled in the war.
That said, I think there are one or two episodes in the warfare on the Western Front that might have surpassed anything if we take things in isolation.


The slaughter of Frenchmen in the battles of August 1914 was phenomenal, especially on August 22nd, when it is claimed that 27,000 French troops died.

Then there was the terrible British experience of July 1st 1916, with perhaps 21,000 deaths on a fifteen mile frontage.

The rate of German casualties in the fighting of March and April 1918  was also transcendental.

Just focusing on those posted as killed in action - always a small percentage of the overall casualty toll, and always significantly understating the true number of deaths - I note that in March and April 1918, 67,647 German soldiers were posted as killed in action on the Western Front ( 476,339 total battle casualties), and this, it should be noted, when the month of March was quiet until the 21st.  This equates to an average of over ten thousand German battle casualties per day  for six weeks, a rate at least the equal of those overall Russian losses ( excluding Caucasus) for the period June 4th to December 31st 1916.  The Russian killed in action (262,764) average 1,245 per day : between March 21st and April 30th 1918, German losses in France and Belgium probably averaged nearly 1,600 confirmed killed in action every day.

I'm playing with figures a bit here, and no doubt we could focus on individual time periods in the Brusilov battles that were vastly bloodier than the average totals suggest.

More to come, I hope.

Phil (PJA)

[marsyao]

"- I note that in March and April 1918, 67,647 German soldiers were  posted as killed in action on the Western Front ( 476,339 total battle  casualties),"

This means the ratio of the KIA:WIA were nearly 1:7, did the German KIA figures also included DOW?

[PJA]

marsyao, on 21 February 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:

"- I note that in March and April 1918, 67,647 German soldiers were  posted as killed in action on the Western Front ( 476,339 total battle  casualties),"

This means the ratio of the KIA:WIA were nearly 1:7, did the German KIA figures also included DOW?

No, most definitely not.  These killed were confimed KIA only.  Moreover, the 476,339 casualties included 37,414 missing; of that number, a significant proportion - maybe even the majority - were killed.  There were 371,278 wounded, and we can assume that somewhere between twenty and thirty thousand of these would have died from their wounds. Overall, then , I believe we have to countenance a total German battle fatality count in the order of 110,000 to 120,000 : that's my supposition.  The implications for that Russian KIA figure, adjusted similarly, are unimaginable.

Incidentally, I have just revisited wiking's tabulation of Brusilov Offensive casualties, and I see that, just for the SW Front, between  June 4th and August 31st 1916, Russian KIA were returned as 116,425. and for all fronts, excluding Caucasus, 161,989....that's 1,820 KIA every day !  If we apply the same adjustment for died of wounds, and missing who were actually dead. we can contemplate an average of 3,000 or more per day, for 89 days.  Imagine it : well in excess of a quarter of a million dead in less than three months.
Actually, I can't imagine it.


edit : Monstrous though that figure is, I still believe it was closely rivalled by the loss suffered by France in the first three months of fighting in 1914 ; and the French population was less than a quarter of that of Russia. OTOH, the French loss was incurred in the opening convulsion of the war, when it was to be expected that there was to be an all out slaughter : the Russian Brusliov casualties came after virtually two years of war, on top of the heavy losses of 1914 and 1915.
Phil (PJA)

[SMSKaiser]

wiking, on 01 February 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

Looking over casualty statistics it has occurred to me that the bloodiest campaigns of the war were not on the Western Front.  The worst were on the Eastern.
Up until 1916 the Carpathian Winter Campaign officially cost 1.8 million casualties to three armies and probably over 2 million when the white washing is done.
The Brusilov Offensive cost the Russians over 1 million men, perhaps as much as 1.5 million, the AHs almost 800,000 and the German 350,000 men.  So far this seems to have been the bloodiest campaign of the war.

Even if one were to included the 100 days, the final Allied offensives from August to November, which I hesitate to do, as the fighting was a series of campaigns, the total losses 'only' come to about 1.8 million men, which is probably even less than the Carpathian Campaign.

Am I wrong in my perception, or was the Eastern Front the source of the worst campaigns of the war?

Austro-Hungarian casualties almost alsways inlude sick men, out of the total 8,4 mio casualties for the whole war on all fronts, 3,7 mio were reported as sick.

My general understanding was that Russian casualties do NOT include sick men?

Thus, for comparing Russian with Austrian casualties we should not count the "sick", and we arrive at not more than half a million men fpr the Brusilov offensive.

Austrian total for the Eastern front was:

1914: 814,590 men
1915 (estimate): 1,538,102 men
1916 (estimate): 746,364 men
1917: 147,712 men
1918: 12,618 men
______________________________
total: 3,259,386

One can see that if you do not take into account those reported as sick, Austrian casualties for the Eastern front were not as high as most literature suggests.