FIGURES COMPARED

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 165, 10 April 1944, Page 6

FIGURES COMPARED

Imperial Casualties In Two Wars MODERN OPERATIONS LESS COSTLY The total casualties of the armed forces of the British Commonwealth in the first four years of Great War II are stated to total 667,159. Compared with Great War I these figures are very moderate. For example, the attack on Verdun cost the Germans 500,000 men and the defenders a similar number. It was not unusual in Great AV ar I for each side to suffer casualties of over 100,000 in comparatively short battles. At Baschendaele the Imperial losses amounted to nearly 10S,000. , . , The casualties to New Zealand troops also have been proportionately moderate in this war compared with Great War 1 According to an olheial statement laid on the table of the House of Commons in 1021, the New Zealand casualties in that war totalled nearly 5ii .000, as compared with just under Jb.OOO lor the first four years of Great nar IL One may well ask how comes it that tins war, the worst in all history, has at least the virtue that casualties are perhaps relatively lower, taking into account the difference in the size and duration of the battles fought by Imperial troops. It is probably true to say that. Great War I was an abnormal war. It came at a time when modern invention had built up firepower, but modern ingenuity had not then devised means to protect flesh and blood from that firepower. The machinegun had reached a stage ot perfection which drove the troops into trenches. For several years the troops remained below ground while experts tried to devise new tactics to break the deadlock. Neither side succeeded. There was no choice but to attack through the hail of machinegun and artillery tire singularly unprotected. The result was the massed slaughter of the Somme, Vimv, Verdun, Baschendaele, and other fields of battle. Troops advanced and were mowed down. The law of averages combined with the artillery probability factor to produce ft casualty roll greater - than ever before. The application of military tactics suited to more primitive weapons, the vast armies that improved transport could put into a battle, combined with rapid fire artillery pieces, all took their toll. Military Forecasts.

It is true that before 1914 few, if any military experts appreciated sufficiently the effect that the machinegun would produce. In 1908 a German general named Blume made a semi-official estimate as regards the casualties to be expected in a war similar to that of Great War I. His estimate worked out at 1,000,000 annually. In contrast, an American expert in 1939 estimated that the casualties in Great War II would amount to 150 daily per 1000 men involved. , In this war the machinegun' is still with ns. Artillery has been speeded up till some guns can fire 120 rounds a minute. The bomb has been improved, and the terror from the air lias reached proportions never contemplated in Great War I. On the other hand, the continuous line method of fighting has given way 'to strongpoint systems, similar to the castles of knights of old. The front line has gained in operational depth. The opposing forces have become more scattered and more difficult to.hit.

Bombing from aeroplanes has not proved to be the deadly thing it was once thought. Troops learned quickly how to dodge bombs. Indeed, the limitations of aitoffensives unsupported by other arms is becoming more and more impressed on observers watching the conduct of the war. Armies can still retreat without becoming utterly routed despite air attack.

Better protection is now afforded, specially- to mechanized troops. The tin hat has expanded into the tank. The hole in the ground has tended to develop into special bulletresisting steel cupolas. Furthermore,, the number of troops involved in the west have been very much reduced. Before Dunkirk Lord Gort had 300,000 nonmechanized troops- under his command. The casualties were high' compared with the totals for the present war. He was fighting an enemy with Great War II outlook. His own force was capable of winning Great War 1 in almost no time. Had’ he had six armoured divisions instead—that is. 00,000 troops—the probabilities arg the Germans would nave been defeated. The casualties, moreover, would have been lower.

No comprehensive figures have been given for the fighting in Htissia. During the German advance casualties were claimed by the Germans (o be moderate. During the German retirement relatively larger numbers Of troops were engaged than ever occurred in Great War I. Moreover, file Uussiaiis as well as Ihe Germans were perhaps prepared to sacrifice' troops, for quick results. For (bat reason it. is probable that the tola! relative casualties will prove to be high, but not so high as they would have been for a similar operation in Great War I. Non-Combatant Casualties.

The figure given for Ihe Imperial casualties for the first four years of this war refer only to casualties in the armed forces. The present war differs from the last in one major respect. The air •arm has introduced a far higher casualty list among what were previously considered non-combatants —the people in the factories and the homes. The casualty rate among this class has risen steeply, many hundreds pf times. Moreover, in Great War I the proportion was set at 40 non-combatants to 00 combatants. Today it is nearly the other way round, 60 non-combatants to 40 combatants. Moreover, it takes at least six civil workers, including factory workers, to maintain one soldier in (he field. An army of 4,000,000 now requires 24,000,000 civilians to maintain it. It. is therefore a fact that the reduced casualty rate among soldiers has been reflected in a far higher casualty rate among non-combatants. It would seem that a fair assessment of casualties in Great War 11. cannot be made unless this factor is taken into consideration.— E.A.A.