WW1 & WW2 Casualties (1 Viewer)

[Isandlwana]

Because I am somewhat of a Philistine when it comes to the Second World War, I have sometimes wondered why it was that our dead in The Great War outnumbered those inflicted upon our nation during WW2. Because much of WW1was static, was it merely the mobility of the later war that ensured a lesser, yet still appalling, death toll? The advancement in medicine between conflicts I'm sure played some part but to me this still doesn't fully explain the disparity.

Obviously I'm aware that it was not only the UK that saw greater numbers perish in The Great War, the men & women of France, Italy, Canada & Australia (to name a few) suffered similar fates, so I'm asking the WW2 buffs to educate me on this one.

 

[jazzeum]

Are you asking about Britain or generally?

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Because I am somewhat of a Philistine when it comes to the Second World War, I have sometimes wondered why it was that our dead in The Great War outnumbered those inflicted upon our nation during WW2. Because much of WW1was static, was it merely the mobility of the later war that ensured a lesser, yet still appalling, death toll? The advancement in medicine between conflicts I'm sure played some part but to me this still doesn't fully explain the disparity.

Obviously I'm aware that it was not only the UK that saw greater numbers perish in The Great War, the men & women of France, Italy, Canada & Australia (to name a few) suffered similar fates, so I'm asking the WW2 buffs to educate me on this one.

50+ million died as a result of WWII to include both military and civilian casualties.The vast improvement of weapons since WWI and more of these high tech weapons contributed to this massive world wide death toll.

 

[TomB]

Because I am somewhat of a Philistine when it comes to the Second World War, I have sometimes wondered why it was that our dead in The Great War outnumbered those inflicted upon our nation during WW2. Because much of WW1was static, was it merely the mobility of the later war that ensured a lesser, yet still appalling, death toll? The advancement in medicine between conflicts I'm sure played some part but to me this still doesn't fully explain the disparity.

Obviously I'm aware that it was not only the UK that saw greater numbers perish in The Great War, the men & women of France, Italy, Canada & Australia (to name a few) suffered similar fates, so I'm asking the WW2 buffs to educate me on this one.

The suicidal mass attacks against massive machine gun fire and arty shelling would have a lot to do with the heavy rate of KIA....WW!! had better weapons of "Mass Destruction" but very few of the .scene less tactic of mass attacks..no-one seemed to have learned from the ACW and the the horror of the KIA (Killed in Action) of Picketts charge at Gettysburg (I am not too clued up on the ACW but that was slaughter )....my opinion.....TomB

 

[Isandlwana]

Are you asking about Britain or generally?

Moreso Britain, yes but the same can be asked about those other countries mentioned. However, when you look at the numbers, the US lost nearly 120,000 in little over a year during WW1. Crudely speaking their casualties were, pro rata, greater in WW1.

 

[jazzeum]

In my opinion, the difference was that in WW I the tactics between the combatants were similar, resulting in the high casualties that we saw. Basically, it as you summarized it. In WW II in the early stages, the British Army were fighting the war as if it was WW I. The Germans, on the other hand, were not. The war in Europe ended before there could be enormous casualties. Later on, the only point where it seemed the war might develop into a WW I type of stalemate was between the Normandy landings and the Normandy breakout. Also, the British high command was also concerned about needlessly wasting men's lives, probably due to what happened in WW I, when the cream of British society was destroyed.

Overall WW II was more destructive as it was a total war but that wasn't what you asked.

 

[Poppo]

In WW1 Uk, US, Canada,Australia, Italy, France had much more casualties than in WW2, BUT Germany and Russia had much enormous casualties in WW2 than in WW1.(and this shows where the hugest battles were fought).

In general WW2 was much more destructive than WW1 and involved much, much more civil casualties(carpet bombings,sovietic and nazi concentrations camps,systematic reprisals) than WW1. US, UK, Italy etc. lost more in WW1 because of the crazy tactics of their generals not caring much for the human life ( especially french and italian).

While Germany and Russia lost much more in WW2 beacuse they made an attempt to mutual annihilation.

 

[Mitch]

I would think its the design and use of technologically innovative (for the time) weapons. Machine guns, artillery, gas and, lets not forget disease which, also played a part in the death toll. Poor medical care also meant many who possibly survived similar wounds in WWII died in WWI.

I would think the tactics also played a part in the numbers (not wanting to start the whole who is to blame!!) German deaths were less when using the stormtroopers on the eastern front than what was seen as conventional tactics on the western front. so, many points made the death toll seem high.

Fluid actions like the Blitzkrieg not only mean faster victories but, minimise casualties on the attacking and, arguably on the defenders side. whenever you get two sides that entrench themselves into positions casualties go up. Brad mentioned Normandy but, look at Anzio, Monte Cassino or a myriad of other battles in WWII where the dug in combatants casualties rose and, mirrored WWI to point.
Mitch

 

[TomB]

I would think its the design and use of technologically innovative (for the time) weapons. Machine guns, artillery, gas and, lets not forget disease which, also played a part in the death toll. Poor medical care also meant many who possibly survived similar wounds in WWII died in WWI.

I would think the tactics also played a part in the numbers (not wanting to start the whole who is to blame!!) German deaths were less when using the stormtroopers on the eastern front than what was seen as conventional tactics on the western front. so, many points made the death toll seem high.

Fluid actions like the Blitzkrieg not only mean faster victories but, minimise casualties on the attacking and, arguably on the defenders side. whenever you get two sides that entrench themselves into positions casualties go up. Brad mentioned Normandy but, look at Anzio, Monte Cassino or a myriad of other battles in WWII where the dug in combatants casualties rose and, mirrored WWI to point.
Mitch

Hate to agree with you...but...your are right on better medical care...MASH units..evac of wounded by C47's etc saved thousands of lives in WW11...Penicillin..was also a big factor ....also...these days with body Armour...heli med evac ...and expert medical attention .....your chance's of getting home again are %100 better than the poor buggers had in WW1.......TomB

 

[Poppo]

Hate to agree with you...but...your are right on better medical care...MASH units..evac of wounded by C47's etc saved thousands of lives in WW11...Penicillin..was also a big factor ....also...these days with body Armour...heli med evac ...and expert medical attention .....your chance's of getting home again are %100 better than the poor buggers had in WW1.......TomB

Mitch, TomB,


The allies had much less casualties in WW2, because they were rich and made the war of MATERIALS ( total airforce control of the skies, all kind of supplies, tanks, and so on). So they didn' t need to expose so much their men as they did in WW1.

Also germans had a modern medicine, but WW2 weapons were much highly destructive....And they lost millions men...

 

[Mitch]

not sure if rich or, economically, in terms of production really saved lives. You still have to put men on the ground and, even with air power (I don't use superiority) the germans were able to hold the allies and cause severe casualties to all the allied forces in the west. Look at how long D-day was and the missed objectives because of the fighting strength of the German in the field.
Mitch

Mitch, TomB,


The allies had much less casualties in WW2, because they were rich and made the war of MATERIALS ( total airforce control of the skies, all kind of supplies, tanks, and so on). So they didn' t need to expose so much their men as they did in WW1.

Also germans had a modern medicine, but WW2 weapons were much highly destructive....And they lost millions men...

 

[larso]

A variety of studies have shown, that at its most intense, WW2 combat was as, if not more dangerous than WW1. I think that the key reason Britain's casualties were hundreds of thousands less was that it wasn't in constant direct contact with its enemies. I recall from a TV show that 'wastage' on the Western Front was 2,000 men a day. For a great deal of WW2 Britain was able to avoid that. If it had been in Normandy style combat without a break, the casualty rate would've been unsustainable. As it was, Normandy was the highpoint of the 2nd Army and it was disbanding divisions in the months after.

 

[Mitch]

A lot of these comparison studies were poor though in terms of methodology. Its very difficult IMO in fact quite impossible to compare the two wars as the differences or variables are so different. everything from the moral character of the combatants the political and economic times, military doctrine and weaponry was very different so, the proverbial pinch of salt is advised when looking at these findings. Few actually addressed the entirety which, is why so many are weak in evidence as to what was actually what.
Mitch

 

[larso]

The ones I'm thinking of were based on battalion casualty rates. The 'Sharp End' by Ellis has many examples. Yes there are factors that are different, nominal battalion strengths for starters but his case at least was quite well made.