WWII - Casualty rates in US infantry units

[Ken Estes]

Not a particularly good metric.  Near the end of the war, Bronze Stars were administratively ordered for every man who had a Combat Infantry Badge not sure how you would break this out.  Silver Stars might be a better comparison.

176336[/snapback]

Richard, this is not likely, for instance the lists for 97th ID for CIB are regimental orders, pretty much listing the members of each company in action in Apr45.

[Richard Lindquist]

Richard, this is not likely, for instance the lists for 97th ID for CIB are regimental orders, pretty much listing the members of each company in action in Apr45.

176632[/snapback]

 

Ken, at the end of the war, each recipient of the CIB was also given a Bronze Star. This was done administratively and is how my father got his Bronze Star. Yes, that meant that everyone in an infantry regiment got a Bronze Star.

[Richard Lindquist]

I call going into the line until taken out days in combat.  This would match what they counted in the ETO.  I really had to dig to get real numbers as they aren't easy to come by.  Each division has 3 regiments of course.  In the case of NG units in the Pacific you pretty much have to go to the regimental histories and work from them.  The CMH information, as I mentioned above, is twisted.

176348[/snapback]

 

O.K.

 

162nd Infantry Regiment of the 41st Division:

 

New Guinea (first tour): 8 Feb 43 to 28 Sep 43 (return to Oz)--232 days

 

New Guinea (second tour): 23 Mar 44 to 20 Aug 44 (Biak secured)--150 days

 

Mindoro and Mindanao P.I.: 9 Feb 45 to 30 Jun 45 (Mindanao secured)--141 days

 

Total: 523 days

 

163rd and 182nd Infantry Regiments of the 41st had fewer days.

 

Division casualties for WWII: 743 KIA, 217 DOW, 3,504 WIA

 

None of the Pacific divisions suffered casualties on the scale of the European divisions that landed in France during the summer of 44.

[Ken Estes]

Ken, at the end of the war, each recipient of the CIB was also given a Bronze Star.  This was done administratively and is how my father got his Bronze Star.  Yes, that meant that everyone in an infantry regiment got a Bronze Star.

176685[/snapback]

Did not happen in the 97th, so I would be wary of such generalizing.

[Richard Lindquist]

Did not happen in the 97th, so I would be wary of such generalizing.

176704[/snapback]

 

From the internet:

 

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 28, 2002

 

SCHUMER PRESENTS BRONZE STAR MEDAL TO NEW YORK NATIVE

 

Senator awards Bronze Star Medal to WWII Veteran Burt Hesse

 

US Senator Charles E. Schumer presented the Bronze Star Medal today to World War II Veteran and West Islip resident Burt Hesse. Honorably discharged as a Private First Class, Hesse received the Bronze Star medal for his courage in active ground combat during WWII.

 

"I am honored to present this Bronze Star to Burt Hesse," Schumer said. "He is a decorated veteran – a true patriot who served his country with distinction. This medal is a symbol of the deep gratitude we as a nation have for him."

 

A highly decorated WWII veteran, Hesse has previously received the Combat Infantry Badge, the WWII Victory Medal and the Purple Heart for his courage and bravery during World War II. Hesse, who served in the US Army from July 31, 1943 to November 2, 1945, is receiving the Bronze Star for his exemplary service in the European theater from March 9, 1944 to August 11, 1945.

 

Since World War II, the Bronze Star has become one of the military's most distinguished medals. It can be awarded to any person who has performed a heroic act during ground combat while engaged against an armed enemy of the United States since December 6, 1941. In 1947, General Dwight David Eisenhower and the Army Chief of Staff, decided that based on the spirit of the decoration, all of those who earned a Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medic Badge, should also receive the Bronze Star Medal.

 

"Veterans like Mr. Hesse gave years of their lives to defend our country, and it's a privilege to be able to give something back to him here today," Schumer said.

 

Schumer said that his office can assist those who have previously received the Combat Infantry Badge in obtaining the Bronze Star medal.

[Richard Lindquist]

Did not happen in the 97th, so I would be wary of such generalizing.

176704[/snapback]

 

See also from the internet:

 

"Combat Infantryman Badge

 

"The Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) is an award of the United States Army which is presented to those officers and soldiers, in the grade of Colonel and below, who participate in active ground combat while assigned as a member of an infantry or special forces unit, brigade or smaller size, during any period subsequent to December 6, 1941. It, and the simultaneously created Expert Infantryman Badge were created with the primary goal of recognizing the sacrifices of the infantrymen who were disproportinately likely to be killed or wounded during World War II.

 

"A primary requirement for the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge is that the recipient must hold an infantry or special forces military occupational specialty; for all other Army personnel a special order must be issued to authorize the award of the CIB to non-Infantry personnel.

 

"The Combat Infantryman Badge may be bestowed more than once for those who participated in multiple conflicts or combat zones. Additional awards of the CIB are denoted by stars centered above the decoration. However, subsequent to 1969, multiple awards are awarded only for specified conflicts. This is commonly referred to as the "decade rule", and is thought to be an attempt to limit the number of multiple awardees by allowing only one award of the CIB per decade. The most prominent example of this restriction are the nearly-sequential campaigns in Panama and Kuwait, where soldiers who earned the CIB in Panama were not allowed to receive a second award for participation in Operation Desert Storm

 

"In 1947, a policy was implemented that authorized the retroactive award of the Bronze Star Medal to soldiers who had received the Combat Infantryman Badge during World War II. The basis for doing this was that the CIB was awarded only to soldiers who had borne combat duties befitting the Bronze Star Medal and also that both awards required a recommendation by the commander and a citation in orders.

 

"The Combat Infantryman Badge is easily one of the most recognizable Army badges and is considered a “badge of honor” in that those who are awarded the decoration have participated in direct combat with an enemy force. The badge is similar in appearance to the Expert Infantryman Badge which is a recognition of infantry skills, rather than combat participation.

 

"A Combat Medical Badge also exists for those medical personnel who serve in front line combat medic roles. In 2005, procedures began to create the Combat Recognition Ribbon which will recognize servicein a combat zone to those Army personnel who would not otherwise qualify for the Combat Infantryman Badge."

[FormerBlue]

O.K.

 

162nd Infantry Regiment of the 41st Division:

 

New Guinea (first tour):  8 Feb 43 to 28 Sep 43 (return to Oz)--232 days

 

New Guinea (second tour):  23 Mar 44 to 20 Aug 44 (Biak secured)--150 days

 

Mindoro and Mindanao P.I.:  9 Feb 45 to 30 Jun 45 (Mindanao secured)--141 days

 

Total: 523 days

 

163rd and 182nd Infantry Regiments of the 41st had fewer days.

 

Division casualties for WWII:  743 KIA, 217 DOW, 3,504 WIA

 

None of the Pacific divisions suffered casualties on the scale of the European divisions  that landed in France during the summer of 44.

176702[/snapback]

 

You've got better data on that division than I do. Is that from that book? As I've said it's hard getting data for the divisions in the Pacific and my data is far from complete. I'm working through the divisions and have reasonably good information for some. Very incomplete data for others. The divisions in the PTO are very hard to get good information for.

 

But we've digressed into apples and oranges. When I listed Silver Star numbers, as requested, I listed only divisions in Europe as they are more apples and apples. The ratios for the regular army and the NG divisions are pretty stark. The 1st Division passed out over 3 times the SS than the 45th. The 45th was in more days per numbers commonly accepted. Looking at the casualty numbers Ken provided, the 1st had 3K more casualties. As noted I think that's ETO excluding MTO. I suspect that adding Africa and Sicily to the 1st Division and Sicily/Italy's numbers to the 45th would show the 45th, and the 3rd divisions for that matter, had higher casualties. It would be interesting to see total numbers for 1942-1945. I suspect the 3 7th Army divisions plowed a tougher road through and through. The numbers, like those that started this thread, tend to be "twisted" in favor of the regular army divisions that went ashore in Normandy. Time and again statistics for 7th Army divisions exclude the service in Italy. Anzio was a heck of a lot tougher than Normandy. Emperor Mac is savaged on this site for his press-stealing ways. I think there is a tendency to also elevate the 12th AG over the 6th. I just don't see where the 12th AG performance warrants it. The 6th AG gave a lot less ground in the winter of 1944/1945 than the 12th AG....

 

Reference the CIB/Bronze Star thing. I'd be surprised in the number listed for Bronze Stars on the division pages include those "retroactively" awarded by the 1947 decision. Did the add one to the division that the man referenced in your news article was assigned to?

[FormerBlue]

Emperor Mac is savaged on this site for his press-stealing ways.  I think there is a tendency to also elevate the 12th AG over the 6th. 

176751[/snapback]

While we're hijacking this thread....

 

This is Tanknet. Without requests from Devers the M26s would probably not have been sent to Europe right?

 

http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/Armor...tankmyths01.pdf

 

If that is correct, Devers was responsible for production of the M26s in the first place and Patton didn't really see the need for them. So why was it the 6th AG received exactly zero of the M26s sent to the ETO?

[Richard Lindquist]

So why was it the 6th AG received exactly zero of the M26s sent to the ETO? 

176753[/snapback]

 

1. Very few of the US armored divisions spent much time in Seventh Army/Sixth AG.

 

2. Not very many German panzer divisions were in front of Sixth AG.

[TSJ]

I wonder if a lot of the guys post 1947 didn't submit their paper work for the Bronze. Maybe some of them were just happy to be alive, thank you?

[Richard Lindquist]

You've got better data on that division than I do.  Is that from that book?  As I've said it's hard getting data for the divisions in the Pacific and my data is far from complete.  I'm working through the divisions and have reasonably good information for some.  Very incomplete data for others.  The divisions in the PTO are very hard to get good information for.

176751[/snapback]

 

Yes. Get a copy of Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle U.S. Army World War II. It has casualties by division and locations of divisions and regiments during WWII. I had to go to the Green Books to get the dates that combat ended on the various islands.

 

 

Reference the CIB/Bronze Star thing.  I'd be surprised in the number listed for Bronze Stars on the division pages include those "retroactively" awarded by the 1947 decision. Did the add one to the division that the man referenced in your news article was assigned to?

176751[/snapback]

 

I would guess that the division numbers do not include the administratively ordered Bronz Stars, but I can't be sure.

 

I have some data for my father's division (43rd CT-RI-VT Natl Gd) which fought in the Pacific:

 

CMH-2

DSM-1

DSC-75

LOM-90

SS-987

BS-2,947 (which obviously does not include the "administrative" BS since they would be in excess of 10,000)

PH-7,610

Soldier's Medal-63

Air Medal-31

[ShotMagnet]

Was it common for a platoon to still consist largely of the same soldiers in 1945 that served in it when the US joined the war?

 

No, for reasons other than that the one became a casualty. Transfers for a variety of reasons could have taken away the original roster of a platoon. After attaining a certain amount of rank an individual might be transferred to another platoon or even another company. The larger units have needs that the smaller ones don't, and it oculd be tough for an NCO to stay with a platoon even if the one wanted to if only because of that individual's rank.

 

At the same time, wounded soldiers were sent to a replacement depot if/when they were returned to duty and whoever needed soldiers plucked what they needed from these depots. Sometimes a soldier might finagle his way back to his original unit, but at least as likely someone else would snatch the man beforehand. Too, a man might not want to return tohis former unit.

 

For both of those reasons a platoon could expect to see lots of turnover. I'm sure there are the exceptions, there might even be a documented case where a platoon had identical rosters from start to finish but I bet they were the exception and certainly not the rule.

 

 

Shot

[Ken Estes]

"In 1947, a policy was implemented that authorized the retroactive award of the Bronze Star Medal to soldiers who had received the Combat Infantryman Badge during World War II. The basis for doing this was that the CIB was awarded only to soldiers who had borne combat duties befitting the Bronze Star Medal and also that both awards required a recommendation by the commander and a citation in orders.

 

 

176709[/snapback]

Got it, a real surprise, many thanks Richard. Ken

[Rich]

One problem with all the divisional battle casualty reports given by all previous posters is that they are not the "official" reports. Rather, they are taken from the preliminary European Theater figures as compiled by the Theater Historian (S.L.A. Marshall, assisted by R. Ernest Dupuy), taken from the 6th and 12th Army Group ELR's and from a historical questionnaire circulated to all divisional CoS's in the ETO and MTO in June and July 1945 (part of a series of circulars sent out in this period). These were published by the Theater Historian as "Order of Battle of the United States Army, World War II, European Theater of Operations, Divisions"

(Office of the Theater Historian, Paris, December 1945).

 

These circulars also prompted the production of a "days in combat figure" also cited in early posts. However, there was no instructions in the circular as to how a "day in combat" was to be calcualted and there was nothing in Army Regs that mentioned the subject, so the figures are pretty much all over the map, in some cases simply being the number of days between port of entry in an active theater of war to embarkation for return to CONUS.

 

Later, at the behest of the Theater Historian a similar effort was done, although it was no widely published so AFAIK isn't known outside the AG's files.

 

In any case, none of these figures are either official or complete (and in the case of Mansoor's list, includes non-battle casualties). The official figures were not completed until 1 June 1953 (after publication of a preliminary report in 1949) when they were published as "Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II, Final Report, 7 December 1941 - 31 December 1946" (DA, Office of the Chjief of Staff). That report reconciled Returned Allied Military Personnel (POW returned to military custody, AKA RAMP's) and resolved - as best as possible - MIA, as RAMP's or declared dead in most cases. The final figures by division were:

 

Battle Casualties by Division, European Theater, 12/7/41 - 12/31/46

 

total casualties

Airborne Divisions

17th 6,745

82nd 6,993

101st 9,328

 

Armored Divisions

2nd 5,498

3rd 9,243

4th 6,212

5th 3,075

6th 4,670

7th 5,799

8th 2,011

9th 3,845

10th 4,031

11th 2,877

12th 3,527

13th 1,176

14th 2,690

16th 32

20th 186

 

Infantry Divisions

1st 15,374

2nd 16,795

3rd 9,947

4th 22,660

5th 12,818

8th 13,986

9th 19,719

26th 10,701

28th 16,762

29th 20,620

30th 18,446

35th 15,822

36th 7,914

42nd 3,971

44th 5,655

45th 7,791

63rd 4,504

65th 1,230

66th 1,452

69th 1,506

70th 3,919

71st 1,114

75th 4,324

76th 2,395

78th 8,146

79th 15,203

80th 17,087

83rd 15,910

84th 7,260

86th 785

87th 6,034

89th 1,029

90th 19,200

94th 6,533

95th 6,591

97th 979

99th 6,553

100th 5,038

102nd 4,922

103rd 4,558

104th 4,961

106th 8,627

 

Battle Casualties by Division, Mediterranean Theater, 12/7/41 - 12/31/46

 

Airborne Divisions

82nd 2,080

 

Armored Divisions

1st 7,096

2nd 366

 

Infantry Divisions

1st 5,285

3rd 16,030

9th 3,558

34th 16,401

36th 11,552

45th 13,202

85th 8,774

88th 13,111

91st 8,744

92nd 2,997

 

Mountain Divisions

10th 4,039

 

Battle Casualties by Division, Pacific Theater, 12/7/41 - 12/31/46

 

Airborne Divisions

11th 2,431

 

Infantry Divisions

6th 2,370

7th 9,212

24th 7,012

25th 5,432

27th 6,533

31st 1,753

32nd 7,268

33rd 2,426

37th 5,960

38th 3,464

40th 3,025

41st 4,260

43rd 6,026

77th 7,461

81st 2,314

87th 6,034

93rd 133

96th 8,812

Americal 4,050

 

Note these figures included total deaths among battle casualties (KIA, DOW, KIA or DOW while POW, and MIA, as well as deaths not due to battle causes while POW or MIA), as well as all WIA, IIA, POW and Interned, and MIA, returned to duty.

 

Hope that helps and is of interest.

 

Rich

[Rich]

While we're hijacking this thread....

 

So what's wrong with hijackin a thread? It's an old custom I thoght?

 

If that is correct, Devers was responsible for production of the M26s in the first place and Patton didn't really see the need for them.  So why was it the 6th AG received exactly zero of the M26s sent to the ETO? 

176753[/snapback]

 

No, Devers was responsible as a theater commander for promulgating requirements for equipment specific to his theater (the ETO), which prompted the decision to approve production of 250 T-26. But the decision to produce the tank - as prototype - was made in May 1943, before Devers made his request. OTOH, without the theater request it is possible that the T-26 would never have made it much beyond the prototype stage.

 

And when the T-26 were delivered Devers had no control over theater distributions, since he was no longer Theater Commander for the ETO, he was 6th Army Group commander, and subordinate to SHAEF and administratively under ETO command.

 

Is that clear?

[Geoff Winnington-Ball]

.... does the word 'casualties' include those who suffered injuries but later returned to their units to soldier on? Or are casualties definitely 'write-offs' in the sense that they didn't return to their units?

176304[/snapback]

 

AFAIK, the numbers include all those taken out of the line for the treatment of wounds, whether or not they were returned to active duty later. The numbers were compiled from daily returns submitted by the regiments.

 

Interestingly, as per Rich's comments, the Canadians as well were often rotated into reinforcement depots after recovering from sickness/wounds, and despite our strong regimental tradition, were often reassigned to other regiments as per requirements, rather than being simply returned to their own regiment. It pissed off a lot of guys, and disrupted what was sometimes many years of teamwork built up in training. I know some guys who went AWOL from the depots and simply hitchhiked back to their regiments to avoid this. They usually didn't get into trouble for it.

 

Many Canadian infantry regiments did have to replace themselves several times over during the course of the war (in terms of volume of casualties), so the disruption was even greater as replacements had to be integrated into the establishment. Only a few lucky ones made it all the way through, and you can imagine the way they felt. Hence the 'Band of Brothers' attitude which exists to this day.

 

Lastly, you look at these numbers and must be amazed, as I am, at the medical infrastructure necessary to handle these volumes of dead and wounded.

[Rich]

Ken, thanks for that exhaustive list you posted there! One question, tho. WRT the casualties figures, does the word 'casualties' include those who suffered injuries but later returned to their units to soldier on? Or are casualties definitely 'write-offs' in the sense that they didn't return to their units?

176304[/snapback]

 

For US forces a battle casualty included:

 

Died while in a combat status (KIA or DOW)

WIA (Although depending on the administrative instructions in force in any particular area, this may have included only WIA-evacuated from the divisional medical facilities and may have excluded LWIA-returned to duty.)

IIA

Captured and Interned (Including those who died while a POW, even if it was not due to "enemy action" - in other words "natural" deaths while a prisoner.)

MIA (Including declared dead and other MIA later returned to military control.)

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

I remember an American general in Vietnam saying that for a while he just couldn't understand how the North Vietnamese could take such casualities and still fight. How was it possible? What king of a culture could do such a thing? Inscrutable orientals, etc.

 

It turned out he had fought in the infantry in NW Europe from D-day on in some unit that took tremendous casualities. When he got to thinking about the losses they took and kept fighting, it kinda put things in perspective.

[TSJ]

The North Vietnamese regularly faced annihilation of its units if it commited to combat against US units. Not so with the infantry divisons of the US in europe. The casualties for most of the US divisions, it would seem to me, came from day to day onslaught of engaging the enemy not from overwhelming annihilation. I could be wrong, but most of the US infantry divisionsin WWII remained effective despite their losses. The North Vietnamese would not. After the Tet offensive for example.

 

There were exceptions such as the 36th at the Rapido or the 29th at Omaha, but still, it just wasn't the same as the way the Vietnamese were slaughtered. Not considering the US had 80% of S. Vietnam under target from a US firebase.

 

Comments anyone?

Edited May 25, 2005 by TSJ

[Rich]

There were exceptions such as the 36th at the Rapido or the 29th at Omaha, but still, it just wasn't the same as the way the Vietnamese were slaughtered. Not considering the US had 80% of S. Vietnam under target from a US firebase.

 

Comments anyone?

177017[/snapback]

 

I'm unsure that I would count the 36th ID as "combat ineffective" after the battle on the Rapido 19-21 January, although certainly four infantry battalions were. Similarly, I wouldn't count either the 1st or the 29th as "ineffective" after 6 June, both continued to advance and operate effectively, even though two battalions in each division were close to "ineffective" due to losses. Possibly the closest would be the 106th Division as of 18 December 1944, which had lost two-thirds of its effectiveness, including artillery, with the loss of the 422nd and 423rd RCT in the Schnee Eifel.

[FormerBlue]

[snip]

The official figures were not completed until 1 June 1953 (after publication of a preliminary report in 1949) when they were published as "Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II, Final Report, 7 December 1941 - 31 December 1946" (DA, Office of the Chjief of Staff). That report reconciled Returned Allied Military Personnel (POW returned to military custody, AKA RAMP's) and resolved - as best as possible - MIA, as RAMP's or declared dead in most cases. The final figures by division were:

[snip]

 

Hope that helps and is of interest.

 

Rich

176868[/snapback]

Awesome. Thanks. It's available in PDF format here:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/books.asp

 

I'll need some time to digest this. Thanks for the info.

[Ken Estes]

The North Vietnamese regularly faced annihilation of its units if it commited to combat against US units. Not so with the infantry divisons of the US in europe. The casualties for most of the US divisions, it would seem to me, came from day to day onslaught of engaging the enemy not from overwhelming annihilation. I could be wrong, but most of the US infantry divisionsin WWII remained effective despite their losses.

 

 

177017[/snapback]

This is, in fact, Mansoor's thesis, that the individual replacement system, despite obvious drawbacks vs. unit replacement, allowed the US Army to keep most of its divisions on the line, in continuous operations [not continuous combat], and this was essential because of the 90 [89] division program, which he does criticize. Thus, for the US, the replacement system works better than that of the Wehrmacht, which is worn down to a shadow.

[BillB]

Hi all, interesting thread. Rich, ref this bit:

 

Battle Casualties by Division, European Theater, 12/7/41 - 12/31/46

 

total casualties

Airborne Divisions

17th 6,745

82nd 6,993

101st 9,328

 

Are you sure about these figs, they seem a bit off given that the 82nd Airborne served in North Africa and the Med, and that the 17th Airborne didn't see any action until December 1944 as I understand it.

 

Not looking to pick a fight or anything, just curious.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Rich]

Hi all, interesting thread. Rich, ref this bit:

Are you sure about these figs, they seem a bit off given that the 82nd Airborne served in North Africa and the Med, and that the 17th Airborne didn't see any action until December 1944 as I understand it.

 

Not looking to pick a fight or anything, just curious.   

 

all the best

 

BillB

177296[/snapback]

 

Well, the 82nd Airborne figures are broken out separately under ETO and MTO, you may not have noticed. Otherwise, there is always the question as to which units the army counted as organic to the airborne divisions. For instance, it is questionable whether or not the casualties of the parachute regiments of the 2nd PI Brigade that were attached to the 82nd and 101st in England (the 501st and 508th PIR) were included in the divisional counts or as separate units. Ditto the 506th PIR, which was only attached to the 101st until 1 March when it was assigned.

[Richard Lindquist]

Hi all, interesting thread. Rich, ref this bit:

Are you sure about these figs, they seem a bit off given that the 82nd Airborne served in North Africa and the Med, and that the 17th Airborne didn't see any action until December 1944 as I understand it.

 

Not looking to pick a fight or anything, just curious.   

 

all the best

 

BillB

177296[/snapback]

 

Stanton has heavy casualties for the 17th Abn Div. Apparently they got fed into some meatgrinders after December 1944. 13th Abn Div had zero casualties.