Casualty numbers in battles

[admin]

Many of you will be aware of the drastically varying numbers given for dead, wounded and prisoners when reading about such battles as Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt etc.
But this is not only a medieval or ancient problem for historians.
I finished watching Black Hawk Down this morning and decided to read a bit about the First Battle of Mogadishu. I was very surprised by what I found about the casualty roll, even though this event happened in 1993 (hardly ancient history!). Quoted from Wiki:

Somali casualty figures are unknown, but American estimates are that between 1,000 and 1,500 Somali militiamen and civilians lost their lives in the battle, with injuries to another 3,000-4,000. However, the International Committee of the Red Cross estimated 200 Somali civilians killed and several hundred wounded in the fighting. The book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War estimates more than 700 Somali militiamen dead and more than 1,000 wounded, but the Somali National Alliance in a Frontline documentary on American television acknowledged only 133 killed in the whole battle. The Somali casualties were reported in The Washington Post as 312 killed and 814 wounded.

Here we have various sources, on both 'sides' giving wildly different casualty figures. As different as a factor of 10, which I find particularly interesting because the difference in French death count at Agincourt also varies by a factor of 10 in the various medieval sources. It seems this is not only a medieval problem.

[admin]

There is another interesting parallel to be made here:

The Somali and UN forces were similarly armed, on the surface. Both sides were primarily armed with assault rifles, Kalashnikov, H&K and FN in the former's case, and mostly M16's and M4's in the latter case. Both sides had grenades and RPGs. Certainly the UN air support and armoured vehicles played a major roll, but much of the fighting was between infantry on both sides, using similar weapons. Yet the US forces only lost 18, while the Somalis lost in the hundreds, even on home turf. I guess it helps show to some extent the difference that professionalism can make. Much of the bulk of the French forces at Aginourt, for example, were a levied rabble, whereas the English army was a purposefully recruited, professional paid and trained force. So much so that soldiers were even sent back to England for not being able to shoot fast enough.

I realise I am stretching the comparisons here somewhat, but I think in general it is a useful demonstration of what difference professionalism and organisation can make in war (ie. all the difference).

[Joeli]

Well, in a sense modern small-scale operations are not bad parallels, since the forces are relatively small and the battles are not drawn out for long periods, just like medieval battles. Whereas comparing to say, WW1&2 you'd get logistics and strategy (and the lack of them) playing a much bigger role in the long campaigns with multiple army corpses. Of course the conventions of battle, the terrain and psychological aspects are very different to medieval counterparts.

I seem to remember the Russians have also been very creative in coming up with the casualty count inflicted upon them in various battles by a certain Nordic nation.

[henri de la garde]

About the difference in casualty reporting, it seems like a political thing, doesn't it? Much like the numbers of battles are often exaggerated, for a prime example, Simon de Montfort at Muret. There were so many of them, so few of us, etc.

As to the Somalia business, I think that professionalism and organization certainly do go along way. Let's not forget that the book also mentions that a good number of Somali fighters kept themselves buzzing on qat all the time too. I wonder though if there wasn't a feeling from the Somali side that they were going up against the great and invincible Americans, and almost an a priori assumption that it would take five of their lives to take one of the Americans. Some sort of confidence thing that became a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, until that day, they had never downed a Blackhawk before.

[Ty N.]

The U.S. currently does not report the number of contractors killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan, even though contractors often die under similar circumstances as soldiers (i.e. getting bombed, shot, etc.).

I'm not sure how you could get an accurate count in a conflict such as Somalia in 1993. The U.S. walked into the middle of a civil war. Rival Somali clans were killing each other on a fairly regular basis, and the Americans just became another target.

Also, the reporting of civilian deaths tends to be even more sketchy in conflicts that don't have clearly delineated front lines (i.e. fighting in or near population centers and remote communities).

[Harry]

american: 1000 - 1500 ..... ok... that is what the WINNING government tells you, because the more enemies, the more glory! so never believe what the government is telling you


red cross: 200 deads.... they only see the people which are carried to them... so you can believe them, but it is probable that you don't have the full scale of information, because they didn't have it.


book: more than 700... well this is the government count minus 20% soooo this could be probable but hard to controll.

somalia government: 133 .... well of course they want to keep the casualties as low as possible, especially if they still want to resist. if they would have wanted to get some compassion and an official damnation of the usa the number would have been much much higher than the 1000 - 1500 from the americans...



I for my way I do not care about numbers of deads or woundeds because for the most reasons every dead or wounded is to much and so it is not important to me.

[admin]

The point is that even today, with all the sources of records, media, recording devices and viewpoints available to historians, it is incredibly hard to pin down casualty numbers.
Of course propaganda and bias are always the enemies that historians must tackle. What I find surprising is that we remark at the huge discrepancy in medieval accounts (by a factor of 10 in the case of Agincourt), yet such a massive discrepancy can also be found in the world today.

The difference is perhaps that if someone really made a mission of finding realistic numbers for more recent events (like the First Battle of Mogadishu) then perhaps they could get close to the truth - bodies do not vanish, they get buried or burned and leave relatives, names, records and memories behind. For older events, such as Agincourt, those remnants are now too long lost.

[Harry]

The point is that even today, with all the sources of records, media, recording devices and viewpoints available to historians, it is incredibly hard to pin down casualty numbers.

this things only exist for "civilized" countries... not every country has a registration office. especially africa is a big problem area for such things...

I would even say that the registrations were better in the early 15th century in agincourt than in the late 20th century in somalia!

[Joeli]

american: 1000 - 1500 ..... ok... that is what the WINNING government tells you, because the more enemies, the more glory! so never believe what the government is telling you

Heh, the weird thing is, the Americans ultimately suffered a defeat there. I don't know why and I don't know the details about it, but that's what the wikipedia page says.

A hell of a pyrrhic victory for the somalis!

I would even say that the registrations were better in the early 15th century in agincourt than in the late 20th century in somalia!

Never thought of that one. Not only were the service records for the hundred years war English levied soldiers more accurate than what probably exists for today's tribal armies in Africa, but we can still access the 600 year old records, which tells volumes of the quality of how the archives are kept in some European countries.

[Jose SP]

I thought the U.S. soldiers were in trouble until massive airstrikes killed off all the Somali. But of course, just as a winning side tend to inflate enemy casualties, they'll bend the truth on how the enemy was defeated, killing with airstrikes is not as "glorious" as killing with a rifle, massively outnumbered.

[Harry]

american: 1000 - 1500 ..... ok... that is what the WINNING government tells you, because the more enemies, the more glory! so never believe what the government is telling you

Heh, the weird thing is, the Americans ultimately suffered a defeat there. I don't know why and I don't know the details about it, but that's what the wikipedia page says.

A hell of a pyrrhic victory for the somalis!

okay, but whos stories did you read???? the american story or the somalian?


the winner of a war/battle/whatever nowadays is declared by mediagroups.... "wag the dog" is not soooooooo far away from the truth.

and CNN is one of the biggest in the world and always in the first row and more or less in the hand of the government (at least in wartimes)... just a non proven theory by me!

[admin]

I would even say that the registrations were better in the early 15th century in agincourt than in the late 20th century in somalia!

15thC France did not have TV reporters from the BBC, CNN, Fox etc, equally, the dead Somalians still have living relatives. The Red Cross were not present at Agincourt.
If someone really wanted to establish an accurate estimate of the bodycount for the Battle of Mogadishu then they could. But presumably the main authorities involved do not want to try, or can not be bothered.
The truly interesting point is that you can still end up with estimates that vary by a factor of ten, even with the resources available to us today*.


*and do not discount archaeological excavation - I know people who were involved in the excavation of mass graves in Bosnia. Bodies are not that easy to dispose of, especially when there are lots of them. Even burning them leaves burnt skeletons behind, contrary to what most people imagine of cremation.

[Harry]

matt... of course it is (or should be) easier today to come closer to the truth, BUT it should be much easier today!


I would say on the oct. 25th 1415 they knew exactly how many men were dead, wounded or alive...

the factor 10 thingy is a funny coincidence (I am sure I wrote this wrong again), this I must admit

[admin]

It is not really the coincidence that interests me, but rather the fact that people marvel at the irratic numbers reported in historical texts, when such irratic numbers are still reported today in war.

[Ty N.]

this things only exist for "civilized" countries... not every country has a registration office. especially africa is a big problem area for such things...

This is a very important point. During the three decades of the Vietnam war, people who were killed in under-developed areas (which account for most of the country) were regularly cremated or buried without notification to governmental authorities, who were generally corrupt and uninterested in record-keeping. Consequently, the casualty estimates are in a very broad range, between 700,000 and 1.3 million, making the upper end of the range nearly double the lower end.

[Alex H.]

A large part of the small numbers of US dead is directly related to the "Fritz" helmets and ceramic plated kevlar vests worn by all US soldiers on the battlefield. Another thing worth remembering is that the majority of US soldiers spent the majority of their time shooting from within largely bullet proof humvees and using the heavy weapons that these vehicles carry.

So what you see is a combination of;

1/ Sobriety
2/ Professionalism and training.
3/ Armour.