"KIA vs Died of Disease - British army" Topic

I put up pictures of the completed units of my Lannister army for Lion Rampant
Pictures are here:
wargamesgazette.com

Bit of a strange question, but can the great minds of TMP help me out:

Which was the last major war in which more British troops died of disease than were killed in action? Forgive my rather Anglo-Centric take on this, but I am thinking it might be the Boer War (c.15,000 Imperial troops died of disease vs c.7000 who died in action).

Can anyone think of one after that? Any statistics which might help would be great too – I found these ones on American casualties:

link

I rather think you are right and it was the Boer War. WW1 was notable for many things, including the first war where casualties due to combat exceeded those from disease (and the tonnage of ammunition expended exceeded that of fodder!).

I was rather surprised to see that (according to the link) the American army suffered more deaths from disease in WW1 than from enemy action: 63,114 vs 53,402 – and this despite primarily fighting in what one would have thought was the most disease-free theatre of the conflict.

There was no major war prior to the 1905 Russo-Japanese War where more people died of combat wounds than died of disease.

There were differences between the various theatres in WW1.

Robert

I believe in ww1 in east Africa many times more died of disease than enemy action. I suspect the same was true in ww2 in the Far East.

Remeber the Spanish flu epidemic hit just as the war was ending, So that would explain the higher US Death total due to illness.

Yes, in both WW1 and WW2 there were theatre variations. iirc in WW2 casualties (not just KIA, but illness) from disease outnumbered combat losses 20:1 in the Far East.

" the American army suffered more deaths from disease in WW1 than from enemy action: 63,114 vs 53,402"

That is indeed surprising, perhaps it reflects the very rapid expansion of the US Army – large numbers mobilised but still actually in rear areas training exposed to disease, rather than in front line combat exposed to enemy action? Just guessing.

A a microbiologist, I would be surprised to discover that any conflict in the pre-antibiotic age had more deaths from combat wounds than from disease. Dysentery and typhus where major problems on WWI where despite better knowledge of the importance of sanitation, field conditions did not always permit their employment. Add in the 1918 Influenza outbreak (which was a world-wide pandemic) and those numbers only go up.

As a side note, would death due to post-injury infection be included in the disease category or considered an extension of combat injury. Aseptic practice in surgery was accepted by this time, but any infection that did occur was still difficult to treat.

I think you are right about the Boer War being the last war where disease deaths outnumbered combat deaths for the British Army – as noted, the US army stats are due to the US getting into the war late and the impact of the Spanish flu

I would say that the Boer War was probably the last conflict in which British/Imperial forces suffered more fatalities through disease than combat. However, I think it also illustrates how that ratio was falling due to better understanding of medicine and hygiene – the figure for the Napoleonic Wars was 5:1 or 6:1, the Crimea probably even higher (goodness knows what it was in India).

Weren't many of the US deaths from disease in WW1 due to poor sanitation in the training camps back home?

I've read that UK military deaths from Spanish 'Flu were between a quarter and a third (250,000-300,000) of all UK* fatalities in WW1 – is that correct?

[Just under 900,000; as opposed to all Crown/Empire deaths.]

@ Greenleader;

Remember the U.S. troops brought the " Spanish" flu with them to Europe!

An educational special just had a segment about a book covering graveyards from the American Civil War. The segment was about a Union cemetary which had over 300 men from the same muster point who had died before even being assigned to a unit. For decades they were unmarked, then placed in graves with numbers rather than names. Eventually most were identified but a number were not.

This was a major war where disease killed a significant number.

I was surprised to read that SM thought it might be the Boer War for the British rather than the Crimean War.

Though dying Loyalist may not count in the American Revolution, the British lost a lot of troops, over 90% loss to disease during the invasion of Central American Campaign.

I think it might be worth looking at the last zulu war. The 1906 one.
36 Combat casualties. No figures for disease.

RudyNelson

Twice as many Imperial Troops died of disease than from enemy action in the Boer War.

As discussed, more American servicemen died of disease than enemy action in the First World War.

I would guess that WW1 would be the first 'major' war in which more British / Empire troops died from enemy action that disease – though I am pretty sure that would not be the case in theatres such as Mesopotamia and East Africa.

would death due to post-injury infection be included in the disease category or considered an extension of combat injury

Not in the British Army at least: those casualties were recorded as "Died of Wounds". This happened to my grandfather's cousin (a Private in D Company, 1st Somerset Light Infantry) on June 2nd 1915, but the actual date and manner of his wounding in not recorded.

For WW1, the US suffered more deaths from disease largely because of the flu epidemic, which seems to have started in Kansas. For most other armies, I think WW1 was the point when they started losing more men to enemy action than to microbes, at least in part because of simple things like antiseptics in operating theatres, and an awareness of the importance of cleanliness.