"Comparative Casualties in Late WWI" Topic

According to historian Geoffrey Wawro, in the final campaign of WWI, the British and French were able to kill four to five Germans for every one of their own casualties. The Americans, on the other hand, had a ratio closer of 1 to 1.

What accounted for the Americans' higher cost of warfare?

The other allies probably had less blue on blue.

I had read – I can't remember where – that the US forces were still using outdated tactics that the other allies had been using during the early part of the war, and hadn't adapted the lessons learnt by the French/British.

As a result they were far more inexperienced, hence the higher casualty rate.

Inexperienced leaders.

According to historian Geoffrey Wawro, in the final campaign of WWI, the British and French were able to kill four to five Germans for every one of their own casualties. The Americans, on the other hand, had a ratio closer of 1 to 1.

Where did he write this (or where did you read it)?

Well along with some of the comments here. Possibly American "hubris", aggressiveness, etc. As they were the "greenest" troops deployed at that time. From the Officers on down generally.

I'd like to see a source or reference before commenting on an assertion like that. Wavro is normally pretty reliable, but as the 100 Days cost the Allies a million casualties, I wasn't aware that the Germans lost five million men in the West in late 1918. Perhaps he is referring to a very specific situation?

Perhaps German totals included surrendered troops as well?
Not to mention offensive operations after the east front troops arrived.

Killed, or all casualties? If it's just killed, better medical services may have made a huge difference. With the German army in retreat, I suspect that many wounded couldn't be gotten back to field hospitals, and others were simply left behind in retreats (accidentally or otherwise), and succumbed to blood loss or infection.

I agree with Martin. Leaving aside the Wawro's point, start with the artillery if you want to understand major difficulties or failures in any battle. It was the biggest killer and, if not neutralised on the enemy side, would cause horrendous levels of casualties. The first day of the Meuse-Argonne offensive got off to a good start because the artillery coverage was very good. As the battle ground on, logistics became a nightmare. Not only was it difficult to move guns forward to cover the further advances but resupply became more and more difficult. This meant that enemy MGs were not neutralised and counter-battery efforts were compromised. Plus the German artillery could enfilade the advance from the western side of the river bordering the American left flank.

Faced with these problems, no amount of tactical prowess or officer experience on the part of the infantry could make up for the lethal power of German artillery and unsuppressed MGs.

What the Allies did differently was to avoid pushing too far with an advance. The British, for example, used rolling offensives in different sectors to keep up pressure. This enabled a successful attack to be scaled back rather than persevere in the face of the problems that the Americans suffered. When another attack was launched elsewhere along the line then artillery could be moved forward, resupply carried out, and preparations put in place to resume the original attack. Even with these measures, however, the losses in the Last 100 Days were as high as the first months of the war.

Robert

Seems a strange figure.

4 or 5 to 1 is about right for the 1st day of Amiens, but that was hardly the rule. Even at Amiens, the eventual casualty ratio dropped to around 2:1 for the whole battle. Allied casualties mounted quite significantly as German resistance stiffened after the first shock, and the Allies outran their artillery support.

I think we need more context on Wawro's comment ?

Considering his incredible mashup of his Austro-Prussian War book, I'd want to know where he got that statistic.

And in the last year of the war who were the combatants doing most of the offensive fighting? Germans and Americans.

Who were doing most of the defensive fighting? British and French.

And in the last year of the war who were the combatants doing most of the offensive fighting? Germans and Americans.

I think that would be a huge surprise to the British, Commonwealth, Imperial and French troops in the Hundred Days' Offensive.

The majority of the Meuse-Argonne campaign was fought between Germans and Americans. French forces did play a relatively small (but not insignificant) part on the American left flank. The Meuse-Argonne campaign was only a small part of a huge pan-Western Front offensive that was orchestrated by General Foch. Placed in the this context, the bulk of the offensive fighting was carried out by the French and British & Dominion forces; the bulk of the German defenders (by an order of magnitude) were faced off against the French and British & Dominion forces.

Robert