WAR WASTAGE IN MEN. pro THE EDITOR or THE "SPECTATOR.' • ]
Sin,—You cannot be accused of being a pessimist, and you will, I am sure, be pleased to accept a correction of a state- ment in your• issue of July 17th, which is worthy of the " fat boy." You say that the monthly wastage in an army of one million is fifteen per cent., and that therefore in six months, if that rate is kept up, the original army will have ceased to exist; the whole of it must be replaced by fresh drafts. This would be true if the losses in each successive month continued to be fifteen per cent. on the original number, but, of course, in the second month the casualties would be fifteen per cent.. on eight hundred and fifty thousand—i.e., not one hundred and fifty thousand, but one hundred and twenty-seven thou- sand five hundred, and so on for• the following months, so that at the end of six months the total casualties would amount to about five hundred and eighty-five thousand, and the survivors would be four hundred and twenty-five thousand. Clearly, if the calculation were made on the basis of forty thousand losses per week, or, still more, five thousand per• day, so as to get more accurate results, the number of the sur- vivors would prove to be far greater—e.g., at the end of the first four weeks the total losses would not come to one hundred and fifty thousand, but to about one hundred and forty-two thousand, and so on, so that at the end of the six months the total losses would amount to far less than one- half of the original army.—I am, Sir, &o., [We stand corrected, and must admit a very, stupid blunder. We fear•, however•, that fifteen per cent. is too low a figure— eighteen per• cent. per month would be nearer the truth, and eighteen per cent. would mean the virtual elimination of any unit within a year.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
