Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Medical Help Please - For a Seaforth Hr


seaforths

Recommended Posts

There is a hint of 'My Boy Jack' about this brave young man but they couldn't have come from more different backgrounds. Young Andrew attested 11th September 1914 for service with the Seaforth Hrs at the age of 20. He was passed as fit at a medical at the time by a Doctor. On the 9th November 1914, he was sent to Fort George for service with the 9th Service Bn. Seaforth Hrs. In January 1915, he was sent to Aldershot and was declared fit for service on the 14th January. By the 31st January, he had been switched to 7th Service Bn. Seaforth Hrs. and was declared unfit: 'Recruit not likely to become an efficient soldier' because of 'defective vision' and was duly discharged on 12th February 1915. And my medical question is this:

Is it possible to tell from the following entry on his discharge papers how bad his eyesight actually was?

post-70679-0-65411100-1458416424_thumb.j

With my limited knowledge, I can see he is short-sighted with astigmatism. Before the end of June 1916, he had enlisted again. This time with a different Seaforth Bn. with a different service number. He has no surviving service record for this second period of service. He passed out successfully this time and was killed in February 1917. He is commemorated with no known grave.

Many thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like 6/24 - assuming this is a Snellen chart reading (and not some other chart) then

To be certified as sight impaired (partially sighted) your sight has to fall into one of the following categories, while wearing any glasses or contact lenses that you may need:

  • visual acuity of 3 / 60 to 6 / 60 with a full field of vision
  • visual acuity of up to 6 / 24 with a moderate reduction of field of vision or with a central part of vision that is cloudy or blurry
  • visual acuity of 6 / 18 or even better if a large part of your field of vision, for example a whole half of your vision, is missing or a lot of your peripheral vision is missing.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/eye-health-registering-your-sight-loss/criteria-certification

It looks like he could read at 6 metres what a 'normal sighted' person could read at 24 metres.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

6/24

6/60 means you can only see the very big letter at the top of the Snellen chart.

6/36 is the second row

6/24 is the third row.

Then 6/18

then 6/12

Then 6/9

Then 6/6 which is normal vision.

So he is seeing 4 lines less than normal vision.

"Myopic astigmatism" = Short sight, with asymmetric curvature of the cornea that would need correcting with lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did he qualify with the rifle? Seems a good example of standards being lowered as the war progressed. A sad end for one so determined to serve his country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did he qualify with the rifle? Seems a good example of standards being lowered as the war progressed. A sad end for one so determined to serve his country.

Not sure - perhaps they didn't re-check him when he was re-enlisted and his sight had deteriorated after his original qualification.

I saw a complaint in one war diary about a battalion in France getting a man who was missing his trigger finger and they seemed to be unsure what to do with him.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - thanks for the responses. Well I'm not sure we will ever know the real answer as to how he pulled it off a second time. If his vision was that bad then his marksmanship would have been pretty poor and it would have become apparent that he was making no improvement as training progressed and I suspect that is what occurred first time around, until his eyesight was suspected and checked properly. It could be that he returned home and knowing what the problem was, got himself a pair of spectacles. I'm guessing of course that his vision would be correctable to a standard that might see his marksmanship improved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - thanks for the responses. Well I'm not sure we will ever know the real answer as to how he pulled it off a second time. If his vision was that bad then his marksmanship would have been pretty poor and it would have become apparent that he was making no improvement as training progressed and I suspect that is what occurred first time around, until his eyesight was suspected and checked properly. It could be that he returned home and knowing what the problem was, got himself a pair of spectacles. I'm guessing of course that his vision would be correctable to a standard that might see his marksmanship improved?

Was it Andrew Moir ?

If so then his war gratuity was paid for 18 months qualifying service - which would suggest he joined up again about March 1916.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it Andrew Moir ?

If so then his war gratuity was paid for 18 months qualifying service - which would suggest he joined up again about March 1916.

Craig

Close!...Latimer.

Nope, Lorimer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found three sets of papers for men with similar service numbers. They all attested November 1915 and were called up January 1916.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, Lorimer

Thanks.

For some reason ancestry have transcribed him as 'Aulden' on the effects records so 'Andrew' didn't find him.

Lorimer had 14 months qualifying service at the time of his death from the gratuity records.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, his eyesight should be documented as 'uncorrected' (without glasses) and 'corrected' (with glasses.

It is quite possible that his documented myopia was completely correctable with glasses).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am i right in thinking that his binocular vision (left and right together) was such that he could see from 6 yards what someone with normal vision could see from 24 yards?

http://www.nanyang.com.sg/dvision_test.html

I don't know if they would be able to check to what degree his binocular vision was affected. My understanding of it, because I have problems with it myself, is that it affects 3d vision.

Thanks.

For some reason ancestry have transcribed him as 'Aulden' on the effects records so 'Andrew' didn't find him.

Lorimer had 14 months qualifying service at the time of his death from the gratuity records.

Craig

That's weird. I wonder if he has two entries because I found him in Soldiers' Effects under his correct name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if they would be able to check to what degree his binocular vision was affected. My understanding of it, because I have problems with it myself, is that it affects 3d vision.

That's weird. I wonder if he has two entries because I found him in Soldiers' Effects under his correct name.

He has a second entry as 'A Lorimer'.

The Ancestry transcription of 'Aulden' is clearly Andrew when you read the actual effects record page.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, his eyesight should be documented as 'uncorrected' (without glasses) and 'corrected' (with glasses.

It is quite possible that his documented myopia was completely correctable with glasses).

Thanks Dai Bach y Sowldiwr. I suspect in those days may eyesight problems went undetected and un-addressed unless something like this arose. I also suspect there weren't so many opticians on the high street in those days so getting a pair of specs might have been more difficult. Particularly difficult if the individual came from a working class background and limited wages to pay for spectacles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has a second entry as 'A Lorimer'.

The Ancestry transcription of 'Aulden' is clearly Andrew when you read the actual effects record page.

Craig

Thanks Craig, I'll get the other one the next time I'm on Ancestry. I know he was in before the end of June 1916 because he has a surviving will. I have still to check the men around him in the medal roll to see if they have any surviving service records as he could have been on the same draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found three sets of papers for men with similar service numbers. They all attested November 1915 and were called up January 1916.

Sorry IPT, nearly missed your post. That was going to be my next move as I have the relevant medal roll pages. So yes, looking for others around him with surviving papers. I suppose it is possible that the Army might have been willing to address his eyesight problem and provide him with spectacles - I don't know. However, if that was the case, why didn't they just do that in January/February 1915?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the apparent reluctance of the Army in 1914-15 to turn away volunteers who were suitable in MOST respects for active service abroad, I am sure they could have found a suitable niche for him in the battalion where inability to fire a rifle accurately would be less of a problem - stretcher bearers, cooks, possibly clerks in the orderly room, pioneers or other "back-room" jobs.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I suppose it is possible that the Army might have been willing to address his eyesight problem and provide him with spectacles - I don't know. However, if that was the case, why didn't they just do that in January/February 1915?

As noted on this earlier thread

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=174220

The army spectacle factory in Blackpool by the end of the war had issued over a quarter of a million pairs of spectacles. I suspect by January 1915 as with most war production they'd hardly got going.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the apparent reluctance of the Army in 1914-15 to turn away volunteers who were suitable in MOST respects for active service abroad, I am sure they could have found a suitable niche for him in the battalion where inability to fire a rifle accurately would be less of a problem - stretcher bearers, cooks, possibly clerks in the orderly room, pioneers or other "back-room" jobs.

Ron

Thanks Ron, the same thought occurred to me but then I recall reading a comment from an officer (I believe History of 15th Scottish Div.) along the lines that K1 turned down many men but K3 accepted a lot of men that would have been turned down earlier as they feared recruiting was drying up. I have seen cases whereby men arrived at the front and shortcomings with their rifle had them moved to other parts of the battalion as you suggest.

As noted on this earlier thread

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=174220

The army spectacle factory in Blackpool by the end of the war had issued over a quarter of a million pairs of spectacles. I suspect by January 1915 as with most war production they'd hardly got going.

Ken

Thanks Ken, so quite possible that men were accepted/conscripted in 1916 and issued with spectacles. I wouldn't envy the men trying to keep them clean in muddy conditions especially in high action and close to the ground (mud) which seemed to be the conditions under which Andrew was killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seaforths, superb piece of research there in all respects - tracking it down and working it all out and putting it up for all of us to show that this is, yes, very much a case of 'My boy Jack'... How many others? Poor chap, eyesight that bad but desperate to do his thing... But, to other things - will you tell us all where exactly he was killed? I guess one of those 'minor' engagements, but do share with one and all.

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Trajan,

Andrew was killed at Sanniyat on 22 February 1917 in the action of that day - the same day that Sergeant Thomas Steel, also 1st Seaforth, was awarded the VC. Coincidentally, it was at Sanniyat the previous April that Corporal Sydney Ware, 1st Seaforth was also awarded the VC.

Andrew, like many of the young men that served, was from a poor area - Hutchesontown/Gorbals, Glasgow and he had been a printer's apprentice with the big publishing house Blackie & Son. He was the youngest of seven children and the second son in the family to be named Andrew following the death of two year old Andrew a year before. He was born in Florence Street before the family moved a short distance away to Crown Street. His oldest sister died in 1902 at Florence Street, after what looks like child-birth complications.

In the bubonic plague outbreak of 1900 in Glasgow, three of the cases were in Rose Street which was the street that separated Florence and Crown streets and there are numerous online articles about it - such as one from the BBC here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23900394

Edit: sorry forgot to post this link - to a book about it that can be downloaded here: https://ia902705.us.archive.org/24/items/b21359167/b21359167.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC map of plague cases is a bit blurry and there is a better copy in the book but I note that there are anomalies in the map. The map shows Florence Street as a continuation of Rose Street but on my Glasgow map of 1912, Rose Street is behind Crown street and behind Rose Street, is Florence Street. An edit to my previous as the book indicates there was a case on Florence street at number 23 and two further cases on Rose Street at numbers 71 and 77.

image_zpsdn2fee4z.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found three sets of papers for men with similar service numbers. They all attested November 1915 and were called up January 1916.

IPT, can I ask whose service papers you found and where. I was on Ancestry on Monday evening working thru' a few numbers but didn't come up with anything and then I had to leave the library. I've not been able to get in since but then wondered if you had found them on FMP?

Many thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...