alf mcm Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 I have the service record of a WAAC, Edith Shedden, who was on home leave in Fauldhouse, she was based in Edinburgh. She accidentally broke her spectacles, and immediately requested an extension of 1 week to her leave, on the grounds that she needed her spectacles {she was a typist}, and it would take about a week to get a new pair. This was agreed, on condition that she forwarded a certificate from her optician, which she did. This makes me wonder, what happened when troops in France and Belgium broke their spectacles, did the Army have a unit to manufacture, replace and repair them, or were men moved to a unit where less than perfect site would not be a hindrance? I would appreciate any comments on this subject. Regards, Alf McM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Gad sir - served in the 3/23 mounted opticians, damed difficult dealing with those fiddly little hinge screws in a dugout during a bombardment. Even if the army did have some form of optical department or unit I suspect that it would take a long time to deal with any particular request as I doubt there would be lots of small detachments to support individual units. Possibly use would be made of local opticians in towns behind the lines (I think the same approach was made as regards dentists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf mcm Posted 1 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Thanks Centurion, Your explanation sounds reasonable, and makes perfect sense. Regards, Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 I'm sure I was a full military opticians outfit claimed to be of Great War vintage on that auction site not long ago. Of course my sight might have been at fault. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf mcm Posted 1 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2009 That would have been a sight for sore eyes! Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 By a minor coincidence, only on Thursday was I reading Letters of Agar Adamson (edited by N M Christie), who enlisted in Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in 1914 despite being blind in one eye and needing spectacles to correct his vision in the other. In, I think, February 1915, he wrote to his wife (who was staying in England) that he had broken his usual glasses and was having to wear some gold ones that he didn't like; could she find a spare pair for him? It wasn't quite clear where Captain Adamson was at the time, but very recently he had been based on Salisbury Plain. I wonder how he passed the medical? I know there have been some very distinguished warriors with one eye, but if he was short-sighted in the other... Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Not the only officer to persuade a medical board he was fit. Famously, John Kipling did the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf mcm Posted 1 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Moonraker/Tom, Obviously one rule for some, and a different rule {or no rule} for others. Some things never change! Regards, Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 I wonder how he passed the medical? I know there have been some very distinguished warriors with one eye, but if he was short-sighted in the other... Moonraker possibly by memorising the charts Mannock is reputed to have done this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desdichado Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Here's a link to an interesting article on military eye care with some data on the Great War: http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/publis...lmic/OPHch1.pdf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf mcm Posted 1 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Thanks Desdichado, It is a very interesting link. Incredible that the US Army reckoned it needed 500 opthalmologists. I am sure that their eye clinics {and any British ones}must have held stocks of spectacles for patients who needed them. Regards, Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Thanks Desdichado, It is a very interesting link. Incredible that the US Army reckoned it needed 500 opthalmologists. I am sure that their eye clinics {and any British ones}must have held stocks of spectacles for patients who needed them. Regards, Alf I think we are confusing treating injuries to (and diseases of) the eye (ophthalmology) with prescribing and making sight correctives (glasses) which opticians would do. I'm sure there would be lots of ophthalmologists in British, French, Italian, German KuK etc hospitals. 500 seems somewhat light for the Americans considering the risks of eye injury through things like gas let alone trauma caused by explosion, bullet, splinter etc. An ophthalmologist wouldn't necessarily prescribe or repair glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Gad sir - served in the 3/23 mounted opticians, damed difficult dealing with those fiddly little hinge screws in a dugout during a bombardment. Even if the army did have some form of optical department or unit I suspect that it would take a long time to deal with any particular request as I doubt there would be lots of small detachments to support individual units. Possibly use would be made of local opticians in towns behind the lines (I think the same approach was made as regards dentists). LLT (The British Armies of 1914-1918) gives the following information: Royal Army Medical Corps In addition to the RAMC units at Divisional level, the Army would command 4 Motor Ambulance Convoys 12 Casualty Clearing Stations 3 Medical Stores Depots 4 Mobile Laboratories 2 Mobile X-Ray units 1 Mobile Dental unit 1 Stationary Hospital 10 Sanitary Sections and 5 Sanitary Squads So there was some provision for dentistry - possibly at Army level this would have included work on provision or repair of false teeth. At lower levels - I envisage the MO and a pair of pliers! I am not sure how extensive the Mobile Laboratories were - might they have been equipped for making lenses? Alternatively the stores may have had a supply of standard glasses - how complex were optical perscriptions at that time? Mechanical repairs I imagine may have been handled locally by a signaller with a bit of wire? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castman Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Of course I don't know how accurate the movies are when depicting war, but I seem to recall watching a film - that may have been WW2 - in which someone went to a dentist and another went to an optician in a French village/town. Can't recall the film, probably not paying too much attention at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 I can provide some details on the dental side Dentistry in the British army was non existent in 1914 (during the South African War 4 dental officers had been attached to the British forces but an attempt in 1901 to make this a permanent feature failed through lack of RAMC officers willing to take up this speciality). Nothing further was done until October 1914 when at the Battle of the Aisne Haig developed tooth ache and there was no British dentist to treat him (he appears to have drawn the line at using a French dentist which says something either about his feelings about his allies or the standard of French dentistry at the time – possibly both). As a result of this 12 volunteer dentists were given temporary commissions in the RAMC and sent to France. In Britain medical care for army bases was provided by local civilian practitioners. By 1918 the 12 had expanded to 850 and were based in the casualty clearing stations. Initially soldiers needing false teeth etc. had to be sent to a hospital at base but after 1916 mobile dental laboratories began to provide this service, one such unit (which could involve a number of vehicles) per army. The Australians were much better at building up dental facilities for their forces. This was in part the result of experience in Galipoli where hundreds of men had had to be evacuated because they could no longer eat their rations and in Egypt which did not have a body of civilian dentists available to provide the necessary cover. This is a story already covered in much detail on other sites so I won't expand on this here The Americans had a tradition of army dentistry. On General Lee's advice dentists through out the Confederacy were conscripted and sent to provide dental services to the various Confederate armies. The Union soon followed suit. By 1916 the US Army had established its own dental school rather than rely on qualified dentists joining the forces. Like the Australians (and the Canadians also) the Americans were much ahead of the British Army in providing dental care for their troops and it wasn't until 1921 that a regular British Army Dental Corps was established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 I have an answer to some of the original question In 1916 the British Army Spectacle Depot was opened. It was responsible for supplying spectacles based on information provided by RAMC officers (there were special forms for ordering glasses). By the end of the war it had issued well over a quarter of a million pairs. All glasses were in standard tortoise shell frames. (source BMJ) I wonder if they had a broad arrow somewhere - it would be interesting to see if anyone has a pair of original WW1 British Army specs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinhat47 Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 500 U.S. opthalmologists and they still signed my legally blind great-great uncle up for the war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Further information The British Army Spectacle Depot's superintendant was John Hamer Sutcliffe OBE. Spectacles were despatched by post from Clifford's Inn Hall, Fleet St., London, E.C. 4 but the main base of activity was in Blackpool. The Depot also provided artificial eyes ('glass eyes') for wounded servicemen, after the war this became its main activity and its name changed to The Artificial Eye Service. It still exists today as The National Artificial Eye Service and provides the NHS with it's artificial eyes. The Spectacle Depot issued field kits for testing what lenses the individual soldier needed. One is currently on sale on E bay - I have no connection. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SUPERB-WW1-Army-Spec...bayphotohosting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 1 February , 2009 Share Posted 1 February , 2009 Since about World War II in the U.S. Army the fabrication of corrective lenses has been a medical function. Optometrists were asigned to what were called Medical Depots or Medical Supply, Optical and Maintenance units, echelons-above-corps organizations that were located in rear areas. The organization is now known as a Medical Logistics Battalion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 2 February , 2009 Share Posted 2 February , 2009 No doubt short-sightedness was measured in a different way in 1914-18 and the tests at recruitment centres were rudimentary, but what was the "pass mark" for active service? My vision in one eye is near-perfect, for the other need I need a spectacle lens of 1.75 dioptres. Would I have been passed for active service in say, 1917, when perhaps the requirements were less demanding than earlier in the war? I suspect that with the good eye I would have been, but had the other eye been as weak as the other, probably not? Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alliekiwi Posted 2 February , 2009 Share Posted 2 February , 2009 My great uncle signed up for the NZEF in August 1914. On his medical examination it says about his sight in right and left eyes: "Normal with glasses". They certainly weren't desperate and taking the dregs of the barrel at that stage and, although he ended up a lieutenant, he rose through the ranks having enlisted as a private in the infantry. He was an excellent rugby player, but played without his spectacles on. It was noted by a friend of the time he must have had difficulty seeing anything smaller than a football - and how he saw that in a sea of mud I don't know. Allie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 2 February , 2009 Share Posted 2 February , 2009 No doubt short-sightedness was measured in a different way in 1914-18 and the tests at recruitment centres were rudimentary, but what was the "pass mark" for active service? My vision in one eye is near-perfect, for the other need I need a spectacle lens of 1.75 dioptres. Would I have been passed for active service in say, 1917, when perhaps the requirements were less demanding than earlier in the war? I suspect that with the good eye I would have been, but had the other eye been as weak as the other, probably not? In a very short paragraph on the Spectacle Depot published just after the war it's stated that the Depot enured that a great many men who would not have been able to serve were able to be upgraded and work in roles that advanced the war effort which I take to imply that men with specs tended to be assigned to clerical roles, behind the lines transport and the like. I guess in your case the acid test would be 'can he see to fire a rifle and meet the minimum marksman standards?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted 2 February , 2009 Share Posted 2 February , 2009 Is it possible to fire a SMLE left-handedly? I ask since if a soldier had good vision in his left eye, but not in his right, then it would have made sense to aim from the other shoulder. In WW2, my late Father was called up. He had been a forceps delivery, and the forceps slipped, ensuring that he was blind in his left eye. That, plus being what his de-mob suit described as "portly", saw him into the Pay Corps and four years in a civilian hotel bilet in Bournemouth. His one complaint about WW2 was that is was about 25 years too short, at least for him! Incidentally, before the Falklands, all RAF personnel had to be dentally inspected (a fighter pilot with toothache is not as efficient as he might be) and a Sqd. Leader (Dentist) friend of mine found herself working without break for 72 hours. If we had to do the same again,do the Services still have sufficient dentists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 2 February , 2009 Share Posted 2 February , 2009 (a fighter pilot with toothache is not as efficient as he might be) I remember hearing a recording of an interview on the wirelss with an Indian Army Officer who led one of the few WW2 cavalry charges. He (modestly) ascribed his willingness to ride into Japanese machine gun fire to the fact that he was suffering from raging tooth ache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted 2 February , 2009 Share Posted 2 February , 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now