SWB due to being gassed?

[TotalNovice]

Hi

In researching my Great Uncle I have two possibles on the Medal Rolls Cards. Only one received a SWB. My Great Uncle was 'according to my mother' severely gassed during WW1. Was this also classed a being wounded?

Thanks

Pete

[Ken Lees]

It would be classed as wounded, but that in itself does not mean that he would be given a Silver War Badge. He could have recovered and continued to serve, possibly having been medically downgraded. Even if he was medically discharged the SWB was not issued automatically, only on application.

Ken

[TotalNovice]

Thanks for that Ken. I'm informed that he suffered badly, to the extent that he was unable to deal with rain. After the was when working as a Labourer on the a local farm he was permitted to be absent during rainy weather. I have no idea to be honest, but one would assumetherefore that he would have been unable to return to duty during the war - especially with all the rain that fell?

Pete

[Duncan]

Yes, being discharged due to being gassed warranted a SWB. I did some recent research on a man who got a SWB when he was discharged due to TB aggravated by being gassed.

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

The SWB was granted for many diseases & conditions brought on by Military Service,that rendered the applicant "unfit for further military service" it was not by any means confined to "wounds" per se;

A peruse of any SWB Roll page that gives a written cause under KR392 will show some weird & wonderful causes of discharge that qualified the recipient for the SWB.

eg:~

Sciatica

Sprained Knee

Graves Disease

Malaria

Influenza

Amputation

Heart Strain

Flat Feet & Piles {seen as cause for one badge combined}

Astigmatism

etc

[Duncan]

A peruse of any SWB Roll page that gives a written cause under KR392 will show some weird & wonderful causes of discharge that qualified the recipient for the SWB.

Arthritis in the case of one SWB I had.

[Muerrisch]

and the braid badge for the wounded was also awarded for gassing.

[centurion]

My Grandfather's SWB was due to his being invalided out after gassing. Its the invalided out thats important not the precise cause of the illness. For example one of my Great Uncles joined the RGA before conscription came in but was invalided out within months without ever leaving Britain so he would not have been wounded or gassed. He claimed and got the SWB. so that he could demonstrate that he'd tried to 'do his bit'.

[Terry_Reeves]

Being gassed was a legitimate cause for receiving for SWB and also a wound stripe. In the latter instance, CH Foulkes, commander of the Special Brigade and Director, Gas Services, objected to this, arguing essentially that it was a self-inflicted injury as the troops had received sufficient training and protection to avoid it. His reason for this apparently harsh comment was, I think, really to draw attention to the fact that units and individuals were not taking gas training and precautions as seriously as they might.

TR

[centurion]

Being gassed was a legitimate cause for receiving for SWB and also a wound stripe. In the latter instance, CH Foulkes, commander of the Special Brigade and Director, Gas Services, objected to this, arguing essentially that it was a self-inflicted injury as the troops had received sufficient training and protection to avoid it. His reason for this apparently harsh comment was, I think, really to draw attention to the fact that units and individuals were not taking gas training and precautions as seriously as they might.

TR

No this is incorrect, being gassed might well be a legitimate reason for a wound stripe but the SWB was not awarded for bring gassed per se - it was awarded for bring invalided out. As has been pointed out in earlier postings a man could be gassed, treated and resume service - for this he might well get a wound stripe but he would not be eligible for an SWB. He could be invalided out for a whole variety of reasons including sickness (say trench fever or malaria) as well as wounds, gassing or injuries that to day we might well call industrial (foot run over by vehicle for example) - then he was eligible for the SWB

[Richard Jones]

Hello Pete (Totalnovice),

Getting confused, I am. You asked is it possible to get a Silver War Badge for being gassed? Yes it most certainly is. Centurion's Grandfather got his badge for this very reason and lots of other men too. Some men had only light exposure to the gas and did not even go sick. You knew that anyway and so did I. They did NOT get a Silver War Badge but we knew that as well. Was being gassed classed as being wounded? Got to be honest, I always assumed so but have no proof.

Regards Mike Jones

[centurion]

Hello Pete (Totalnovice),

Getting confused, I am. You asked is it possible to get a Silver War Badge for being gassed? Yes it most certainly is. Centurion's Grandfather got his badge for this very reason and lots of other men too. Some men had only light exposure to the gas and did not even go sick. You knew that anyway and so did I. They did NOT get a Silver War Badge but we knew that as well. Was being gassed classed as being wounded? Got to be honest, I always assumed so but have no proof.

Regards Mike Jones

No I'm sorry my grandfather did not get the SWB for being gassed - he got it for being invalided out. The reason he was invalided out was gas but it could equally have been a wound or an illness or an accident - it didn't matter the SWB was for being invalided out!

[Richard Jones]

Since you wish to be overly pedantic, you are wrong. He got a Silver War Badge because he applied for it.

[TotalNovice]

Dear all

Many, many thanks for all the replies! Seems my question wasn't as daft as I thought it would be. In a Nutshell, it appears that if you were gassed and the exposure / resulting effects were such that you were unable to return to active service then you could be invalided out and on application (if accepted) receive the SWB. Being - as my title says - a Total Novice, I would also 'suggest' that this would also depend on the type of gas to which exposed and addtionally when. I say this as having seen some documentaries the first 'major' gassings seemed to have hit the troops without warning and the impact was more or less fatal for the majority. I assume that the earlier equipment (gas masks etc) through no fault of the soldier was also subject to failings. I also recollect seeing some report that some gas stayed on the clothing and was carried into the dug-out before forming into gas. So, I would therefore assume that for many it may have been fatal, for others disabilitating and others had less of an effect, meaning they could return to duties after recuperation. Type of gas and length of exposure would produce differing results as would I assume the health / fitness of the soldier at time of exposure. By that I mean - perhaps - a soldier who had just arrived from the UK who was well fed, A1 Medically, could probably deal with the effects of 'mild exposure' (whatever that means) than lets say a soldier who had been in the trenches for 2 - 3 years, thus the same level of exposure would have a differing level of severity - I think.

Pete

[centurion]

Pete

I think that you are incorrect in thinking that the early gasses were generally fatal for the majority although the absence of masks would make them more effective. Some of their early effectiveness was the degree of disorientation and even panic caused leaving troops open to attack by conventional means. I have seen comments that some of the later gases were deliberately designed to disable rather than kill immediately since a chronically sick soldier would be hors de combat and still divert resources in that he had to be evacuated and then cared for. Of course they could well be ultimately fatal in that the soldier might never recover or have a system sufficiently weakened that he succumbed to a relatively minor malady years later (as was the case with my grandfather). Nasty stuff.

[nhclark]

I'm glad that I took the trouble to follow this series of posts.

I cannot claim to have looked at them all, but a preliminary Google has not shown me a single website that mentions that Silver War Badges had to be applied for.

Being pedantic, I would say that given that a soldier had to make an application for an SWB, the correct term to use is that he was "granted" same. Everywhere I look I see the word "awarded" (even on TLLT), and that is not quite the same as "granted."

Interesting, too, that on the service records that I have for soldiers invalided out I do not see any mention of an SWB, even though their MiCs show same.

I wonder, were there any soldiers who were invalided out but did not bother to apply? And, presumably, there were some applications that were rejected?

Interesting.

Noel

[centurion]

I wonder, were there any soldiers who were invalided out but did not bother to apply? And, presumably, there were some applications that were rejected?

Given that part of the 'value' of a SWB was to proclaim that a soldier who was now in civvies and looked fit and well (even if he wasn't) had indeed served and was not a 'slacker' (and thus avoid the attentions of the white feather brigade and their ilk) then some soldiers invalided out close to the end of the war might not bother applying. Likewise someone with an obvious injury (missing limb for example) might likewise not bother to apply.

I think that technically it was The King's Silver War Badge and everyman who was invalided out for any reason was entitled it's therefore a moot point if it were awarded or granted. Didn't officers have to request some of their medals but this doesn't mean that they were granted?

[NigelS]

I cannot claim to have looked at them all, but a preliminary Google has not shown me a single website that mentions that Silver War Badges had to be applied for.

Google probably wouldn't be able to track down an article which can be found in The Times of Saturday 16th September 1916 (Issue 41274) which carries an announcement from the secretary of state for the war office on pg. 5; col C 'Silver War Badges. Rules For Applicants.' as well as the rules it gives 'Applications from individual should be submitted as follows:- ' followed by a list of addresses where each category of applicant should apply.

The times first announced the SWB - unofficially apparently - on Thursday, Jul 20, 1916; (pg. 8; Issue 41224; col F ) and followed it up once an official announcement had been made on Monday, Jul 24, 1916; (pg. 9; Issue 41227; col E) 'Silver Badges For War Services. Nurses And Civilians To Be Included. ' (this article contains an illustration of the badge.)

One of the Times articles - unfortunately I haven't been able to re-find it - mentions that a leaflet for applicants would be available at Post Offices - I wonder if there are any examples of these still in existence?

EDIT Correction it wasn't The Times that mentioned the leaflets it was Hansard see :

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written...19161019_CWA_31

A Look at Hansard (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ ) throughout the war period (search for silver badge, silver war badge, etc) reveals any number of Parliamentary Q&As about the issue of the badges , so it looks as if there was just as much confusion about their issue then as there is today. There is also an indication, which I haven't investigated, that the rules for the issue of the SWB were subsequently reviewed.

NigelS

[Muerrisch]

Silver War badge was promulgated by AO 316 OF 12 Sep 1916, amended conditions AO 15 of 1917,, 265 of 1917, and 291 of 1918. I have them all to hand and NOWHERE DOES IT STATE THAT THE BADGES MUST BE APPLIED FOR.

This is news to me. I have read the Hansard material, and, to maintain the line of gentle pedantry, there is a difference between HAVING to apply [implying no other means of obtaining one] and APPLYING having not received one. Nothing in the Hansard that I have seen persuades me that the only way to get a badge was by application.

If any member has a run of ACI to hand, I think that would clinch the matter one way or the other. The army receives Orders from AOs, and Instruction [dealing with the nitty gritty] through ACIs.

Hansard or the Times were well beyond most of the invalided rank and file, so, if application were of the essence, I would need better evidence than a few old chaps standing up in Parliament. After all, Hansard reports more or less what is said, but what is said is often piffle.

[centurion]

After all, Hansard reports more or less what is said, but what is said is often piffle.

Many years a ago whilst seconded to the Civil Service I was sub seconded to the Palace of Westminster to carry out a review of the processes in both houses and how Information Technology might be harnessed to assist. As a result I had a first hand view of how many things worked including Hansard. In those days (and it would have been the same back in WW1) a shorthand trained clerk would record the proceedings (very much like in a court) and these would be transcribed into a longhand account and then typeset for inclusion in Hansard. The effect was that the sense of what was said rather than a word for word account was printed. A check might be made if the words of a minister seemed out of character or did not make sense and there was an element of 'this is what he meant to say'. Similarly if a member made a complete but accidental blooper he would not be made to appear foolish. Errors still appeared as typesetting errors occurred - these could make quite a difference - on one occasion the word 'not' was omitted in error which completely changed the sense of what was said.

[nhclark]

I do hope that we can sort this all out.

The first badge listed here http://www.southernmedals.co.uk/sm9.htm mentions a "Claim to Silver War Badge Form", so I'm more confused than ever!

Noel

[David Porter]

If any member has a run of ACI to hand, I think that would clinch the matter one way or the other.

This from the National Archives Catalogue gives ACI 1793 of 1916 as being relevant.

Item details CO 323/720/35

Scope and content

Claims to Silver War Badge: conditions of applications applying to officers and men belonging to oversea contingents, other than those of self-governing dominions and those residing in colony; includes printed copy of Army Council Instruction No 1793, 1916.

Original Correspondence From: War Office.

Folio(s): 342-346

Covering dates 1916 Oct

EDIT:

The above was swiftly followed by this

CO 323/720/42

Issue of Silver War Badge: Army Council concurrence in announcement that Mr Bonar Law proposes to issue to the press; it is further noted that it is intended to issue the badge to qualified members of local forces whether English or native; includes printed copy of Army Council instruction No 2041, dated October 1916.

[NigelS]

Interesting, too, that on the service records that I have for soldiers invalided out I do not see any mention of an SWB, even though their MiCs show same.

Noel in my limited experience I'll go along with that, my reading of service records is undoubtedly not as extensive as some members, and I must admit not to have been specifically looking for a mention of them (I will from now on) but, while coming across odd correspondence, the returned dockets acknowledging receipts, etc, etc relating to medals & plaques, I can't see that I've ever seen any mention or paperwork on SWBs in them. A page of my own maternal grandfather's file is rubber stamped with 'British War Medal' & 'Victory Medal' which has been initialed, but there is no mention of the SWB which is detailed on his MIC (I do know he actually got it as well: it can be clearly seen in a photograph of my grandparents wedding!)

Grumpy,

As a matter of interest what do the AOs relating to Officers' medals give in respect to applying for them? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that officers, unlike ORs, had to apply for their medals)

NigelS

[Muerrisch]

This from the National Archives Catalogue gives ACI 1793 of 1916 as being relevant.

Item details CO 323/720/35

Scope and content

Claims to Silver War Badge: conditions of applications applying to officers and men belonging to oversea contingents, other than those of self-governing dominions and those residing in colony; includes printed copy of Army Council Instruction No 1793, 1916.

Original Correspondence From: War Office.

Folio(s): 342-346

Covering dates 1916 Oct

EDIT:

The above was swiftly followed by this

CO 323/720/42

Issue of Silver War Badge: Army Council concurrence in announcement that Mr Bonar Law proposes to issue to the press; it is further noted that it is intended to issue the badge to qualified members of local forces whether English or native; includes printed copy of Army Council instruction No 2041, dated October 1916.

Thank you: I was too idle to do it for myself!

Interesting that it relates to oversea APPLICATION, and English ISSUE. I will be at NA in summer and will add this ACI to my hit list.

Regarding officer application for campaign medals, yes they indeed had to apply, but I am a bit busy to fine the ref. now. Can do so if pressed!

[centurion]

Thank you: I was too idle to do it for myself!

Interesting that it relates to oversea APPLICATION, and English ISSUE. I will be at NA in summer and will add this ACI to my hit list.

Regarding officer application for campaign medals, yes they indeed had to apply, but I am a bit busy to fine the ref. now. Can do so if pressed!

It might be that they wouldn't know where to send a SWB for an overseas contingent man - hence the need for them to send in an application. The same might apply to some men in the UK discharched due to being unfit.