Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 6 February , 2009 Share Posted 6 February , 2009 I've got an RE Field Company war diary reference to "a few RE and PWP having arrived" Anybody got any ideas as to what PWPs might be thanks - Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 6 February , 2009 Share Posted 6 February , 2009 prisoners working parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 6 February , 2009 Share Posted 6 February , 2009 prisoners working parties? Pioneer working parties perhaps. The British army only used prisoners as work gangs for a very short time in 1917 and in small numbers - this being illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 7 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 7 February , 2009 Chris - my initial thoughs were that one of those "P"s had to stand for prisoners as well .... but turns out not. Centurian - your suggestion transpires to be close - very close - but the final answer probably couldnt be guessed at. I'd only copied these diaries in order to pass them on, and hadnt intended to spend any time reading them - but I've now trawled through them and finally a bunch of references come together and made sense, - an infantry officer arrives at the RE Coy and is posted to the "PWP" - then three officers and 114 Infantry OR's are "permanently attached for work" - then several months later a note shows 80 more Infantry ORs arriving for the "permanent working party" A month after that reference to "permanent working party" the diarist notes the Coy taking part in "offensive action" (Sept 1917) by clearing a road NE of Ypres. He records - Casualties RE 5 OR killed 16 wounded 1 wounded at duty 1 missing PWP 2 OR killed 8 wounded 1 missing (missing - how ???) Anyway - permanent working party ! - I wonder if it ever appears in any other war diary ?! thanks again - Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 Casualties RE 5 OR killed 16 wounded 1 wounded at duty 1 missing PWP 2 OR killed 8 wounded 1 missing (missing - how ???) If working in an area where shelling is taking place I could imagine that someone could be killed and no body found so when the roll is called they are technically missing not KIA. What is the difference between wounded and wounded at duty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 The "wounded" leave the unit for treatment, the "wounded at duty" soldiers on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 7 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 7 February , 2009 Centurian - wounded at duty (probably more properly - wounded, at duty) means that the man was wounded but remained at duty - ie probably very slightly wounded and any treatment carried out on the spot. It is quite common to see wounded at duty against officers names in war diaries. With "missing" - yes, I suppose shell fire - but if the men were working on clearing a road, as a group , then surely someone couldnt just "dissapear" ? regards - Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 Group of men clearing road, Germans lay down a rapid stonk of medium artillery fire, everybody dives for what cover they can, when they can reassemble old Harry's lying there having bought it, Bill and Jim are wounded and there's no sign of Fred (who's body has been blasted into a shell hole and buried by the earth thrown up by the next shell) - or something similar. 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