Ablutions in the trenches

[Kathie]

I know about lice. But what about other effects of the lack of sanitation. Absent water and space and opportunity to go off and find a secluded bush and dig a hole or stand against a tree - what happened. If no portakabins supplied - then what about diseases as a result of the ussual - flies, germs etc - especially in summer. And, I assume many soldiers had dyssentery.

Kathie

[Guest Pete Wood]

In Gallipoli, some soldiers were so weak with dysentry they fell into the latrines and drowned.

It's a sad fact that flies killed more troops on Gallipoli and in the other 'Eastern' conflicts, than all the bullets and shells ever did.

There was barely enough water to drink, let alone bathe and clean clothes.

[Guest stevenbec]

Mate,

I would surpose the British Army had the same set up as the AIF with Toilets in all trenches and they were changed at given times.

Since units rotated after short periods at the front they could wash and such after their tours.

At Gallipoli the AIF went swimming to wash them selves since there was no water. It got a bit less often when winter came.

But any Military unit always looks after this (Ablutions) as its always a common thing. But you are also right Dysentery was a common thing for soldier to pick up on the Battle field and the records are full of soldiers with this.

S.B

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

I know about lice. But what about other effects of the lack of sanitation. Absent water and space and opportunity to go off and find a secluded bush and dig a hole or stand against a tree - what happened. If no portakabins supplied - then what about diseases as a result of the ussual - flies, germs etc - especially in summer. And, I assume many soldiers had dysentery.

Kathie

From the RAMC training Manual 1911,"every soldier should remember to ease himself only in the authorised places,that is in the latrines & urine pits ot tubs provided.On no account should indescriminate or casual easement be permitted,it merely means fouling of the ground with possible infectious matter..............."Latrines & urine tubs/pits were dug behind the trench to regulation patterns:"the latrines are simple trenches 3 feet long 1 foot wide by 1 foot deep ;Men should straddle& take care the whole of the liquid & solid material falls into the trench,cover with earth as soon as possible"These latrines were I believe the province of the Sanitation sergeant & his unfortunate underlings,whose job it was to bury the waste & dig new latrines........................You did ask!

[MartinWills]

In Gallipoli, some soldiers were so weak with dysentry they fell into the latrines and drowned.

It's a sad fact that flies killed more troops on Gallipoli and in the other 'Eastern' conflicts, than all the bullets and shells ever did.

There was barely enough water to drink, let alone bathe and clean clothes.

I would be interested to know the sources for these sweeping statements. They seem to be much in conflict with established wisdom.

To take British casualties (deaths) in Gallipoli as an example and working from British Official Medical Statistics:

Battle Casualties

Killed in action 11234

Died of wounds 2264 (before reaching hospital)

Died of wounds 3082

Missing (presumed killed) 7221

By Contrast - Non battle casualties

Deaths due to disease & Illness 1881

Deaths due to Injury 227

In addition 96 died as POWs which could be either battler of non-battle casualties

The figures speak for themselves being 23801 battle casualties and 2108 (2204 if you included POW deaths) disease & injury deaths.

In Mesopotamia (reflecting British & Indian armies), Macedonia, Egypt & Palestine battle casualties are also in the majority. Mesopotamia is quite interesting as the non-battle casualties are vastly inflated by the inclusion of casualties among Indian army followers who were typically not subject to battle casualties but were subject to privation and who were not part of the fighting army.

The only eastern theatre where Disease and Illness outnumbers battle casualties is the German East Africa Campaign wherethere was little by way of Battles and much by way of trekking hundreds of miles short of food, medical supplies and "fighting" material supplies.

In North Russia the majority of deaths appear to have been due to Influenza, not to mention frostbite - though I have not trawled through the figures in detail.

It is true to say that hot climates and dead bodies lying in the open caused health problems in several theatres but the majority of those afflicted by illness; disease & injury recovered and in many cases suffered more than once and were counted more than once. They also took life long problems home with them such as malaria which was not uncommon in Salonika. The numbers temporarily afflicted by such disease were vast but the effect was only temporary.

Galipoli was also noted for it's personal cleanliness, swimming being a common practice out of the line as many photos and accounts will tell you and lice were not a major problem on the peninsula.

It would be unfair to criticise poor sanitation as being utterly primitive since there were numerous sanitary companies in the field and precautions were taken to minimise spread of disease. Imagine, however, May 19th at Anzac (Gallipoli) when over 3000 Turks were slaughtered in a mass attack and lay in no mans land in the burning heat for several days and you can understand that corpses in the heat were the most significant issue.

[Tim Birch]

The position of latrine pits had to be changed regularly as the enemy quickly became aware of their location due to the constant movement of men to and from them. It was not uncommon to send over a salvo so as to catch men "with their trousers down". In war nothing is sacred!

Tim

[Guest stevenbec]

I remember a story told to me about the trenches and ablutions.

It related to dropping some solid waste into a bully beef tins and throwing it into the hun lines. I was told the hardest thing was finding paper to wipe afterwards.

One reason now days when the diggers are doing there thing, they should be carefull of old bully beef tins as they don't know whats in them.

That reminds me.

S.B

[Robert Dunlop]

The position of latrine pits had to be changed regularly as the enemy quickly became aware of their location

Snipers also used the latrines as locations for targets, watching for the disturbance of the flies to indicate a potential victim.

Robert

[Guest Pete Wood]

Guilty as charged for the sweeping statements. My apologies and I'll try to be more specific in the future.

When I wrote "It's a sad fact that flies killed more troops on Gallipoli and in the other 'Eastern' conflicts, than all the bullets and shells ever did," I should have said 'flies caused more casualties to troops on Gallipoli and in the other Eastern conflicts, than all the bullets and shells ever did.'

The more accurate statement would have been, "In the long term, flies killed more troops, who had served on Gallipoli, than all the bullets and shells ever did."

I would be interested to know how many soldiers were evacuated from the island with dysentry - and what proportion did not return. Because your 'death numbers' relate only to soldiers on Gallipoli (or who have recently been evacuated?). While you quote just 1800 soldiers as having died of illness/disease, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Where are your figures for soldiers who died of illness/disease after they had been evacuated....??

While I admist my research is only just starting, using one battalion (though I am trying to build up a picture of a brigade), I find that dysentry DID have long term effects.

I would be more than grateful if you could tell me where I can find statistics which show how many replacements (because of sickness) were required to keep the army in place on Gallipoli and in Palestine etc. Working with just one battalion, as I am, the picture is small. But if I could find such stastics, I would like to see if they match the figures that I am seeing.

With the help of some family historians, I have just embarked on plotting the long term effects of one of the few battalions that saw no other service than in the East (the 54th Division). The battalion I am concentrating on has a massive number of soldiers who were discharged from the army due to illness/diseases that you would expect of serving in that climate (in other words not rheumatism). Now I have no yard stick with which to compare my figures, so I would be grateful for more of your statistics/figures.

Anyway, let's just play with some figures for a minute. Look at SDGW and you will find the 8th Hants had 64 casualties who Died of Wounds. Now look at the number who Died, which is 69. If you now look at your Gallipoli statistics - Died of wounds equals 5346 - I could 'massage' your figures to show that at least this many men died of illness/disease up until the end of 1918.

Of course these figures are not fair, for either of us. I could argue that many of your casualties were from the initial heavy fighting from the amphibious landings, so you must deduct X. You could say that as dysentry is less prevalent in the colder months, I am not using a 'fair' average.

So instead of using the figures of "established wisdom" I am trying to find the effects that dysentry and disease had on one particular battalion in the long term - and not just at Gallipoli.

When the 8th Hants were in rest camps in Egypt, the rates of dysentery dropped dramatically. But as soon as the battalion was on the march through Palestine, the figures rise.

I am now just starting to get to grips with the life expectancy of soldiers who were discharged because of disease. On the one hand, the fact that most of the original (Gallipoli serving men) soldiers in my battalion came from a compact area is making my life easier. But as these men were pulled out of that theatre (from illness and disease) and replaced with men from other parts of the country, I am having the usual difficulties. So I admit I am concentrating on soldiers from one small geographic location. Even so, I think it MAY prove to be a fair average. So far I have details of 300 men (former IoW Rifles) who lived on the Isle of Wight, and were discharged because of illness and disease. Of the 300+ cases so far tested, over 50% died within 20 years. Just over 10% made it to a pensionable age.

I could go on, but my research is at too early a stage and would give a distorted figure. But I remain convinced that disease and dysentry did kill more men than 'action.'

So I question your statement that the vast majority recovered from illness and disease. I think it would be fairer to say that the military classed them as being fit for duties.

If you are questioning me about fresh water, then I am surprised. You have read the same books as me, probably more, and drinking water was in very short supply. At the begining of the campaign, thirst-crazed men slashed the pipes from the water tanks; you know the story well.

All the drinking water had to be carried to the front lines, mostly in petrol tins. It was rationed and nearly every account I have read states that the men were always thirsty. Specialist units were brought in to utilise more of Gallipoli's natural water - but much still had to be brought from neighbouring islands to make up the short fall.

In Palestine, pipes had to be built to pump water from Egypt. It was still not enough - and there were plenty of men sacrificed in a 'feint' on Gaza, in order to capture the wells at Beersheba.

Yes, on Gallipoli the men had the chance to bathe in the sea. But I have read plenty of accounts of men with dirt-encrusted clothing unable to wash (themselves or their clothes) for a week at a time on the island - and certainly not with 'ordinary' (non-salty) water. In Palestine and other 'hot' Eastern theatres, most of the troops did not have the luxury of sea water.

The stories of men drowning in latrines on Gallipoli has been published on more than one occassion. It involved men falling off logs that ran across deep, open cesspits.

[mcderms]

Re: latrines at Gallipoli...

The problems here were (a) ground suitable for latrines and ( disposal of waste from non-pit latrines. These, combined with a lack of clean, fresh water and the positioning of the water table itself caused terrible problems with sanitation. There is indeed a well reported case of a soldier who slipped from the toilet bar into a latrine pit and could not be recoverd in time. It was during one of the many dysentry outbreaks. This is noted in at least three of the histories I have read of the campaign.

Where pits could ber dug, they were dug. Cr@p plus lime and soil is actually a good way to dispose of waste however the constant dysentry problems meant that pits were over and often re-used which exacerbated the problem as the soldiers how to use areas where the disease had been incubating in almost perfect conditions (for it). It didn't help that may pits were too shallow (rocky soil) or on a slope (kinda obvious where it all goes).

When you throw in literally hundreds of rotting bodies, poor diet and pathetically inadequate drinking water you have a sanitation nightmare.

[Chris Henschke]

The best reference for details is the 'Official Medical History of the War' and specifically, the volumes covering 'Diseases of the War' and 'Hygiene of the War'.

There is a wealth of information with many line diagrams and photographs showing methods of disposal of waste products, schools of sanitation, etc.

[GRACELAND]

I remember a story told to me about the trenches and ablutions.

It related to dropping some solid waste into a bully beef tins and throwing it into the hun lines. I was told the hardest thing was finding paper to wipe afterwards.

One reason now days when the diggers are doing there thing, they should be carefull of old bully beef tins as they don't know whats in them.

That reminds me.

S.B

Thats it thanks alot you have put me off corned beef forever !!

[NIGEL]

I cant see why the soldiers were worried about smell from makeshift toilets as there was enough guts and body parts rotting nicely to attract flies and disease-----some trenches were dug through previous battle areas exposing the remains of the dead i remember seeing one pic of a trench and you could see body parts sticking out of the trench walls --------imagine the smell ------if you have ever smelt decaying flesh only then you will understand that smell gets everywhere and you can taste it

[GRACELAND]

I cant see why the soldiers were worried about smell from makeshift toilets as there was enough guts and body parts rotting nicely to attract flies and disease-----some trenches were dug through previous battle areas exposing the remains of the dead i remember seeing one pic of a trench and you could see body parts sticking out of the trench walls --------imagine the smell ------if you have ever smelt decaying flesh only then you will understand that smell gets everywhere and you can taste it

now your putting me off me tea !!

[Tim Birch]

[i would be interested to know the sources for these sweeping statements. They seem to be much in conflict with established wisdom.

There is no doubt that the effects of dysentry left the British forces at Gallipoli seriously understrength, and at times the trenches were dangerously undermanned. I have read that at times the battle effectiveness of the British forces was down by as much as 50% due to illness.

Having suffered from a serious bout of dysentry myself, whilst climbing in the Hymalayas, I know how dibilitating the condition is. What with having to be within easy reach of a latrine coupled with excrutiating stomach cramps, there is no way that affected men could have fought had a major Turkish attack been launched when the problem was at it's height. It also results in serious dehydration, another problem where water is rationed.

Presumably the Turks suffered from similar problems?

Dysentry was not limited to hot countries, but was also fairly common on the Western Front.

Tim

[MartinWills]

I've no wish to enter into a "slanging match" over the stats but I am concerned that the information is taken in context and that the reasonably reliable Official History Medical Stats (the most easily accessible volume of the medical history) is used to advantage. They are official stats and not my own. The volume is invaluable if you are looking at casualty stats.

I will try and work through all the issues raised as best I can with what I have to hand and not all in one post.

Looking simply at Gallipoli (to keep this posting short .... er)

The stats relate to the campaign as a whole and include those evacuated from the peninsula, mainly to the islands. I do not know how many were evacuated from the islands but I understand it to be a very small number of those affected by dysentery, which as Tim says is "not nice", though more significant injuries and illness would have been taken to Alexandria, or in some cases to Malta and beyond.

I do not think we have much option other than to consider the campaign as a whole - and casualties did rise and fall during the months of 1915. It is not true to suggest that casualties were concentrated mainly at the landings. It is true that many were lost landing at Helles and others at Anzac, though at Anzac many were killed or injured in th fighting that took place after the units had landed. Certain offensives saw very heavy casualties and while dysentery was less common in November there were about 70 who died of frostbite.

By contrast with Helles & Anzac landing casualties were relatively small for the Suvla Bay Landiings which included the 54th Div (and 8th Hants). The casualties of part of their brigade (163rd) in the days after the landings were the subject of some detailed analysis by Dick Rayner in the wake of the BBC epic "All the Kings Men" which showed, for example, that the "so called" Sandringhams were not wholly massacred.

I have not seen stats on the replacements needed because of sickness (they were in limited supply anyway ... ) but they would be of great interest.

Returning to consider dysentery we might start by noting that the Official History does tell us that, for example, the overall British casualty rates (rounded to whole numbers) were 588 per 1000 combattants suffering battle casualties and 1240 per 1000 non battle casualties - casualties referring to all types. I think this shows quite graphically that any combattant might well suffer more than one non battle "event" as well as being slighly more likely than not to be a battle casualty.

Specifically for diagnosed dysentery cases the history records:

Hospital Admissions - 29728

Died - 811

Returned to Active Service - 28793

Discharged as Invalids - 124

I had not expected this to be quite this high, but there it is. This clearly shows over 96% of dysentery cases recovering (like Tim) to the point of being fit for further active service. The rest camp ethos of the islands may have helped here but it is clear that a significant number succumbed a second time. I would suggest, as well, that the only criteria we can safely use for "recovery" is on of being deemed "fit for service" and I do not think that this definition was stretched too far too often.

It is easy to suppose that the after effects may have shortened life, but I would argue they were not the direct cause of death - and everyone dies eventually.

The details of around 300 IOW rifles who were discharged represent diligent research and it is interesting that over 50% did not survive for more than 20 further years. This does need to be taken in the context of their age when discharged, which would typically have been at least 20 years of age and often more than this. We tend to forget that we need to read this in the context of the life expectancy of those born in the period 1880 - 1900 which was of the order of 40 to 50 at birth. Reaching retirement age, as 10% of these men did, was a significant achievement for any man in those days even if he had not been discharged through illness. In these days when we think of survivng veterans into the second century it is easy to forget how low life expectancy was in those days. Women, incidentally, then as now are expected to live slightly longer.

I think the work being done on the IOW rifles will be invaluable, but it is easy to judge by todays standards as opposed to those of 90 years ago or more, and I think the biggest challenge will be factoring in these issues.

As regards water there were shortages, severe at times, which eased as the campaign went on. The soldier did not actually need fresh water to wash, or wash clothes and good use was made of sea water well into the late autumn and drinking water was a completely different issue from washing water. I would not have liked to have bathed in November however.

I really would commend the Medical History Stats volume as a strating point. I have not essayed the Aussie Medical History yet but I would guess it would add further to pile of stats and it is available for free on the Australian War Memorial site.

Finally all stats are subject to context as well as abuse. I have tried to quote without bias or distortion. This is certainly a fascinating and useful thread and I would like to think it is near the cutting edge of "revisionist (?)" history and thought.

[Guest stevenbec]

Mate,

I can not supply any diffitive stats but I have found in looking at AIF records that Dysentry was a major promblem on Gallipoli.

Troops I have on record show their evacuation not only back to Rgypt and the Greek Islands but Malta and the UK.

There some died while most recovered with good treatment.

So soldiers who died of dysentry in Egypt around this period should also be added to your list, because if there are numbers of Anzac's then why not the British troops also.

Of cause dysentry was not the only complaint as there Meningitis, pneumonia and small pox to name a few.

S.B

[MartinWills]

SB,

I did make reference to evacuation to Alexandria which was the Egyptian port used, but I believe that the stats cover all evacuations to wherever. There are an awful lot of figures so I was carefully trying to select key figures of interest. It does list all the diagnoses and provide figures for them but I didn't feel like tapping in all the various maladies, there are an awful lot......

As I think I said this is an interesting & worthwhile topic of research, and we have only scraped the surface on this thread.

Martin

[NIGEL]

I think that when that whistle blew and they had to go over the top it may have been hard to distinguish who had dysentry and who didnt

[Guest stevenbec]

Yes Mate,

Of cause what I am aluding to is in the case of a soldier weakened by dysentry would pick up all types of other illness.

I have on record many soldiers who died in 1918 from pneumonia brought on threw malaria.

But I agree with you that the figures for deaths are not that large (i show under 200 for the ALH on Gallipoli) but from details I have of soldiers being evacuated from illness was as high (in some cases) as 70%.

When the 11th and 12th ALHR arrived on Gallipoli in September 1915 they were broken up to reinforce other LH Regts because of there state threw illness and casualties.

That ASqn/12th LHR (160 men) reinforced the 1st LHR which had a strenght of around 150 men. BSqn/12 LHR (160 men) reinforced the 7th LHR with around 250 men, but this Regt, part of the 2nd LH Bde were not involved in the August Battles.

S.B

[MartinWills]

I dont think we are at odds on this. Illness was serious and widespread, indeed I think I did indicate that almost 125% of the British forces suffered non-battle casualty status. The unlucky ones clearly suffering more than once. Battle casualties were as much as 70%. In both cases many men recovered to fight again.

I guess what I have been saying is that deaths are not as significant a number and I remain of the belief that the after effects of such illness was not a significant direct cause of shorter life and deaths after the war, though men were "weakened" in many ways. To take a classic Salonika example many veterans suffered recurrence of malaris but this was generally not the cause of their death, though it may have contributed, as may smoking, hard work, malnutrition; mental illness, not least "stress" caused by returning to a land that could not employ all its ex soldiers etc.

1918 and pneumonia is more interesting since I suspect this diagnosis (aqnd others) commonly concealed the "spanish flu" pandemic which demonstrably killed more that the Great War did (and no I don't have chapter and verse on these figures, but I have seen them).

I am not sure we will ever run down these factors but as I think I keep saying it will make interesting research for someone.

[Edward_N_Kelly]

I dont think we are at odds on this. Illness was serious and widespread, indeed I think I did indicate that almost 125% of the British forces suffered non-battle casualty status. The unlucky ones clearly suffering more than once. Battle casualties were as much as 70%. In both cases many men recovered to fight again.

I guess what I have been saying is that deaths are not as significant a number and I remain of the belief that the after effects of such illness was not a significant direct cause of shorter life and deaths after the war, though men were "weakened" in many ways. To take a classic Salonika example many veterans suffered recurrence of malaris but this was generally not the cause of their death, though it may have contributed, as may smoking, hard work, malnutrition; mental illness, not least "stress" caused by returning to a land that could not employ all its ex soldiers etc.

1918 and pneumonia is more interesting since I suspect this diagnosis (aqnd others) commonly concealed the "spanish flu" pandemic which demonstrably killed more that the Great War did (and no I don't have chapter and verse on these figures, but I have seen them).

I am not sure we will ever run down these factors but as I think I keep saying it will make interesting research for someone.

And I also note that the Department of Veteran's Affairs in Australia have accepted that conditions like malria do have a causitive factor in the development of other conditions.

As an example the condition epilepsy has amongst the causitive factors - "cerebral malaria" means a diffuse symmetric encephalopathy due to infection of brain parenchyma with Falciparum malaria, attracting ICD code 084.9;

as does TRIGEMINAL NEUROPATHY, TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA, SEIZURES, THROMBOCYTOPENIA (means an acquired platelet count of less than 50 000 per microlitre on haematological testing, attracting ICD code 287.3, 287.4 or 287.5)

While the life expectancy of the WWI veteran within his/her age cohort may not have been such as to bring rise to many of these (and other conditions where diseases caught in service may have been a causitive factor) I know of no study (though there probably are some) that ruled it out.

Note that the (at least anecdotal evidence) that gas casualties particularly those of the phosgene and similar agents) had a particulaly high morbidity rate in the 1920s and 30s ....