Field Punishment No. 2

[Broznitsky]

Question One: Would FP No. 2 indicate the man was shackled at all times ("be kept in irons"), including whilst doing heavy fatigues and drilling in full kit?

Question Two: I have found descriptions on the net of FP No. 2 for the British Army. Can I assume it would have been the same for Canadian and Australian forces? In England and overseas?

The reason I ask is that FP No. 1 ("crucifixion") was banned in Canada by Militia HQ, and forbidden in England by the War Office, but allowed overseas.

Question Three: Can I assume that the man would not be shackled if he were anywhere close to the front lines?

[charlesmessenger]

Field Punishment No 1, as you say, could only be awarded overseas. It was a substitute for detention at unit level in the field, where the facilities for a secure jail were often lacking. The soldier was guarded at all times and would undertake fatigues when out of the line. He was also attached to a fixed object for no more than two hours per day and not more than thre days in every four or for ore than a total of 21 days. Whereas in the first part of the war there were possible incidences of him being in the crucifix position, this was banned at the end of 1916 and a standrad method of attachment laid down.

Field Punishment No 2 was the same as No 1, except that the soldier could not be restrained by attachment to a fixed object. It was thus a milder form of punishment ad could be awarded in Britain.

In both cases the soldier suffered loss of pay throughout the period of punishment.

Charles M

[stevenbecker]

I agree,

The AIF in Egypt appears to have disgarded the shackleing of their men.

But while in training in Egypt they could for FP 1 be sent to the British detention Centre for their punishment.

S.B