The Meaning of HA

[Guest partnerof]

Reading a quote from a War Diary recently, I came across references to "HA". It was used following a description of fighting as part of the report on casualties, as in: "O/Rs casualties - 15 killed, 49 wounded, 342 missing, 1 gassed, 5 to HA" Can anybody tell me what the initials stand for, please?

[kenf48]

I don't know what HA was but could it be FA (Field Ambulance)?

http://www.1914-1918.net/wounded.htm

Ken

[ianjonesncl]

Heavy Artillery ? (cause of casualty)

[Coldstreamer]

I thought about FA as in ambulance but with so many killed and wounded would have expected figure of 5 to be higher

which Btn /regiment and when - might help

[kenf48]

I thought about FA as in ambulance but with so many killed and wounded would have expected figure of 5 to be higher

which Btn /regiment and when - might help

As you say difficult to judge not seeing it in context but as Chris notes on the LLT often it was just a case of First Aid (oops another FA) and returned to unit so I'm guessing 15 killed 49 wounded lost to the Bn strength along with the missing, then the rest told to stop whingeing and put their gas masks on next time and get back on the fire-step!

Ken

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

... "O/Rs casualties - 15 killed, 49 wounded, 342 missing, 1 gassed, 5 to HA" Can anybody tell me what the initials stand for, please?

Something about that looks very odd to me. Any chance of an ID of the diary and date + a scan of the entry ?

Tom

[Auimfo]

Heavy Artillery ? (cause of casualty)

Exactly what I thought.

5 casualties to HA - Heavy Artillery.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Blackblue]

Is it more likely to be Hostile Aircraft? I think artillery would often have counted for the majority of casualties in major actions and think it probably refers to something a little more unique. I think I have seen this abbreviation before to refer to enemy aircraft in War Diaries.

Is 342 missing the correct figure...or is this just for example?

Rgds

Tim D

[Ghazala]

I agree with Blackblue.. HA - Hostile Aircraft

[Tom Morgan]

5 to HA/Hostile Aircraft/Heavy Artillery

But five what? Five of the dead? (In which case the writer would surely have written "15 killed, 5 to HA").

Or five wounded? (In which case it would have been "49 wounded, 5 to HA").

If it was some killed and some wounded I feel sure the writer would have recorded the numbers of each, as above.

Are we even certain that it says HA? Is partnerof quoting from a printed version, or from the handwritten original?

I agree with Tom T-M that sight of the original entry might help.

Tom

[SiegeGunner]

If those casualty figures are real, they presumably come from a unit that was overrun, for example on 21 March 1918, so I'm puzzled how the diarist would know that, amid such mayhem, five men fell victim to HA (whatever it might mean).

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

This is just guess after guess after guess. - If the OP could simply address post #6 we might get somewhere.

Tom

[bill24chev]

It is a bit of a"Eats Shoots and Leaves" puzzel to my thinking.

There seems to be an assumption that the "to" in "to HA" implies that casualties were caused by HA. "To"using a dictionary meanig could mean Five casualties to HA a location.

I still do not know what HA refers to but it could be a place or location or an action such as "five casualties to Hospital Addmissions.

bill