Skipman Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 The battalion diary entry for the 10th Royal Fusiliers date 15/10/1915 Friday" Souastre " Attention of units called to the fact by the GOC Division that there have been nearly four times as many accidental casualties in Division as in the other Divisions of the Corps. Special efforts to be made to alter this state of affairs. " Why might the 37th Division have nearly four times as many accidents? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 10RF landed Boulogne 30/7/1915 so do the figures refer to casualties sustained in France or also in UK? Are they referring to deaths caused by accidents or avoidable deaths during battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Not quite sure JB. I had a quick look and don't see it in the brigade or Divl diaries (it was a quick look though) Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 As far as I know all accidental casualties have to be treated as SIW unless the accidental casualties are deaths. Perhaps it's just statistics based on an overzealous CO reporting more accidents than his counterparts? I wonder if it's confined to one battalion/brigade of the 37th Division? Perhaps 37 Div. ADMS diary would shed some light on the issue or the DDMS for whichever corps. It's not exactly clear if they mean accidental injuries or accidental deaths or perhaps both. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 From the time 10RF landed, 30/7/1915 until 14/10/1915 they lost 2 men. In comparison, 11RF landed end of july 1915 and there losses in the same period were 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Johnboy, Are those deaths? If caused by the enemy they can't be considered accidents. I was thinking either there's a different accident recording procedure somewhere within the division or a clumsy unit or a high rate of SIW. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Not knowing what definition of 'casualty' was meant the figures I gave came from CWGC. They may be men who died of illness KIA or died of wounds. If itnwas accidental deaths , or as you refer to them. SIW, it is still a very small number in comparison. Both Battalions were service battalions, Both probably had the same amount of training, Whether one went into action earlier than the other I don't know. If I checked the 11RF war diary I think nearly all will be listed as casualties. OR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loader Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 Surely any accidental casualties must include dead & injured. If such a rate of deaths it'd seem to me there would be an official investigation beyond a notice to all units to lower the rate soon as possible. I realize that some events such as bombing school accident or something involving transport train or trucks could indeed involve quite a few killed & injured at one time but did such things happen all that often? I recall reading maybe here of long range shells hitting billets behind the line & lot of dead & wounded so could happen that big losses were incurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 A number of comments: 1. The title of this topic and the first post do not completely agree, as the title states "Four times as many accidents as any other division" and the GOC's statement is "that there have been nearly four times as many accidental casualties in Division as in the other Divisions of the Corps". Usually the number of divisions in a corps were five or less so the comparison is probably only to four or less other divisions and not to all of the divisions in the British Army. 2. Accidents in an operational division are not unusual. When I was a battery commander in Germany in the early 1960s our division would conduct division-level maneuvers every February and during that period at least four to six soldiers in the division would die in accidents (many of them were men sleeping under vehicles to keep warm and being run over when the vehicle moved. 3. Sometimes you may have large number of casualties due to a single accident. An SP 155mm howitzer in one of the units in our division had powder bags flash due to an ember in the tube and all six men serving the weapon were killed. Another time an 8" howitzer firing on a practice range inadvertently fired a round into the tent city (where the headquarters personnel of the division lived and worked) killing 23 soldiers. 4. Last night I was reading a Siege Battery history that mentioned an incident in which the gunners were preparing a meal in a long, hallway-like, dugout. Nearby the open fire were two pales that were thought to contain water. One of the pails (they both contained gasoline rather than water) caught fire and exploded sending a fire ball through the dugout which shot out the opening to a height of some 15 feet. Most of the officers and men in the dugout were badly burned and 12 died of burns. Unfortunate accidents such as these can greatly increase the number of accidental casualties over a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 " 1. The title of this topic and the first post do not completely agree, as the title states "Four times as many accidents as any other division" and the GOC's statement is "that there have been nearly four times as many accidental casualties in Division as in the other Divisions of the Corps". Yes I was aware that my title was not exactly what was written but thought I might get away with it. I altered it merely to be able to shorten a very long title. Usually the number of divisions in a corps were five or less so the comparison is probably only to four or less other divisions and not to all of the divisions in the British Army. That's a good point, and I'm more than happy to see the whole thing demolished and simply thought the entry rather unusual. I have looked at a couple of other diaries, the Divl, brigade, and a couple of other battalions and not seen a mention of this. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 4 hours ago, rflory said: Usually the number of divisions in a corps were five or less so the comparison is probably only to four or less other divisions and not to all of the divisions in the British Army. At this period (Oct 1915) the normal number of divisions in a Corps was three. In the case of VII Corps, its divisions were 4th (a Regular div), 37th (a New Army div) and 48th (a TF div). By Dec 1915 a fourth division (36th, also New Army) had been added. It occurs to me that the other two divisions would still have a number of men who were pre-war Regulars or pre-war Territorials, who might have been better trained in avoiding accidents, whereas 37th Div consisted of men recruited directly from civilian life whose training might have missed out some of the "health and safety" aspects. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 37 Division ADMS diary has some astonishing 'admissions to FA' sickness rates for Sept - Nov 1915. September Sick=789 Wounded=122 October Sick=811 Wounded=107 November Sick=1112 Wounded = not given Disinfected ORs = 15,635 (divisional baths) And as loader said, a bombing school accident 31/8/15- Capt. Baldwin & 5 men killed, 10 wounded. And - 6/10/15 ADMS interviewed MO of Entrenching Bn. regarding increase in sick numbers. DDMS 7 Corps diary seems to continue the theme of sickness for 37th Division. Colic and Diarrhoea prevalant due to sleeping in the open on cold ground. Foden disenfecters sent. DMS also inspected the 'curiously' placed DRS and noted that the 50th FA had one section dedicated to Itch cases. 14/9/15 - Many men are going sick........the wastage will be considerable. One case of anthrax in 37/DAC. Sept. Three more cases in 10th Labour Bn. 29/10/15 The only other points of interest were that the DDMS suspected metallic poisoning of water supplies and wanted German POWs to be used as testers. RAMC temp officers who arrived in July 15 and whose terms of engagment expired in Aug 1915 chose not to re-engage and went back home, 6 in one week from 4th Div. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 Excellent TEW thanks for that. For the benefit of others what are ADMS, FA, DDMS? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 I think the abbreviations are as below: ADMS: Assistant Director of Medical Services FA: Field Ambulance DDMS: Deputy Director of Medical Services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 Ah. Thank you. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 ADMS in charge of Division, DDMS in charge of Corps and therefore superior to the ADMSs. Still difficult to see all this sickness as 'accidental casualties' unless it was all seen as avoidable I suppose. I didn't check the other divisions in 7 corps to see what their sickness rates were. TEW 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