K i A or D o W ?

[Henry_Hoofhearted]

I'm writing a short essay about the final month of my ancestor's life in WW1. Until recently, and like many other people, I have not distinguished between Killed in Action and Died of Wounds. However, in the course of my research, I have become aware that the terms could have subtle meanings. I want to make sure that I've got my terminology right by asking if any of you guys can read through this short piece and share your thoughts and comments.

 

 

"I was advised to distinguish between two key phrases which are often taken to mean the same thing and are often used interchangeably; “Killed in Action” and “Died of Wounds”. Both terms can reference the location of where a soldier died, but the former indicates the place where he received his fatal wound and died immediately, or where his body was exhumed from a temporary grave and moved to a permanent cemetery. The latter implies that the wounded soldier was passed along the casualty evacuation chain and died later in a hospital some distance from where he received his wounds".

 

Thank you.

 

Andy Wadeson.

[ss002d6252]

There can be a fine line depending on who was recording the data but generally speaking KIA meant he hadn't entered the casualty chain whereas DoW meant he died somewhere in the casualty chain. The fine line is that point roughly up to being taken in to a CCS as a casualty - in that middle ground some would be noted as DoW and some as KIA.

 

Craig

[Henry_Hoofhearted]

7 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

There can be a fine line depending on who was recording the data but generally speaking KIA meant he hadn't entered the casualty chain whereas DoW meant he died somewhere in the casualty chain. The fine line is that point roughly up to being taken in to a CCS as a casualty - in that middle ground some would be noted as DoW and some as KIA.

 

Craig

 

7 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

There can be a fine line depending on who was recording the data but generally speaking KIA meant he hadn't entered the casualty chain whereas DoW meant he died somewhere in the casualty chain. The fine line is that point roughly up to being taken in to a CCS as a casualty - in that middle ground some would be noted as DoW and some as KIA.

 

Craig

1

Thanks.

In that case, do you think it would be safe to assume that as the body had been in the possession of the London Field Hospital and the date of death recorded as 22 March, my ancestor would have been wounded elsewhere? The war diary tells me that 6 other ranks were killed on the 22nd and 3 on the 21st. In the end, I suppose it's down to a matter of timing; on which day, at what time and how long it took for him to be passed along the casualty chain to the field hospital. I'm beginning to think that I am trying to drill down too deeply for an answer.

 

Thanks again, Craig.

 

Andy.

[ss002d6252]

A death on the 22nd could actually be a death on the 21st - there was a cut off point, often mid-day, where casualty paperwork was finalised for the previous 24hrs. Everything that had happened in that 24hrs would be recorded as happening on the day of submission. Problem is that he may have been at CCS a few hours or a couple of days (if he needed time before he could be moved).

If the body was at the Field Hospital he must have been brought in wounded to the CCS and passed along the chain. If he'd died earlier in the system then his body wouldn't have ended up at the Field Hospital.

 

Craig

Edited 25 October , 2018 by ss002d6252

[phil andrade]

Andy,

 

Here’s an observation which might have some bearing on this question.

 

Looking at the Statistics of the British Military Effort , with monthly tabulations of the number of confirmed KIA and DOW on the Western Front, I note that in the periods of most intense fighting, the ratio of KIA to DOW increases : for example, in March and April 1918, there are 2.3 posted as KIA to every one recorded as DOW ; if we look at the comparative lull of January and February , the ratio differs markedly, with only 1.4 confirmed KIA to every one DOW.

 

I infer from this that the “ quiet periods “ afforded a better chance to differentiate properly between those who were killed outright and the mortally wounded who were evacuated down the casualty chain before they succumbed. 

 

In the chaos and intensity of the March -April 1918 battles - especially with the retreats in Picardy and Flanders - the circumstances made it more difficut to make this demarcation, and I would guess that was much more conflation of the killed and died from wounds.

 

I’ll test this with another comparison : June 1916, 2.9 KIA for every one DOW ; July 1916 - the worst complete calendar month -  4 KIA for every one DOW. 

 

This doesn’t prove my theory, but it’s very suggestive .

 

What this doesn’t allow for, though, is those  enormous numbers  of men posted as missing in action who had either been killed, or abandoned to die of their wounds.

 

Phil

[m0rris]

Having been in similar territory myself, I found it useful to find out that the man in question was in a cemetery close to the site of a CSS and well away from the action.

[Henry_Hoofhearted]

57 minutes ago, m0rris said:

Having been in similar territory myself, I found it useful to find out that the man in question was in a cemetery close to the site of a CSS and well away from the action.

Thanks for the input. My man's final resting place is Hermies Hill, but it appears that he was killed a few miles down the road in Metz.

 

Andy.

[Henry_Hoofhearted]

2 hours ago, phil andrade said:

Andy,

 

Here’s an observation which might have some bearing on this question.

 

Looking at the Statistics of the British Military Effort , with monthly tabulations of the number of confirmed KIA and DOW on the Western Front, I note that in the periods of most intense fighting, the ratio of KIA to DOW increases : for example, in March and April 1918, there are 2.3 posted as KIA to every one recorded as DOW ; if we look at the comparative lull of January and February , the ratio differs markedly, with only 1.4 confirmed KIA to every one DOW.

 

I infer from this that the “ quiet periods “ afforded a better chance to differentiate properly between those who were killed outright and the mortally wounded who were evacuated down the casualty chain before they succumbed. 

 

In the chaos and intensity of the March -April 1918 battles - especially with the retreats in Picardy and Flanders - the circumstances made it more difficut to make this demarcation, and I would guess that was much more conflation of the killed and died from wounds.

 

I’ll test this with another comparison : June 1916, 2.9 KIA for every one DOW ; July 1916 - the worst complete calendar month -  4 KIA for every one DOW. 

 

This doesn’t prove my theory, but it’s very suggestive .

 

What this doesn’t allow for, though, is those  enormous numbers  of men posted as missing in action who had either been killed, or abandoned to die of their wounds.

 

Phil

 

Thanks for this insight, it's very interesting, but I'm not sure how I could fit this into what is meant to be a brief account of my ancestors final days. The more questions I ask of you guys, the longer my essay becomes.

 

Thank you again, Phil.

 

I'

[Henry_Hoofhearted]

21 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

A death on the 22nd could actually be a death on the 21st - there was a cut off point, often mid-day, where casualty paperwork was finalised for the previous 24hrs. Everything that had happened in that 24hrs would be recorded as happening on the day of submission. Problem is that he may have been at CCS a few hours or a couple of days (if he needed time before he could be moved).

If the body was at the Field Hospital he must have been brought in wounded to the CCS and passed along the chain. If he'd died earlier in the system then his body wouldn't have ended up at the Field Hospital. I'm taking your latest comment on board

 

Craig

1

 

Here's what I have confirmed so far. John's final resting place is Hermies Hill. The Concentration of Graves document clearly indicates that his body was found in Metz en Couture a few .miles down the road. The Graves Registration Report gives his date of death as 22/3/18 but, as you point out, he could indeed have died on the 21st.

 

Thank you.

[mebu]

Just to cause a bit of confusion.....Hermies Hill contains bodies concentrated from other cemeteries in the area, detailed in the cemetery description; the plot may provide some information. 

 

Peter

[Interested]

Your initial definition seems correct.

The information supplied by Lijssenthoek Military Cemetery (formally known as Remy Siding and containing a number of CCS) states that DoW covers the wounded who died in transit from the front and also those who died being treated in the hospital group.  KIA refers to those already dead.  The information includes Map No. 8 showing the timelines and routes to evacuate wounded from the front at Ypres to Remy Siding,  via Poperinge or Dickebusch, and taking between 90 minutes and 3 hours.

Hope this helps.

[phil andrade]

18 hours ago, Henry_Hoofhearted said:

 

Thanks for this insight, it's very interesting, but I'm not sure how I could fit this into what is meant to be a brief account of my ancestors final days. The more questions I ask of you guys, the longer my essay becomes.

 

Thank you again, Phil.

 

I'

 

 

Delighted to be of help, Andy, even if my suggestions are rather skewed from the question you pose !

 

My thought was that the  circumstances in which your ancestor perished might have been such as to highlight the very difficulties of demarcation that you allude to.  There must have been an awful lot of men who died in chaotic conditions as the British fell back on and after 21st March 1918, with the evacuation of wounded and gassed men being very hard to  effect, let alone chronicle.  

 

Phil

[Henry_Hoofhearted]

On 26/10/2018 at 19:51, mebu said:

Just to cause a bit of confusion.....Hermies Hill contains bodies concentrated from other cemeteries in the area, detailed in the cemetery description; the plot may provide some information. 

 

Peter

Thanks Peter, much appreciated. 

 

22 hours ago, phil andrade said:

 

 

Delighted to be of help, Andy, even if my suggestions are rather skewed from the question you pose !

 

My thought was that the  circumstances in which your ancestor perished might have been such as to highlight the very difficulties of demarcation that you allude to.  There must have been an awful lot of men who died in chaotic conditions as the British fell back on and after 21st March 1918, with the evacuation of wounded and gassed men being very hard to  effect, let alone chronicle.  

 

Phil

 

Just now, Henry_Hoofhearted said:

Thanks Peter, much appreciated. 

 

 

 

[Henry_Hoofhearted]

23 hours ago, phil andrade said:

 

 

Delighted to be of help, Andy, even if my suggestions are rather skewed from the question you pose !

 

My thought was that the  circumstances in which your ancestor perished might have been such as to highlight the very difficulties of demarcation that you allude to.  There must have been an awful lot of men who died in chaotic conditions as the British fell back on and after 21st March 1918, with the evacuation of wounded and gassed men being very hard to  effect, let alone chronicle.  

 

Phil

Thanks Phil.

 

Fog of war, right?

 

I'm going to take on board the suggestion that the recorded date of his death may be incorrect, but more less incorporate into my essay the facts as they stand.

 

Andy.