Field Service Regulations Part 2: Organisation etc

[Perth Digger]

I am looking for information on how casualties were meant to be reported during the Great War. I believe that there is information in Field Service Regulations, Part 2, Organisation and Administration, first published in 1909 and reprinted in 1914. While Part 1 of FRS is available on-line, I have been unable to find a link to Part 2. If anyone has access to Part 2, I'd be grateful if I could get the information on how casualty reports were officially meant to be administered.

 

Thanks

 

Mike

[DavidOwen]

Morning Mike

 

It seems Rupert Chawner Brooke was in possession of a copy and that is now held in Cambridge University Kings College archives. If all else fails perhaps an email to the Archivist?

 

Regards

 

David

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/04e1dde8-c8ff-489f-9f14-145adb7e8558

https://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD/GBR/0272/PP/RCB

 

[DavidOwen]

But then I found this.....

https://archive.org/details/b2900276x/page/166

Hopefully sorted for you?

Regards

David

[ss002d6252]

First time I've seen a digital copy - I have an original copy of the regulations. Came in handy with the war gratuity work.

 

Craig

Edited 3 January , 2019 by ss002d6252

[Perth Digger]

Brilliant, David, thank you, and Craig too. This will enable me to see whether the few recommendations of the Interim Report of the Committee on Notification of Casualties (1907), which Terry Reeves put me on to, were accepted for the Field Service Regulations that were later published. 

 

I was saying (by email of course) to Chris Baker this morning that I was going to put this question to the GWF, knowing full well that someone would find the answer! 

 

Thanks again.

 

Mike (and happy New Year to you both).

[ss002d6252]

Out of curiosity - what where the suggestions they made?

 

Craig

[Perth Digger]

The Committee, headed by a War Office Assistant Secretary called R H Brade, had already seen a draft of the new Field Service Regulations, Craig, of which they approved. So they had only three small recommendations: that a card index system based on the Japanese practice be used; that in peace time telegrams should be used to communicate OR casualties to the War Office (like the officer system); and that, because most casualties were expected to occur in India which had a different casualty reporting structure, the Indian government should be asked for their views. The assumption was that the army would continue to be fighting small wars within the Empire. There was no comment on the possibility of a continental war with huge casualties. But this was 1907. Another assumption was that most of the clerical/checking effort on casualties would be done by the Base overseas (as happened in the Boer War). The War Office would just be a clearing house for informing next of kin and the newspapers, although it should be given a full list of next of kin of officers and their addresses. 

 

Mike

 

 

Edited 3 January , 2019 by Perth Digger
Additional information at the end

[ss002d6252]

Quote

But this was 1907. Another assumption was that most of the clerical/checking effort on casualties would be done by the Base overseas (as happened in the Boer War). The War Office would just be a clearing house for informing next of kin and the newspapers, although it should be given a full list of next of kin of officers and their addresses. 

They got that recommendation through for a large part - obviously there was some work still to be done by the records office but a very large part was undertaken by the AG office in France.
 

Quote

that a card index system based on the Japanese practice be used

Does it say what this card system was ? A casualty index ?

 

Craig

[Perth Digger]

34 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

They got that recommendation through for a large part - obviously there was some work still to be done by the records office but a very large part was undertaken by the AG office in France.
 

It was an assumption, not a recommendation, Craig, based on the current practice which they assumed would continue. In practice, however, although the determination of fate of each soldier was determined by GHQ and the Base/AG and regarded as sacrosanct by the War Office from 1914, a huge amount of work was delegated to MS C 2 and MS C3 in London. Eg, in 1916 any letter sent to the Base in France from a relative was not answered, but sent to the WO in London to be answered. MS C 2 & 3 became much more than clearing houses, as had been the case until 1914. MS C 3 became the "public face" of the WO as far as officers' next of kin were concerned. 

 

42 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

that a card index system based on the Japanese practice be used

It sounds as if it was a casualty card system for each individual, yes. The Report did not go into any detail, but MS C 3 had created 900,000 cards by the end of the war (this was for officers only, so it appears there may have more than 1 card for each officer).

 

The real expert on army forms and cards is Justinth of this parish. His website: https://warrecordsrevealed.com/ is a mine of information and well worth a look.

 

Mike    

 

 

[Perth Digger]

Craig

The 1907 Report is only a few pages long, so if you're interested in seeing it, PM your email address and I'll pass it on.

 

Mike