Soldier's Rifle/Equipment & Hospital Admission Procedure

[SteveE]

Pals

 

I wonder if anybody can point me in the direction of any official procedure for hospital admission and what happened to the soldier's rifle and equipment when he was admitted.  Did the rifle and equipment stay with the soldier or did it go back into the unit stores until he was recovered and returned to the unit?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Steve

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, SteveE said:

Pals

 

I wonder if anybody can point me in the direction of any official procedure for hospital admission and what happened to the soldier's rifle and equipment when he was admitted.  Did the rifle and equipment stay with the soldier or did it go back into the unit stores until he was recovered and returned to the unit?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Steve

 

There were some excellent threads on this around 10-years ago Steve, but so far I've not been able to find them.  An important factor is that the rifle and bayonet belonged to the battalion, and the quartermaster was required to account for it.  If a soldier was received at the RAP with his weapon and was to be evacuated further up the casualty chain then it would have been taken from him then and backloaded to the Battalion Transport and Rear Echelon.  If you look at photos of 'walking wounded' moving rearwards (of which there are plenty available online) they are invariably without rifles, or even personal equipment.  For those men evacuated on stretchers then again their rifles did not go with them.  In essence their rifles were backloaded at the earliest available point once they were placed in the evacuation category.

 

 

 

Edited 3 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[SteveE]

18 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

There were some excellent threads on this around 10-years ago Steve, but so far I've not been able to find them.  An important factor is that the rifle and bayonet belonged to the battalion, and the quartermaster was required to account for it.  If a soldier was received at the RAP with his weapon and was to be evacuated further up the casualty chain then it would have been taken from him then and backloaded to the Battalion Transport and Rear Echelon.  If you look at photos of 'walking wounded' moving rearwards (of which there are plenty available online) they are invariably without rifles, or even personal equipment.  For those men evacuated on stretchers then again their rifles did not go with them.  In essence their rifles were backloaded at the earliest available point once they were placed in the evacuation category.

Thanks for your reply, I have a vague recollection of the same/similar threads but I'll be damned if I can find them.... Excellent photos, now if you can just find the same for East Africa I'll be really delighted :-).  'My' soldier wasn't wounded but was one of the many hospitalized with malaria which was followed by a period of convalescence but I suspect the process was the same as you mention above and the rifle went back to the unit stores until such time as he was able to rejoin.

I wanted to confirm the procedure to make certain I've understood a note in his diary whereby the soldier in question drew a rifle and equipment (from stores) five months after entering the theatre of operations but who had been hospitalized for a period prior to drawing the items.

 

Steve 

[FROGSMILE]

2 minutes ago, SteveE said:

Thanks for your reply, I have a vague recollection of the same/similar threads but I'll be damned if I can find them.... Excellent photos, now if you can just find the same for East Africa I'll be really delighted :-).  'My' soldier wasn't wounded but was one of the many hospitalized with malaria which was followed by a period of convalescence but I suspect the process was the same as you mention above and the rifle went back to the unit stores until such time as he was able to rejoin.

I wanted to confirm the procedure to make certain I've understood a note in his diary whereby the soldier in question drew a rifle and equipment (from stores) five months after entering the theatre of operations but who had been hospitalized for a period prior to drawing the items.

 

Steve 

 

Hello Steve, yes I think that you've interpreted things correctly.  Once a rifle was returned to stores it would not be normal to retain it specifically for him unless it was known he was returning shortly.  If likely to be away for some time (as most casualties would be) the rifle would be reissued to a new man and then that man would zero it to suit his own shooting style (eyesight, unique physiological posture, etc.).

[GWF1967]

From “Armageddon Road” - The diary of Billy Congreve.  10/2/15.

 “ - our convalescent homes do much good. The men go to these homes and get a complete change of everything(italics); their rifles and all equipment are taken to a store to be cleaned and put away, the men go straight into a bath and are then given hospital clothing. - and when ready to go back to the battalion, they get a new outfit to go back clean and rested to the trenches”

[FROGSMILE]

On 03/07/2020 at 13:13, GWF1967 said:

From “Armageddon Road” - The diary of Billy Congreve.  10/2/15.

 “ - our convalescent homes do much good. The men go to these homes and get a complete change of everything(italics); their rifles and all equipment are taken to a store to be cleaned and put away, the men go straight into a bath and are then given hospital clothing. - and when ready to go back to the battalion, they get a new outfit to go back clean and rested to the trenches”

 

That's an interesting quote and one that I'm aware of (Billy Congreve's book is excellent) but going to the type of convalescent home (generally located in rest camps) referred to is not a unit evacuation.  Soldier's invariably took their rifles with them wherever they went except when wounded, or sick enough to be evacuated.  Early in the war there are plenty of photos showing soldiers in transit at railway stations and ports heading to and from the Western Front along with their slung rifles, often with the canvas breech cover fitted.  Basically a fit and able soldier had his rifle with him, a physically incapacitated one did not.

 

Edited 5 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[SteveE]

Frogsmile/GWF1967

 

Many thanks for the additional contributions.  Unless otherwise informed I'm satisfied that the assumption/interpretation I've made, based on what you've also said, is correct in that 'my' soldier's original rifle and equipment went into unit stores on his admission to hospital and subsequent convalescence and that he drew another set on his return to unit.

 

Steve

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I searched for this thread, using something like "wounded man's rifle" as the search term, because in John Lucy's book, There's a Devil in the Drum,  I had come across a description of what happened to the rifle of one of Lucy's comrades on being wounded, and I recollected there being a thread about what happened to the rifle of a wounded man. In fact, John Lucy's account is not relevant to this thread (though it does corroborate that wounded men gave up their rifles) because his comrade's first port of call for treatment was a Red Cross Hospital and also, more significantly, the Allies were about to be overrun by the enemy at the time, so there was no question of the wounded man's rifle being salvaged for re-use; I will post elsewhere about that, but in my search I also chanced upon the following thread, and wonder if this is one of those "from about 10 years ago" recollected by both SteveE and Frogsmile:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/170027-identifying-the-correct-rifle-did-they-need-to/?tab=comments#comment-1656055&ct=1619893534

 

[FROGSMILE]

12 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I searched for this thread, using something like "wounded man's rifle" as the search term, because in John Lucy's book, There's a Devil in the Drum,  I had come across a description of what happened to the rifle of one of Lucy's comrades on being wounded, and I recollected there being a thread about what happened to the rifle of a wounded man. In fact, John Lucy's account is not relevant to this thread (though it does corroborate that wounded men gave up their rifles) because his comrade's first port of call for treatment was a Red Cross Hospital and also, more significantly, the Allies were about to be overrun by the enemy at the time, so there was no question of the wounded man's rifle being salvaged for re-use; I will post elsewhere about that, but in my search I also chanced upon the following thread, and wonder if this is one of those "from about 10 years ago" recollected by both SteveE and Frogsmile:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/170027-identifying-the-correct-rifle-did-they-need-to/?tab=comments#comment-1656055&ct=1619893534

 

Yes, I do recall that thread, which seemed to me to get out of hand and stray from the course opened by the original post.  I can confirm unequivocally that the British Army system during casualty evacuation was to remove the soldiers rifle and backload it through the ordnance supply chain.  There was a well tried system to do this.  Interestingly this has been further corroborated by a post war formal account by the US Army medical Corps writing about its experiences during the war.  They were some of the earliest troops to provide support (at Britain’s specific request) and as early as 1917 began supporting all British medical units from RAPs to Dressing Stations to Casualty Clearing Stations to Base Hospitals on a rotational basis.  This suited the US authorities too because it provided experience for their medicos in readiness for the deployment of American field armies (which duly came to pass).  In providing this support to the British between 1917-18 it was fully expected that the US officers and nurses would follow British procedures, but when full US field hospitals began to set up too (in 1918), one particular problem that arose and that was commented upon at the Le Tréport Hospital Centre, was that US Army policy when they arrived was that their wounded soldiers kept their rifles, which were to be backloaded with them through the medical evacuation chain.  This ran directly counter to the British policy, which was based on the interpretation of the Geneva Convention that no arms were to be seen in hospitals.  The US Army duly followed a ‘when in Rome’ policy and arranged for their arms to also be backloaded separately via a discrete US chain specially for that purpose.

Edited 2 May , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Andrew Upton]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

...This ran directly counter to the British policy, which was based on the interpretation of the Geneva Convention that no arms were to be seen in hospitals.  The US Army duly followed a ‘when in Rome’ policy and arranged for their arms to also be backloaded separately via a discrete US chain specially for that purpose.

 

If it was British policy I doubt it was based on any interpretation of the Geneva Convention as such, as the 1906 version of the Geneva Convention quite clearly states the opposite to be true, ie:

 

"Chapter 2, Article 8, Points 1 to 3 ... relating to the protection of medical units is quite clear, and reads as follows:

 

'Article 8.

 

The following facts are not considered to be of a nature to deprive a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 6:-

 

1. That the personnel of the unit or of the establishment is armed, and that it uses it arms for its own defence or for that of the sick and wounded under its charge.

2. That in default of armed orderlies the unit or establishment is guarded by a piquet or by sentinels furnished with an authority in due form.

3. That weapons and cartridges taken from the wounded and not yet handed over to the proper department are found in the unit or establishment.' ”

 

This is repeated in numerous other British Military manuals and such of the period, including RAMC ones:

 

RAMC personnel at liberty to bear arms - Other Great War Chat - Great War Forum

 

Edited 2 May , 2021 by Andrew Upton

[FROGSMILE]

Andrew I was not intending to interpret the detailed tenets of the Geneva Convention, but merely relay (paraphrase) for the benefit of forum members who might be interested a part of the essay regarding the US Army Medical Service’s WW1 experiences supporting the British medical effort.   The salient point was that rifles were removed from British soldiers being medically evacuated as a matter of policy.  It was the Americans who reported that their British colleagues quoted the Geneva Convention as the reason why.  Perhaps they (the British authorities) had got that wrong, I certainly don’t purport to know the ins and outs of the Convention’s clauses, nor did I claim that I did.  Page 14 refers: https://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwi/AmericanArmyMCOfficersBEF.pdf

Perhaps you could tell me which part of MAJ Harte’s contemporary account I’ve misunderstood, or misquoted.  Personally I found the experiences recounted of great interest.  I imagine that the British medical policy on the ground was to avoid any possible chance of accusations that the Convention was breached either in spirit or actuality.

Edited 6 May , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Gunner Bailey]

Thirty years ago we were friends with a French family who had a house in Warloy-Baillon on the Somme. Their house was a converted barn that had been turned into a bicycle repair shop before WWI and was taken over as a Casualty Clearing Station in 1916. In the early 1990's they had a swimming pool installed and the builders found a huge amount of military kit that had been dumped in a deep ditch at the back of the property.  The French EOD team took away many dozens of rifles, thousands or rounds of .303, still in rotting bandoliers and hundreds of grenades. They literally had a large flat back truck full of this excavated kit. I can only assume that the CCS moved on at some stage and the ditch was covered over and nothing salvaged. So it seemed clear that soldiers were separated from their rifles and ammunition before they got near a hospital. 

[FROGSMILE]

On 02/05/2021 at 17:55, Gunner Bailey said:

Thirty years ago we were friends with a French family who had a house in Warloy-Baillon on the Somme. Their house was a converted barn that had been turned into a bicycle repair shop before WWI and was taken over as a Casualty Clearing Station in 1916. In the early 1990's they had a swimming pool installed and the builders found a huge amount of military kit that had been dumped in a deep ditch at the back of the property.  The French EOD team took away many dozens of rifles, thousands or rounds of .303, still in rotting bandoliers and hundreds of grenades. They literally had a large flat back truck full of this excavated kit. I can only assume that the CCS moved on at some stage and the ditch was covered over and nothing salvaged. So it seemed clear that soldiers were separated from their rifles and ammunition before they got near a hospital. 

Yes, the usual procedure was to separate them from their arms at the RAP whenever possible so that when they were taken from the ‘collection zone’ (the RAP being at its boundary) to the ‘evacuation zone’ (the Field Ambulance being at its boundary) stretcher bearers were not impeded by the rifles and equipment of casualties.  Those men that could make their own way between the two zones, the walking wounded, were also relieved of their arms.  There are hundreds of photos showing both circumstances.  This really reinforces the British policy in relation to military hospitals and also highlights why the US Army medicos, whose Army’s initial policy was otherwise, took such note of the British difference.

 

 

 

 

[TEW]

Rifles did make it to CCS sometimes. Among with ammunition & grenades found in the pockets in the wounded.

 

I've seen CCS instructions for their procedure on what to do when a wounded man arrived with his rifle. An appointed Ordnance Officer (NCO) had to seize the rifle, check it was clear and securely store it on site having logged the details. The particular CCS would only store around ten workable rifles.

 

If a man arriving with a rifle was then returned to duty he was then re-issued with a rifle and the log updated. Can't say if he got his original back.

 

Sounds like the Warloy CCS had a different system!

 

Can't see ambulance train or MAC staff evacuating men with rifles from CCS.

TEW

 

 

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

7 hours ago, TEW said:

Rifles did make it to CCS sometimes. Among with ammunition & grenades found in the pockets in the wounded.

 

I've seen CCS instructions for their procedure on what to do when a wounded man arrived with his rifle. An appointed Ordnance Officer (NCO) had to seize the rifle, check it was clear and securely store it on site having logged the details. The particular CCS would only store around ten workable rifles.

 

If a man arriving with a rifle was then returned to duty he was then re-issued with a rifle and the log updated. Can't say if he got his original back.

 

Sounds like the Warloy CCS had a different system!

 

Can't see ambulance train or MAC staff evacuating men with rifles from CCS.

TEW

 

 

 

 

From accounts I’ve read I think you’re right that a few got past the RAP.  That was inevitable given that the circumstances in which men were wounded were so varied and of course there’d be differences for those wounded by long range artillery fire in the rear areas, as just one example.  The salient aspect (again) is that it was British policy to relieve the wounded of their firearms at the earliest possible opportunity and that there was a tried and trusted process to then backload them.  That the system sometimes broke down there is no doubt.  During the German Spring Offensive of March 1918 there were frantic efforts to destroy storage dumps of all kinds and I’m sure that there were many firearms and much salvage abandoned along the way.  That is inevitable in the chaos of an Army in retreat and disarray, which undoubtedly applied at times during 1914 too.

Edited 2 May , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Gunner Bailey]

3 hours ago, TEW said:

Rifles did make it to CCS sometimes. Among with ammunition & grenades found in the pockets in the wounded.

 

I've seen CCS instructions for their procedure on what to do when a wounded man arrived with his rifle. An appointed Ordnance Officer (NCO) had to seize the rifle, check it was clear and securely store it on site having logged the details. The particular CCS would only store around ten workable rifles.

 

If a man arriving with a rifle was then returned to duty he was then re-issued with a rifle and the log updated. Can't say if he got his original back.

 

Sounds like the Warloy CCS had a different system!

 

Can't see ambulance train or MAC staff evacuating men with rifles from CCS.

TEW

 

 

 

 

 

I should also add that the Warloy ditch also contained the remains of webbing and uniforms, plus some bones. Perhaps in the early days of the Somme offensive they were just simply overwhelmed and no system operated there for the proper disposal of anything.

[FROGSMILE]

33 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

 

I should also add that the Warloy ditch also contained the remains of webbing and uniforms, plus some bones. Perhaps in the early days of the Somme offensive they were just simply overwhelmed and no system operated there for the proper disposal of anything.

That would make sense.  If the RAP or CCS had to abandon their position quickly it’s possible that everything was hastily buried, or in worst case even abandoned.

[Andrew Upton]

10 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Andrew I was not intending to interpret the detailed tenets of the Geneva Convention, but merely relay (paraphrase) for the benefit of forum members who might be interested a part of the essay regarding the US Army Medical Service’s post WW1 experiences supporting the British medical effort.   The salient point was that rifles were removed from British soldiers being medically evacuated as a matter of policy.  It was the Americans who reported that their British colleagues quoted the Geneva Convention as the reason why.  Perhaps they (the British authorities) had got that wrong, I certainly don’t purport to know the ins and outs of the Convention’s clauses, nor did I claim that I did.  Page 14 refers: https://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwi/AmericanArmyMCOfficersBEF.pdf

Perhaps you could tell me which part of MAJ Harte’s contemporary account I’ve misunderstood, or misquoted.  Personally I found the experiences recounted of great interest.  I imagine that the British medical policy on the ground was to avoid any possible chance of accusations that the Convention was breached either in spirit or actuality.

 

The simple answer is part of that article is wrong, either what Major Hart wrote (most likely), how it was interpreted by the author/s of the article, or some combination of the two. As such it deserves to have the error pointed out as such, and not simply repeated as fact.

[FROGSMILE]

20 minutes ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

The simple answer is part of that article is wrong, either what Major Hart wrote (most likely), how it was interpreted by the author/s of the article, or some combination of the two. As such it deserves to have the error pointed out as such, and not simply repeated as fact.

And my “simple” reply is that I didn’t misquote anything.  I’ll leave it to you to point out to the US Army’s history unit that they got it all wrong and completely misinterpreted what was said over a hundred years ago.  Good luck with that.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I see that my rather tangential post on this thread has sparked some interesting exchanges.

Ironically, the John Lucy account to which I referred in my earlier post does now seem relevant to this thread in the light of the turn it has taken, so I shall repeat the key elements here:
In John Lucy’s book, There’s a Devil in the Drum, Lucy, then a corporal, describes assisting his lance corporal, who had been wounded by an exploding shell in Caudry during the Le Cateau engagement. He took him to a Red Cross hospital that had been set up in the town, The French doctor in charge insisted that the lance corporal’s rifle was to be left outside if he was to receive treatment. The lance corporal was reluctant to be parted from his weapon, but Lucy, describing him as "pig-headed", took it from him, and added it to the heap of discarded weapons already outside the hospital, after taking the bolt out of it, and throwing it over a wall.

When I first read Lucy’s account, I did not consider in detail precisely what caused the French doctor to act as he did, though I recognized that, if the Germans were about to overrun the town, the chances of the patients and staff of the hospital being decently treated would be greatly enhanced if it was seen that they were unarmed. This thread invites the question as to whether he was bound to act as he did by the Geneva Convention.

It is interesting to learn that, at least initially, different protocols were adopted on either side of the Atlantic with regard to whether (and for how long) the wounded would keep their weapons with them, and to note that the article by Michael Rauer referred to by Frogsmile attributes this to differing interpretations of the Geneva Convention.

I have also read with interest Andrew Upton’s comments regarding the Geneva Convention, both on this thread, and on the other thread to which he has provided a link, which also helpfully provides a link to a complete copy of the 1906 version of the Convention. 

I see that Article 6 of the Convention states (essentially) that mobile medical units supporting troops in the field and military hospitals shall be “protected and respected” by warring forces. Article 7 states that this protection ceases if they “are used to commit acts injurious to the enemy”. Article 8 then goes on to say that certain things - which presumably might otherwise be regarded as falling within Article 7 so as to forfeit the protection given by Article 6 - do not in fact do so.

One of the things mentioned in Article 8 is “That weapons and cartridges taken from the wounded and not yet handed over to the proper department are found in the unit or establishment”. My reading of this (though I’ll defer to anyone more knowledgeable who disagrees) is that it applies only to a very limited situation, namely, the situation where weapons have actually been taken away from the wounded by the mobile medical unit or military hospital. Until these weapons are “handed over to the proper department”, they would run the risk of being “found” in the possession or control of the unit or hospital, and one can see that in that situation, but for the clarification provided by Article 8, the unit or hospital might be accused of amassing arms to use against the enemy, in a way that was injurious to the enemy, thus, by virtue of Article 7, losing the protection afforded by Article 6,

Article 8 does not seem to apply to a situation where wounded men themselves retain possession of their weapons while being treated, and I cannot find any section of the Convention that specifically provides that a mobile medical unit or military hospital must immediately remove all weapons from every wounded man or patient in order to claim the protection of Article 6, so if this was indeed a requirement of the Convention, it must be pursuant to Article 7. But does a man retaining his weapon while being treated by a mobile medical unit or in a military hospital necessarily amount to the unit or hospital “being used to commit acts injurious to the enemy”, so as to mean that the protection afforded by Article 6 ceases, pursuant to Article 7? I would have thought that that would depend entirely on what the weapons were used for, or what they were intended to be used for.

In practical terms, however, you can see how different perceptions as to how great the risk was that patients’ weapons might be suspected of being used contrary to Article 7 - and how important it was to do away with that risk - might lead to the evolution of different regulations and/or protocols with regard to the weapons of wounded men.

So – and I know that I am speculating here, so quite happy to be corrected - maybe the rationale behind wounded Americans retaining their weapons  longer than was countenanced on this side of the Atlantic was not exactly a different interpretation of the Convention itself, but rather a different attitude to whether it was worth taking the risk that, if an enemy found a hospital full of wounded men each having his rifle beside him, the enemy might suspect that Article 7 had, or was about to, come into play so as to take away the protection afforded by Article 6? Might this also have something to do with different underlying assumptions about “the right to bear arms” on either side of the Atlantic?

[Andrew Upton]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

So – and I know that I am speculating here, so quite happy to be corrected - maybe the rationale behind wounded Americans retaining their weapons  longer than was countenanced on this side of the Atlantic was not exactly a different interpretation of the Convention itself, but rather a different attitude to whether it was worth taking the risk that, if an enemy found a hospital full of wounded men each having his rifle beside him, the enemy might suspect that Article 7 had, or was about to, come into play so as to take away the protection afforded by Article 6? Might this also have something to do with different underlying assumptions about “the right to bear arms” on either side of the Atlantic?

 

That is more or less my reading of it. Even in the period despite it being made explicitly clear it was allowed for medical establishments to have arms for their defense etc etc etc there are various accounts confirming it was somehow seen as not being in the spirit of it to do so. There is an Australian medical officers account if I recall correctly where he debates carrying his pistol as allowed by the Convention against the possibility of being shot outright by a German soldier who might just take the approach of asking questions later if he saw it.

 

If there was a "British policy... that no arms were to be seen in hospitals" (which there may very well have been) then it did not need to be justified using a fictitious or misinterpreted part of the Geneva Convention (which clearly states otherwise) to be implemented - it just would have been implemented in the name of good military practice. If Major Hart of the USA believed otherwise then he had either been fed a story or more likely the information relating to why the policy was such had simply become garbled somewhere along the line. A classic example of how once a myth has ended up in print it is difficult to dispel, especially when there are those who would prefer to believe the myth over fact.

[Pete_C]

IWM photo Q8650 - “Wounded British soldiers leaving their equipment (steel helmets, rifles etc) at a collecting point as they reach a RAMC field dressing station. Near Bapaume, 23 March 1918.”

 

[TEW]

Would a CCS or Hospital have more trouble from an officer and his own purchase pistol?

TEW

[FROGSMILE]

3 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I see that my rather tangential post on this thread has sparked some interesting exchanges.

Ironically, the John Lucy account to which I referred in my earlier post does now seem relevant to this thread in the light of the turn it has taken, so I shall repeat the key elements here:
In John Lucy’s book, There’s a Devil in the Drum, Lucy, then a corporal, describes assisting his lance corporal, who had been wounded by an exploding shell in Caudry during the Le Cateau engagement. He took him to a Red Cross hospital that had been set up in the town, The French doctor in charge insisted that the lance corporal’s rifle was to be left outside if he was to receive treatment. The lance corporal was reluctant to be parted from his weapon, but Lucy, describing him as "pig-headed", took it from him, and added it to the heap of discarded weapons already outside the hospital, after taking the bolt out of it, and throwing it over a wall.

When I first read Lucy’s account, I did not consider in detail precisely what caused the French doctor to act as he did, though I recognized that, if the Germans were about to overrun the town, the chances of the patients and staff of the hospital being decently treated would be greatly enhanced if it was seen that they were unarmed. This thread invites the question as to whether he was bound to act as he did by the Geneva Convention.

It is interesting to learn that, at least initially, different protocols were adopted on either side of the Atlantic with regard to whether (and for how long) the wounded would keep their weapons with them, and to note that the article by Michael Rauer referred to by Frogsmile attributes this to differing interpretations of the Geneva Convention.

I have also read with interest Andrew Upton’s comments regarding the Geneva Convention, both on this thread, and on the other thread to which he has provided a link, which also helpfully provides a link to a complete copy of the 1906 version of the Convention. 

I see that Article 6 of the Convention states (essentially) that mobile medical units supporting troops in the field and military hospitals shall be “protected and respected” by warring forces. Article 7 states that this protection ceases if they “are used to commit acts injurious to the enemy”. Article 8 then goes on to say that certain things - which presumably might otherwise be regarded as falling within Article 7 so as to forfeit the protection given by Article 6 - do not in fact do so.

One of the things mentioned in Article 8 is “That weapons and cartridges taken from the wounded and not yet handed over to the proper department are found in the unit or establishment”. My reading of this (though I’ll defer to anyone more knowledgeable who disagrees) is that it applies only to a very limited situation, namely, the situation where weapons have actually been taken away from the wounded by the mobile medical unit or military hospital. Until these weapons are “handed over to the proper department”, they would run the risk of being “found” in the possession or control of the unit or hospital, and one can see that in that situation, but for the clarification provided by Article 8, the unit or hospital might be accused of amassing arms to use against the enemy, in a way that was injurious to the enemy, thus, by virtue of Article 7, losing the protection afforded by Article 6,

Article 8 does not seem to apply to a situation where wounded men themselves retain possession of their weapons while being treated, and I cannot find any section of the Convention that specifically provides that a mobile medical unit or military hospital must immediately remove all weapons from every wounded man or patient in order to claim the protection of Article 6, so if this was indeed a requirement of the Convention, it must be pursuant to Article 7. But does a man retaining his weapon while being treated by a mobile medical unit or in a military hospital necessarily amount to the unit or hospital “being used to commit acts injurious to the enemy”, so as to mean that the protection afforded by Article 6 ceases, pursuant to Article 7? I would have thought that that would depend entirely on what the weapons were used for, or what they were intended to be used for.

In practical terms, however, you can see how different perceptions as to how great the risk was that patients’ weapons might be suspected of being used contrary to Article 7 - and how important it was to do away with that risk - might lead to the evolution of different regulations and/or protocols with regard to the weapons of wounded men.

So – and I know that I am speculating here, so quite happy to be corrected - maybe the rationale behind wounded Americans retaining their weapons  longer than was countenanced on this side of the Atlantic was not exactly a different interpretation of the Convention itself, but rather a different attitude to whether it was worth taking the risk that, if an enemy found a hospital full of wounded men each having his rifle beside him, the enemy might suspect that Article 7 had, or was about to, come into play so as to take away the protection afforded by Article 6? Might this also have something to do with different underlying assumptions about “the right to bear arms” on either side of the Atlantic?

From a military perspective it would’ve been about keeping it simple. Easy to understand and easy to apply.  When on the ground there’s little interest or profit in trying to interpret the various articles of an international convention amidst the fog of war, especially given the variety of circumstances that you’ve alluded to.  I think the American attitude was simply one related to inexperience.  They changed their procedure and as far as I can ascertain then stuck with it even for their own field divisions once deployed.

Edited 3 May , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Gunner Bailey]

An interesting point is that the rules might say 'hospital' but in the British Army there were Aid posts, Field Ambulance stations, Dressing Stations and Casualty Clearing stations before anyone got to a hospital. Did the same rules apply to the less sophisticated medical positions? Is it likely that a soldier would be allowed to carry his rifle through the first three but not the fourth?