Wounded or Injured, 100 Squadron O/400 Crash?

[JohnC]

I’m researching the crash of 100 Squadron Handley Page O/400 bomber C9736 on 29th October 1918. Of the crew of three, two are listed as wounded (both Lts) and one as injured (a sgt). Is there any differentiation in the use of the words wounded and injured in this context?

The crash occured at Roville, which was only about a mile from the squadron’s base at Xaffevillers. The crew are not listed in The Annals of 100 Squadron as taking part in either of the bombing missions on that day so I guess this was a training or test flight?

Thanks, John

[nils d]

Well you'd do a lot better if you posted this on the air personnel section.

Two people could've been wounded on a mission and the sergeant injured in the subsequent crash.However l d just put the difference down to poor reporting .

[Matlock1418]

On 03/03/2022 at 08:59, JohnC said:

I’m researching the crash of 100 Squadron Handley Page O/400 bomber C9736 on 29th October 1918. Of the crew of three, two are listed as wounded (both Lts) and one as injured (a sgt). Is there any differentiation in the use of the words wounded and injured in this context?

The crash occured at Roville, which was only about a mile from the squadron’s base at Xaffevillers. The crew are not listed in The Annals of 100 Squadron as taking part in either of the bombing missions on that day so I guess this was a training or test flight?

Think it would depend upon whether or not enemy action [or perhaps 'Friendly fire'?] was involved in the crash.

Wounded does tend to suggest one thing, whilst injured rather suggests a more accidental condition perhaps caused by the crash.

In the Army a Wound qualified for a wound stripe whereas accidental injuries did not.  Don't know how such niceties were viewed in the RAF in 1918.

M

[JohnC]

Thanks Matlock. I have since found that in 1918 the Independent Force used non-obvious terms for casualties, perhaps to deflect attention from the rate of non-combat casualties. For example, the term of Injured in the category of Accidental Casualties did not include officers who had crossed the lines and then been accidentally injured. They were deemed as Battle Casualties, for which the options were Killed, Wounded or Missing, but not Injured. I have also found that the Annals does not contain a complete list of all operations and participants. My view now is that Lt Siddaway crashed near base upon return from an operation across the lines, and the officers were therefore deemed as Battle Casualties, ie Wounded. The same distinction presumably did not apply to ORs.