Chest expansion??

[MrEd]

Hi all, collective wisdom sought please 

I have been reading a fair few attestation and medical forms recently and have noticed that a lot of men have a chest measurement recorded that states the chest measurement, and the chest measurement inflated. 
 

for example:

- chest measurement: girth when fully expanded 39inches, range of expansion 3 inches.

so a chest measurement of 36inches.

Why is the chest expansion recorded? Was this for uniform fitment or some measure of fitness?

 

thanks

ed

[seaJane]

Being able to hold a deep breath in was a marker for stamina and fitness - the bigger the chest expansion, the deeper the breath / better the health.

It was noticeable that not just the base measurement but the degree of expansion improved after training, especially in the case of men from the urban / low income / clerical demographic.

[MrEd]

7 hours ago, seaJane said:

Being able to hold a deep breath in was a marker for stamina and fitness - the bigger the chest expansion, the deeper the breath / better the health.

It was noticeable that not just the base measurement but the degree of expansion improved after training, especially in the case of men from the urban / low income / clerical demographic.

Thanks, that was my suspicion that it was a ‘health’ measurement (especially where it is recorded in the record) but I didn’t want to assume anything

thanks

ed

[FROGSMILE]

It’s still measured during an ‘initial medical’ for recruits today and I was told associated with lung capacity, but I don’t know if that’s true.  I can still remember the very old GP doing mine at the recruiting office in Blackheath and he received a stipend for each medical that he carried out.

Edited 2 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[MrEd]

Nice little earner for that GP! 

[FROGSMILE]

On 31/10/2022 at 10:33, MrEd said:

Nice little earner for that GP! 

Yes apparently it could be quite lucrative.  He was booked by the recruiting office for so many days each week and potential recruits went through the medical as part of their second visit.  During WW1 it was done at much larger offices on a huge scale of course.  Height, weight and eyesight were measured at the same time.

Edited 2 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[MrEd]

6 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes apparently it could be quite lucrative.  He was booked by the recruiting office for so many days each week and potential recruits went through the medical as part of their second visit.  During WW1 it was done at much larger offices on a huge scale of course.  Height, weight and eyesight was measured at the same time.

Do you happen to have the criteria that stipulates what would be a medical pass or fail?

i am a nurse by training (although non-clinical management now due to health) so am interested from 2 aspects 

[FROGSMILE]

2 minutes ago, MrEd said:

Do you happen to have the criteria that stipulates what would be a medical pass or fail?

i am a nurse by training (although non-clinical management now due to health) so am interested from 2 aspects 

This is from the excellent parent website to the GWF, the LongLongTrail: https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/instructions-for-the-physical-examination-of-recruits/

[MrEd]

5 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

This is from the excellent parent website to the GWF, the LongLongTrail: https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/instructions-for-the-physical-examination-of-recruits/

Of course, I sometimes don’t think to check LLT, thanks 

[FROGSMILE]

1 minute ago, MrEd said:

Of course, I sometimes don’t think to check LLT, thanks 

No problem.  There’s little that isn’t covered there or in the archive of posts here.  It’s always worth using the search facility. 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

My grandfather, Norman Hall, was keen to join up as soon as possible when war broke out. Aged 22, he was 5 ft 7 1/4 in, and weighed 7 stone 11 lbs. Having been in the OTC at school and University, his immediate thought was to enlist in the Manchester Regiment as an officer, but he says that he was rejected "on chest measurement". He does not say what his chest measurement was, or by how much he failed, but in September 1914 he decided to apply to join the King's Liverpool Regiment, 3rd City Battalion as a private. His full account of the enlistment process is quoted on my website https://alancashirefusilier.wixsite.com/1914-18 , but the relevant snippet for the purposes of this thread reads as follows:

A Sergeant took me in hand first. He took my chest measurement. “Eh lad th’yll have to do better than that. Take a deep breath. Eh, go on, deeper” – eventually by not holding the tape too tight across the back I only just reached the required standard. This measurement was duly recorded on one of the Army Forms ...

Again he does not say what the required standard was, but I have wondered whether the fact that he was able to gain acceptance with the KLR 3rd City Battalion, while he was not able to do so with the Manchester Regiment, was because of one or more of the following:

• The fact that he was now wise to the requirement meant that he was able to manipulate the result just enough to get through
• The requirement for a private was less than for an officer
• The requirement to enlist in the New Army was less than to enlist in the Regular Army
• The recuriting officers in the "New Army" were prepared to be laxer than in the Regular Army (certainly there is a suggestion in the quoted passage that the Sergeant connived in making sure he met the required standard)
• The passage of time alone between his two attempts to enlist, even though only a few weeks, was enough to mean that throughout both the Regular and New Armies the requirements had been relaxed or were not being so strictly applied, in order to ensure that sufficient men enlisted, so that he might even have got into the Manchester Regiment as an officer by September 1914 if he had applied again to that unit

It is probably not possible to answer these questions definitively, unless perhaps it is a known fact that the requirements for a private of New Army man were less than for an officer and/or Regular, but it is interesting to see that the same man, having been rejected on chest measurement in August 1914, was able to pass the test a month (at most) later.

Edited 4 November , 2022 by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[J T Gray]

The post above made me smile with the Sergeant's efforts to pass your grandfather (who must have been built like a pencil) - some years ago I downloaded all the service records I could find for men from my village of interest. Among them was a chap discharged after six weeks as the perfect eyesight of the initial screening turned into 1/6.

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

My grandfather, Norman Hall, was keen to join up as soon as possible when war broke out. Aged 22, he was 5 ft 7 1/4 in, and weighed 7 stone 11 lbs. Having been in the OTC at school and University, his immediate thought was to enlist in the Manchester Regiment as an officer, but he says that he was rejected "on chest measurement". He does not say what his chest measurement was, or by how much he failed, but in September 1914 he decided to apply to join the King's Liverpool Regiment, 3rd City Battalion as a private. His full account of the enlistment process is quoted on my website https://alancashirefusilier.wixsite.com/1914-18 , but the relevant snippet for the purposes of this thread reads as follows:

A Sergeant took me in hand first. He took my chest measurement. “Eh lad th’yll have to do better than that. Take a deep breath. Eh, go on, deeper” – eventually by not holding the tape too tight across the back I only just reached the required standard. This measurement was duly recorded on one of the Army Forms ...

Again he does not say what the required standard was, but I have wondered whether the fact that he was able to gain accpetance with the KLR 3rd City Battalion, while he was not able to do so with the Manchester Regiment, was because of one or more of the following:

• The fact that he was now wise to the requirement meant that he was able to manipulate the result just enough to get through
• The requirement for a private was less than for an officer
• The requirement to enlist in the New Army was less than to enlist in the Regular Army
• The recuriting officers in the "New Army" were prepared to be laxer than in the Regular Army (certainly there is a suggestion in the quoted passage that the Sergeant connived in making sure he met the required standard)
• The passage of time alone between his two attempts to enlist, even though only a few weeks, was enough to mean that throughout both the Regular and New Armies the requirements had been relaxed or were not being so strictly applied, in order to ensure that sufficient men enlisted, so that he might even have got into the Manchester Regiment as an officer by September 1914 if he had applied again to that unit

It is probably not possible to answer these questions definitively, unless perhaps it is a known fact that the requirements for a private of New Army man were less than for an officer and/or Regular, but it is interesting to see that the same man, having been rejected on chest measurement in August 1914, was able to pass the test a month (at most) later.

I think that all of your thoughtful bullet points are well founded and entirely conceivable.  As regards your grandfather’s experiences with having his chest measurement taken, you might find the required criterion here: https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/instructions-for-the-physical-examination-of-recruits/height-and-weight-tests/

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

On 26/10/2022 at 20:42, MrEd said:

Why is the chest expansion recorded?

It's a quick and easy way initial screen for what we now call COPD and asthma.
Patients with such conditions can suffer from 'air trapping' which causes hyperinflated lungs.

Such patients can have a large chest circumference, but a small expansion.

Other lung diseases can cause a reduction in lung volume and expansion.

So, just a hint to look a bit further.

[MrEd]

17 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

It's a quick and easy way initial screen for what we now call COPD and asthma.
Patients with such conditions can suffer from 'air trapping' which causes hyperinflated lungs.

Such patients can have a large chest circumference, but a small expansion.

Other lung diseases can cause a reduction in lung volume and expansion.

So, just a hint to look a bit further.

Yep I get why now, makes sense, I just didn’t want to assume that was why it was recorded if you see what I mean, I have never measured chest expansion (beyond hand on the chest to feel expansion), and I guess in my field of acute care, as a nurse, I didn’t need to - I am sure the doctors perhaps do in outpatients etc. 

thanks  

Edited 2 November , 2022 by MrEd

[MrEd]

2 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

My grandfather, Norman Hall, was keen to join up as soon as possible when war broke out. Aged 22, he was 5 ft 7 1/4 in, and weighed 7 stone 11 lbs. Having been in the OTC at school and University, his immediate thought was to enlist in the Manchester Regiment as an officer, but he says that he was rejected "on chest measurement". He does not say what his chest measurement was, or by how much he failed, but in September 1914 he decided to apply to join the King's Liverpool Regiment, 3rd City Battalion as a private. His full account of the enlistment process is quoted on my website https://alancashirefusilier.wixsite.com/1914-18 , but the relevant snippet for the purposes of this thread reads as follows:

A Sergeant took me in hand first. He took my chest measurement. “Eh lad th’yll have to do better than that. Take a deep breath. Eh, go on, deeper” – eventually by not holding the tape too tight across the back I only just reached the required standard. This measurement was duly recorded on one of the Army Forms ...

Again he does not say what the required standard was, but I have wondered whether the fact that he was able to gain accpetance with the KLR 3rd City Battalion, while he was not able to do so with the Manchester Regiment, was because of one or more of the following:

• The fact that he was now wise to the requirement meant that he was able to manipulate the result just enough to get through
• The requirement for a private was less than for an officer
• The requirement to enlist in the New Army was less than to enlist in the Regular Army
• The recuriting officers in the "New Army" were prepared to be laxer than in the Regular Army (certainly there is a suggestion in the quoted passage that the Sergeant connived in making sure he met the required standard)
• The passage of time alone between his two attempts to enlist, even though only a few weeks, was enough to mean that throughout both the Regular and New Armies the requirements had been relaxed or were not being so strictly applied, in order to ensure that sufficient men enlisted, so that he might even have got into the Manchester Regiment as an officer by September 1914 if he had applied again to that unit

It is probably not possible to answer these questions definitively, unless perhaps it is a known fact that the requirements for a private of New Army man were less than for an officer and/or Regular, but it is interesting to see that the same man, having been rejected on chest measurement in August 1914, was able to pass the test a month (at most) later.

That’s a fascinating account, thank you  

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

As regards your grandfather’s experiences with having his chest measurement taken, you might find the required criterion here: 

Thank you Frogsmile, for providing the above link. I did follow the link in your earlier post, but when I clicked on "height and weight tests" within the LLT article I got the message "Oops! That page can't be found", and in fact, I still get that message from the LLT. I am not sure why, as the direct link that you have provided works perfectly well for me. 

I see that the criteria listed all apply to the Regular Army, but that the additional information provided by Chris Baker suggests that they were also to guide Territorial and Special Reserve MOs, as well as civil practitioners conducting medical assessments.

Having said that, as my grandfather's weight was only 109 lbs, he was off the scale for even the smallest, youngest man envisaged by any of the five tables, so it is rather hard to see what criteria the poor Sergeant would have been trying to apply, perhaps merely the smallest admissible chest measurement for the youngest smallest man on any of the tables??! I suspect that chest expansion would not have been too much of a problem in his case as he was generally fit and healthy, and seems to have had a reasonable amount of physical stamina (even though Mark Hone tells me that the only sporting success that the school magazines of Bury Grammar School record for him is once coming second in the slow bicycle race!).

@J T Gray, you are right that he was built like a pencil, and he retained his slim wiry stature throughout his life. It was not always a disadvantage, for example when his servant was able to carry him the two miles back to their starting off point when he was seriously wounded in one of the Somme attacks in September 1916.

I enjoyed your story about the mysteriously  deteriorating eyesight too.

@MrEd you are welcome, I am glad you enjoyed the story.

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Thank you Frogsmile, for providing the above link. I did follow the link in your earlier post, but when I clicked on "height and weight tests" within the LLT article I got the message "Oops! That page can't be found", and in fact, I still get that message from the LLT. I am not sure why, as the direct link that you have provided works perfectly well for me. 

I see that the criteria listed all apply to the Regular Army, but that the additional information provided by Chris Baker suggests that they were also to guide Territorial and Special Reserve MOs, as well as civil practitioners conducting medical assessments.

Having said that, as my grandfather's weight was only 109 lbs, he was off the scale for even the smallest, youngest man envisaged by any of the five tables, so it is rather hard to see what criteria the poor Sergeant would have been trying to apply, perhaps merely the smallest admissible chest measurement for the youngest smallest man on any of the tables??! I suspect that chest expansion would not have been too much of a problem in his case as he was generally fit and healthy, and seems to have had a reasonable amount of physical stamina (even though Mark Hone tells me that the only sporting success that the school magazines of Bury Grammar School record for him is once coming second in the slow bicycle race!).

@J T Gray, you are right that he was built like a pencil, and he retained his slim wiry stature throughout his life. It was not always a disadvantage, for example when his servant was able to carry him the two miles back to their starting off point when he was seriously wounded in one of the Somme attacks in September 1916.

I enjoyed your story about the mysteriously  deteriorating eyesight too.

@MrEd you are welcome, I am glad you enjoyed the story.

You’re quite right, the link doesn’t work (I should have mentioned it).  I solved the problem in that on the “Oops” page it invites you to search for what’s missing, so I copied and pasted in “height and weight tests” into the box and it then went straight to the correct link.  There’s presumably a break in the linkage, an IT whizz like @spofmight be able to fix it.

Once again your intuitive musing about what criteria the perplexed recruiting sergeant might have applied, when considering your grandfather’s chest measurement in relation to his other physical characteristics, seems very likely.  In my experience of similar conundrums an as near as damn it solution was usually found.  There was a much quoted and expected principle of - don’t give me problems, give me solutions. 

[spof]

The LLT issue is related to that site. We don't have access to it so you'll need to contact Chris at LLT to get it fixed.

[FROGSMILE]

32 minutes ago, spof said:

The LLT issue is related to that site. We don't have access to it so you'll need to contact Chris at LLT to get it fixed.

Thank you, understood.

[J T Gray]

17 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

 

@J T Gray, you are right that he was built like a pencil, and he retained his slim wiry stature throughout his life. It was not always a disadvantage, for example when his servant was able to carry him the two miles back to their starting off point when he was seriously wounded in one of the Somme attacks in September 1916.

 

A lucky man! I suspect a survey of the enlistment papers would privide very interesting data on average height and weight of the day - I suspect that, especially in deprived areas, there were a lot of very small men (and doubtless women, but they wouldn't appear in those records) owing to poor nutrition, probably going back to the womb. As an adult, at 5'9", I've never weighed less than 10 stone (currently, at 50, with no spare fat except between the ears, about 10 and a half), so your grandfather's size really struck me.