Wound stripe for gas casualty

[Dirty Harry]

Ola,

 

not sure if I’m in the right place but go hum.

 

anyhow I have read that on the introduction of mustard gas and it’s capacity to lay dormant until a soldier came within contact, wound stripes were discontinued.

 

source is Charles Foulkes book, Gas.

 

is this correct?

[Muerrisch]

What is his reference please? As in Army Order, ACI, or whatever.

[TEW]

Wound stripes were certainly not discontinued during the war.

TEW

[Muerrisch]

12 hours ago, TEW said:

Wound stripes were certainly not discontinued during the war.

TEW

I think that is a little strong. As my collection of AOs and ACIs is not quite complete [nasty gaps in 1916 and 1918], and as I do not have many of the "Army" order summaries, I have to say that the possibility exists under the circumstances I will describe. AOs are now searchable on line, but not 1918.

The temptation to get a Blighty wound existed, and most self-inflicted wounds were detectable as such.  I know of a RWF case on file where, after some argument, hospitalization for injury on enemy barbed wire during an attack or patrol was held to be wounds inflicted by the enemy, and a wound badge probably resulted. "Friendly" barbed wire was held to be a different matter: clumsiness or foolishness I suppose. 

Thus, lingering enemy gas in British positions might tempt those who had "had enough"

Not likely, but possible. Not a choice that I would make.

As the absence of proof is not proof of absence, I asked the OP for references, and remain in hope that the matter may prove more interesting than "certainly not"

[TEW]

Well, we know that wound stripes were issued up to the armistice. Not 100% sure what happened after that.

Perhaps the OP has mis-quoted Foulkes but it reads to me that in July 1917 wound stripes were discontinued. Clearly, not the case.

Purposely touching mustard gas product would be self-inflicted and therefore not a wound in the sense of being published or receiveing a wound stripe.

There's the distinction between being reported as wounded or sick by any gas type. Sick would not warrant a wound stripe but a man wounded by gas 10/11/1918 would be entitled to a wound stripe.

TEW

[Muerrisch]

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Well, we know that wound stripes were issued up to the armistice. Not 100% sure what happened after that.

Perhaps the OP has mis-quoted Foulkes but it reads to me that in July 1917 wound stripes were discontinued. Clearly, not the case.

Purposely touching mustard gas product would be self-inflicted and therefore not a wound in the sense of being published or receiveing a wound stripe.

There's the distinction between being reported as wounded or sick by any gas type. Sick would not warrant a wound stripe but a man wounded by gas 10/11/1918 would be entitled to a wound stripe.

TEW

Do you have the book please? If so, the exact phraseology and any reference much appreciated. I believe AOs July 1917 are on line and I will have a look. I don't expect to find anything but .................

[Muerrisch]

Nothing in AOs July or August 1917. I don't have ACIs for those months.

[Dirty Harry]

On 30/01/2024 at 22:37, Muerrisch said:

What is his reference please? As in Army Order, ACI, or whatever.

frustratingly Foulkes never cites any references

[Dirty Harry]

11 hours ago, TEW said:

Well, we know that wound stripes were issued up to the armistice. Not 100% sure what happened after that.

Perhaps the OP has mis-quoted Foulkes but it reads to me that in July 1917 wound stripes were discontinued. Clearly, not the case.

Purposely touching mustard gas product would be self-inflicted and therefore not a wound in the sense of being published or receiveing a wound stripe.

There's the distinction between being reported as wounded or sick by any gas type. Sick would not warrant a wound stripe but a man wounded by gas 10/11/1918 would be entitled to a wound stripe.

TEW

this was in reference to mustard gas casualties in 1918.

 

If this was correct would badly skew gas casualties 

[WhiteStarLine]

13 hours ago, TEW said:

Sick would not warrant a wound stripe but a man wounded by gas 10/11/1918 would be entitled to a wound stripe

When researching my grandfather's experience with the 11th AIF Brigade, there were 2 brigades stationed in Abbe Wood near Villers-Bretonneux in May 1918, each a few weeks apart.  During bombardments over several days they recorded over 2,200 casualties.

 Within a month or two of that, the processes and procedures they implemented for dealing with gas attacks became routine and warfare transitioned to mobile,  I was surprised to read about 2 gas casualties classified in the unit war diary as self-inflicted.  A wound needed to be as a result of a direct splash or equivalent.

I was sufficiently intrigued by this to make a few notes well over a decade ago.  I did not record the exact month and the diary and appendices for late 1918 are enormous.

So I agree with @TEW on the entitlement but in at least the Australian brigades, the soldier would have to show the circumstances were beyond his control.

Perhaps @Dirty Harry could post a brief extract from the book he cites?

Cheers, Bill

[TEW]

I found a frustratingly cropped extract from the book in question on Google books.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=_WS-BAAAQBAJ&q=Stripes#v=snippet&q=Stripes&f=false

It mentions that the stripe had been awarded in all gas cases. Well, only in cases that were considered a wound.

Goes on to mention that sterner measures were needed and that courts of enquiry were needed to investigate......

Not overly helpful and the term 'discontinued' does not show up in a search.

I'm aware that at Loos when the British gas blew back over the waiting troops many men made it to dressing stations and were entered in the A&D books as wounded. This was curtailed and stations were ordered to record men as sick. Possible that those that got in early had a wound stripe and another man 10 minutes later did not. 

I'm aware of the whole accidental injuries/sick, enquiries, SIW issues and genuine wounds.

There could be a lot of discussion regarding what constitutes an accident. Not sure that was the original question.

Can't we just see what the extract actually says in full? IE  scan the page. 

TEW

[Dirty Harry]

Found it 

 

Gas! 
by Charles Foulkes

page 263

 

”soon after the appearance of mustard gas it became obvious that the least carelessness on the part of the troops would result in an increase in the number of casualties so that I recommended a discontinuation of the wound stripe which had been awarded until then in all gas cases.”

 

so was only a recommendation. Is there any evidence that this was implemented?

Edited 1 February by Dirty Harry

[Muerrisch]

Well done. I do not own the book.

Questions:

Who is the person you quote ............... some general, or is it Foulkes's memoirs?

And can you date the matter in hand approximately from context?

If there is an index "wound badge" may crop up later. It may say what became of it.

Like almost all badges [except rank] the wound badge [and overseas chevrons and good conduct] carried no extra payment, merely prestige. Nevertheless they provided the peer group and those set over them with a potted summary of a soldier's experience and [in some cases] proficiency.

Well done, the matter is not as black and white as it may seem at first blush.

Edited 1 February by Muerrisch
wrong assumption

[Muerrisch]

Google is your friend!

FOULKES served in World War I as Commander of 11th (Field) Company, taking part in the First Battle of Ypres in 1914 before becoming Britain's chief advisor on gas warfare in 1915 and General Officer Commanding the Special Brigade responsible for Chemical Warfare and Director of Gas Services in 1917.

His was certainly a voice to be heard. The hounds are running.

[Chasemuseum]

The 77mm c96n/A field gun attached to my image was captured on 23rd of August 1918 at the 2nd Battle of Amiens by Pte Archie Macpherson of 5Bn AIF at St Martins Wood on the Amiens St Quentin Road south of the Somme. 5 Bn had advanced 1km into the wood taking the German position at about 5am and consolidating in the wood. The retreating german artillery hammered the wood  during the day with mustard gas causing a large number of casualties (wounded), including Archie. I cannot confirm but have always assumed that he qualified for a wound stripe. It would have been pretty rough to have denied it. 

 

As it was, he had advanced into the creeping barrage, and shot down the crew of one gun placed in the front line as an anti-tank gun and caused the crews of the other 3 guns in the battery to flee, abandoning their guns. This was instrumental in neutralising the battery which only fired a single shell at the tanks advancing down the road (they had been late reaching the start line). He was awarded the MM for his actions. The tanks were subsequently of great value in engaging German MG positions in the Woods.  

[Terry_Reeves]

Foulkes did say that he thought men should not be given a wound stripe, but it is my view that this was more of a warning to troops to follow gas training as outlined in SS 534 - Defence Against Gas.

TR

Edited 9 February by Terry_Reeves

[Muerrisch]

Thank you Terry. One wonders if this warning was promulgated, and, if so, how?

[Terry_Reeves]

David, by this stage of the war there was a whole network engaged in gas defence, principally through Divisional Anti- Gas Schools who amongst other things,held courses for unit gas NCOs who would keep units up to date with latest developments and check  gas masks etc.

Gas school NCOs were also sent out to units when reports of heavy gas casualties were reported, investigated the circumstances and gave advice where necessary.

The system could not prevent casualties of course , but it could give the necessary advice, and where necessary, re-training. The major  problem was that some units did not enforce gas discipline which underlies Foulkes’ report. 

TR
 

 

Edited 9 February by Terry_Reeves

[Muerrisch]

Thank you ............... a grey area in my knowledge ............... yet another!