The line between KIA and DOW

[Bryn]

I wasn't sure exactly which section in which to ask this question.

I remember reading, years ago somewhere, that a soldier was recorded as having been killed in action if (obviously) he was killed outright, or if he died before he could receive any attention. If he received any form of medical attention whatsoever, and subsequently died, then his death would be recorded as 'Died of Wounds'. Naturally I can't remember where I read this, and so have no way of knowing now whether it was an authoritative source or not.

My questions are:

(1) is this actually right?

(2) If it is, would such medical attention include application of a first field dressing, either by the wounded man himself or by another?

(3) If this is not right, what actually were the boundary lines - if any. How was it decided what should be recorded in borderline cases, or was this just a grey area?

(4) Were there any written guidelines for making such distinctions?

[hmsk212]

Hi

I believe that some men killed outright were classed by their Officers as having died of wounds so that they could be awarded the Military Medal, a medal that could not be awarded posthumously. This could, however, be an urban myth as it is something that cannot be proven.

Steve

[John_Hartley]

Bryn

I think the usual rule of thumb is that if the man got as far as "formal" medical attention then it would be classed as died of wounds. So, probably Regimental Aid Post (although that gets a bit grey area in my experience) or further down the evacuation line.

[6th Shropshires]

I think the usual rule of thumb is that if the man got as far as "formal" medical attention then it would be classed as died of wounds

This is I believe correct.

A chap from the 5/K.S.L.I. had taken part in attack on Railway wood, he was badly wounded but made it back to trenches held by the Durhams but their trenches under too heavily fire to get him away to a aid post, he died of his wounds and is recorded as killed in Action in SD & CWGC.

Annette

[truthergw]

I wasn't sure exactly which section in which to ask this question.

I remember reading, years ago somewhere, that a soldier was recorded as having been killed in action if (obviously) he was killed outright, or if he died before he could receive any attention. If he received any form of medical attention whatsoever, and subsequently died, then his death would be recorded as 'Died of Wounds'. Naturally I can't remember where I read this, and so have no way of knowing now whether it was an authoritative source or not.

My questions are:

(1) is this actually right?

(2) If it is, would such medical attention include application of a first field dressing, either by the wounded man himself or by another?

(3) If this is not right, what actually were the boundary lines - if any. How was it decided what should be recorded in borderline cases, or was this just a grey area?

(4) Were there any written guidelines for making such distinctions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My GF was wounded and left behind at Loos. He died in a German CCS ( or equivalent) 10 days later. His MIC states " DOW". Presumably medical care by the enemy was counted.

[westkent78]

I seem to recall that there was a pensions issue at stake here too, although this may just have been for the definitions of KIA and dying accidentally.

I was recently researching a group of Royal Irish Fusiliers who were killed in a Bombing training accident behind the lines. Two were listed as KIA, two as DOW. The regimental history states that all four were killed in the accident. (I haven't had a chance to check the War Diary yet though)

They all ended up in the same small cemetery in the village where the accident happened, so I would presume that the DOWs never made it to a "formal" casualty clearance site.

Matthew

[John_Hartley]

Presumably medical care by the enemy was counted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Definately.

John

[Bryn]

Thanks everyone.

Still not sure whether there were ever any formal guidelines issued on this though.

[SPotter]

is recorded as killed in Action in SD & CWGC.

Annette,

CWGC does not give the cause of death, merely states 'died' on such and such a date. SDGW is widely known not to be 100% accurate so it is I'm afraid very difficult to state categorically that a particular soldier was either KIA or DOW, unless some other evidence exists.

Steve

[Guest]

Bearing in mind the pressure people were working under at times, there must have been even marginal cases where the decision took all of 10 seconds to make and it would never have been challenged.

In some ways it does not matter. Dead is dead and the classification is just bureaucracy.

[Tom Morgan]

To add to the confusion - many thousands of soldiers weren't recorded as Killed in Action OR Died of Wounds - they were recorded as Missing.

Their subsequent "Killed in Action" status was only a reasonable assumption made against a lack of real evidence. No-one really knows how many of them were helped by comrades or "made comfortable" by stretcher bearers before dying and never being seen again.

Tom

[Terry Denham]

CWGC does not give the cause of death, merely states 'died' on such and such a date.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve

This is not actually quite correct.

You are right that CWGC only states 'died' in their online database (which is only a partial copy of the real thing) but, in the real 'live' database, there is a cause of death field. This is blank in all WW2 cases but does contain data in about 30% of WW1 cases.

The entries usually read 'Killed in Action', 'Died of Wounds' etc but sometimes an illness is given. Naval casualties usually have an entry reading along the lines 'Died when HMS xyz was torpedoed'.

This information appears in the old registers and in any printout that you order from CWGC.

However, it is not always reliable as much of the info came from next-of-kin. Sometimes it can be very informative - eg 'Died of wounds received at Festubert'.

[Paul Johnson]

Terry,

So why is this information not shown in a seperate field on the Website?

I'm sure it would not be too much of a problem to add.

Regards

PAUL JOHNSON

[Terry Denham]

Paul

Several reasons.

- The vast majority of entries for their 1.7 million names are blank.

- The information is not necessarily reliable.

- CWGC do not want hundreds of phone calls with people offering to fill in blank entries or enquiring about a subject for which they have no official documentation.

- This is not required information for them and it is not information which is required for them to identify a casualty as required by their Charter. Remember that CWGC is not there to provide a research service to all and sundry.

As I said, this info is still available if you obtain a printout from them. If you have anyone specific in mind, I can tell you if any data is held.

[Blackblue]

There have been a few threads on this topic before. The formal medical attention theory certainly seems correct in the majority of cases I have seen, however there are cases which I have seen which are at odds with this. For example a man wounded by a shell, never regained conciousness, and died shortly after - but classied DOW.

Rgds

Tim

[Terry]

In my collection is the 14-15 star earned by Lieut.W.G.McIntyre, who was wounded during the initial assault at Vimy Ridge on the morning of 9 April,1917. His injuries were so severe that he couldn't be moved at the time, so his wounds were dressed, and he was left where he had fallen. Later in the day he was brought in to a dressing station, where he died around 10pm. He is listed as Killed in Action, even though he technically died of his wounds.

[Paul Johnson]

Terry,

Thanks for the explanation. I was just curious but I can understand, if the information is not reliable, why it is not included.

Regards

PAUL JOHNSON

[John Cubin]

I have a death certificate for a private in the 4th Beds which says 'date of death - 27.9.1918 or since' and 'cause of death - killed in action or died of wounds.' Any suggestions, please?

[Paul Johnson]

John,

Sounds to me like your man was possibly "missing". Is he recorded on a Memorial such as Menin or Thiepval?

PAUL J

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Your right the I also heard that reporting of AIF casulties is as you state. But like you I have found no hard or fast rules on how it was applied.

During my reseach of Camel Corps soldiers I found that a man could be killed on the battlefield outright and still be listed as DoW?

But also in other records I have soldiers show as DoW's and as noted later in there service records that he was KIA. Why this was done and how they checked this to change the record is not known to me.

Purhaps the Court of Inquiry post Battle changed the original decision from DoW to KIA or the other way around with other soldiers?

One of the strangest I seen was the Court of Inquiry confirming that x amount of soldiers had been killed in battle while only one was DoW. When I checked these names all at Hill 60 Gallipoli I found that all others records have different out comes for them all.

S.B

[Bryn]

Okay, thanks everyone. This basically confirms my suspicion, gained over many years of not being able to find any written procedures, that, while there are different categories for recording deaths, there never seem to have been any written guidelines issued on how exactly to apply them.

I have some of the original CWGC registers (mainly for Gallipoli) and a "cause" of death (KIA, DOW, etc.) is almost always given in them.

On the subject of some of this being guesswork, it's obvious from the casualty returns of (for example) the 11th Battalion AIF, for the first few days at Gallipoli, that many of the dates of death recorded are wrong. Many of these have been recorded as 2nd May 1915; a day on which the battalion was not engaged in heavy fighting, but which was the day on which the unit's records were updated.

[John Cubin]

Paul J. He is buried in Queant Road, Buissy. This was a CCS cemetery but not started until October 1918. Bit of a puzzler? John.

[Guest]

I have a death certificate for a private in the 4th Beds which says 'date of death - 27.9.1918 or since' and 'cause of death - killed in action or died of wounds.' Any suggestions, please?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would suggest that whoever originally completed these entries did not know. They may well have had better things to do at the time.

[SPotter]

You are right that CWGC only states 'died' in their online database (which is only a partial copy of the real thing) but, in the real 'live' database, there is a cause of death field. This is blank in all WW2 cases but does contain data in about 30% of WW1 cases.

Terry,

As ever thank you for the definitive answer. In mitigation I was considering only the online database in my response as this is probably now the resource most used by inquirers. I imagine that the number of postal requests has dropped dramatically since it was introduced, or has the introduction of the online search merely fuelled interest?

Regards

Steve

[peteg]

According to Kings Own (Royal Lancaster) Rgt medal rolls, my Grandfather is given as DOW on March 4th 1915. CWGC and Kings Own lists give him as KIA. Yet, a court of enquiry held by 12th Brigade (4th Div) gives him as "missing" on the night of 2/3 March.

Given the attention of a court of enquiry, I would have thought that they would have had the date right although no indication of how he died. Interestingly, another soldier who was with him on the night and did not return is listed by CWGC and Kings Own as KIA on 22nd March 1915.

A mystery !!!

Pete.