WOUNDED IN ACTION

[Guest Ian Topham]

WW1 Soldiers often refere to the " Blighty Wound ".

What common type's of wound's would have been considered a " Blighty Wound " ?

And, how would this have been assessed by the military medical fraternity, from Trench to Blighty Hospital?

Cheers

Ian

[Kate Wills]

I imagine it was a question of severity, length of treatment and recuperation. For instance a flesh wound in a limb would require dressing and stitching. A deeper wound that had shattered bone would naturally need more attention and put a man out of action while the bone healed and until proper movement was regained.

[Bob Coulson]

I have also read that at times of manpower shortage for the front that the doctors were liable to send men back into action when at other times their wounds would merit a passage to "blighty"

Bob.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Also when very very busy after a big battle, men who would not have been sent back to Blighty because their wounds were light got sent back to make room for the flood of newly wounded.

Annette

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Ian,

I had this once explained to me by a veteran, a 'blighty' wound was one which required some form of surgery, such as a GSW (gun shot wound), being hit by shrapnel or being stabbed, as well as being gassed. There were 'good' blighty wounds and 'bad' blighty wounds. For example an injury that would heal slowly and would not impair you was a good one, losing a leg, arm, eye or something between the abdoman and thigh was regarded as a bad one. I suspect there were differences between regiments and units.

Ian