What is BIS?
-
by
Stork
A location is given as '14 BIS' in the left column and in the text. I've seen BIS used like this a hundred times before, and I've finally thought of asking what it is. I haven't been using the Place tag for BIS since it's so nondescript, but should I start doing so?
Also, practically every day in this diary it says that a certain number of men go to hospital, with no reason given. As you can see, the author of this diary is very good about naming men who get wounded, so I assume to these 'to hospital' men are sick, not wounded. I've been using the Casualty tag and putting them in the Not Specified section, but should I be tagging them as Sick, instead?
As long as I'm at it, this month is July, and it seems strange that so many men are getting so sick in the warm summer weather that they need to be hospitalised. It's averaging 4 or 5 men/day in a unit of 500 men, which seems like a lot. There's never any mention of a specific disease, so I'm curious about why so many men are getting so sick. It's probably all of the usual reasons- crowded conditions, wet trenches, lack of hygiene, bad food, etc.
Posted
-
From records I found the following: ...Sir John French in his despatch described the Puits 14 bis as "another coal mine, possessing great possibilities for defence when taken in conjunction with a strong redoubt situated on the north-east side of Hill 70.".
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
The French word puits is a mine head or mine shaft. Puits 14 bis was to the northeast of the town of Loos. I think that 14 bis is roughly equivalent to 14 A, but my French isn't good enough to be sure of that. It boils down to Puits 14 bis is a particular mine.
Originally, when I came to Puits 14 bis, or sometimes just 14 bis, in a diary, I didn't tag it, following the directive in the Field Guide not to tag places identified by just a number. However, I have recently begun tagging it as a Place because it was the name of a sector of the line in that area, and so is a term that would be recognized by researchers familiar with WW1.
I have been working through this same diary and have also been unsure how to tag men going "to hospital," but I think it is safe to assume they are sick because, as you say, this author is VERY thorough in diligently recording all wounded and killed men by name and service number. I'm not an expert on the cause of these illnesses but it does seem to me that a combination of warm weather, poor hygiene, and possibly spoiled food could be the culprit.
Posted
-
by
Stork
Thanks for your replies. I just got the answer for why so many men are getting sick in the 4 Oct entry of the diary- "... most of these cases are trench fever, from which the men return in a very few days."
It's caused by a bacterium spread by lice. From Wikipedia: From 1915 to 1918 between one-fifth and one-third of all British troops reported ill had trench fever, while about one-fifth of ill German and Austrian troops had the disease.
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
Thanks for the update, Stork.
Posted
-
by
Stork
A little more: I'm now 8 months later in the diary, and there are still about 5 men/day being sent to hospital. Starting a couple months ago, every day after the sentence telling how many men are going to hospital, the next sentence is, 'Three OR evacuated and struck off the strength of the battalion.' Evidently, some of the men are so sick with trench fever that they aren't returning. I don't know if they're being kept longer in the hospital, or maybe sent to a recovery station, or maybe they're being kicked out of the army and sent home to England.
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
It's probably just that they're taken off the ration strength for the duration of their time away from the unit.
Posted