War Diaries Talk

3 INDIAN (LAHORE) DIVISION: 112 INDIAN FIELD AMBULANCE (1 AUG 1914 - 31 DEC 1915) Upper Arm Injuries

  • Mary_mn by Mary_mn

    Comment by writer of 3 INDIAN (LAHORE) DIVISION: 112 INDIAN FIELD AMBULANCE (1 AUG 1914 – 31 DEC 1915) WO/95/3920/4 Page 20 of 132 this writer observed that 75% of wounds to upper extremity were to the left hand and comprised 50% of the total wounds received. I wonder if the Image © IWM (Q 53348) – A group of wounded Indian soldiers walk across the cobbles of a French village is of these men as all three have injuries to left hand/arm? (In blog regarding arrival of Indian Army in France by ral104)

    Posted

  • cyngast by cyngast moderator

    I've been tagging the 111 Indian Field Ambulance and the author/C.O. makes quite a few references to hand wounds being suspicious or non-suspicious as self-inflicted wounds. He even reports the absence of any hand wounds. It seems to have been of some concern to track these wounds, although I haven't yet seen any notes regarding the follow-up of any suspicious wounds.

    Posted

  • Mary_mn by Mary_mn

    discussed this post with a hand surgeon that I work with and none of us could work out why there was such a high proportion of left hand injuries(other than for self inflicted wounds which seems a little unlikely so early in the war). . If he can work it out will post his conclusions!

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    The self-inflicted wounds thing is interesting. I would guess most of them were right handed so if you wanted to disable one hand on purpose it would be the left... Very interesting discussion Mary - do let us know what you come up with!

    What date was this by the way?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Self-inflicted wounds would be the obvious explanation, wouldn't it? But who knows...are they gunshot wounds or something else?

    Posted

  • cyngast by cyngast moderator

    At least one hand wound that was considered suspicious had powder present, which I think indicates a shot at close range. The period when I saw these reports was during the late winter/early spring of 1915, after the battle at Neuve Chapelle. The weather was still pretty awful that spring. I wonder if it was a combination of fear and just plain misery for these men who weren't used to the cold.

    To be fair, the majority of the hand wounds were deemed non-suspicious, at least at the 111 Field Ambulance.

    I just had a thought. If you're firing a rifle, using your right hand for the trigger, then your left hand is out in front of you to support the barrel. Would that make much difference in making the left hand a more vulnerable target?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    I think in that position, men would also have at least their head and shoulders exposed too, so you'd expect more severe wounds than hand alone. I think the point around and just after the battle of Neuve Chapelle was a really bad time for the Indian troops in terms of morale - they were poorly equipped, suffering from the cold and had taken awful casualties.

    Posted

  • cyngast by cyngast moderator

    There was a note later in the 111th Indian Field Ambulance diary that the order had come down from the Lahore Division to be on the lookout for self-inflicted wounds. It seems there might have been quite a lot of them. The O.C./diary author also noted two German prisoners who had come in with right forearm wounds that he thought looked suspicious.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Bad times for everybody, I guess. Even by the standards of the Western Front.

    Posted