Stretchers - Head first or Feet first

[auchonvillerssomme]

First picture, unless that bearer has very odd hands and his trousers on back to front shows him at the head end of a stretcher. The second shows a casualty being put on or unloaded from a cart - arguably the equivelant of an ambulance, as i mentioned in post 13 - head first into the ambulance.

Your post 100% supports feet first.

Mick

[centurion]

First picture, unless that bearer has very odd hands and his trousers on back to front shows him at the head end of a stretcher. The second shows a casualty being put on or unloaded from a cart - arguably the equivelant of an ambulance, as i mentioned in post 13 - head first into the ambulance.

Your post 100% supports feet first.

Mick

Well this one (which I've already posted) certainly breaks the 100% http://wwii.ca/photos/vimy/vimy_3.jpg

[centurion]

And some more

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/noreuil/.../awm-e00441.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/288274..._b035b18ee8.jpg

And one going both ways! Bottom stretcher looks very uncomfortable

[auchonvillerssomme]

Well this one (which I've already posted) certainly breaks the 100% http://wwii.ca/photos/vimy/vimy_3.jpg

Obviously poorly trained, especially allowing the casualty to shift and therefore move the load, very poor technique but we can allow them that being at war and all. But you should really read my last response properly, I said your previous post supported 100% the correct way. Your latest post actually supports 100% the incorrect use, no one says they didn't ever carry incorrectly.

[centurion]

Obviously poorly trained, especially allowing the casualty to shift and therefore move the load, very poor technique but we can allow them that being at war and all. But you should really read my last response properly, I said your previous post supported 100% the correct way. Your latest post actually supports 100% the incorrect use, no one says they didn't ever carry incorrectly.

As I already said many posts earlier - examination of photos shows roughly a 50:50 split - I was pointing out that Deerhunters view was not supported by photos. Here is another one with I believe RAMC personel

BTW Headfirst into the ambulance doesn't apply 100% either.

[Ron Clifton]

The last point raises an interesting side issue. There may have been more consistency of practice among RAMC stretcher bearers than among regimental ones.

I think that expediency also comes in here. If you were rescuing a wounded man from no man's land and he happened to have fallen with his feet towards the enemy trenches, would you load him ont a stretcher and then turn it round to take him back to his own lines, or would you keep him pointing the way he was found? The latter would certainly be quicker, and probably safer for the SBs too.

Ron

[Keith Woodland]

Definitely head first when strapped onto the outside of a helicopter with the hedad protected only by a small shield. However one young Officer had a trip feet first and it was only a practice. Taught him a valuable lesson, not to volunteer.

[Ron Clifton]

Keith

Not in the Great War, though!

Ron

[Martin Bennitt]

RAMC TRAINING 1911: [p.147]

Carriage of a Patient: patient is usually carried feet first, but in going uphill the position is reversed, and the patient is carried headfirst. To do this the bearers will lower the stretcher and turn about. If the patient is suffering from a recent fracture of the lower extremity he will, in all cases, be carried with his head down hill. The stronger and taller bearers should be down hill.

Grant

I have every respect for the bravery of stretcher bearers but I can't imagine anyone doing this sort of manoeuvre under fire

cheers Martin B

[CarylW]

Just to add something that may be of interest - not taking part in this debate

Source: War Illustrated 1917

Caryl

[Keith Woodland]

Keith

Not in the Great War, though!

Ron

I think not volunteering has been around as long as there have ben soldiers.

Keith

[sw63]

Not an expert, but from observation I would say head first if casualty was critical / unconscious and feet first if casualty was conscious and not critically injured (maybe so they could see where they are going?). I've seen examples of men being carried feet first on stretchers sitting upright smoking cigarettes.

Simon

[centurion]

Another theory - if one is administering aid to the patient whilst he is being carried (and you do see shots of orderlies doing this) it is easier if you are facing the patient (partly just the way the human body is arranged). So unless the orderly wants to walk backwards (with the danger of disappearing down a hole) the patient has to go head first

[SiegeGunner]

No-one seems to have mentioned the risk of the bearers tripping/falling and dropping the stretcher as a factor in deciding which way round to carry the wounded man. With the front bearer encountering obstacles, holes, or whatever first, I should have thought that the front was more likely to go down, so wouldn't it be safer to carry the man feet first - other things being equal?

[centurion]

No-one seems to have mentioned the risk of the bearers tripping/falling and dropping the stretcher as a factor in deciding which way round to carry the wounded man. With the front bearer encountering obstacles, holes, or whatever first, I should have thought that the front was more likely to go down, so wouldn't it be safer to carry the man feet first - other things being equal?

Yes but the photographic evidence suggests that either way round was used in quite rough conditions

[dfaulder]

No-one seems to have mentioned the risk of the bearers tripping/falling and dropping the stretcher as a factor in deciding which way round to carry the wounded man. With the front bearer encountering obstacles, holes, or whatever first, I should have thought that the front was more likely to go down, so wouldn't it be safer to carry the man feet first - other things being equal?

But the front bearers have an un-restricted view and can see the holes etc., whilst the rear bearers cannot see any holes under the stretcher. So wouldn't it be safer to carry the man feet head first - other things being equal? !

David

[SiegeGunner]

Assuming it was light at the time, David, and there wasn't smoke etc to obscure their view. Seeing as there was evidently an official RAMC policy on the subject, I guess the way forward is to find out the reasoning behind the recommended method.

[centurion]

Also bearing in mind the policy was developed before the war and possibly assumed conditions like the South African Veldt and not a shelled area. The different positions seen in photos may reflect a pragmatic adaption to the conditions prevalent.

[squirrel]

Spent some time looking at the 1911 RAMC Training Manual - well over 40 pages on stretchers and the use of.

Nowhere in the text does it mention head first or feet first, but the numerous illustrations of the drill movements, yes drill movements, for approaching, loading and carrying a casualty show head first. This is for 6 man and 4 man carry with the soldier i/c the party walking beside or at the rear, or carrying at the rear. All appears to assume that the carrying of stretchers by RAMC personnel will be done within a medical establishment of some sort albeit a temporary one.

I reckon that battalion stretcher bearers would be trained somewhat differently for removing casualties from the battlefield and from my admittedly short time with the SJAB (as it was then) IIRC we carried feet first.

It is easier to negotiate obstacles and rough ground this way. The front two, or one, can negotiate the obstacle while the one, or two, at the rear support the weight - the head end (usually) being the heaviest.

Different task moving a casualty within a medical establishment to that of clearing casualties from the battlefield IMHO.

[centurion]

And yet there are photos of men being carried head first out side of medical establishments and some by RAMC personnel - see post 30. We get all these lovely theories but not are fully supported by the photographic evidence which shows men being carried head first and men feet first over similar terrain

[Guest KevinEndon]

[Guest KevinEndon]

the 2 photos were found on a google image search for stretcher bearers

Kevin

[centurion]

the 2 photos were found on a google image search for stretcher bearers

Kevin

But see all the others already posted that are head first. My feeling is that it was probably arbitrary which way you went - just so long as they got you to treatment ASAP

[BJanman]

Was there a WW1 RAMC rule?

Peter

I could be wrong but it would appear the RAMC followed guidelines set out in Longmore's "Ambulance Transport" as well as the Training Manual of 1911. The Manual of Ambulance Transport is mentioned in the Medical Official History several times, although it would appear that not all of the guidelines from the two books were always adhered to, for example, the OH states that stretcher-bearers were specifically advised not to carry loaded stretchers on the shoulder, however men did this in the Great War because in certain situations they found it much easier, as a result "it became recognized that this was one of the least fatiguing methods of carrying stretchers, and a memorandum describing the details of the procedure was circulated to all units." I have not read the Manual of Ambulance Transport from cover to cover but I got the impression that the general rule was feet first, with head first up-hill and feet first downhill. I also think the size of the carriers came into play, therefore photographs might be deceiving as they might not give accurate details of the size of the men.

Anyway, I have attached a link to the manual here for anyone who was not aware of it and who is interested in reading it.

Barbara

[nthornton1979]

Seen as though there are three men with the stretcher case in the last photo, I wouldn't of thought it matters which way he's facing. Either way the third man can see if he is in discomfort or not.

Neil