Killed in Action, Died of Wounds, Died.

[sandyford]

There have been many discussions on this forum about the meaning of the 'Died' classification.

I am wondering who decided this classification and at what point.

e.g.

The K.I.A. and D of W. buried in Cemeteries of which there are 36 for these 3 days of 6th Batt. N.F. in Second Ypres, seems quite straightforward - BUT-

War diary: 27:04:15 Missing: - 28 soldiers

Of these missing soldiers

26/04/15 K.I.A.(SDIGW) and on Menin Gate(CWGC) - 5

27/04/15 K.I.A.(SDIGW) and on Menin Gate (CWGC) - 3

Died (SDIGW) and on Menin Gate (CWGC)- 18

Died (SDIGW) and in Ypres Res.Cem(CWGC) 1

28/04/15 Died (SDIGW) and on Menin Gate (CWGC) - 1

Would the 5 who are missing and classified as K.I.A. (26/04/15) and the 3 missing and classified K.I.A. (27/04/15) probably be soldiers whose death had been witnessed, dog tags retrieved perhaps, but body not recoverable for certain reasons?

Only 8 of the missing soldiers had this classification.

And would the soldiers who were missing and are classified as Died (27/04/15) be soldiers whose death was not witnessed although they were missing?

We can imagine the scene when the troops reassembled after this and other advances. I wonder who noted the information at the time and also how long they had to wait for a soldier who was missing to be classified and by whom, because he might have got himself to a First Aid Post etc.

Is anyone else pondering on these procedures?

Kate ©

[Tom Morgan]

Kate - I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my "take" on this.

If a soldier was seen to be killed, then I don't think he would be listed as "missing."

When the battalion came out of the action there would be a roll call. Some of the soldiers would not be there - not "missing," just "absent" - and questions would be asked about them.

In some cases, a surviving comrade would be able to give conclusive evidence that a soldier had been killed during the action. Let's say there was conclusive evidence for 10 men having been killed. The point is that I don't think that these 10 men would be listed as "Missing" because investigations had established what had happened to them. They would be listed as "killed."

Let's say that there were another 5 men who were not present, and no-one could say what had happened to them. I think these men would be listed as "Missing" because they were absent and no-one could say where they were. They may not even have been killed.

The idea of "missing" being something to do with not being able to find and bury bodies came later, with the CWGC definition of "Missing."

Tom

[PhilB]

I have always assumed that "died" meant either died of non-combat related cause or "We don`t know how he died". Seems to be used more in some regiments than others. Phil B

[Chris Henschke]

I agree with you, Tom. Red Cross investigations and Unit investigations using statements from witnesses would normally substantiate a finding of KIA, even if a body was not recovered. I know of AIF boards of enquiry being conducted in 1916, relating to missing men from Gallipoli.

It has always been my understanding that, after a battle casualty has been evacuated to an RAP, if that casualty subsequently dies, he is classified as DOW.

If he is a battle casualty who is killed outright or dies of wounds or other injuries before reaching a medical facility, he is classified as KIA.

[John_Hartley]

Kate

You have to remember that the war diary reference will have been written same or next day. The reference to "missing" can, therefore, be read as "unaccounted for".

It will include those who were wounded in No Man's Land and manage to get back over subsequent days. I agree with Tom that it probably wouldnt include those where there is definate information about someone being killed (although even there you couldnt take it as an absolute guarantee that they were in fact dead). It can usually be up to a year after an action that the War Office would have made an official presumption of death of someone still missing. My local newspaper is littered with adverts from families asking if anyone had news of someone posted missing months before.

John

[Terry Denham]

Tom's and the other answers above would seem to be right.

Don't get too hung up on these classifications. They can be wrong and have different meanings to different people.

'Missing' in CWGC's terms means having no known grave and not that the soldier's fate was/is unknown. A soldier found following a known incident and buried but whose grave is subsequently lost would count as missing in their terms.

Therefore CWGC's 'Memorials to the Missing' include many names whose fates were known at one time but whose final resting place is not known now (or is the sea).

This, in many cases, would disagree with military records.

[sandyford]

Yes

I do know that the classification is not as significant or set in stone as we would like to believe but I suppose that casting a microscope on the events of one afternoon has highlighted these different terms for me.

'Absent' or 'unaccounted for' as a war diary entry at the time would have been a much better coverall term than 'missing' in the War Diary in the circumstances I have described.

The procedure for completing War Diaries has become a concern to me as a result of the dating of these incidents.

The copy of the War Diary that I am using in my work is a typed document, perhaps even typed years later, or were they typed at some time near to the event? I have seen copies of pages from PRO which are handwritten. Perhaps all the PRO originals are handwritten

Do you think that, say, an officer would supply information about men or incidents in his company or platoon, which in turn, he may have collected from OR? Then a more senior officer would compile this information on a monthly basis and submit it in handwritten form perhaps to be typed up later.

In the case of the battalion in Battle of St. Julien. The advance began in the afternoon of 26th April.

The soldiers who got as far as possible by about 4.00p.m. then couldn't return until cover of darkness. So that meant that they could not have collected information until 27th April soonest. The soldiers who had no known grave and have a date of death as 26/04/15 must have been seen to be killed and therefore were 'K in A' on 26/04/15.

The ones who were not seen to have been killed, but were absent on 27th, may have included those classified as Died.

John has mentioned the War Office and I wondered if they confirmed the classification as well as deciding when a person was presumed dead.

Terry. Thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that people with no known grave may have had a grave at some time. Rather sloppily, although I know better, I was starting to think of the people on the Menin Gate as people who had never been found. I have seen the temporary cross marked graves in No Mans' land which could have been destroyed later in the battle.

Even today, I know that names are added to Memorials or presumably deleted if remains are found, which are then buried in a war grave.

Also on the issue, raised by John, of soldiers wounded, who lay on the battlefield for 2 or 3 days in this 'missing' list. Rodders has described an incident of this sort in his introductory post. I know that a particular soldier lying wounded for 2 days at St. Julien and who was not back with his unit on 27th April, is not listed with the missing on 27th April, which suggests a later war diary compilation date.

I think I am trying to discuss too many issues at the same time and I hope you can be bothered to continue to try to make sense of what I am saying.

Kate

[Greenwoodman]

A battalion's label of missing would also apply to those who have been taken prisoner (not an occurrence that was usually observed, as the observer would have been in the bag too!!), and to a soldier's sighting of a comrade who had been shot and had fallen over while an advance was in progress, and the soldier had been unable to stop and ascertain the extent of the wound (fatal or not).

At a subsequent board of enquiry into a missing soldier, a sighting report such as described above, plus the lack of notification as a prisoner-of-war was often more than sufficient for a presumption of death.

[sandyford]

Greenwoodman

I have crosschecked the fate of those 28 men, so I know it does not include prisoners or even the, as yet untraced, wounded. Quite a bit of weeding has obviously occurred before the list is added to the War Diary.

Board of Enquiry! Was this held about every fatality or just as its title implies enquiries into unobserved fatalities?

Kate

[Greenwoodman]

I can bung in some more answers here. Firstly, not all war diaries at the NA-PRO are manuscript. And whenever I have compared handwritten and manuscript copies of war diaries (not often) they have tallied within the odd word or so. Certainly some of them were typed up a long time after the event.

But the m/s copy from which the typescript came would have been completed as soon as possible when the battalion came out of the line. As indeed would the Sergeant-Major's roll-call, at which soldiers would comment on the fate of Pte Able who doesn't answer at roll-call. The results of the roll-call would go up to Battalion HQ, and form part of the official record, of which the War Diary narrative is but a small part. Often War Diairies show a monthly casualty report at the end of a month.

But the war diary record is only as accurate as you would expect it to be when the administrative actions of a battlion are carried out under shell-fire, immediately after an attack where heavy casualties have been sustained, in the mud of a half-wrecked trench.

I'm reading the account of one temporary Lt-Col of a service battalion who had a personality conflict with his second in command, a regular major, but the Lt Col (battalion commander) acknowledged the improvement made to the battalion's admin due to the regular army Major. So another reason why a battalion's admin may not have been accurate.

[Tom Morgan]

The ones who were not seen to have been killed, but were absent on 27th, may have included those classified as Died.

Kate - could be, but I wouldn't place too much certainty in a "Died" entry in SDGW, until we can say for sure exactly what it means. For example, it's generally taken as meaning that the soldier concerned died of illness, but that can't be right in the case you mention, so there is a suggestion of unreliability in the use of the term.

There are quite a few examples of times/places where there must have been soldiers unaccounted for at the Roll Call, and where no-one actually saw a soldier killed, but the soldiers are subsequently recorded in SDGW as having been "Killed in Action," not as having "died."

I'm thinking of the Accrington Pals' attack on Serre. About 700 attacked, and by evening about 585 had become casualties, leaving (presumably) about 115 at the Roll Call. SDGW lists 113 as having been killed in action, and it seems impossible that the remaining 115 or so would, among them, have been able to recognise individually which 113 had been killed from among the hundreds who they must have seen fall. So there must have been lots where no-one actually saw them killed. But no-one is listed as "died."

I think you may just have rather a slack use of the word "died" in the SDGW record.

Tom

I should add that I mean that SDGW is guilty of using the word in a slack or careless way - not Kate!

Edited 5 July , 2004 by Tom Morgan

[Terry]

Hi Kate,

I am just going to leap in on your thread to thank you for the research you sent to me on the 6/N.F.'s actions at St.Julien 26 Apr.,1915, in particular relating to Pte.Forster, who was woundedd that afternoon. This sort of thing is what makes this forum so great.

Thanks again,

Cheers from Canada,

Terry

[sandyford]

Aside of the 28 men who are listed missing in the WD, there were also about 50 who were not missing and were Killed in Action or Died of Wounds and nearly 400 who were wounded on that same day.

As you say, like the Accrington Pals at Serre, there were not many men to be there for roll call, and probably there was not much opportunity for observation and note taking.

It is occurring to me that I saw copy of a soldier's letter home in a local paper, which lists several men who he saw killed. I must check to see if the names he mentions are the missing - Killed in Action people.

Chris - you have mentioned red cross and unit investigations and AIF boards of enquiry. I got one of the Red Cross lists of enquiry reprints from N & M. Are these the enquiries you mean?

Greenwoodman - thank you for the information about handwritten and typed War Diaries. Like you, I am amazed that they managed to be as accurate as they were under the conditions we can hardly even imagine. Also, they didn't know that their every word was going to be scrutinised 90 years later, by pedants like me. Even some of my posts on this forum could not bear that level of scrutiny.

Terry - I am only too pleased to have been of help.

Kate

[Greenwoodman]

Kate

Were the men named in the war diary?

[sandyford]

Yes

I have been very lucky in that the War Diary lists casualties, including the sick, for each month with names, numbers and dates. Unfortunately this stops at the end of 1917 and only totals are given so I will have no named wounded, apart from officers, for 1918.

Kate

[Chris Henschke]

Kate,

I'm not sure what N + M provide. The Red Cross files I have accessed have been through the AWM site, regarding individual soldiers.

Chris