What's the difference in Advanced Dressing Station and Field Ambul

[catfishmo]

In the British evacuation chain, I'm pretty clear on the role of a Regimental Aid Station and Casualty Clearing Station, but the part in between is confusing. Are advanced dressing stations and field ambulance essentially the same thing?

And a few follow up questions:

-Is it correct that no women were living any closer to the Front that at a CCS?

-Did women ambulance drivers ever pick up at Dressing Stations (ie--at the Front)?

-What was the rank of a general surgeon? They are generally just referred to as MOs or doctors/surgeons. Seems like I read somewhere that the British doctors were miffed that American doctors were captains, while British ones were only Lieutenants, but I can't seem to verify it.

Thanks!

~Ginger

[brummell]

The RAP passed casualties to an ADS. An ADS passed casualties back to a Field Ambulance, which in turn passed serious casualties to a CCS. I believe, though may be wrong, that each Field Ambulance provided the manning for the associated ADS. At each stage there was, in theory at least, more staff, more capacity and more medical capability.

On the rank issue, most RMOs that I have seen referred to in war diaries were Captains ( the most famous of them all, Noel Chavasse, was a Captain ) and the two or three American ones I have seen serving in British units were Lieutenants! A small sample though.

- brummell

[HERITAGE PLUS]

Ginger

This may be of interest to you.

http://www.ramc-ww1.com/chain_of_evacuation.php

Dave

[FROGSMILE]

The RAMC Field Ambulance was the military medical unit which staffed the advanced dressing station. A textbook setup would be two ADS and one main dressing station (MDS) per Fd Amb.

Yes, that's a nice simple explanation. There were three companies in a Field Ambulance, and one company usually formed the Main Dressing Station (MDS), and the other two companies each formed an Advanced Dressing Station (ADS). Each of these, MDS and ADS, was divided into two parts, a 'bearer' element who collected the casualties from unit RAPs, (or ADS if the MDS) and a 'tented' element, who received and treated (dressed) the casualties before deciding what should happen to them next.

This arrangement was usual when forwards in the line but when the division that the Field Ambulance supported was in reserve and out of the line, other, more specialised tasks would be given such as de-lousing, scabies and treatment for infections.

I thought I had sent you this info Ginger.

[Ron Clifton]

Yes, that's a nice simple explanation. There were three companies in a Field Ambulance

Not quite. There were three Field Ambulances in each division, and they were company-sized units. Each was divided into three sections, which in turn were divided into a "bearer subdivision" and a "tent subdivision". The latter established Advanced (or Main) Dressing Stations, which were essentially the locations where the unit performed its work.

Ron

[Sue Light]

In the British evacuation chain,

-Is it correct that no women were living any closer to the Front that at a CCS?

-Did women ambulance drivers ever pick up at Dressing Stations (ie--at the Front)?

There were frequently trained nurses working within Field Ambulances though only in certain conditions. They were employed when certain FAs were used as specialist medical units in non-battle conditions. Particularly in winter time, individual units, or sections of units were used for medical casualties who didn't need hospital care such as men suffering from minor chest infections and other infectious diseases; skin conditions and minor ailments. Also when sections of FAs were detached and used as officers' hospitals for men needing rest and recuperation before returning direct to their units.

There were no female ambulance drivers attached to the B.E.F. working anywhere other than the Lines of Communication, and never in Army areas. So they didn't collect from any CCSs or other units further forward. They were restricted mainly to the areas and stations serving the Base hospitals, although later in the war these areas themselves were often the targets of bombing raids and drivers exposed to very similar conditions that might be found nearer the front.

Sue

[FROGSMILE]

Ron, I looked to the RAMC for advice, as I felt they would know best.

According to the RAMC a Field Ambulance comprised three companies: http://www.ramc-ww1.com/chain_of_evacuation.php

On paper it was apparently a Lt Col's command, although it seems it was not until the latter part of the war that that was achieved (info from WW1 diary of RMO who was pre-war RAMC special reservist).

I am being careful to provide properly sourced information for Ginger and am posting only that.

P.S. This info was also provided by Heritage Plus, in his post above, but I guess that you did not bother to read it.

N.B. I noticed that the LLT states a FA comprises 3-sections, but have observed the info provided by the RAMC, which comes from an official history of the RAMC in WW1.

[catfishmo]

There were frequently trained nurses working within Field Ambulances though only in certain conditions. They were employed when certain FAs were used as specialist medical units in non-battle conditions. Particularly in winter time, individual units, or sections of units were used for medical casualties who didn't need hospital care such as men suffering from minor chest infections and other infectious diseases; skin conditions and minor ailments. Also when sections of FAs were detached and used as officers' hospitals for men needing rest and recuperation before returning direct to their units.

Sue

So were these day trips or camps? I'm just curious about accommodations since even at CCSs nurses had their own mess, their own leisure spaces, etc. Very interesting!

Thanks!

[catfishmo]

Thanks to everyone for their contributions. You all gave me the straight answers I was looking for. Ironically, even after reading a diary of a FA (Medico's Luck) and searching out "Field Ambulance" I had a hard time getting a simple understanding of 'what is it'!

[Ron Clifton]

Ron, I looked to the RAMC for advice, as I felt they would know best.

According to the RAMC a Field Ambulance comprised three companies: http://www.ramc-ww1.com/chain_of_evacuation.php

On paper it was apparently a Lt Col's command, although it seems it was not until the latter part of the war that that was achieved (info from WW1 diary of RMO who was pre-war RAMC special reservist).

I am being careful to provide properly sourced information for Ginger and am posting only that.

P.S. This info was also provided by Heritage Plus, in his post above, but I guess that you did not bother to read it.

N.B. I noticed that the LLT states a FA comprises 3-sections, but have observed the info provided by the RAMC, which comes from an official history of the RAMC in WW1.

It is only a matter of nomenclature, but the official War Eastablishments specifically say that a Field Ambulance consisted of three SECTIONS, not companies. Perhaps the person who compiled the RAMC website mis-read the WW1 Medical Official History!

Ron

[FROGSMILE]

It is only a matter of nomenclature, but the official War Eastablishments specifically say that a Field Ambulance consisted of three SECTIONS, not companies. Perhaps the person who compiled the RAMC website mis-read the WW1 Medical Official History!

Ron

If you scroll to the bottom of the page it quotes the RAMC Col author on WW1 organisation (Lt Col TB Nicholls) as being the source. The details appear on several specifically RAMC sites. That is all I can say. I don't know why he would write that unless he has been misquoted.

[Sue Light]

So were these day trips or camps? I'm just curious about accommodations since even at CCSs nurses had their own mess, their own leisure spaces, etc. Very interesting!

Thanks!

They would be living under exactly the same variety of conditions as nurses posted to CCSs. That might be hutted or tented accommodation, rooms in the buildings being used, or possibly billeted in local houses. So even if there were only two or three nurses in a unit, they would still have separate living and sleeping accommodation. But entirely dependent on location.

[catfishmo]

Frogsmile shared this link of a MO's diary. It is one of the few diaries that includes notes added later for the benefit of future audiences so there are good explanations and details. It could be read in one lengthy sitting.

[BJanman]

It is only a matter of nomenclature, but the official War Eastablishments specifically say that a Field Ambulance consisted of three SECTIONS, not companies. Perhaps the person who compiled the RAMC website mis-read the WW1 Medical Official History!

Ron

Or perhaps they haven’t!

The information on the website came from 'Organisation, Strategy and Tactics of The Army Medical Services in War’ by Lieut-Colonel T B Nicholls and nothing to do with the Medical Official History. It clearly states that at the bottom of the page on the website. This book comes with a foreword by Lieut-General Sir James A Hartigan, Director-General, Army Medical Services.

In the book Lt/Col Nicholls states in the chapter “The Advanced Dressing Station”, under the heading ‘Number Employed’ - “Usually one or at the most two Advanced Dressing Stations are established by the Field Ambulances concerned for a Divisional Front. As they are formed by COMPANIES of the Field Ambulances, each Field Ambulance can provide personnel and equipment for two Advanced Dressing Stations” He also states under the heading ‘Personnel’ - “The personnel is found from the COMPANY of the Field Ambulance, which consists of 3 officers and 53 other ranks, R.A.M.C. Of these, 2 N.C.O’s and 36 privates per COMPANY will be employed as stretcher-bearers, probably reinforced by the bearers of the other COMPANY, and possibly by the bearers of the other Field Ambulances.”

Through my research I have noticed they are sometimes referred to as Sections and sometimes referred to as Companies. As I used this book as a source of information I quoted what he wrote. Perhaps you know better than Lt/Col Nicholls (who not only served in the R.A.M.C. but was in command of one of these units in WW1) and a Director-General A.M.S. - that’s fine but kindly leave “the person who compiled the RAMC website” out of it.

Thank you

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Barbara

I willingly exonerate you from any fault in mis-reading!

What you, and possibly others responsible for RAMC websites, have done is to take Lt-Col Nicholls' book as your source and not compare it with other official and contemporary sources. Both War Establishments 1914 (and later) and the Medical Official History state quite explicitly that a Field Ambulance is divided into three SECTIONS. In the case of the Medical Official History, you probably know that as well as the volumes dealing with Surgery, Diseases, Hygiene etc there is a "General" series of four volumes describing the organisation and the campaigns of the RAMC. The reference to Field Ambulances having three sections is on page 22 of Volume 2.

I don't know where Lt-Col Nicholls got the idea of companies from - possibly from post-war changes - but it is at variance with the primary source, War Establishments, and with a contemporary secondary source, the Medical Official History. The latter was produced under the editorial direction of Maj-Gen W E Macpherson who was himself, I believe, DGAMS at one time during the war.

I note that Nicholls' book was published in 1937. Perhaps the nomenclature had changed by then?

I am sorry if I seem to be labouring what is, after all, a technical and minor point but I do think that we should get these things right.

Ron

[nigelcave]

Whatever, company or section, they were pretty small in number to be called a company by the standards of other branches of the army.

[RussT]

There are plenty of Field Ambulance War Diaries available to view.

The few I have looked at use Sections (A, B & C) - example page from the 103rd FA in 34rd Division (Feb 1916)

[b3rn]

Just one diary, but this man Allsop (8th Australian Field Ambulance) always refers to his 'section'.

http://mosman1914-1918.net/project/allsop-browser-03/MLMSS-1606_Item1_view03.html#a3041010

[BJanman]

I don't know where Lt-Col Nicholls got the idea of companies from - possibly from post-war changes - but it is at variance with the primary source, War Establishments, and with a contemporary secondary source, the Medical Official History. The latter was produced under the editorial direction of Maj-Gen W E Macpherson who was himself, I believe, DGAMS at one time during the war.

I note that Nicholls' book was published in 1937. Perhaps the nomenclature had changed by then?

I am sorry if I seem to be labouring what is, after all, a technical and minor point but I do think that we should get these things right.

Ron

I do not have a problem with you labouring after a technical and minor point to get things right - my problem was with your smug remark.

Yes, I have read the Medical Official History, war diaries, unit histories, personal diaries etc, etc and am perfectly aware that field ambulances were referred to as being divided into sections. They were even named A Section, B Section and C Section.

If you read the history of the RAMC you will see that before the RAMC was formed the medical service was divided between ‘The Army Hospital Corps’ or later known as ‘The Medical Staff Corps’, which was the Medical Branch and the stretcher-bearers who served under the Bearer Companies. When the RAMC was formed the two were merged together - maybe that is why Lt-Col Nicholls referred to the bearer section of the Field Ambulance as being Companies?

Up until recently in peacetime the regular branch of R.A.M.C. did not have field ambulances, CCSs, General Hospitals etc - these were formed in war by men who were serving in RAMC Companies. No 1 Company to No 3 Company were stationed in Aldershot and No 4 Company at Netley and so on.... Perhaps that is where he got the idea of companies from?

Even if the term ‘Companies’ changed just before the war and was reestablished around 1937 when he published the book, he is still technically correct at the time of writing.

I really do think that his book is the best source of information out there on the chain of evacuation. I chose to use his work for my information on the RAMC in War and especially the Chain of Evacuation on my website because of this. I do not think it would be correct to use someone as a source of information and then change their terminology - especially as I kind of understand where he is coming from.

Barbara

[FROGSMILE]

I do not have a problem with you labouring after a technical and minor point to get things right - my problem was with your smug remark.

Yes, I have read the Medical Official History, war diaries, unit histories, personal diaries etc, etc and am perfectly aware that field ambulances were referred to as being divided into sections. They were even named A Section, B Section and C Section.

If you read the history of the RAMC you will see that before the RAMC was formed the medical service was divided between The Army Hospital Corps or later known as The Medical Staff Corps, which was the Medical Branch and the stretcher-bearers who served under the Bearer Companies. When the RAMC was formed the two were merged together - maybe that is why Lt-Col Nicholls referred to the bearer section of the Field Ambulance as being Companies?

Up until recently in peacetime the regular branch of R.A.M.C. did not have field ambulances, CCSs, General Hospitals etc - these were formed in war by men who were serving in RAMC Companies. No 1 Company to No 3 Company were stationed in Aldershot and No 4 Company at Netley and so on.... Perhaps that is where he got the idea of companies from?

Even if the term Companies changed just before the war and was reestablished around 1937 when he published the book, he is still technically correct at the time of writing.

I really do think that his book is the best source of information out there on the chain of evacuation. I chose to use his work for my information on the RAMC in War and especially the Chain of Evacuation on my website because of this. I do not think it would be correct to use someone as a source of information and then change their terminology - especially as I kind of understand where he is coming from.

Barbara

Hello Barbara, I think that your website is first class and I note that the official RAMC museum website uses the same sample from Lt Col Nicholls's history as you. Like you, I think that his explanation of the evacuation chain is very good and as it was from the horses mouth I used it to reply to forum member Ginger's query in this thread.

All that said, I do think that it is important to use the correct terminology that was used at the time of WW1 so that anyone referring to the structure in say, a novel, or a TV production, is accurate. If the contemporary 'establishment tables' state that the term 'section' was used, and so too does the official RAMC history of the Great War, along with many war diaries, then I feel that Lt Col Nicholls's text should be amended, or at least annotated to reflect official organisation of 1914-19, regardless of any change subsequently.

In searching to find the actuality of all this I did stumble upon this excellent and illegally kept personal diary by a special reserve doctor mobilised in 1914, into a Field Ambulance. When typing this up from the original, hand written copy in 1951, he prefaced the diary with explanatory notes in italics, including the structure of a Field Ambulance that makes clear how the term 'section' was used. The diary runs to his demobilisation in 1919 and gives a real, warts-and-all feel of his war experience with a medical unit in the field. Here it is: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/philsnet/T%20Hampson%20WW1%20Diary%20100.htm

[Ron Clifton]

Barbara

None of my remarks were intended to be smug and I am sorry if that is how they came across. Yes, I am familiar, at least in outline, with the history of the RAMC including its division into companies for administrative purposes in peacetime, but the units we are discussing here are those formed by the RAMC in a combat-support role in war.

Frogsmile makes a good point when he refers to "anyone referring to the structure in say, a novel, or a TV production". Ginger, who began this thread, is coming from exactly that standpoint.

I see no problem in making minor amendments to source material when it contains errors, ambiguities or anachronisms. It would be a different matter, of course, if you were quoting directly.

Ron

[BJanman]

Ok, cool.

I do understand to point you are both making. Maybe it would be better to do the whole thing again adding direct quotes from the Official History and Lt/Col Nicholls book as I go along. That way I will be promoting both sources without making it look as if I am second guessing one source or implying that it is incorrect.

Aha, I can even add things like the importance of time, space and transport and why the individual medical units had to be strategically placed..... I am liking it already

Cheers

Barbara

[FROGSMILE]

Ok, cool.

I do understand to point you are both making. Maybe it would be better to do the whole thing again adding direct quotes from the Official History and Lt/Col Nicholls book as I go along. That way I will be promoting both sources without making it look as if I am second guessing one source or implying that it is incorrect.

Aha, I can even add things like the importance of time, space and transport and why the individual medical units had to be strategically placed..... I am liking it already

Cheers

Barbara

That will be great, Barbara. Perhaps you could persuade the RAMC online museum to amend their exact same page (did they plagiarise from your webpage?) as it too is misleading in that particular aspect.

I hope that you like the diary I linked, if you had not already seen it.

[BJanman]

That will be great, Barbara. Perhaps you could persuade the RAMC online museum to amend their exact same page (did they plagiarise from your webpage?) as it too is misleading in that particular aspect.

I hope that you like the diary I linked, if you had not already seen it.

Yes - I have seen the diary before. In fact it helped me out a couple of years ago when I was trying to make sense of the movements of the field ambulances around Landrecies in 1914. I went there a couple of years back and did a talk with a group of friends I travel with about the doctors who were taken prisoner at Landrecies and lost their lives in a German POW camp. Not all the war diaries around that time survived but it complimented what I’d learnt from ‘The Great War and the RAMC’ nicely.

Sorry I do not know which RAMC online museum you are referring to - it cannot be the AMS Museum, I wouldn't have thought. I have seen what is on my website appear on other sites, and have contacted some of them. I even went to a lecture in London once and sat listening to a doctor read out what is on my website, word for word - it was like watching a repeat, lol. At first I was stunned and couldn’t believe it, then I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

[BJanman]

I started working on profiles this morning so that I can get them activated on my database and immediately came across a reference to the term ‘Company’ being used. It can be found here http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/1649296/FEARON-BROWN,%20HOWARD%20IVISON

I thought I would post it to highlight that Lt/Col Nicholls was not the only one to refer to field ambulances being divided into companies.

So there you go - as with most things RAMC, it is all as clear as mud!