Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
Hi
I have been lucky to find my great grandfathers service record, however I am finding it difficult to understand some of it. On the page that provides information on his time in active service, there is a line that I believe reads N:Set:14.3.759 R/6:8:16. It looks as if it is against the 'Wounded' line but it could come under Campaigns, does anyone know what this means? My great grandfather served in the 1st Battalion, Middlesex Regiment and was part of the BEF. It also states that he came home in 1916 and went back in 1917 could this be because he was wounded??
Any help or advice would be greatly received.
| Attachments: |
| | | |
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
I think you have the wrong translation. I looked at it and it seemed to me under Wounded.
It read-W: Set: H. B. 759 RF 6-8-16. It evidently happened on June 8, 1916; but If it is a military date. It would be 6 August 1916.
In Feb 1919 he had a Medical category of B1. The rating system and that change over time; but not by much. A1 was the best rating you could have and looking at his record. That was the rating he probably had the greater part of his time in the service.
You had A, B, & C. and 1, 2, &3. A1-B1 & C1 the best in the three categories. In ref. to his B1 and this was in 1919. Meant he was fit for Garrison or Labour overseas; but not front line. The one would mean that he was physically capable to do the job under the B rating.
I couldn't find a pension record for him. I am sure he did get one for the length of time he served. It was interesting. I wish I could help you more. If I come up with anything else. I will come back.
God Bless and God Speed, Danny
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
You recently asked a similar question about the same person and you were rightly advised to post the document in question in order to be more likely to be able to get an accurate interpretation of it.
Watching a film is a far different thing from being given a description of the film from someone who has actually seen the film, and then being asked to give an opinion about the film.
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
Info.
I can understand what you are saying and I can agree; because I have given the same advice myself with a little bit of a different turn.
I found the service record and more. I can understand why Reb might want to keep as much private as Reb can. I respect that. I gave her what answer I could.
The info is out there and I know if anybody can get it you can. I myself if I were in Reb's shoes I might not want to release the Service Record either; but probably would.
That's Reb's call.
God Bless and God Speed, Danny
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
You're right Danny, but as the record is already obviously a public document, there can't be any issue of privacy attached to it.
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
I don't want to take the board in another direction.
I meant it's his right to keep what he has as private; but the record that Ancestry has is public and and that is not private; but what he has in his physical possession is private. He possesses it and is his call.
It is up to us to get the information or leave it alone. It is Reb who might lose in the long run of someone's expertise in various fields. "That's his call" as they say.
I will try to help; because he gave me enough information to find his relative and what is in question. The other is understanding what you have found and trying to make sense of it all. It seems to be very simple. It is just one piece of terminology. I have just about got the answer; but am hung up on some terminology.
The individual has a story that could make a good movie. Don't get me wrong. There are literally one Gazillion stories of the men who served that could make a gazillion movies. There were a lot of hero's and as they say "It's the ones that were left behind are the real hero's"; but a lot of that is coming from real hero's that did not die; but returned and sometimes with some of themselves left behind. Physical and mental and makes everything else kind of small in comparison.
I hope I can find the answers. God Bless and God Speed, Danny
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
I am sure I have the right Kirtland. You are probably aware that the BEF is the British Expeditionary Forces And was first mainly concerned with those men involved in France; but later included other parts of theatre operations.
In ref. to your question as to when he was wounded in or on 6 August 1916 and then went back into the heat of things again.
You have to pay close attention to the agreements he made as far as extending his service and when they were made. It looks as though he made an agreement in 1911 to extend his service pass 14th May 1916. So if this is true. I think it would answer a couple of things.
1. his service was extended pass that. 2. He was probably wounded and not hurt that bad and was able to go back into a theater of operations in 1917.
You should get all of his extensions from the first time he entered service and it seems all of them are in there. They are mostly self explanatory and you can figure out every one of them.
It looks like there was no mandatory time because of the war and the need for manpower; but all of his extensions or what I call re-enlistments were all voluntarily.
To your basic question. You have to look at the agreement he made in 1911 that effected 1916 and that will explain a lot.
I have to say one thing. "Info" could have help you out an awful lot. He is well versed in the thing we are talking about. He has a lot of information at his finger tips and E-mail sources which would have given you a lot of information; but it is your call.
God Bless and God Speed Danny
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
Hi Danny
Apologies for not responding sooner, I do very much appreciate your response and what you have managed to find about my ancestor.
I wanted to do a little research myself on what you provided before replying also. I have found Edwin's casualty record, but the date does not match that in his service record. It states in his casualty record he was admitted for treatment on the 16th July for a gunshot wound which doesn't match the 6th August. Could it have been 6th June?
Many Thanks Again
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
Hello Infosending
When I posted my original post my query was quite specific and thought I had provided enough information to hopefully get a response. Attaching the original document isn't a problem, but in my defence I am new the message boards and therefore still learning how it all works and how best to get help.
I work like to work with you on this record and any help you wish to provide like Danny has I would appreciate.
RebEvs
|
Re: Pte Edwin Kirtland - Wounded?
Glad to hear from you:
It could very well have been June 6th or July 16th. Dates in the field can get really messed up. especially when you have several people sometimes being killed at the same time or several men wounded.
He might have gotten wounded twice. It's not uncommon. Sometimes you have to go on a lot of things and peoples recollections in the heat of battle may falter. It is according to the severity of the wound. Sometimes people got shot in the field and patched themselves and kept on fighting and if it did not get very serious or no complications. might not do anything about it for days. there might not be any medical help and they might be stranded for days and may not be able to get in touch with their unit or any unit.
It depends on a lot of things. It could have been very simple and he was shot and was taken immediately to a field hospital and bandaged and approved to go back into the field. He then might have gotten wounded again.
It has to deal with the person taking down the information and then maybe someone else handling it again in the field and a lot of things are happening.
You should check the service record and compare the two reports and make sure the name is spelled correctly. The rank is the same and the service numbers agree and the unit and Btn is the same; that is if the information is available in the documents.
You could also check if the height, weight, color of eyes, hair and chest expansion compare. They are in the service record and I am sure they would be in the casualty report. I thought I had the right person and the only thing was the hair color and the eye color differed in two records.
The other if relatives are listed. Sometimes you might find them; because they would have to be notified in case of death. I have found the relatives listed in maybe three different places when dealing with a service record and pension record and it has help me a lot.
you can't depend on the color of eyes and hair when it is common colors; but something like Blond hair and grey/blue eyes can be common; but Black hair and Blue or grey eyes are not as common. Either way it goes. If it is a match and other things match. It might bring you closer to the truth.
Just some suggestions.
God Blesss, Danny
|