RootsChat.Com
General => Armed Forces => World War One => Topic started by: Whipby on Tuesday 12 November 13 20:57 GMT (UK)
-
A friend's ancestor's WWI pension papers have him discharged from the army in 1914 after only 85 days' service, with the note that he was 'Unlikely to become an efficient soldier'.
Does anyone know what the reason for this would be, please?
He was 25 years old and a smelter in a local steelworks, and there was another note that said his character was very good. Medical statements following examination declared him to be fit for service.
-
Fred Broadley spent 30 days in the army at the beginning of the war and was then sent home. The details said he wouldn't make an efficient soldier because of his heart. However, later in the war, when they were desperate for men, they called him up anyway and he was killed in action. In my experience it's a physical problem, but what they considered a physical problem in 1914, they didn't always in 1918, claytonbradley
-
You should check the Silver War Badge index on Ancestry. These were introduced in 1916 to stop discharged men from being presented with a white feather. And men already discharged could claim one.
'Unlikely to become an efficient soldier' could be anything - two left feet, being so left-handed they could not operate the rifle, being dim witted, and so on. You have to remember that the army thought the war would be 'over by Christmas' so they thought they could be choosy as to the men they took. Also, 85 days is significant as after three months the decision to discharge had to be taken by a officer of higher rank. Any discharges after three months would suggest poor decision making by the lower ranked officer. So many officers would not take the risk.
Ken
-
I am always so impressed with the depth of army knowledge that km1971 shows. An enormous asset to Rootschat. ::)
-
This continued certainly into the national Service Era. In the late 1950s and onwards I was engaged in Railway personnel work usually with train crew grades, who by the nature of the work were usually intelligent people. There was one man at a depot where I worked, by then a passed fireman who had been discharged from the Army around 1950 for this very reason. He went on to become a mainline train driver, Intelligent and normal, no apparent medical or mental problems. By now well and truly retired if still living.
I have also been told that police cadets were often discharged from the police service on the grounds "unlikely to make an efficient constable"
-
Thank you everyone for all your input, it's very interesting. This lad had a lucky escape in my opinion, but I wonder whether he faced any resentment or ridicule, or worse, after his discharge? My limited knowledge of WWI was that they practically threw thousands of recruits mercilessly over the top, so to find this record was very surprising to me. I had no idea that they were more discerning at the beginning of the war, and just thought that they would have taken practically anybody if only to boost the numbers, which is an horrific thought.
Thank you again.
-
Often the truth is more subtle and involved than the impression given in the tabloid newspapers. Then and now.
-
Thank you everyone for all your input, it's very interesting. This lad had a lucky escape in my opinion, but I wonder whether he faced any resentment or ridicule, or worse, after his discharge? My limited knowledge of WWI was that they practically threw thousands of recruits mercilessly over the top, so to find this record was very surprising to me. I had no idea that they were more discerning at the beginning of the war, and just thought that they would have taken practically anybody if only to boost the numbers, which is an horrific thought.
Thank you again.
May I commend to you "Mud Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan and "Forgotten Victory" by Prof Gary Sheffield....
The image of WW1 was tainted by films such as "Oh what a lovely war" and Blackadder....Here are some facts for you...Tommy only spent 3 days at a time in a trench before Regts were rotated...And...86% of gas casualties were returned to unit, fit, within 6 weeks...
-
....Here are some facts for you...Tommy only spent 3 days at a time in a trench before Regts were rotated...And...86% of gas casualties were returned to unit, fit, within 6 weeks...
Only partially borne out by Lt. Col. M.C.Clayton in the book "The Cambridgeshires" Whilst it is apparent that men were rotated at 3 days intervals, it is equally obvious from the book that this did not apply whilst a battle was going on. As for the gas, well my experience as a railway personnel officer in the late 1950s and early 60s suggest that by the number of men who were accomodated on light work due to gas in WW1 either the number of 86% being fit for duty is incorrect or there were a vast number of men actually gassed. At least 30% of WW1 veterans in footplate grades were showing lung damage due to gas from my recollection of their routine medical examination reports; it is likely of course that much of this damage went unrecognised at the time only to appear after an interval of 40 years or so.
-
I didn't know about the left-handed thing meaning unlikely to become efficient soldier. Woudl they test them? Was that a blanket no to all left handed people? Or would some be recruited to other duties?
Milly
-
My great grand uncle was discharged after 10 days under this clause in January 1916. He was lived in Midlands Ireland, was a coachman and had applied to work as a groomsman. He like many other Irishmen that joined up, was a home ruler, Irish nationalist but wanted to play his part. This thread has thrown some light on the various reasons for discharge. I had thought that it might have been because of his nationalism....Maybe he just had flat feet :)
-
This is interesting. I found one who joined up in June 1913! Was discharged in February 1914, not likely to be an efficient soldier. In March 1914 he left England for Australia and in November 1914 he joined the Australian Army. He served at Galipolli and the Western front and returned to Australia in mid 1919. He also served in WW2 at home. I don't know if he was left handed. :o.
-
I dont think that being left handed would have been such a detriment that the army would not want left handed recruits. Although [some?/all?] schools at the time had a policy of forcing pupils to write right handed, even tying the left hand behind the pupils back.
-
I dont think that being left handed would have been such a detriment that the army would not want left handed recruits. Although [some?/all?] schools at the time had a policy of forcing pupils to write right handed, even tying the left hand behind the pupils back.
The left-handed issue is a red herring. It might have been a factor in regiments where smartness and uniformity was prized (Guards regiments?), or where the ability to use right-handed equipment was essential, but not otherwise.
"unlikely to become an efficient soldier" would include (amomg others) issues such as:
mental incapacity (if unable to follow orders)
alcoholism
eyesight
heart or lung ailments (not unusual in the working class with poor nutrition and access to healthcare)
poor mobility (if unable to march!) - rickets, and other ailments caused by malnutrition were not unusual.
Philip
-
I remember my Dad telling me about some recruits who didn't have the coordination to be able to march and many others who didn't know left from right.
-
Hello. Interesting posting. I have had three forebears discharged from service on the "not likely to be an efficient soldier". Two of these were for severe deafness. Usually there is a disability sheet [if it has survived] explaining the doctor's assessment. The third rejection happened to the husband of my great-grandmother's sister. He was sent back from basic training and his medical sheet reported that he had a squint, flat feet but most serious of all, he had suffered from rheumatic fever when a child. The outcome of that would be that he would not be able to run far without severe breathlessness, and probably was suffering some kind of valvular heart disease. If ever a poor lad tried to do his duty.
-
My apologies to all, I've only just come across the additional posts in my thread. Thanks everyone, makes very interesting reading, and more pause for thought.
-
A colleague boasted that after 5 years in the service her husband had ALMOST been promoted to Lance corporal, but in view of what she described as being passed over had left at the next opportunity. Why keep him in 5 years?
-
My grandfather tried to enlist in 1914 but was turned down owing to a previous cricket injury to his wrist which resulted in a visible distortion of the prominent bone at the base of his wrist. There was nothing wrong with his dexterity - he was a plumber, and went on to work on aircraft production, thus escaping being called up later when conditions for enlistment were relaxed, as he was in a reserved occupation.