I am looking into my maternal grandfather's military service with the RFA during the FWW, and the very little about it that I know is that he, and obviously many others, was severley debilitated as the result of a gas attack, which affected him throughout the remainder of his life. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the whereabouts, or date when this happened.

However, it got me thinking about what happened to these individuals after they were evacuated away from the battlefield, through the Casualty Clearing Stations, etc, in terms of their care & recuperation.

Were they casi-vacced back to UK straight away ? Were they medically downgraded & transferred to other duties elsewhere ? Or were they told to simply 'get on with it' & go back to their units ? Was there a 'special' military hospital that treated them ?

Also, was there a period of time in the Great War when gas attacks were more prevalent than others. Were they restricted to a certain area of the Front-line ? Or was it a general weapon used throughout the whole theatre ?

Any ideas, thoughts or general comments & observations would be appreciated.

Thanks

Joe

Joe

My Grandfather was badly gassed on the Somme in July 1916 whilst serving with 1/8th Worcesters. In fact the whole battalion was gassed except for the base details and had to be taken out of the line and sent to a rest camp at Houdencourt Chateau, near Abbeville. Over a period of about 7 days many more men were taken ill with phosgene poisoning which had a delayed action effect. As a result, the Bn was moved to No 5 Convalescent Camp, near Cayeux. Some 10 days later, the Bn was moved back into the line. Those who were still suffering were left behind. I believe my grandfather was evacuated to a VAD hospital at Dumbleton in Worcestershire to finish his recovery. He was transferred to 10 Lincs in October the same year and continued to serve in France and Belgium until late 1918. The only real treatment for gas casualties at this stage of the war was rest and recuperation, other than being given oxygen to relieve breathing difficulties. Like your relative, he suffered from this for the rest of his life, a fact that was confirmed in the Cadbury's works magazine when he retired in 1958.

Hope this helps.

Terry Reeves

Joe

Gas attacks cover a whole range of different types of gas and different circumstances. Effects ranged from nil to almost instant death.

Although many agents were tried, there were three main contenders. Early on, the main gas was chlorine. Then came phosgene. In the latter stages of the war, mustard gas was also widely used, the Germans taking the lead initially. In addition, phosgene would be used with agents that would induce tears, sneezing or coughing. The aim of these agents was to induce the soldier to remove his gas mask and thereby expose himself to the phosgene. They were needed to penetrate the increasingly sophisticated respirators.

Chlorine and mustard gas would have direct toxic effects on mucous membranes. This would affect the eyes, mouth, throat and lungs when doses were sub-lethal. In addition, mustard gas would affect the skin. Minimal exposure would cause a self-limiting reaction that might not even require the person to leave the line. More significant exposure would result in the person being taken out of the line. As mentioned before, there was no specific treatment. It would take about 6 weeks for the effects of mustard gas to recover sufficiently for most soldiers to return to the line. Phosgene did have the unique effect of causing delayed sudden death on exertion. When this was recognised, soldiers who were exposed were made to rest.

In some cases, the toxic effects of the gas would cause a delayed SARS-like reaction. This was untreatable. Chronic lung damage could occur, probably made worse if the person also smoked cigarettes.

Sudden death from acute exposure could be due to fulminant lung damage or due to lack of oxygen if the concentration of gas was high enough.

Both sides tended to use gas in association with major battles, either offensively or defensively. Persistent agents, such as mustard gas, would be used on batteries and rear areas leading up to an attack, or on the flanks of the attack. It would not be used for 2-3 days prior to an attack on areas that were likely to crossed by friendly troops. Non-persistent agents, such as phosgene, were used for strongpoints and for counter-battery fire/rear areas as well. Rear areas included headquarters, forming up areas, rest areas and routes of resupply.

Occasionally, the British would 'train' the Germans to wear gas masks by firing smoke and gas at intervals for several days before an attack. Then, as at Hamel, they would fire smoke but not gas on the day of the attack so that the Germans would be wearing gas masks.

The British Special Brigade had a deliberate policy of harrassing German units in between attacks as well. They would specifically target units new to the line, for example those that came from Russia.

Cloud gas attacks depended on the prevailing winds, which tended to favour the British. Cloud gas and Livens projector attacks took several weeks to prepare.

To my knowledge, although gas shells were sent to the Middle East, they were not used there.

Robert

William, one of my great uncles (see in my 'signature') was gassed and shot. He was brought home and put on a machine to aid his breathing, in his own home. He also received a visit from his Doctor every day until he was fit again.

It would be fascinating to know what sort of 'machine' your great uncle was given. Even today, there are very few pieces of equipment that actually make a difference to the underlying disease process in lung disorders. Only one or two would have been in existence at the time of the war, though there were probably a range of patented devices for respiratory conditions as there were for many other diseases that could be bought. Which is not to say that the presence of something mechanical and the frequent visits of the doctor did not have a powerful indirect effect. The mind is important for the healing process.

Of interest, any mechanical device that would blow air across or into the nose can help relieve breathlessness. Maybe the machine helped in this way as well.

No chance of NHS doctors visited that frequently now!

Robert

Would I be right in saying that someone did an official survey which found that gas victims were more susceptible to cancers in later life?
My Grandfather died in 1940 from cancer, which was put down to his working in an RNAD immediately prior to this. He served in the Argylls from 1916-19, and I'd like to find if there was a connection to his war service. Unfortunately, his service records were part of the Blitz casualties.
Would his unit war diary name casualties-other than officers?

Regards,
gordon

I think it was an oxygen tank, of sorts. I will endevour to find out more, I was told but I've forgotten (and I've lost some of my paperwork in a recent house move) .

I don't know about any direct studies. However, it is very likely. Mustard gas has a sulphur atom in it. Replace this with nitrogen and you get nitrogen mustard, otherwise known as mustine. This drug was the first chemotherapy agent for cancer. While mustine can successfully treat some cancers, it can also cause cancers in later life (rarely). Of note, some victims of mustard gas developed acute bone marrow failure, which is similar to the effects of chemotherapy.

Most likely, mustard gas would have served to increase the likelihood of men developing cancer from other agents, notably smoking, which was widespread. Smoking would have been much much more likely to cause cancers and chronic lung disease in later life - prior exposure to gas would have been a scapegoat.

Robert

Yes, that could well be, although then, as now, it would have been expensive on a long-term basis. While of limited physical value unless the oxygen level in the blood is low (lack of oxygen per se does not cause a feeling of breathlessness; breathlessness is often not associated with low levels of oxygen), it can help psychologically. As I mentioned, the stream of oxygen (or air) passing over the lining of the nose can help relieve the sensation of breathlessness.

Robert

Gen. Foulkes, the wartime commander of the Gas Brigade, published his memoirs after the war. From memory, I recall he stated that by the end of the war, mustard causualties were discharged back to their units in an average of fourteen days. Members with access to this book might check me up on this.

One thing is certain. The effects of gas has affected our public consciousness far beyond what the objective facts might justify. I have read dramatic and convincing patchs of literature which I cannot reconcile with known facts.

Everyone has heard many stories of former gas casualties who gasped and wheezed their way to early graves after the war. Many of these may, in fact, have been permanently affected by gas, but they could also be due to an unlimited supply of inexpensive cigarettes. Widespread knowledge of the health effects of smoking is relatively recent.

Of course, I am willing to hear good arguements in support of other opinions.

My research into an RFA signaller Eric Cowling suggests that the dose of gas he got in 1917, although it knocked him off his feet at the time, led to him developing heart problems in later life - his autobiographical notes suggest something along the lines of 'bad heart, sold up, got out' in referring to his business i.e. he retired early due to ill health. He was a smoker and I do agree that smoking related diseases could be either masking or exacerbating the effects of gas.

I'm sure there are medical papers on this from the period, not my area though.

Did any of those units caught up in the first German gas attacks of 1915 get any special commendation? Did they wear any particular battle honour?

Foulkes writes: 'further experience showed that under skilled medical treatment 80 per cent of the average mustard gas casualties evacuated from army areas could be cured in eight weeks, and a considerable proportion could be made fit for duty in four weeks, whereas enquiry disclosed the fact that 80 per cent of the average cases were sent to England for treatment, where they remained for two to three months, and even longer' p 264

Robert

While I would not rule it out entirely, I think that exposure to gas was unlikely to have caused the heart problem. He may have had rheumatic heart disease, which was much more common then and could easily have been missed, but smoking/age/gender would be the most likely contributors.

Robert

I have checked my sources on heart damage from nitrogen mustard and it's relatives. Bearing in mind that the possibility of heart damage from chemotherapy was really only recognised after nitrogen mustard had been displaced from use, there is one 'mustard', known as cyclophosphamide, that can rarely be associated with heart damage when given in high doses.

Robert

Thank you Robert. I am continually amazed at how this forum can call back at a moment's notice all sorts of obscure references from our pasts!

I think I can still stand with my opinion that the effects of gas have always created a much stronger effect on our public consciousness than perhaps the clinical effects might have justified. Perhaps most members of this forum are familiar with Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum est" as a description of far more than a man dying of gas poisoning. Some American members may be familiar with Joseph Kinsey Howard, a somewhat "renegade" chronicler of the old west. This is a quote describing his time as a young boy growing up in a Canadian prairie town in 1917 or 1918:

. . . "Already men were returning from Ypres. They were not cleanly wounded by bullet or bayonet: they staggered, strangling, against the false fronts on Main Street and slumped there coughing their lungs out; they grew thinner and grayer every day until they disappeared.
One of these men told me that at Ypres the fabled “Princess Pats” who had looked so valiant, so invincible when the troop trains came through, had whimpered and choked and screamed when the gas got them, had sought desperately to survive by masking their faces with handker­chiefs soaked in their own urine."


This obviously refers to the first 1915 German cloud attacks, from which the Canadian Dvision suffered. So far as I know, the "Princess Pats" were not involved with the gas attacks, but this description is exactly what the public remembers. An easily available (on the internet, for example) contemporary account of this is included in Lord Beaverbrook's "Canada in Flanders".

I agree, though thankfully Adolf Hitler was deeply enough impressed with his clinical experience to avoid using gas in WW2 (or so the story goes). I found it interesting to read Foulkes account, partly because he set out to debunk what he perceived were rising public fears about future gas attacks.

Robert

does anybody kow if a gas attack victim would be more likely to get TB later in life as my grandad did and later kill him in 1930. he was discharged from the army and died a year later also receiving a pension from the army does that mean that the gas was to blame or was the pension compulsary

Nigel

It is quite possible that your grandad picked up TB when he was young. It may lay dormant and then reactivate, even after years. Reactivation can occur if the immune system is depressed for any reason. Mustard gas could do this temporarily but not for more than a few weeks after exposure.

Gas attacks could cause lung damage and scarring in the lungs. This can be ideal for TB.

In balance, I think it is unlikely that there was any casual relationship between being gassed and dying of TB. The latter was common back then. However, if the lungs had been damaged in any significant way, then this would not have helped when the TB became active.

Robert

Robert,

Re gas in the Middle-East theatres, please see the Jerusalem Post article quoting Dr. Y. Sheffy.
Murray used it at 2nd Gaza, but to little/no effect as at that time he probably did not have enough shells and Dobell used the weapon too early in the battle
Later Allenby stockpiled a good supply of c.700,000 shells, but as you suggested he never used them

for the article go to
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/05/04/F...tures.6267.html

Regards
Michael D.R.

Thank you, Michael. It is an interesting and detailed article.

A representative of the Special Brigade was sent to the Middle East with chlorine cylinders. He realised that the terrain on Gallipoli was wholly unsuitable. Chlorine, being heavier than air, follows the lowest contours. For example, in the attack on St Julien, the gas 'flowed' around the high ground, leaving a 'shadow' in which there were few casualties. On Gallipoli, there would have been major problems getting the gas up to the high ground occupied by the Turks, and they were in a very strong position to drift gas down onto the British.

There are some inaccuracies in the article, not related to the use of gas per se. I will contact Yigal and check his sources for the use of gas during the Second Battle of Gaza. Foulkes mentions that his company commander, Garden, went to Egypt after Gallipoli to advise on the use of gas. However, Foulkes and the other sources that I have seem clear that gas was not used. It is quite possible that this information is wrong. Garden does not appear to have stayed in Palestine so he may not have been party to any decision to use gas in the Second Battle of Gaza.

The ineffectiveness of the gas attack could be down to several reasons, as mentioned in the article. One other factor, depending on the type of gas (it would not have been Mustard Gas as I don't believe the British had it at that time), would be the rapid dispersion of gas in the heat.

Robert

Robert,

If get a response from Dr. Sheffy then can you please oblige and let me have details

Many thanks
Michael D.R.

Yes indeed, Michael. I will be in touch with him next week.

For those interested, there is some really good info on Gas and its effects here.
http://www.ku.edu/carrie/specoll/medical/gaswar/gasindex.htm

The third section is particularly interesting as it gives the clinical details of 25 autopsies carried out, often within hours of death. Although the title refers to Mustard Gas, the first 4 are Phosgene.

Not being a scab lifter by trade, and therefore not understanding fully the medico speak of the reports, it does seem, with regard to previous postings about heart problems, that in most cases there is noted dilation of the auricle/ventricle and most commonly on the right side

The decision not to use gas at Gallipoli was taken by the cabinet. See Asquiths letter in CAB/37/127.

The use of gas shell in Palestine was authorised by the War Cabinet just before the start of the campaign. The reasons given were the Turkish atrocities and ill-treatment of Allied prisoners. See CAB 23/1, War Cabinet 8.

I don't know if toxic gases were used in this campaign, but somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to think that lachrimatory shell was used. I may be wrong though. I will have to dig out the rest of my notes.

Terry Reeves

Mafia Man:

Of interest may be a photo I have which is inscribed on the reverse "Gas Ward, Miltary Hospital, Princess St., Manchester, July 16, 1915."

Chris

Looking at the picture, I wonder if the 'X' on the card was actually coloured to indicate the Gas Type to which they'd been subjected.

Very interesting. The effects on the lungs and windpipe are very clear. Basically, in most of the cases, the cells that line the air passages have been destroyed. The destruction also occurs to the lining of the air sacs as well. This causes inflammation, often filling parts of the lungs with fluid. In some cases, bacterial infection has also set in.

As noted, there is frequent mention of dilatation of the right side of the heart. This part of the heart is responsible for pumping blood at low pressure through the lungs. When the lungs are seriously damaged, two problems occur. One is that the pressure in the arteries increases, causing the right side of the heart to work harder and to dilate in order to cope. A similar appearance may be seen with blood clots to the lungs. The second is that the amount of oxygen is seriously reduced in the blood. This, coupled with the adverse changes in body metabolism, makes it even harder for the heart to work effectively. Indeed, in at least one case, it probably caused the sudden death of the soldier.

While I cannot exclude a direct effect of the gas on the heart, there are two things that mitigate against this. One is that the left side of the heart is unaffected. A general toxic effect from gas would have affected both sides of the heart. Second, there is brief mention of an examination of heart tissue under a microscope in one case. This did not show inflammatory changes, apart from some fluid between the muscle cells which, in the absence of inflammatory cells (such as are described in the trachea and lungs of most cases), is very non-specific.

In conclusion, the primary event is severe lung damage that subsequently causes the right side of the heart to dilate as a secondary event.

Given that these are autopsy cases, it is not difficult to see that sub-lethal exposure could cause chronic lung problems. If the damage to the lining of the lungs is superficial, then the lining cells will regrow (there is evidence of this in one of the cases). However, if the supporting tissues of the lung become scarred, then the lung function will be restricted. Add smoking to this....

Note also that one case had evidence of previous TB and a second case had evidence of undetected rhuematic heart disease.

In several cases, there is mention of membranes covering the inside of the windpipe. Think of these as soft 'scabs' covering the large 'burns' to the lining cells and you have a picture of what is being described. Not pleasant whichever way you look at it.

With ref to above, I came across this picture. Also, I think, in one of the cases in my link, there was reference to one of the men having been given treatment by oxygen inhalation.

Sorry! I've re-sized my MASSIVE piccie now.

I am interested in Nigel's remarks regarding TB. My grandfather was gassed in 1916 and discharged in April 16. He died in 1919 and cause of death was listed as tuberculosis and heart failure (3 years). Could these causes,combined with the effects of being gassed, be the reasons behind his death at the age of 34?

TB or heart failure would both be sufficient causes alone. TB can kill, as is well known. The life expectancy of heart failure is worse than cancer in severe cases. It is significant that the duration of heart failure corresponds to the period after he was gassed. Firstly, it means that the heart failure was unlikely to be due to the TB. Tuberculosis could affect the lining around the outside of the heart, which would eventually cause heart failure by constricting the heart. However, in the days before anti-TB treatments, this was rapidly fatal. Second, it is possible that another cause of heart failure, notably rheumatic valve disease, became evident coincidentally with the exposure to gas. This could happen if the heart disease was not a problem until the lungs became affected by gas, thereby throwing more strain on the heart than it could cope with. Third, it re-raises the possibility that heart failure was due to the gas exposure. In this case, the presence of a debilitating illness like heart failure would help re-activate dormant TB. (Fourth, the information about 3 years could be wrong??).

Hope this information is helpful.

Michael

As requested, the following reply was received from Dr Sheffy:

'The EEF used chemical shells against Ottoman forces during the Palestine Campaign on two occasions: on the 2nd Battle of Gaza, 19 April 1917 (about
1,600 shells of asphyxiating and tear gases) and on the 3rd Battle of Gaza,
30 October-4 November 1917, (about 10,000 shells, mostly containing deadly
gas).

Palestine was only one of four Middle Eastern fronts, in which British
forces were equipped with chemical weapons. On Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia
they never used them. In Salonika they did, even before employing gas in
Palestine. The story of the decision-making process (combining political,
ethical and military aspects) which ultimately led to the use of chemical
weapons in the Middle East, makes a fascinating reading.'

I believe that Dr Sheffy is preparing articles for publication.

I did a questionnaire with about 35 former pupils of the Eton memorial school in Ypres two years ago. One of the questions I asked them was why their fathers joined the IWGC ( nearly all of them were children of War Graves Commission employess). I was amazed to find out that about 35% of them answered that their father had been gassed during WW1 and was forced to work outdoors for the the rest of his life, as he couldn't stand the dry air of a factory or an office. It seems that a career as a gardener with the IWGC was an attractive solution for them...

Bert.

Robert,

Many thanks for passing on that info
I will keep an eye open for new material from Dr. Sheffy

Regards
Michael D.R.

Michael

I will keep you posted.

My Uncle, Frank Edward Parsons served in WW1 he was born in Warwick in 1892 and I was told as a child that he had been gassed. My father used tell me that he would belch or vomit (can't remember which) but he said they could smell gas in the room. Is this possible?? or was my father just emphasising the fact that he had been gassed. I remember my Uncle well but as a youngster did not ask the questions that nag at me now. I presume he was in the RWR as my father spoke proudly of the "WARWICKS" He was a heavy smoker and ran a fishmongers shop in (Chris Baker to note) 13, Regent Street, Leamington Spa. Never owned a car or a telephone. Don't know what he would make of all this technology!

regards
raggedstaff

Yes, but the source of the smell would not be the gas that he was exposed to. It would likely be produced by bacteria in the mouth/throat or the smell of gas in the stomach (which is air that is swallowed normally into the stomach and becomes tainted with the smell of stomach acid, etc). If your uncle enjoyed garlic, then the smell would relate to that. This was similar to the smell of mustard gas, though Behrend mentioned that the smell of garlic 'haunted' him after the war. I imagine that others would have shared this aversion. Smells have a powerful link to memories, good or bad.

Robert,

I have read on several occasions about gas (not sure which type) lying in shell holes after attacks, also about soldiers carrying gas residue (mustard i think) on the soles of their boots/clothes and suffering the effects later. How long would each type of gas lie on the ground? I suspect for long periods in some cases?
Also i suppose everyone has seen photographs/paintings ('Gassed' by john Singer-Sargent springs to mind) of gas victims wearing bandages over their eyes. Was the effects on the eyes temporary?

Regards,

Steve

During my time in the Army, I was stupid enough (or intelligent enough) to volunteer to go on the NBC (Nuclear Biological and Chemical) Instructors course which I thoroughly enjoyed and successfully passed. Once qualified I was able to get my hands on a booklet called 'Medical Manual of Defence against Chemical agents.'
I won't go over the types of gases used in the Great War as most of them have been covered in previous replies, however my point is this manual quotes a gas casualty figure for Feb 1915 to Nov 1918 of 1.3 million of which at least 90,000 were fatal. In the last 6 months of the war 1 in every 6 was a gas casualty with mustard gas accounting for 70%, however the mortality rate from mustard gas attack was only 1.5%.
You have to consider that one figure for the total killed in the Army in the Great War was over 702,000.

Mustard gas fits with what you describe. It was an oily liquid that evaporated with the heat of the sun or body and then became active. Thus, depending on weather conditions, it could remain dormant and then cause problems later. The liquid would get onto clothes and then cause damage with body heat and skin contact. The liquid could be passed on from one soldier's clothes to another, for example when soldiers were crowded into dug-outs.

The effect on the eyes was temporary. It would cause an inflammation of the delicate tissues that cover the eye and the inside of the eyelids, which can be extremely painful. The corrosive effect of the gas could cause blindness through permanent damage to the cornea but I suspect in cases where the effect was severe enough for the eyes, the gas also caused fatal effects in the lungs.

My grandfather - Battery Sergeant Major Frederick George Adams was discharged from the Royal Artillery 19.06.16 after being gassed whilst serving with the 149th Brigade Royal Field Artillery.
He was recommended following discharge to settle near the coat, and so moved with his family from the Northampton area to Garlinge, in Kent.
If anyone can tell me where the 149th were from 17.11.15 until 21.3.16 I would be most greateful.
He was posted to the 4th Depot on 22.3.06, and then to the 2nd Reserve Brigade on 31.3.16

I've not looked at the figures lately, but IIRC the US Army sustained less than 5% of its fatalities from gas but about 30% of its combat injured. It'd be interesting to see comparable figures from other arms.

ROBERT--------having seen that my grandad was not the only one to die of T.B. later in life after being gassed, i know you said there can be no direct link but has any research been done to find out what gassed ex-soldiers died of after the war and did the gassing in any way shorten their lives ?

I have read, as indicateded in a previous post, that Hitler was gassed at the Somme in 1918, and as a result refused to use gas in WW2.

Gas was also outlawed by the Genega convention in (I think) 1925 (or thereabouts).

Does anyone have any references to documents or books that indicate that the Germans WOULD have used gas, even though it was outlawed, and Hitler stopped them?

Thanks

marc

I believe that gas was made illegal under International law before the outbreak of WW1. So the Germans DID use gas when it was outlawed.

No, a ban was imposed on the Germans as part of the peace settlement in 1921, and added to the Geneva convention in 1925.

Some links
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol03/33/zander33.pdf
http://womhist.binghamton.edu/chemwar/doc20.htm

But my main question still stands, was Germany advocating the usage in 1939 and did Hitler disallow it?

marc

I have just come across this discussion having only recently become a member of the forum and it has really piqued my interest.

Have some of our more learned friends here thought of the possibility of a form of pulmonary fibrosis being the end state of gas casualties later in life? Pulmonary fibrosis as far as I know has no direct viral cause. From what my fathers doctors told me and subsequent questioning of my personal physician I understand that pulmonary fibrosis has an enviromental trigger. Gas, it would seem, fit the bill as a caustic enough environmental agitant. During the 30's and 40's was pulmonary fibrosis a diagnosed disease of the lungs or attributed to something else? (Emphysema, consumption, etc)

There is a possibility. Anything that causes severe damage to the lung tissues (but no so severe that the person dies of the immediate effects of lung failure) can trigger pulmonary fibrosis. It is a form of scar tissue build-up in the lungs, and scar tissue occurs after any form of damage in various parts of the body, not just the skin. Most cases of pulmonary fibrosis have no known cause.

Robert

I have no details of where or when but my Edinburgh grandfather was gassed early in the war and suffered its effects all his life. In a 1916 photograph he has two wound stripes. The family history is that he was sent to convalesce with a family in the East End of London and then returned to the front. This was the beginning of his life-long friendship with this family. Can any any forum member confirm that billiting of the wounded with civilians did occur. Thanks Eric