Some form of organisation to care for the animals employed by the British Army has existed for hundreds of years, but it was largely devoted to the care and treatment of horses for the cavalry. Indeed, it was public concern for the welfare these army horses that led to the formation of the Army Veterinary Service (A.V.S.) in 1796 'to improve the practice of Farriery ( O.E.D. = the care of horses in a Cavalry Regiment) in the Corps of Cavalry'.
In the years that followed, A.V.S. officers were responsible for the development, on and off the battlefield, of many equine treatments and procedures; some of which are still considered to be good veterinary practice worldwide today.
By the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, the A.V.S. had become the Army Veterinary Corps (A.V.C.): it subsequently became the Royal Army Veterinary Corps (R.A.V.C.) on 27th November 1918.
When the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) embarked for France in August 1914, its strength included 122 commissioned A.V.C. officers and 797 other ranks. Its principal responsibility was for the BEF's 53,000 horses. The strength of the A.V.C. and the military animals increased dramatically as the reinforcements for the BEF and the New Armies came into the field.
A Veterinary Service was attached to each division of the BEF under an Assistant Director (ADVS) to serve at the divisional and brigade level; Mobile Veterinary Sections met the needs of the various divisions in the field. At a maximum, 60 divisional A.V.C. Mobile Sections, and 20 horse hospitals, with appropriate support units, were established in France and Flanders.
As we shall see, not only did the A.V.C's strength and animal clientel increase dramatically in numbers as the war developed on the Western Front, the range of animals it dealt with also widened. In all, the A.V.C. handled over 2 million animal 'clients' in the 51 months duration of the war. The 'Returned to Duty' numbers after treatment by the A.V.C. reached 80%.
The Clientele
As already indicated, at the outset of the Great War the animals catered for by the A.V.C. were principally horses. These were of three types
- Draft animals for field artillery and general transportation purposes.
- Cavalry mounts.
- Mounts for officer's use and other general duties. Many army officers had at least one mount at their disposal; some had several.
The different deployment of the army horses meant radically different breeds were required, each with its special needs. For example, to draw a large field artillery gun, such as the standard 2,900 pound-weight British18-pounder, across broken country required a team of six strongly built horses, harnessed in pairs and ridden/controlled by the gun-crew members themselves. As it was almost impossible to shelter the horses against gun-fire when they were both in and out of combat - the digging of suitable trenches or raising above-ground protective compounds was an almost impossible task - the casualties amongst the artillery horses were often enormous. There is chilling cinematographic material filmed on the Western Front demonstrating the catastrophic effect of shellfire on Royal Artillery gun-teams caught whilst manoeuvring over open ground.
Many of the senior officers on the Western Front were cavalrymen only too anxious to deploy their squadrons of horses on the battle-field, convinced as they were of the superiority of the cavalry as an arm of war. It took several disastrous outings before it became only too plain, as the belligerent armies went underground into a complex system of trenches and barbed wire fortifications 460 miles long, that the cavalry charge had no place on the Western Front. Even so, as more favourable situations arose in certain limited localities, further cavalry charges were made: the last by the British on the Western Front was carried out during the German Spring Offensive in 1918 when more open warfare became possible. But of the 150-cavalry horses involved, only five survived the German machine guns.
The bulk of the horse on the battlefield had been turned almost overnight from a tactical advantage against the infantry to one of disadvantage by presenting such an excellent large target for the machine gun and the H.E. fragmentation shell.
Moreover, wounds that were treatable in human victims were often untreatable in horses. The afflicted animals had to be destroyed: over 200,000 horses died on active service on the Western Front.
Although, as the war progressed, the internal combustion engined motor vehicle became increasingly available on the Western Front, much of the transportation of men and material continued to be carried out by horse drawn vehicles, or ported on the backs of mules. In part, this was due to the comparative reliability of the animals and their ability to traverse broken territory that was impassable to the motor vehicle. Horses and mules were also a relatively cheap and adaptable means of transport with low maintenance costs.
Other Military Animals
As the war went on, other animals were increasingly introduced into the battlefields of the Western Front to serve the multifarious needs of the troops and their commanders: overall, 16 million animals were deployed in the Great War.
Principally, amongst the 'other military animals' used on the Western Front were:
- Carrier pigeons
- Dogs
- Cats
- Canaries
- Mice
Carrier pigeons: The role of carrier pigeons in warfare as the transporters of messages is a long and distinguished one. There are many anecdotes as to how a hastily written note, or, later, a microphotograph, attached to the leg of the bird in the battlefield, arrived safely at base and saved the day. Later in the war, aerial photographs were taken by cameras attached to specially trained pigeons.
On the Western Front, the speed of the carrier pigeon - around 60 mph (100 kph) - meant it could quickly gain height and avoid the dangers of the battlefield. Some of the 100,000 of the pigeons that were deployed by the British on the Western Front were killed by gunfire or toxic gas, but 95% got through with their messages. One much quoted case is the role that French carrier pigeons played in the First Battle of the Marne in September 1914 when other means of communication became disrupted. Another is that of the famous American 'Lost Battalion' during the 1918 Argonne Offensive, in France, when a seriously wounded carrier pigeon made its way through the lines for 25 miles (40km) and the battalion was rescued.
The only really effective control measure against carrier pigeons was the use of raptor birds, such as the falcon.
The British Government was so concerned about the possible disruption of this means of communication with the battlefields of the Western Front that on the Mainland it imposed serious penal measures for those found shooting carrier pigeons.
Dogs: As 'man's best friend', the dog not only served its traditional roles as a pet or mascot for the troops in the line, and as a general service guard dog, it was also trained to perform other duties such as a message carrier. But at this task it was not quite as routinely successful as the carrier pigeon. There are many anecdotes about the miracles performed by message-carrier dogs over considerable distances of highly dangerous and treacherous ground: one such quotes a successful 2.5-mile (4km) dash in 60 minutes. (It is said that a dog can traverse broken ground three times faster than a man can).
Some sources claim that the messenger dogs saved the lives of many of the high-casualty-rate soldier message 'runners' by taking over their role in the more dangerous situations.
Dogs also served as carriers across the battlefield of material such as ammunition, food, medical supplies and telephone cable. They were trained to seek out the wounded and many 'lost' casualties were recovered from the battlefield through this means.
Cats: Much appreciated as pets by the troops, cats tended to be rather more free-lance with many 'owners'. They were particularly useful and appreciated for keeping down the swarms of rats and mice that infested the trenches and which inflicted yet another misery on the lives of the 'Poor Bloody Infantry'.
Caged canaries and mice: These animals were widely used to ascertain the presence of toxic gas and poisonous fumes in enclosed spaces such as dugouts and mine tunnels. This followed a long known practice of deploying these 'indicator animals' for this purpose and one that is still used by the British in Iraq today.
Insects: Approaching the incredulous, there were reports that the British troops used glow-worms as a form of mobile low intensity lighting in the trenches for reading maps and other documents in the black-out.
Recognition of service
Unfortunately, particularly in the case of the dogs, there has been a tendency to an anthropomorphism of the actions of military animals, using words such as 'self-sacrifice', 'bravery' and the like. There is no doubt many individual dogs showed extraordinary devotion to their soldier-minders in very difficult situations where one would expect the animals to seek to escape the dangers of the battle-field at the first opportunity. But many of the more outstanding acts were the result of intensive training and the following of orders from their carers, much as one would expect with a pack animal. Well-trained carrier pigeons were merely doing very well what homing pigeons are bred to do.
That said, the awarding of medals for exceptional military deeds by animals is by no means to be derided. Sentimentality aside, many of the army personnel involved with the military animals felt this was clearly deserved and well worth recording in this time-honoured way.
Although the British Dicken Medal for animals (a.k.a. The Animals' VC) was only created in the Second World War, there were other awards in the Great War. A well known example being to the pigeon called 'Cher Ami' (Dear Friend) that was awarded the French 'Croix de Guerre with Palm' for its performance in the American 'Lost Battalion' incident mentioned earlier.
Conclusion
Although the Royal Army Veterinary Corps was formed as a result of public concern about the welfare of cavalry horses, its creation also ensured that, in general, and as far as possible under war conditions, military animals were well kept and properly cared for. A welcome offshoot of this commitment was the maximisation of the performance of these animals in the field. An additional side effect was that good organisation also improved the cost effectiveness of the resources devoted to the military animals.
