Help reading a Company Morning Report

Can anyone help me read a line in a US Army Company Morning Report? It lists two names then notes, "Above 2 EM asgd and jd fr Cas Det 51, 10th RD. APO 874, as of 2 June 1944."

I translate this as "The above two enlisted men assigned..." and then I'm not sure. Then men listed are given the code, 7-D. I have a big scan of this report on my blog:
519th Port Bn in WWII: Search results for morgan

Above this note is a list of killed and wounded. I'm wondering if this note relates to those or not.

Thanks,
Andrew

 

"and joined from Casual Detachment 51, 10th Replacement Depot"?

My interests are more Navy oriented. Just a guess.

 

That sounds like it fits! Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that note didn't refer to the bombing casualties listed above.

 

I'd say slipdigit is right on the money.

 

If this unit was an Army National Guard unit, these units also kept its morning records separate from the ones stored at the National Archives.

 

What? All Morning Reports from World War II are kept by the
NPRC in St. Louis.


Dave

 

While that is true, National Guard units also keeps a copy of their morning reports. I was in contact with a historian with the 36ID at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas that informed me of that when I was looking for morning reports.

However, Cas Det 51, 10th RD. might not even be a National Guard unit, making my advice pointless.

 

Follow up question: Is there a distinction between "wounded" and "injured" I'm guessing "wounded in action" is due to enemy attack, and "injured in action" is injury from the work they were doing (broken fingers, legs, etc from accidents moving supplies). Is that right, or are injured and wounded both from enemy action?

 

I wanted to know what does J4 in the right hand margin (Under Code) mean, and where can I get a copy of Circular #69 ETOUSA. Because it says dropped from assignment per Circular #69 ETOUSA. Any help would be appreciated.

 

You are correct. Today, the term would be "Non-Battle Injury". Definitely different from "wounded in Action". Doc

 

I'm sure someone will be able to help you with this question, micher9. If not, I will try to look into it for you. Keep checking back as these questions can sometimes take a while to get answers.

 

I found the same notation in a file " Lost to Hospital (date) per sec II, Cir #69, HQ EUSA, 13 June 44".
I got a copy of cir#69 from the Texual Archives Services Division of NARA. I emailed a letter to NARA and they were good enough to send me a copy. I read it to say that patients evacuated from a combat area shall be dropped from assignment to their unit. Patients will be carried as "attached unassigned" provided it is over 24 hours. If a patient is hospitalized in a fixed hospital for a period in access of 5 days he will be transferred from "attached unassigned" and assigned to the detachment of patients.

There is a lot of babble for 4 pages, exempting parachutist, and stuff, but basically it eliminated the soldier's assigned unit from carrying the guy on their records if he was taken to the hospital.
Hope this made some sense--Dave

 

Micher9, I saved the email concerning Cir#69-this should help.

They seem to indicate that Circular 69 from 1944 was issued by the Surgeon General, and that it was a directive that had to do with the removal of soldiers from their units, and their reassignment to medical duties after they had been wounded.That is what I have taken away from the information I found, but since we don't have the circulars at the Washington State Library, I can't know that for sure.

The circulars issued by the Surgeon General in WWII are held by the National Archives in Record Group 112.
www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/112.html#112.2.2

 

Dave, I couldn't get the hyperlink to work, so copied and pasted the text of the URL and that worked fine. You might need to fix the link.

 

Thanks Tommy, I just tried it and it went right to the page. But your method is a good back-up.

 

Well, never mind then. Maybe it's time for me to empty the caches, clear the cookies and do an old fashioned reboot.

 

I read this while searching for something else. For those among us with an interest for sorting out these minor details, I thought it worth discussing further.

I favor the term/interpretation "Casual Detachment" over "Casualty Detachment". I have heard the term "casual" to refer to a soldier in between assignments.

While the Army is not always given to logic, the potential confusion that could be caused by using the term "casualty" for a healthy replacement seems great.

I briefly checked the Green Books for an overview of the replacement system but they were mostly concerned, quite rightly, with the issues of quantity and quality of replacements.

I suspect the procedure was a system of Replacement Depots (the infamous repple depple [sp?]) strategically located along the route to the front. And in between these depots, groups of replacements traveled in "Casual Detachments" that only existed until they reached their destination. Given Army logic, the "command" of these detachments might be the ranking soldier who might also carry the personnel files for each "casual" for delivery upon arrival.

Any opposing points of view welcome. Reputation points for any references that completely solves the issue.

 

Here's a link to a Replacement Company website.

Chapter 12: History of the 210th Replacement Company. « The 54th Replacement Battalion, ETO, 1943-1945.

In this excerpt, the use of the term "casual" and "detachment" are evident.

 

Hi. Thanks for taking a look at my blog about the 54th Replacement Battalion. I was unaware of this group and am happy to find you all.

Rob