Blog

  • Some of the Men of Hartshorne on the Somme.

    Having been told to take things at a slightly steadier pace, I decided to do some more research for a few more of the men that are named on the Hartshorne War Memorial.

    While I accept I’m not born in the village it has been my home for the last 23 years and that of my better half since the late 70’s, and I have firm sense of belonging to the place. So each remembrance Sunday when back in the UK I have taken great pride in representing the Royal British Legion in the village and laid a wreath at the village war memorial.

    One of the interesting things is that a villager produced a document called “In memory of the Men of Hartshorne who fell in the Great War”.

    https://hartshornechurch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/In-Memory-of-the-Men-of-Hartshorne-who-fell-in-The-Great-War-Who-were-they-v3.pdf

    I’ve been using this document to search for where each of the men are either buried or where they are commemorated. During my posting to Mons, I’m aiming to try and visit as many as I can of those that are in Belgium and in France.

    This weekend has seen me look to locate those that are in the Somme area. This covers 4 of the men listed on the village war memorial, these are:

    • Private James Blood, 10th Battalion Notts and Derby Regiment.
    • Lance Sergeant Thomas King, 4th Battalion Grenadier Guards.
    • Lance Corporal Sidney Walker, 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Regiment.
    • Lance Corporal John Walton, 1st Battalion North Staffordshire Regiment.

    Of these 4 men, 3 have no known grave and are commemorated on the Thiepval Memorial.

    The first is James Blood.

    He is located on Pier 10 of the memorial and face “C” of the pier. Each pier and face of the memorial is coded to help locate the names, the numbers are at the base of the pier. As shown below:

    The memorial has the names of all of the fallen with no known grave listed by Regiments, so by looking for the Unit it is then a case of looking for the rank and then the names are listed alphabetically.

    For those visitors who are not of a military background the Regiments appear across the memorial by Regimental precedence, not in alphabetical order.

    The next one that I’ll deal with is LCpl John Walton of the 1st Bn North Staffordshire Regiment. His name is located on the 14th Pier/ Piller and on Face B. His name appear just above the pier marker.

    L/Sgt Thomas King of the 4th Bn Grenadier Guards is slightly different from the other 2 soldiers, in the fact that his name is not listed with in the Grenadier Guards roll, he is located separately as an addendum, which indicates that he was added to the list of the missing after the main list had been completed and carved. His name is located on the outside of the memorial on Pier 4 face C.

    The last Man of Hartshorne, LCpl Sidney Walker of 2nd Bn Royal Irish Regiment, that I visited today does have a grave and he is located at the Caterpiller Valley Cemetery, which is just outside the village of Longueval. He is located in section 11 of the Cemetery, row E and grave 21.

    Its been an interesting day tracking down these 4 names and their memorials.

    The aim is to get photos or visit as many of these villagers graves or memorials as I can during my time in Belgium. I’ve already done a visit to Ypres and got a few and also a visit to Arras recently picked up a few more. I plan to create a blog post for each group that I track down.

    ,
    , , , , , ,

  • 1890 UP Saddle Refurbishment update

    Over the last couple of months there has been a bit of work done on the refurbishment of the 1890 Universal Pattern Saddle.

    The 1890 UP when I originally picked it up.

    Now I have to admit the main reason for the increase in activity has been two fold. The first was having been contacted by Gerard Hogan, a Military Saddler from Australia who had spotted a few “quirks” with my saddle that he was interested in getting some more details on. The other fact was that I needed something to be a focus away from the day job.

    The result was that I did some work with Gerard to supply him details, photos and in some cases traces/ templates of some of the particular parts of the saddle to help with his research of the 1890 UP. That has really increased my knowledge about the saddle and how rare it is.

    With its rareity in mind I’m aiming to refurbish it but with keeping as much of the original parts as I can.

    So where are we at the moment?

    The Saddle Tree (Arches and Timber boards/ fans) have been cleaned up and the arches have been repainted with metal paint and the boards have been cleaned, lightly sanded and given a couple of coats of varish.

    All the leather work has been cleaned and scrubbed. With the advice of Gerard I used sunlight soap to help lift the 120 years (ish) worth of crud off the leather work, that did a cracking job of cleaning the leather but it took a blood age to clean the sink afterwards – Just as well that I did it out here in Mons, rather than at home where the GOC UKLF (AKA the Long Haired General) would have killed me!

    One of the finds from the scrubbing clean was that there was a makers stamp in the middle of the Seat Leather. Showing D Mason & Son Ltd, Birmingham, 1902. With finding this set of markings the saddle now has 3 sets of period marks – 1901 for the Arches, 1902 for the Seat and 1903 for the wooden boards.

    All of the leather was allowed to dry and then has a good coating of Leather balsam to get some life back into it.  with that done all of the smooth leather was given several coats of Dark Tan boot polish and the rough sides given a good covering of brown boot dubbin.

    With some of the life now back in the leather it was time to start doing a few of the smaller repairs, such as replacing some of the damaged/ failed stitching. this was mainly on the front flaps of the seat. One of which had to be completely removed and restitched back on.

    There are still parts of the saddle leather work that needs repair, in particular is the Y Girth straps. As part of the chat with Gerard it appears that the shape of the leather panel indicates that these are a second edition version and quite rare, so the plan is to replace the damange leather strap only and to keep the rest as original as possible, so brass rivets have been ordered and a local leather worker is making me a new replacement strap. (I suspect that they have all been replaced at some point in the past already by the look of them – which is not unreasonable as the UP Saddles are designed to be fixed in this way ).

    The next phase of the refurbishment is to put new webbing straps onto the tree to support the seat. I’m in the process of ordering new screws for the refitting of the Y straps and the Sweat flaps and I need to get replacement short straps to replace the broken ones on both of the felts and also on the felt numnah.

    damaged leatherwork on the saddle felts

    So I’ve made a start on the refurbishment and there is strill a good bit to go at the moment but it is something that I don’t want to rush too much as I want to get the saddle back to a condition that I can use it for riding and not just as a show peice.

    The other item that has now been added for the saddle is that Gerard made a set of period appropriate Saddle Wallets and straps to go with the 1890 UP when it is complete.

    Gerard also added some Derbyshire Imperial Yeomanry markings on the wallets and straps as he knew that I intended to set the saddle up as a Yeomanry Saddle and the Derbyshire Yeomanry was my local mounted unit, a really nice touch and very appreciated.

    I wanted the wallets to be darker in colour to match the saddle so a dark brown/ havanna brown leather dye was applied. and once dry the inside of the wallets was given a bit of nourishment with dubbin and the exterior was given several coats of dark tan boot polish and good going over with the boot brushes to buff them up.

    Half way through the dyeing process, dye applied by paint brush.
    Wallets polished and buffed.

    I really must thank Gerard Hogan for his excellent work on the wallets and also his help and advice with the refurbishment of the saddle. I still have a quite a bit to do but things are moving now and I can see it starting to come together.

    The next phase of work will be over the autumn period and hopefully I’ll have a completed project by Christmas. If you have any comments or thoughts on the work so far then please let me know via comments or via the contact page.

    ,
    , , , , ,

  • Historians, Battlefield Guides and Reenactors

    I follow quite a few historians, Battlefield Guides and Reenactors on Twitter, Youtube and a few other platforms. Why? well I like history, I like researching battles and then walking (and Riding) the ground, often giving a talk on the battle to those that I’m with, and I also do Living History/ Reenacting. So whats the issue?

    Well…….

    There are times when everyone hates each other or condemns each other but particularly at this time of year, the events season, I see quite a lot of focus on the the dislike and condemnation of the Reenactors and Living Historians.

    “Its that time of year when fat old blokes appear dressed up as aged paras….“

    “there is nothing I hate more that seeing fat middle aged men pretending to be Richard Sharpe….“

    and so on and so on.

    As a living Historian I’ve been on the end of this flak and I’ve also been part of the reason for the flak. But I’ve also seen the hypocrisy and double standards of the Historians and battlefield guides. So this is going to be a tale of how we all have a problem, how we can look to prevent the problem and how we all fit together and can work together.

    Before I go any further – There are people out there that that already do this and are bloody good at it and it makes for really good events, talks and lectures. We just need to be:

    • Honest with ourselves.
    • Open minded to learning
    • Open minded to learning from others from the other groupings.
    • Prepared to work together
    • Understanding that just because you are in one of the groupings (Historian, Battlefield Guide or Reenactor), don’t think that there aren’t people from your grouping in some of the other Groups.

    So what do I mean by some of these observations? Well lets have a chat.

    I got into the Living History by accident but once in I really enjoyed it and for me the ability to learn history, demonstrate it and then engage with the public is the bit that pushed/ pulled me further into it.

    So lets get things straight to start with I am the middle aged chubby bloke that likes to dress up (Steady now…….!) in historical uniforms. I’m 52 and stocky in build, I am not going to cut the mustard as a 1918 Royal Engineer Sapper aged about 21. However I have worked out that I can pass as a Warrant Officer or as a Major, and that works for portraying Sappers and Infantry. I have also kitted myself out as a Sergeant of the 5th Seaforths but not of an Infantry Company but of the Transport Section – why? because from images of the time there is a good spread of older blokes in that type of unit.

    Its an early lesson that I learned from some reenacting groups – Do you look like you belong dressed the way you are? The other bit of my rationale is that I have been a Warrant Officer and an Officer, now I agree that doesn’t mean that I can carry it off as a period Officer or Warrant Officer/ SNCO but it gives me a basis for the role but I’ve had to dig in and learn the specifics of the role in the period portrayed.

    Mistakes that I have made as a Living Historian that could be or are spotted a mile away by others in the Reenacting world:

    • wearing modern glasses. I’m a speccie git and I need my specticals all of the time (I’m not blind….) but for some of my early events I just wore my modern glasses, while they were plain metal frames I was very aware that they were not period appropriate. I now have period appropriate glasses for the Victorian & Great War period and also for the 1940s period. You get them from companies such as Dead Man’s Spex (https://www.deadmensspex.com/)- A very good company and great to deal with!
    • Using Modern Drill – this is a common issue with British Soldiers that start doing reenacting. The lifting your knee to parallel to the ground and stamping your feet is a post ww2 thing. And I’ve been caught out by it – yes the non-drillie sapper was caught out doing modern drill. WW1 drill is more akin to Royal Navy drill – sliding the foot in, less formality to it. The good reenacting groups do a lot of training to get their group and individuals to look the part and to break the habit for the serving soldiers in their ranks so that the foot drill is appropriate of the period.
    • Missing the small details – I have an officers SD Cap that dates from the 1940/ early 50s. Fairly well battered and was a good starter cap to use with WW1, when I picked it up it had modern stay bright ER2 side buttons on it. It was only after a couple of events that I clocked it and changed them for brass period buttons (I’ve also replaced it now with 2 period specific caps). Which was lucky as at the next event that I attended I was checked over and the individual was looking particularly for this type of thing.
    • Riding Boots – Riding boots are not cheap and most people have black riding boots. Luckily when I decided to invest in a set of long riding boots I went for brown ones which was not a bad idea for when I was doing competitive riding but for reenacting they just weren’t right. It wasn’t until I did the Warhorse 14 Event where we were asked to bring our own long riding boots that I realised how much they they were not appropriate. The style and cut of them was just not right. so over time I have managed to invest in a couple of pairs of boots. These haven’t been cheap, but they are really good to ride in and between them I can cover all of the Great war period.
    • There are other faux pas but as I’ve realised them or they have been pointed out they have been corrected or removed.

    The so-what of this is that my journey to become better and more accurate has taken time, effort, research and some bits of embarrassment and some wrong turns, added to which it also costs. Next to no one can afford to come into this hobby and buy a full set of kit in one hit that is perfect. You tend to start with the basics and build from there or get loaned some kit to get you through your first season of events. Once you know that you enjoy it then you should start the real investment of time, effort, research and money.

    So this is why you tend to have the middle aged individual with a bit more cash dominating the field.

    A lot of people from the historian side of things are keen to point out the Fat SS bloke or a group of “Living History” bods at an event that just look shite while wearing all sorts of uniform, kit and equipment. Here is my take on things –

    The WW2 German and SS reenactors get a shit load of flak from the historian community and others, they are an easy target to critise and often used as a focal point to have a go at the wider reenacting community. They are seen as right wing sympathisers, or Nazis in plan sight etc. Well while a very small number may be, the vast majority are not. Theres a whole wider discussion to be had rather than roll out a blanket – THEY SHOULD BE BANNED! – I don’t agree with that. There are some very good living history groups that do WW2 German Forces, they do it in an educational way and they do excellent displays. if you ban them then you lose an important part of history, you only see one side of the story and that means that parts of the story go missing or are glossed over or simply disappear. My view is that incomplete or unbalanced history is not good history and wrong lessons can be taken from that – this is a far bigger discussion for a later blog post perhaps.

    I’ve seen arguments where these uniforms should only been seen in Museums. Well guess what?Museums occasionally get their uniform and equipment displays wrong and they often don’t like being corrected by the reenacting community! (I’m aware of 2 museums at least that have incorrect 1902 UP saddle and Tack set ups on display which are wrong and the equipment they display is not period appropriate for the display! In both cases the displays were done by the museum staff and historians).

    As with all living history events and groups, if you get the right people, with the right reputation for doing the displays and talks right, and you will have the ability to understand the soldier’s perspective, from both sides of the conflict.

    Another important thing where reenactors get criticised is where they just look like a bag of shite and don’t look appropriate. Reenacting groups will often look for funding or costs to attend an event, and often that really expensive event that you paid a fortune to attend will look to cut costs and in doing so they will book groups that are cheaper or to cut the costs further by using in-house volunteers.

    Now some groups are are cheap because they are starting out and need the money to cover travel costs or to fund then next part of their development. Established groups need to cover their travel costs, public liabilities insurances, repair and maintenance of their equipment etc, that means they are not cheap but you do get a very good display and experience, these are groups such as The Warwicks 1914-1918 Group or the 16th Lancers Group.

    Some events decide that they just don’t want to pay out for these groups so they either get some of their volunteers to dress up in uniforms or in a couple of cases they have hire some actors and provided some kit for them to wear. From a Reenactor point of view this is the worst of the all possible worlds, as people will look at these individuals and think “feck me they look fecking rubbish!” and they are right but trying to make people realise they are not reenactors is bloody impossible, They have been trotted out by an event that is too cheapskate to allocate some funds to get a half decent group booked, and regularly we see photos from these type of events being trotted out by Historians and Battlefield guides as the evidence of why reenactors are shite!

    To the event organisers, do yourself a favour, if you can’t afford or won’t pay for a decent Living History or Reenacting Group then either don’t add a dressed up element or speak to a Reenacting group and ask if they can provide a small contingent to do a talk or smaller display. All that happens is the reenactors get a bad reputation and the event gets black listed by reenacting groups for the future.

    To the Historians out there I have listened to a number of you publicly complain that you are invited to speak at events with an expectation is that you will not be paid – well it is the same thing for the Reenactors.

    I’ve worked with historians and on Battlefield Studies/ Staff Rides. Some of these have been really good and some have been shockingly bad. Here is my take on things (this is my opinion and my experience. so you can take it or leave it).

    On an Army Staff ride event in France and we are stood on a battlefield. The Historian steps up and gave a really good brief on the Context to the battle, the formations involved and the Generals and the factors that affect the battle to this point. At this point he handed over to the Battlefield Guide who then talks everyone through the battlefield that we were stood on and pointed out all of the relevant features of the battlefield that could be seen and what happened as the battle proceed. At this point he handed over to us the Living History team for us to talk though the kit and equipment that the British, French and German infantrymen would have worn and carried for this particular battle, we then handed back to the historian who then talked through the results and consequences of this particular battle! Job done, good partnership!

    On the same staff ride I then had the problem of a different Historian talking through a Battle, in really Big Hand terms and skimming over the particular details of the actual events and location that we are stood on. And then used me as the equivalent of a tailors dummy to talk about my kit and equipment which he proceeded to get completely wrong. Which is really bloody annoying! This well respected individual and published author, while comfortable with the Strategic and operational aspects of the events, was bloody clueless on the tactics and fighting on the site and the particular loads carried by a British Infantryman on the day!

    I also attended Battlefield study provided by a commercial company, 5 days around the Ypres battlefields with a focus on 3rd Ypres. By Day 3 it was clear that our guide was really good at the tactical battles of each of the sites we visited, he could walk us through each site and give us great detail about the events, the bravery of the soldiers and wins and losses at each point of the battle. What was lacking was the piece that linked each of these battles together what made these battles part of the Third Ypres Offensive? The operational and strategic aspects were lost or missing, why is that important? Well the audience was Warrant Officers, Majors and a couple of Lt Colonels, and getting to know the bigger picture was probably a bit more important. The follow up letter to the Company Head office expressed the disappointment of missing the key component of what had been asked for when the battlefield study was booked! To resolve this we ended up asking for a War Studies academic from Sandhurst to come and spend a day with us, who quite successfully managed to stitch everything together for us.

    Another observation that I have is the hypocrisy of some historians. The number of times that I have seen some historians criticise reenactors and living historians and later appear either in badly fitted and incorrectly worn kit themselves as part of a talk that they are giving or where they give a lecture or presentation and use reenactors as part of that event.

    Guys, if you don’t like us then stay the hell away from us and don’t try and jazz up your presentation by slinging some kit on. If you are going to wear kit and equipment then get a hair cut, make sure you are wearing the right kit for the period you are presenting on and make sure you know your stuff about what you have on. If you want to do this then come and talk to us, embrace it and make the effort. The reenacting community wants to help and wants to engage, thats what we do this dressing up milarky for. A really good example of this was on the Ride to High Wood in 2016 we were joined by a professional artist who had been commissioned to produce a piece of art of the battle. He could ride and as such was kitted out as a 7th Dragoon and had spent time prior to the event learning to ride in a WW1 Saddle and equipment and then joined us for the 2 days to ride the ground of the 14th July 1916. He wanted to get an understanding of how the uniform, equipment and saddlery was worn and used prior to starting his artwork.

    I’ll leave you with a last anecdote. I was part of a group of living history members doing a set of static WW1 displays at Sandhurst showing the support and logistics involved in the later parts of the Great War. These displays were part of the pre-deployment presentations for the Army Staff Ride in 1918. Those attending the staff ride were broken down into smaller groups and moved around each of the stand and got briefs and the chance to ask questions and handle the kit and equipment. Each of the groups had a mix of nationalities and also civilians Historians and Academics. with one of the groups I noticed most of the academics were not particularly engaged with the displays but with one group one of the academics was really interested, lots of questions, keen to get his hands on the kit and really engaged with what we had on display.

    This acedemic later came back to have a chat with my mate and myself. He was really fascinated by the differences in our uniform but by the fact that we were both Royal Engineers. We explained that I was kitted out for a soldier with the Field Squadrons and my younger counterpart was kitted out for a Field Company Sapper and we ran through the differences and similarities for him. He explained that as a Historian he knew about the activities of the Royal Engineers and the wide functions of the different units but to actually see and understand the difference in kit and equipment was something that just wasn’t part of what he dealt with. We had a good discussion and by then end of it had agreed that to get the full picture there is a need and a place to have historians, Battlefield guides and Reenactors working together. I regularly see this Historian on TV and I’m always impressed by him, the fact that he was open to ask questions and engage has probably helped in my opinion of him.

    In summary – there are good, bad and middling Reenactors, Battlefield Guides and Historians. The vast majority of reenactors and Living History people are passionate about their area of history and strive to get things right or as near as damn it. Quite a few of the living history and reenacting community are also Battlefield Guides and or Historians so give them credit.

    Yes we are a older bunch but we do aim to get younger people engaged and to support them into the community and into groups.

    Not everyone that you see in photos are reenactors or living historians, some events are just too tight to pay or invite good quality groups to their events. So sometimes we are tarred with the “Bad” brush due to the poor efforts of event volunteers and actors.

    It can be hard to build a reputation as a reenacting group and often that takes attending smaller events and just not quite getting it right to allow them to refine, adjust and correct things, but don’t be too critical because some of these groups have to go through the pain of “not being 100% right” so that they can correct themselves.

    And to the Historians who like having a go at criticising some of the reenacting groups, be prepared to eat a bit of humble pie if you suddenly find yourself needing some reenactors for your next book launch or your next history talk, and especially if you find yourself looking like a bag of shite tied in the middle with a 37 pattern web belt!

    Lets all play nice and work hard together to give the public and audiences some good quality history events. And most of all lets learn from each other!

  • The Officers Field Mess Tin Set

    So yesterday I posted on Twitter about a project that I’ve had for a while and I’ve finally managed to make time to clean it up and it’s ready for display and possibly for use. I’m going to go through it step by step so bear with me and let me know what you think.

    This an Officers private purchase mess tin. It has a registered pattern number that dates between 10 Jul 1914 and 24 Nov 1914. Now that doesn’t mean that it is a Great War item but it mean the design was registered at this point in time and is period appropriate.

    Inside the cotton cover you can see the mess tin set. The cover is held in place with a plain leather strap, which isn’t in too bad a condition. The cover also closes with a small light push stud.

    The set is formed with a deep pan and a lid that will act as a frying pan. Take the lid off and you can see a small kettle, a handle for both the Pan and Frying pan.

    Underneath the kettle is an aluminium plate. Everything sits together very nicely in pot.

    Take the lid of the kettle and you have a cup and some lose items. While the cup looks like it has a lid this isn’t the case.

    The cup contains these 2 items.

    it’s a bit of an odd one to work out what they are until you realise that one of the items is actually upside down.

    What we have is a cooker and a small fuel can. My gut feeling is that this may well be a mentholated spirits burner, its about the same size as my old tranga cooker that I would use for wild camping.

    Now the 3 arms are added and hey presto a small cooker ready to go for making a brew or doing a bit of bacon.

    The last piece is to finish the set and that is to add the handle to the cup.

    Slot in the bottom of the handle into the bottom bracket and then press down and slot the top into the top bracket. Job done!

    And just to show the pan handle in use.

    Overall a very nice period mess set for the Officer in the Field. I just need to keep an eye out for a campaign Knife Fork Spoon Set and then job done. It fits nicely with my Officer’s Field Kit, and will live in my musette bag with my whisky flask, and other essentials.

    , , , ,

  • My take on Beards in the Army

    As many of you know I sport a fairly large Tashe and in most units that I have worked with over the years my facial hair is better known that I am:

    “Have you seen the Garrison Engineer?”

    “Who?”

    “Bloke with the big Moustache?”

    “Oh him, yes, he’s over at the HQ Building…..”

    In recent years there has been much debate in the British Military about if we should allow beards and how that will increase recruitment and it will make the British military better.

    Will it? is it the simple solution that will solve everything? is it the panacea that we need to fix everything?

    No it isn’t, lets not kid ourselves there are far bigger and deeper problems than just letting the military stop shaving and becoming more hipster. I’m going to throw some thoughts and observations out there, they are my views and as such you can agree or disagree that’s your choice but just hear me out. The one argument that will not appear is the “Respirator” issue – I don’t care on that one and that can be discussed by others to their hearts content.

    So lets start with my facial hair background. I’ve been in the Sappers for 36 years and I have had facial hair of various forms for 28 years of my career. There has been the occasional short breaks in that period but normally no greater than 4 months as the maximum. During my facial hair career I have done the following:

    • Shaved my tashe off once due to operational necessity. (Norther Ireland)
    • Shaved my tashe off once as I was required (ordered)to give an order for others to shave off their “tour” tashes and I could not give that order when I retained my tashe (on the grounds that my tashe was a “tour” tashe from 15 years prior). Our clean shaven status lasted about 10 days and we started growing facial hair again.
    • Shaved my tashe off due to a misconceived understanding of an order about the removal of “Movember Tashes”, this resulted in myself and another GE removing our long worn Facial hair and there truely becoming 2 x “Grumpy Engineers” knocking about the unit. This also resulted in the 2 Garrison Engineers receiving orders from higher formations (Our Wives) that we were not to return from Tour without our moustaches.

    My wife has always liked me having a tashe, even to the point that she saw a photo of me from a Falklands Tour in 98 where I was sporting something that would not have been out of place in 1982 Goose Green with her comment of “that really suits you, can you grow it like that?” .

    Wedding day to the GOC UKLF – Please note we are the same height, I’m just stood on a step for the photo!

    My unaccompanied posting to Cyprus for 2 years saw me some what rebel and go back to a time when I joined the army and quite a lot of SNCOs had tashes and facial hair “buggeryboards” on the cheeks, so my tashe became some what bigger and more substantial.

    Cyprus 2005-7, the development of the enlarged tashe of colonial proportions.
    Wearing a serious look of concentration and a large tashe in a show jumping competition.

    Now all of this is all very well but I want to add an important note, that will be relevant in a short while. My very first attempt to grow a tashe was on tour in 1990 as a young Sapper. It took 6 weeks to be noticed by anyone and it was clear that I was not ready to have facial hair.

    A young tasheless pup lurking in the hedges and ditches of Northern Ireland

    So back to my thoughts on the facial hair. when I joined in 1987 most of my Training Sgts and Trade Sgts all had tashes, they were long in the tooth experienced blokes who had been to Northern Ireland, The Falklands War or had spent their time in Germany waiting for the 3rd Shock Army to roll over the inner German Border. Not many of the Officers had tashes and if they did they tended to be the Late Entry Officers, not the blue bloods. Facial hair in the Army of that time was a fairly common sight.

    Years later I chatted with a OC that I worked with closely and asked why most officers didn’t wear tashes and he put it down to being traumatised by Walrus Tashed Colour Sgts and Sgt Majors while at Sandhurst. He may well have had a point!

    The Moustache used to be compulsory in the British Army until the rescinding of Kings Regulation 1695 in 1916, this was brought about by General Macready. I used to have a problem with this chap until you dig into his history and his work in Ireland is a real insight, the fact that he hated having a moustache is something that we may need to just keep in the back of our mind when we look at the discussion about beards, they are not going to be everyone’s taste.

    So the discussion is that we should allow beards, well I think that is a fair point and I don’t have a problem “having beards”. However (you knew there would be a however….) we (the Army) need to think this through, because the RAF clearly did not.

    What do I mean by this. When the RAF changed the rules I was doing regular visits to Northwood for meetings and it was clear that most male RAF Officers below Wing Commander where now having a crack at growing beards, and my observation is that the Royal Navy and Army staff officers were clearly enjoying watching the really bad and poor efforts that were being cultivated by their light blue brethren . Some of the people working with these guys should have taken them to one side and said “you’ve had a couple of months of this, it just isn’t working, shave it off sunshine until you get a bit more testosterone…”

    This is what happened with my very first effort, I just wasn’t ready for it, it would take 5 more years before I was “mature” enough to start growing facial hair.

    My view on this is – just because you are allowed doesn’t mean that you should!

    Next, I have not seen any beards in the RAF (with an exception that I will talk about in a moment) that have an element of style other than plain trimmed or clipper graded. These beards seem to lack body or style. Come on Guys, they gave you the opportunity to have a beard now damn well make an effort! At the moment it just looks like you have a beard because you can’t be arse to shave and now that you have it you can’t be arse to do some proper care and maintenance other than get it clippered.

    If you are in the RAF and you have a beard then take a leaf out of the efforts done by your Sikh brethren, they show you how to wear a beard. I have chatted regularly with Sikhs to understand the meaning and customs of their facial hair and beards, and it is important to them and they have some bloody impressive sets of whiskers. So if you are going to have a beard then learn from these fine chaps, build up that tashe and get a curl in it, add body and substance to the beard itself and damn well invest in some beard products such as beard oil! I appreciate that it takes time but you need to invest time and effort into it. If you are going to have a beard then bloody well have a beard and be damned proud of it!

    Warrant Officer Balbir Flora and 2 newly commissioned RAF Officers.

    Now what about the Army, well we have something the RAF doesn’t have. We have a history of beards in the British Army, the Victorian period was awash with the Facial Hair of the British Army expanding the Empire.

    Sergeant Major Edwards 1858

    In some parts it was the practicalities of Campaigning, the military fashion of the time or to match (and exceed) the facial hair of the Martial Tribes, Clans or Races that we fought against or fought along side. The moustaches and beards of the Army had a lot of meaning.

    For me if we are going to allow beards then lets get back to the Historical links and the precedents, standards and styles. Don’t be distracted by the “hipster” style, lets give the beard and tashe that Regimental Identity, give it Tradition, give it a place in the Regiment History.

    Make it the “The British Army Beard” not some facial fluff of a soy latte drinking twat with a fecking top knot! (if that upset you – why are you here on this blog? )

    Right I’ll pin my colours to the mast, if beards come in prior to the end of my service then I’m going for this style as worn by Lord Roberts and Lord Chelmsford. Side boards extended, sweep round the jaw line and linking in with a full tashe with a waxed curl to it. Throat and chin clean shaven.

    Now that facial accoutrements will need care and attention to grow, mature and maintain. My current tashe attracts attention and comments as I move around the multi nation environment as it is, this badger is going to knock my existing tashe for 6. I’d say that style may meet the requirements for a British Army Beard! what are your thoughts?

    But regiments can make their own styles, we saw this in the Raj where different regiments would have a style. Did the Army follow the style of society or did society follow the style of the Army?

    I know that the Army in India did it to match or be comparable with those that they had dealings with so that they would be on par with the society and the environment they were engaged with.

    So my question is “are we, the Army, are going to allow Beards?” and if so what rules are going to be applied? We already have a set of rules for moustaches, how do we develop the rules for beards?

    • Ask permission to grow?
    • 28 days to grow enough to show clear intent and substance?
    • Inspection by the CSM/ SSM at 21 Days to see that its going in the right direction.
    • Well trimmed, uniformed length?
    • what styles are forbidden? Braided Pagan?
    • What styles are allowed – Jan Smuts Goatee perhaps?
    • Beard oils and Tashe Wax?
    • Regimental preferences perhaps?
    • Does it come as an optional privilege of rank or time in unit?

    I will say that what ever happens it should not be compulsory. Facial Hair comes and goes from fashion in society. And the wearer should at least commit to putting the effort in and not just use it as an excuse to not bother to shave.

    I’ve worked with several other forces and you can see some of them put the effort in (the French and Scandinavians) and for some other forces it is just a token effort that does look pretty poor on the soldier and the unit (you know who you are you scruffy wretches…..!).

    Allowing beards will not solve recruitment as it will come with responsibilities for a soldier to look after it and to get it right, there will be very few recruits that will arrive with it right on day one and may end up getting it shaved off along with the trendy hair cut that they arrive with. Also while in training a recruit has enough on their plate to get through an inspection without having their beard inspected – How many recruits arrive at the training depot with a decent tashe – not many I would say.

    However once an individual is in a unit why not aim for developing the famous beard style of your particular Regiment or Corps? Join the 1st Battalion Blankshire Rifles – The Fighting Walrus Tashes or the Mad Ginger Beards of 3rd Battalion Royal Highland Lunatics.

    The army is pretty good at accommodating different cultural and religious traditions and has made some sensible changes for women’s hair, so I think we can embrace the allowing of beards but lets do it by accommodating and using the cultural facial hair traditions that the British Army had previously and not be blinkered by some modern fad when we already had the answer!

    Its just my thoughts……I will leave you with Field Marshal Sir John Linton Simmons of the Corps of Royal Engineers and his exceptionally fine set of Military Whiskers!

    ,

  • The Curious Case of a Royal Engineers Riding Crop

    So a couple of months ago I was contacted by a good mate, Andy Smerdon, he was having a clear out of some of his old kit as he had down sized and as he is now living on a boat. He had come across a Royal Engineers Riding Crop that he had forgotten about and thought that I would be the ideal person to have it.

    We’ll as much as I already have a RE riding crop, I’m not one to turn down such a great offer, so I said yes and Andy said he would post it onto my home address.

    My RE whip is very similar to the one carried in this photo, silver topped with the RE cap badge on it.

    I was expecting the whip to be very similar to the one that I already have, a long thin whip as carried by Sappers and Drivers and often used in place of a walking out cane that Sappers of non mounted units were fond of. What actually arrived was some what different and real surprise.

    What actually turned up was a horn handled hunting whip, in very good condition, with 2 silver collars on it. I use a similar type of whip when I do Living History as an RE Officer as it fits the image and is quite common in photos of the time.

    I had a good look at the whip to find out what made it a RE related item?

    It was one of the first prizes at the Mounted Sports event held at the Engineer Training Centre (ETC) at Newark in 1916 and it was the 1st prize for the Officers Jumping Event. The event was won by DC Lovick RE.

    I decide that I would try and find out who DC Lovick RE was and perhaps to see if I could find out what happened to him. So a quick search of the National Archives allowed me to find this chap’s Medal Card. And it seems that he was a 2Lt in 1916, and was promoted Captain.

    I now know his name is Donald Currie Lovick, and he deployed to France in November 1916, he is awarded the British war medal and I can make out some writing in the Victory Medal box.

    I decided to just do a check to see if he survived the war, since I still had my ancestry account, as I use it to research my family tree, I went looking for any information that might suggest if he survived. The initial search throw up around 113 records for the name Lovick, but the Donald Currie really narrowed it down.

    The first thing found was a birth registry for 1885/1886, born in Aylsham Norfolk – was he 40 years old when he enlisted and became and Officer, while it isn’t unheard of, it is unusual? time to dig a bit more.

    I find his death is registered in January 1962, aged 86, in Maldon Essex, so it initially appears that he is still in and around the East Anglia area.

    The next thing that appeared was our Donald Lovick appears on the list of members of a Freemason Lodge. This isn’t unusual for the period where freemasonry was a popular activity across Britain and the Empire. What surprised me was the Lodge that he was a member of Lodge 1331 Aldershot Camp Lodge, having been listed as joining in 1903. That is mainly a Military Lodge and also what is an East Anglian man doing in Aldershot in 1903? Has he been in the Army before? Time to continue digging.

    Checking the census for 1911 starts to throw more light on things. Donald Currie Lovick has served before and is listed as a Quartermaster Sergeant Royal Engineers at the School of Military Engineering, Brompton Barracks, Chatham. On the census it lists his trade as Storekeeper.

    Donald is listed at line 20

    This suggests that Donald has now been commissioned from the ranks sometime between 1911 and 1916 and I now start to wonder if he has been commissioned as a Quartermaster or as a unit officer, considering at the time both would have been given the rank of 2Lt. This now explains why we have a 40 year old man at a Training Depot in 1916. Also ETC Newark was a training Depot for Soldiers, not for officers, so that suggests that Donald was there as part of the Staff.

    The next thing to go looking for just to see what Donald’s earlier service was and the 1901 census start to give more detail for me. In 1901 Donald is in Aldershot and is a Corporal in B Troop of the Bridging Battalion Royal Engineers, we have a Mounted Sapper! The census states that all those listed in the census book are part of the Royal Engineers Mounted and Imperial Yeomanry in Aldershot.

    This would now explain why a 40 year old crusty 2Lt has won first prize in the Officer Sports Event at Newark in 1916, probably beating some of the younger bloods. This old boy has been knocking around military horses for a bit of time!

    I can’t find any entries for Donald in the 1891 census when he would have been 15 or 16. It may be that he was already enlisted and serving as a boy soldier but I can’t see any information on that. Also I don’t have access to his Service Records.

    The last bit of information that I have from 1939 about our Donald is that he was living in Maldon, Essex and was listed on councils register as “Captain RE Retired” and that he is listed as a School of Military Engineering Instructor. Does this suggest that Donald went back to the SME at Chatham after the war? This is something that I’d like to try and dig a bit deeper into and may be a project for later this year.

    Either way this has been an interesting research job, to now know that I have a very nice riding whip won and carried by a Late Entry Mounted Sapper. I’d like to know a bit more about Captain Donald Currie Lovick RE, but for the moment what I have found it isn’t a bad bit of history from being gifted a riding crop that my mate was clearing out.

    , , , , , ,

  • Correcting the Corps History- 3 Ton Lorry in Field Squadrons

    Chapter 16’s author makes the assertion that the RE Field Squadrons would have been more mobile and effective if they had been completely mechanised and mounted in 3 ton Motor Lorries. I’m not convinced by this so I thought that I had best look into the details. So with a lot of trawling through the war diaries and also digging into the world of logistics, it has been a fascinating bit of research and it has also highlighted quite a lot of information for later blog posts.

    However the basis of this post is to take us a step further on from my last about the Authors assertion that large quantities of unit manpower was lost due to looking after the horses, In this post I’ll look at the reality of 3 Ton Lorry with the Field Squadrons and also if the Author has made a correct assessment or has he missed the mark. Below are the quotes from Chapter 16:

    “Even if the cavalry had had their chance, it is difficult to imagine any possible circumstances in which their engineers, if carried in motor transport, could not have served them far better than if mounted on horses.“

    “An important item in the equipment of a field squadron was the 3 ton lorry allocated in 1915 for the transport of the Divisional reserve of entrenching tools – 500 picks and shovels. At times , unfortunately only for short periods, up to thirty dismounted Sappers would be attached to a Squadron. These men could be moved by dumping the reserve tools from the lorry, and it was this possible to increase the effective value of the Squadron by about 50%. Even with this example of the results from to be obtained from their mechanical transport, the Squadrons still kept their horses, though in none of the tasks their which they were employed, as given above, where any of their horses of any use. The man is was who became the slave of the horse.“

    “they were undoubtedly hampered by their horses, and the substitution of light motor lorries as a means of transport would in no way have reduced their mobility; far from it.”

    Chapter 16 suggest that all squadrons had a 3 ton lorry issued to them in 1915 to carry a stores allocation of 500 shovels and picks. These were required for the use by the working parties that the Squadrons supervised.

    The above information comes from Chapter 16 and is only partially correct as the war diaries of the Mounted Squadrons only show that 1st Field Squadron had this vehicle and equipment allocated to them, this was allocated to them, along with 2 Army Service Corps (ASC) drivers on the 16 February 1915. The vehicle was allocated from the Divisional Supply Column and technically they didn’t own the vehicle as it remained a Divisional Asset. The war diary makes it clear that vehicle is for moving the 500 Picks and 500 Shovels. It’s made very clear that the vehicle and drivers are not Squadron assets when the War Diary has an entry for 17 February 1915 (One day after they arrived) that the unit loses one of the ASC drivers back to the supply column.

    On the 22 February 1915 the Squadron is tasked with carrying out works at Ypres and 5 Officers and 78 men are allocated the task. The war diary states these men are moved by Motor Bus, not by the attached Lorry as that would have moved the stores needed for the working parties that the sappers were about to be managing. They spend 13 days working in the trenches are were returned back to the Echelon location again by Motor Bus.

    The next mention of the Tool Lorry is on the 2nd Oct 1915 when the Squadron is tasked to carry out works to reverse and repair former German Trenches to the West of Loos. The war diary states that the tool lorry moves the tools to Noyelles. It is interesting to note that this location is just over 5 miles from where the work is going to take place, this is important as it is something that I will come back to later on in this post. Either way the 70 NCOs and Sappers of the Sqn and the 1000 man working party from 1 Cavalry Division would have collected their tools from this location and then taken them to the old German Trenches that needed the work.

    The Sappers and the Cavalrymen complete their works on 6 October 1915 and are moved back to their respective units by……Motor Bus! still not moving by the tool lorry.

    The next time that the Tool Lorry is mentioned is 9 May 1916 when the lorry and the ASC driver rejoin the Divisional Supply Column. The war diary is very clear and uses the word “rejoin”, which suggests that it was only loaned or on attachment.

    The tool lorry does come back to the Field Squadron, on the 14th April 1917 and stays with the unit for 7 days before being sent/ returned to Cavalry Corps Depot.

    The last mention of the use of a Lorry by the squadron is on 17 May 1917 when 2 Officers and 32 Sappers are moved by lorry to work with Pioneers of 2nd and 9th Cavalry Brigade. It doesn’t suggest that this vehicle was the tool lorry and by this time of the war it is likely that it was one of the vehicles of the Auxiliary Omnibus Companies (AOC) or Auxiliary Omnibus Park (AOP) – more on these important units in a moment.

    Having gone through 2, 3, 4 and 5 Field Squadron’s War Diaries there is no mention of them having a Tool Lorry as 1st Field Squadron had. The diaries do mention being moved forward by lorries and buses but there is no indication that they are in unit elements.

    So the Lorry was only with one Mounted Sapper Squadron, was not there for the whole war, it is referred to as the “Tool Lorry” and remained a Divisional (or higher) Supply asset.

    However there is a bigger issue that has been ignored by the author. I believe that he has been looking at the the Great war situation with a WW2 perspective. The assertion that the Squadrons would have been far more mobile if mounted in lorries doesn’t hold up. There is a problem with this as the the vehicle of 1914-18 was significantly different to the vehicles of 1939-45.

    Bear with me as I delve into this in more detail…….

    Prior to the Great War the British Army was keen to look at how it could utilise the the Internal Combustion Engine vehicle as Motor transport for both logistics and troop movements. A number of pre-war exercises showed some real results, the exercises also identified some of the limitations of the vehicles as well. It was recognised that the Steam Engine while slow did deliver power and towing capability, the petrol engine was quicker and while developing quickly was still limited in it’s power capability.

    The British Army entered the war with a significant amount of Motor Vehicles, especially compared to other armies of other nations. The Omnibus had been used in the pre-war exercises and had proved to be very useful and efficient, as the war progresses the BEF saw how the French Army used buses to transport troops. This resulted in the creation in 1916 of the Auxiliary Omnibus Companies (AOC) at Division Level and the Auxiliary Omnibus Park (AOP) units at Corps level. These units used both buses and Lorries in the Troop Transporting roles.

    The AOC and AOP of the Army Service Corps were a highly regarded asset, often praised by the Quarter Master General (QMG) and the Commander in Chief (CinC). They could move an Infantry Division incredibly Efficiently. However as a Division and Corps level asset they tended to move Battalion level units as a minimum.

    The important thing to bear in mind with the Lorry, both in terms of stores and troop movements was that of the Off road capability. The Lorry of the Great War was confined to use on hardened roads. They did provide an essential capability normally from the rail heads down to Division and Brigade Echelons where horse transport would take over.

    There was several factors that limited the Internal Combustion Engine Wheeled Motor transport to the hardened roads the main factors were:

    • Poor Mechanical reliability (this did improve through the war)
    • Hard Rubber tyres and wheels – pneumatic tyres burst regularly and while having a better ride quality they tended to be mainly used with the Motor Ambulances.
    • Limited engine power
    • Poor suspension.
    A good image showing the solid tyres and suspension of a typical 3 ton truck
    Ambulances tended to have pneumatic tyres to make the ride easier for the casualties.

    Overall the ability to drive off road even in good conditions was just not viable. A lorry mounted unit allocated to support a Cavalry unit would simply not be able to keep up or follow it and considering two of the field troops principle tasks was to create Cavalry tracks and to carry out Engineer Reconnaissance, it would not be able to cross the ground that it was required to create or understand. An interesting case where this is illustrated is with Tanks, a vehicle designed to travel across country, needed to be refuelled by a 3 ton lorry with 2 gallon petrol cans but the Lorries couldn’t keep up or travel over the broken ground this resulted in the creation of tracked supply carriers (after the towed supply sledge concept proved unworkable).

    Armoured Supply Carrier

    The Lorry was principally a Line of Communication asset, and you need to consider the amount of works that was carried out by RE Army Troops and Labour units on road improvements and development to see how essential these were to keep the Wheeled Motor Transport (WMT) moving.

    photograph (Q 10450) Ration Supply. Lorries unloading a supply train at railhead to deliver to a forward refilling point. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205246146

    It is also interesting to note that the Geddes Report by Sir Eric Geddes in 1916 recommended that narrow gauge railway would be far more efficient at pushing logistics forward into the Combat Zone rather than Wheeled Motor Transport.

    The quantity of WMT increased significantly during the war but it must also be remembered that the BEF was also increasing in manpower at the same time and a large part of that increase was the logistical tail to support the growing combat units. The “so what?” of this was that the BEF needed the vast majority of these vehicles for the movement of stores in the Line Of Communication (LOC) area and did not have the capacity to allocate these vehicles to individual units even if it wanted to.

    The WMT had it’s prime role in the LOC zone and the Squadrons were lucky to have the use of a 3 Ton Lorry, but it must be remembered that the allocated vehicle was for stores movement not for troops, therefore it fits with the general principle use of the WMT in the BEF.

    Despite the Author’s repeated statement that the Horse mounted Sapper was hindered by his horse (which is not the case) the unit would have been even more limited if it had been vehicle mounted, the limitation to hard roads would have stopped them providing support to most forward units let alone the staying with the cavalry.

    There is always the argument that the use of more lorries would have reduced the vast quantities of fodder and feed needed by the Cavalry to sustain their Horses and Mules in the field, but the very same problem exists for these early motor vehicles – they consumed lots of petrol, which needed to be refined and shipped (also there was competing priorities between WMT and Aeroplanes for appropriate quantities of fuel), and they also consumed lots of spare parts due to their mechanical reliability. It would only be into the 1920s when the Internal combustion engine would become more reliable, more powerful and vehicle tyres and suspension would be improved enough to start dealing with driving off road in a better way.

    Based on these factors it is my opinion that the Author of Chapter 16 has done a disservice to Corps and the Great War RE Field Squadrons. The Lorry of the Great War was a big leap forward in technology and a brilliant asset for the Army, and the British Army was leading the way with it’s implementation and use but the Quantity of vehicles was not enough to allocated to sub units permanently, The off road capability just didn’t exist at this time and the reliability had to be carefully managed. It just was not ready to fill the role and function with the RE Field Squadrons at this point in history, 20 years later it would be a very different story and you can see why the RE Mounted units ceased in 1937, to be replaced by Lorry mounted troops.

    While the Unit War diaries have been useful as ever, one of the biggest references that I used for back ground research was Clem Maginniss’s “An Unappreciated Field of Endeavour – Logistics and the BEF on the Western Front 1914-1918”. Lots of good Logistics information and the Corps features a lot in it, A very useful book.

    In one of my next posts on Correcting/ Challenging Chapter 16, I will deal with the assertion from the Author that no engineering task could or were carried out from Horseback by the RE Field Squadrons, I have a lot of ammunition for that one……and will look at a variety of examples.

    Notes and references:

    1. The History of the Corps of Royal Engineers, Volume 5. (1952) Institution of Royal Engineers.

    2. Chapter 16, The History of the Corps of Royal Engineers, Volume 5. (1952) Institution of Royal Engineers.

    3. http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk – An excellent site for information on the Great War.

    4. War Diaries of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st Indian & 2nd Indian Field Squadrons RE

    5. Clem MaGinniss, (2018), An Unappreciated Field of Endeavour – Logistics and the British Expeditionary Force on the Western Front 1914-1918, Helion & Company

    6. Sir Eric Geddes, 1916, Preliminary Statement of Personnel necessary to carry out Light Railway Recommendations of the Commander in Chief, TNA WO 32/5145

    , , , ,

  • Correcting the Corps History – The 1 in 4 Horse Holding Myth

    The next point that I need to address from Chapter 16 of the Corps History is that the Author attributes the lack of available manpower available for tasking is the fact that the majority of the Squadron’s personnel were occupied with looking after the horses when dismounted.

    Blogger’s Note – In cavalry terms – a section relates to 4 mounted riders and a half section is 2 mounted riders, mounted units would move either by section or half section columns.

    In the previous post https://horsebacksapper.co.uk/2023/04/15/correcting-the-corps-history-re-field-sqn-manning/ I looked at the Manning numbers and where these numbers are wrong or where they are correct to explain how they are put together and and explaining where the other manpower was being used.

    This post is linked with the numbers of 70 NCOs and Sappers being available for working in the Trenches. The author has picked on the fact that when a mounted unit dismounts 1 man in every 4 would remain mounted, gather up the reins of the other 3 horses and lead them away to a safe point/ safe area. This is the comment from Chapter 16:

    “Acting as field companies when their divisions were dismounted and sent into the the line. A cavalry division could produce about 1200 rifles and a field squadron at most seventy men to go with them. Small though these numbers may appear, they meant that each man left behind had at least four horses to look after.“

    I have already justified the 70 men number but I want to look specifically at the “1 in 4” misconception. As stated above it was true that when a Mounted unit dismounts 1 man of each Mounted section (a 4 man team) would stay mounted and ride away with the horses. This is described clearly in the Cavalry Training Manual of 1915, Section 153 and Section 213, this states that the No3 Rider of the section would remain mounted, take the reins of the other 3 horses (2 on his left and one on his right) and lead them to a specified rear area. It is also stated in the Cavalry Regulations of 1907 (Sect 106).

    Image from WW2 but clearly shows the principle of No3 Rider moving the horses away at pace to a safe rear area
    Kings Troop RHA still use the same principles and skills today to exercise their horses while using minimal personnel
    mules left tied on a picket line with their nose bags
    THE BRITISH ARMY ON THE WESTERN FRONT, 1914-1918 (Q 8446) Royal Field Artillery horses are sheltered near a ruined church in Ytres, 18 January, 1918. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205216096

    To make this even more RE Field Squadron specific, Mounted Sappers were required to be trained to Mounted Infantry Standards and the governing manual was the Yeomanry and Mounted Rifle Training Manual of 1912 and the relevant sections for dismounted action and leading horses was Section 108 and Section 149. These regulations all match.

    So the Chapter 16 Author is right?…..Err….No, no he isn’t, he completely has misunderstood the 1 in 4 rule.

    Everything that is quoted above related to riding into combat (advance to contact if you will) and then the unit dismounts to fight. This isn’t about going into the trenches (into the line). If the squadron was going into the Trenches then the horses would be back with the Echelon and in Horse Lines – I’ll talk about this later in this post.

    Horse Holders of 4 ALH

    But coming back to the dismounted combat, with the horses ridden back to safe area the No 3 rider would dismount and manage the horses dismounted. If more men were required on the firing line then the man of every second section would go forward, leaving one man with 8 horses (possibly bringing forward the extra ammunition bandoliers that were hanging round each horses neck). So in theory for a full strength Field Troop of 1 officer and 23 Sappers (remember that 7 drivers are with the Troop GS wagon and Troop Tool Cart) would only require 3 horse holders not the 6 suggested.

    So that is in the field, under fire, so what about when the unit went forward into the Trenches?

    Well the unit horses would be held at the Echelon location or at a Brigade Cavalry Lines and these locations would not require the loss of a man in every 4. Horses that are held in a rear area would be held on a picqueted line or in more formal horse lines and this would allow for the horses to be tied onto the horse line and then managed by a small number of men. the management of picqueted horses and horse lines is very clearly laid out in the horse management manuals and the Light Horse Pocket Book of the Australian Light Horse (ALH) explains the horse lines duties very clearly:

    4 ALH horse lines in Egypt

    Page 49 – Day Stable Picquet 

    1 man per half Squadron (ALH Squadrons are only slightly smaller than an RE Field Squadron at 150 men) will start duty at “Morning Stables” until relieved by the Night Stable piquet. 

    Duties –

    Keep the horse lines clean 

    Prevent Horses from Injuring themselves

    Remove Nose Bags and make out hay ration if issued. 

    Make sure that all horses are  quiet 

    Make fast any horses that get loose or draw their pegs 

    Replace rugs/ blankets that fall off 

    In the event of rain then cover over the nose bags, forage, clothing etc 

    Act as the horse lines sentry, prevent any smoking, and prevent unauthorised persons from entering the horse lines.    

    At night time this picquet is increased to a Section (NCO plus 3 men).  These individuals are on one at a time on a 2 hour shift/ stag with very similar duties as the day stable piquet.  The only difference is that they are to make sure that men of the squadron do not loiter around the horse lines. 

    These duties and details are standard for British and Imperial mounted units. 

    THE QUEEN’S BAYS ON THE WESTERN FRONT 1914-1915 (HU 110557) Horselines of The Queen’s Bays, note windbreak constructed along edge of treeline, winter 1914. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205311623
    A well established and set up rear area horse lines.

    Therefore it can be seen that when a RE mounted unit has it’s horses in the horse lines then you are looking at 2 men during the day from the Squadron total,( field Troops and echelon) and then at night this would go upto 8 men.  In all of these situations these are the maximum figures and even with the Field Troops in the trenches it is manageable from those troops of the Echelon as they would have to do these duties for their own horses anyway. 

    So we can see that the author of Chapter 16 is wildly incorrect in the statement that “man had become the slave of horse”. 

    My view is that the author has not spent time with horses but has latched onto the view that all horse management when the unit dismounts requires 1 Sapper out of 4 men to be fully employed to look after the horses, The suggestion from the author would be that the horses would require 48 men to look after them (that is almost all of the Echelon or 2 Field Troops).  Hopefully I have shown that this is not the case and again I feel that the lack of actual knowledge or research by the author has allowed the Mounted Sappers of the Field Squadrons to be unfairly characterised as being inefficient and/or ineffective. 

    The question to ask of the Author, if the RE Field Squadrons were so inefficient and ineffective why were they expanded from one Field Squadron to five Field Squadrons (not including the Australian Field Squadrons)?

    Canadian Cavalry, Possibly the Fort Garry Horse, with the Troop carrying out a Stables parade on the horse lines. This would be compulsory attendance for all men of the unit to attend to work on their horse – The Unit Adjutant and Duty Officer were not even exempt!

    Bloggers Note – I want to just add that Horse and Mule Management was taken incredibly seriously by the British Army, it had learned hard lessons from the Boer War and looking after the equines was an important task. The RE Mounted Units were an important part of that process be that creating wind breaks and shelters for the temporary Horse lines in the Cavalry Holding areas or for the construction of better horse lines in the rear areas.

    Please go back over this post and have a look at all of the Horse line images and look at how few men are with the horses on the line. This was a routine duty and had little impact on the manpower or effectiveness of the Field Squadrons.

    In one of the future blog posts I will look at dispelling the myth that the Mounted sappers could not carry out engineering when mounted.

    , , , , , , ,

  • Correcting the Corps History – RE Field Sqn Manning

    This will be the first of a number of blog posts over time that will look to correct some of the incorrect details and negative views put forward in The Royal Engineers History, Volume 51. So what’s my problem with this? The Field Squadrons and Field Troops have their own chapter in Volume 5, focused on the units on the Western Front, and this is Chapter 162, my problem is that it is one of the only chapters in the volume that is negative and dismissive of the works of the Sappers and Officers in the Great War. It also has been written in a way where the opinion of the Author is used more than actually stating facts or details, which is at odds with many of the other chapters that are written in a more factual way.

    Now let me make this clear, I am a serving Sapper and have been for 36 years, I’m incredibly proud of my Corps history but I feel that the Field Squadrons and Troops of the Corps are being done a disservice by the Corps written history.

    I did originally planned to do this as an article for the RE Journal, however the further that I dug into Volume 5 for research, then cross referenced with war diaries and other documents I realise that there was too much to try and squeeze into a 2000-3000 word article. To that end I plan to pick up on a topic area and then explore it and go through the details that I’ve found that contradicts the detail or explain what has been stated in Volume 5 and why I consider it to be incorrect or misleading.

    Now I complained that the Author has stated opinion in the article, I will also be giving my opinion and some assumptions but I will aim to point them out and support/ justify them with my rationale behind my views and assumptions.

    When I volunteered to take part in the War Horse Ride in 2014, I felt that I needed to understand the history of the period and the unit I was being asked to ride in memory of, and so started the research in the Mounted Sappers and my evolution/ creation of the Horseback Sapper began. I used the Corps History Volume 5 as my first point of call and supported by websites like the https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/ 3 . At this point I was soaking in information but it was only from 2016 onwards when armed with more information that I started to see the negative side of Chapter 16. With further research and more time spent in the unit war diaries and in the articles in the RE Journal I started to see that the research for the chapter was only surface deep and seemed to lack some of the knowledge of someone that served with the Field Sqns in the Great War, and my suspicion was that they may not have served in the Great War at all 4, the author uses large elements of Colonel WH Evens DSO RE Journal article from 1926 5. Indeed Volume 5 lists all of the people that helped in the production of the Great War Volumes but it doesn’t attribute who wrote what chapters. I’ve even asked the Institution of Royal Engineers and the RE Historical Society if they have the details about who wrote each chapter and unfortunately they don’t. I’ve even been compiling the list of officers that served with a mounted RE unit and so far none of the names appear listed in the front of Volume 5, (also bear in mind the Volume 5 was published in 1952.)

    So lets focus on the first area of contention – The manning size and scale of the RE Field Squadrons.

    The following are quotes from Chapter 16 of Volume 5:

    “A Cavalry Division had a Field Squadron RE consisting of a HQ and 4 troops, each troop an establishment of one officer and about 40 NCOs and Men.” (page 426)

    “The establishment of a Field Squadron was 225 men and the same number of horses” (page 427)

    “A Field Squadron was not an economical unit. From a whole squadron it was impossible, even under favourable conditions to provide a dismounted working party of more than 70 NCOs and men, and this left the remainder of the Squadron practically immobile and quite unproductive.” (page 427)

    This last statement is repeated a number of times through the chapter and while the number is correct, the reasoning is wrong, but I’ll get to that in due course.

    So looking at the first quote. At the start of the war the Field Squadron is an HQ and 4 Field Troops, this allows for a Field Troop to be allocated to each Cavalry Brigade, while that may seem a small amount of sappers to a Brigade Formation when you compare an Infantry Division had 2 Field Companies (later 3 Field Coys) to cover the 3 Infantry Brigades. However something that has been missed by the Author is that Field Engineering was not an unknown quantity to the Cavalry. In every Cavalry Squadron there would be 12 trained Cavalry Pioneers (9 in the Household Cavalry Squadrons)5 who had completed and passed a Field Engineering Cadre delivered by the RE Field Squadron, along side that every Cavalry Subaltan would have had a Field Engineering module included in their Troop Commanders Course – so a typical Line Cavalry Regiment would have at least 48 Cavalry pioneers trained in the following:

    • Crossing Rivers by improvised means and using Air raft equipment.7
    • Demolitions of railways and bridges.
    • demolition and repair of telephone lines
    • Construction of simple field defence works, entrenchments and loopholes.

    All of this training was done in accordance with the manual of Field Engineering8.

    Air raft equipment being used by the Cavalry at Aldershot pre-war with what appears to be a families day.

    The part that is wrong in the first statement is the numbers in a Field Troop, while Volume 5 states 1+40 the reality is that this is the rough number for a Field Section of a RE Field Company. The Field Troop was actually 1 Officer and 30 NCOs and soldiers.

    So where where might the 1+40 number come from if it’s not a mistake from the Field section? Well a very good lecture was given and written up for the RE Journal by Capt E.W. Cox RE in 1913 where he provides a lecture at the School of Military Engineering to No.3 Senior Officers Class9 with reference Field troops and their role and function with the Cavalry Divisions and Brigades. This is a really useful article with a lot of information but it does move between the Troops of the Squadron supporting the Cavalry Division and it’s Brigade, and the Field Troop that supports the Independent Cavalry Brigade. why is there a difference. This “Independent” field troop is self supporting as it has more personnel to allow for it’s own HQ, a slightly larger field troop element and a small integral Echelon. The field troop element is bigger to support a slightly larger Brigade organisation and this element is 1+40, I suspect that this may be where the Author picked up the number from.

    Just to close this out as well not all Squadrons had 4 Field Troops, once fully established 1 and 2 Field Squadrons did have 4 Troops, but 3 Field Squadron operated with 3 Field Troops and both the 1st Indian Field Squadron (later renumbered 4 Field Sqn) and 2nd Indian Field Sqn (later renumbered 5 Field Sqn) each eventually had 3 Field troops.10

    Moving onto the overall number in the Field Squadron (based on a 4 Troop Unit), while the Author states that it is 225 officers and Soldiers, this is an odd figure and there is only one set of figures that I have found that comes close to this number and I’m not convinced that this is how the figure was selected, but we’ll look at that in a moment.

    Based on the Field Service Book 1914, the peace time and war establishment for a RE Field Squadron is 7 officers and 184 Men11.

    This breaks down as follows:

    Sqn HQ – 2 officers + 10 men

    Field Troops x 4 – 1 Officer + 30 men each (4 officers and 120 men)

    B Echelon – 1 Officer + 54 Men

    So we have a full strength RE Field Squadron of 4 Field Troops of 191 personnel. this is some what short of the 225 number. The only figures that get close to this number is if you add the additional personnel of the assumed troop size of 1+40, but the establishment tables and the war diaries state that the Field Troops are 30 or less (at several points in the war Troop strength even gets as low as 18 men)

    From the Field service book a RE Field Company is 11 officers and 211 men (Peace time establishment) and 6 officers and 211 men on War establishment.

    The only other way that the numbers could have been made up is by taking the figures for an Indian Engineer Field Troop of 3 Officers and 56 men and multiplying that by 4 troops12, but I think this is the least likely method of calculating that figure. It is my view that the Author has use his original figure of 1 + 40 for each of the Field Troops and then added in the HQ and Echelon.

    The author makes great reference to the fact that the Field Squadrons can only muster 70 men into the trenches to carry out engineering work. The author attributes this as a fact that the remainder of the Squadron is needed to look after the horses away from the Front. This reason is completely wrong and I will address this in a separate blog post as it deserves debunking, in a significant way, as it also appears as the rationale in a number of other arguments against the Cavalry as a whole. So bear with me on that point.

    However I can explain and justify the figure of 70 men in the trenches. The figure of 70 men in the trenches regularly appears in 2nd Field Sqn RE war diary for Spring and early Summer 1915, it is also a figure that is briefly used for 1st Field Squadron RE in late 1914 while they are working in the trenches near Ypres. So up to this point the Corps History is correct, but we need to consider a couple of things. For the Field Squadrons this is a period of change and building up and development, going from a single Field Squadron and an Independent Field Troop to 3 field squadrons, which means that at times these units have been below strength while they each became established, on occasions even loaning complete Field Troops and equipment to allow the creation of the new unit. 13

    More importantly the reason that you have this type of figure is not down to the number of people available but down to how a Field Engineering unit actually works:

    A RE Field unit such as a Squadron or Company is a self contained unit that can be called on to carry out Field Engineering of a variety of forms and tasks, but to do this the unit has the Field Troops as the working or task delivery unit but anyone that has worked as a sapper or with sappers knows that engineering works consumes a significant amount of Engineering and Construction Resources.

    So to keep the Field Troops supplied the Squadron has an Echelon – the In-Unit Quartermaster department that holds the big stores and equipment, and deals with demanding stores from Higher formation, either for specific tasks or as it’s own holdings are issued, expended or damaged. So the 1 officer and 54 members of a Field Squadron are not in the trenches, they are demanding stores and pushing the stores down to the Field Troops on the ground or in the Trenches. As a Echelon Commander friend of mine would regularly say “No War without G4!” and it is very true of the Great War, to deliver effect Sapper units consume engineering stores.

    In addition the Echelon was providing a service to the wider Cavalry Division. All formations and units used horse drawn wagons, what happens when you have a damaged cart wheel, axle or body work of your horse drawn vehicle? Units would take it to the RE Field Squadron’s Echelon where the RE Tradesmen would carry out repairs – Wheelwrights, cart-wrights, carpenters and Blacksmiths. Right across all of the unit’s war diaries you will find the references to the repair work carried out to the Cavalry Division’s horse drawn vehicles, so the statement that “, and this left the remainder of the Squadron practically immobile and quite unproductive” is very much incorrect.

    Also the Squadron HQ is not likely to be all in the trenches, the Command element may be in the trenches but the Administration element will be near but doing their job of administrating the unit particularly as it may have Field Troops with different Brigades and Divisions, and the orders from Division will need to come into a functioning HQ. So these guys are not realistically in the 70 troop numbers.

    So that leaves the 4 x Field Troops. Now it is important to break down that number of 1+30 in each troop. A full strength Field Troop has 30 NCOs and men, this is made up of 23 Sappers (NCOs and Men) and 7 Drivers. The Drivers form the unit 1st line Transport and supply and it is likely that these men are not in the trenches on a permanent basis.

    Why? The period that the RE Troops are in the trenches is usually between 14-30 days at a time, they are not rotating out in the same way the infantry are, these guys are working in the trenches for that full period. If they are working then they are consuming G4 Stores and they need regular resupply and that bringing forward of supplies falls to the 1st line transport and supply from the Field Troops. These guys are not sat on their arse back in the Echelon, they are bringing forward the equipment and stores ready for the next day/night of engineering tasks.

    To that end with an upto strength unit you are looking at 92 NCOs and Sappers in the trenches but in the period of 1914/15 the Squardons are working working at 2 or 3 Troop strength and that is closer to the 70 figure.

    Once the Cavalry Divisions are re-organised to create the Dismounted Cavalry Units for the Trenches in 1916 and 1917 what you find is that a Division can create a Dismounted Brigade – This is because a Cavalry Regiment is in man power terms half the strength of an Infantry Battalion. This is then matched by the Field Squadrons as they work on supplying a Dismounted Troop of 30 NCOs and Sappers to support a Brigade (also remember those cavalry regiments also have their Cavalry Pioneers – The RE Field Squadrons are still running these training courses and refresher courses to the Cavalry Units through out the war as well).

    The last point I want to make about the 70 NCOs and Sappers that are working in the Trenches of 1914 and 1915, they are not ineffective or unproductive as the Chapter 16 Author suggests, when you read the War diaries of 1st and 2nd Field Squadrons during their time in the trenches, they are regularly supervising and managing working parties of between 700-1500 personnel which is not bad for a small unit, In my opinion that’s punching above your weight and delivering effect. But that isn’t by accident or simply being forced on the unit. This ability to manage large working parties was pointed out by Capt Cox14 as an essential skill of the Sappers and NCOs of the Field Troop, and the “Duty of Supervision” was highlighted as a requirement of the Field Troops by Sir Douglas Haig in his report on Cavalry Divisional Training of 1909.

    In my view the 70 men of the Field Squadrons when dismounted and working in the trenches, are in the good old fashioned traditions of the Corps, a force multiplier and delivering a significant Engineering effect. I fully accept that they are a smaller capability compared to the 2 Field Companies (later increased to 3 Companies)in the Infantry Divisions but they are most definitely a productive and economical Sapper unit, and that 70 man dismounted unit was regularly producing Engineering Effect with Working parties of 1500 men.

    OK, that’s the first of the rants over, time to catch my breath and get ready for the next one.

    Notes and references:

    1. The History of the Corps of Royal Engineers, Volume 5. (1952) Institution of Royal Engineers.

    2. Chapter 16, The History of the Corps of Royal Engineers, Volume 5. (1952) Institution of Royal Engineers.

    3. http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk – An excellent site for information on the Great War.

    4. My view is that the Author has the view that the Squadrons would have been more productive and more mobile if mounted in lorries rather than on horse back. while the British Army at the time was embracing mechanisation more than the other armys, the all terrain capabilities of the lorry at the time was not great and the Lorry was viewed as an Logistic asset to be used at higher formation level – this will be a discussion post in the future. Also the Author does not understand the role and function of the Cavalry of the Great War. His view is that they were the “Shock of Impact” of charging horsemen, rather than the multi role capability designed to operate on the flanks, move rapidly to plug/ exploit gaps, carry out recce etc – again a topic that I will come back to in a separate blog post.

    5. Colonel WH Evans DSO (1926) Brief History of the Royal Engineers with Cavalry in France During the War 1914-1918, RE Journal 1926. – this is a really good article split across 2 editions of the Journal in 1926, but it is as it suggests a brief history and while it gives some detailed info about Officers with the Squadrons it is a “Big Hand” overview. When you read this article and Chapter 16 you can see big chunks of the article lifted into the Chapter. The article gives a taste and should point you to specific areas of the war diaries.

    6. Chapter 5, Section 156, Cavalry Training Manual (1915), General Staff, War Office.

    7. Air raft Equipment, Section 7, Military Engineering Part 3B, Military Bridging. (1914), General Staff, War Office

    8. Manual of Field Engineering (1911), General Staff, War Office.

    9. Capt EW Cox RE, (1913), Field Troops – A lecture delivered to No 3 Senior Officers Class at the SME, RE Journal

    10. War Diaries of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st Indian & 2nd Indian Field Squadrons RE

    11. Chapter 1, Page 9, Table 12 – War Establishments of Various Units, Field Service Pocket Book, (1914) General Staff, War Office.

    12. Chapter 1, Page 9, Table 13 India -Cavalry Brigade, War Establishments, Field Service Pocket Book, (1914) General Staff, War Office.

    13. Page 21, 25th Sep 1914, 1st Field Squadron War Diary, – 4 Field Troop and Equipment detached temporarily from 1 Field Squadron RE to help form 2nd Field Squadron, the Troop would return at the end of October 1914.

    14. Capt EW Cox RE, (1913), Page 156, Field Troops – A lecture delivered to No 3 Senior Officers Class at the SME, RE Journal

    , , , , , , ,

  • The First RE Casualties of the Great War

    Firstly I must give an apology for the lack of posts. however I have not been idle, there has been a lot of digging into archives and war diaries and planning for the coming spring and summer while I am here in Mons.

    My last blog post focused on the blowing of bridges and crossings on the canals at Mons. In that post I highlighted the first Royal Engineer fatalities of the Great War – 2Lt HW Holt RE.

    2Lt Holt RE was one of the Section Commanders (a Troop Commander in modern parlance) of 56 Field Company Royal Engineers. His Section was tasked to carry out the demolition of the bridge on the Rue Des Bragnons over the Mons Canal. This crossing connected the villages of Nimy (south side of Canal) with the village of Maisieres (North side of the Canal). 56 Fd Coy RE had the problem that they were ordered to not start the demolition work on the crossings until 0600hrs on the 23rd of August, despite being in location on the 22nd August. The Company was further hindered by the limited amount of explosives that they had in their possession.

    By the time the Sections of the Field Company started their work to prepare the crossings for demolition it was clear that the German Army was a lot closer that anyone expected and the eastern crossing at Obourg were actively under fire from Germans on the high ground above the crossings.

    At the Rue Des Bragnons crossing 2Lt Holt and his men had started their task to install the explosives on the bridge. At this time German troops had infiltrated into the village of Maisieres, and once they had suitable number they rushed the bridge and attacked the sappers as they worked. In the melee 2Lt Holt was shot and killed and 21 NCOs and Sappers were captured.

    It is interesting to note that the 56 Field Coy RE War diary states that “Lt Holt believed to be wounded”.

    I also feel it is important to clarify something that often causes confusion when looking at war documents such as War Diaries, when the term casualties are used it is not just deaths, it cover a number of categories:

    • Dead
    • Wounded
    • Captured
    • Missing

    There is no other indication of other wounded or killed from 56 Fd Coy RE at the time.

    To the best of my knowledge Lt AF Day RE of 57 Fd Coy RE is the second Royal Engineer fatality of the Great War, he received a head injury while attempting to get onto the Nimy Railway bridge to place charges. He would wait to the rear of the bridge in the vain hope that there would be a gap in the fighting that would allow him to get back onto the bridge unfortunately he would later die of his wounds while still waiting to get back onto the bridge. Again there are no other deaths listed in the 57 Fd Coy RE War Diary for the 23 Aug 1914.

    So we have 2 RE Officers listed as being wounded and killed, the thing that is interested there are 2 other Sappers that are in the Military Cemetery at St Symphorien (East side of Mons) that died on the 23 Aug 1914. It is possible that these Sappers – Spr F Johnson RE and Spr H Rodford RE may be from 59 Fd Coy RE as they list “3 sappers lost wounded”. The use of the word “lost” in the war diary would indicate that they were left behind as the unit withdrew under fire and as such it is possible that two of them died of their wounds.

    Coming back to Lt Holt RE, as stated, he was killed at the bridge at Maisieres and along with the infantry that were killed in the Nimy area it appears that they were initially buried in the village of Maisieres. There is a stone plaque at the village church, St Martins, that commemorates this fact.

    Plaque on the side of St Martins Church, Maisieres
    St Martins Church, Maisieres.

    In 1916, The German Army decided that they wanted to create a centralised Military Cemetery for the area and with the agreement of a local Belgian Landowner, Jean De Lehaie, who provided the land at no cost on the proviso that the land would be used for the dead of both sides and “were commemorated with honour”. On 6 September 1917 the cemetery was formally opened by senior German Officers and several local Belgian Dignitaries, The German also placed a large obelisk on the high ground of the site to commemorate the dead buried in the cemetery.

    After the Great War, the responsibilities for the Cemetery passed to the British and the Imperial War Graves Commission. As part of this process the British/ Imperial dead had their wooden crosses replaced with headstones, The British also added the Cross of Remembrance . Also between 1924 and 1952 efforts were made to bring in the dead from many of the local grave sites. it is during this period that I believe that 2Lt Holt’s body was moved from Maisieres.

    With the lack of details of other casualties/ fatalities listed in 56 & 57 Fd Coy RE War Diaries I can only surmise that Johnson and Rodford may well be 2 of the wounded that were lost from 59 Fld Coy RE. The other Sapper units involved in the fight at the Mons Canal on 23/24 Aug 1914 were 17 Field Company RE who appear to only have one death – Cpl Marsden, killed at the Ghislain Railway Bridge, and 2&3 Field Troops of the Field Squadron RE who state no losses or wounded. (However the 17 Fd Coy RE War diary does not start until 27 August 1914).

    The St Symphorien Cemetery has two other Sappers buried there, one is unknown and the other is from 1919.

    I have still to locate where Lt AF Day RE and Cpl Marsden RE are buried, but that may well be a good excuse to get out for a few more local walks. As part of the research for this post I’ve come across the main CWGC cemeteries but I’ve also found it has been worth looking in some of the smaller village cemeteries as there are often the odd one or two military graves in them.

    So there you have a bit of a follow up post on my previous blog post. With the weather starting to get better my aim is not to get out and start looking at some of the other battle sites from a Sapper perspective.

    ,
    , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *