Artificers

[Old Tom]

These days, or at least 20 odd years ago, there were artificers in the Royal Navy and the Army but not in the RAF. A recent post referred to a RFA wheelwright as an artificer, pointing out that the term was an appointment and not a rank and caused me to wonder how widely the term was used in 1914-18. I would assume that the Army Ordnace Corps had artificers and they would have been sergeants or warrant officers. The term also seems to be used for some trades in, I suppose, all branches of the artillery and could have been applicable to some tradesmen in the Army Service Corps.

Is anyone able to say if the term 'artificer' had a formal meaning in WW1 and whether it referred to a supervisor or a highly skilled and experienced tradesman, or both?

Old Tom

[kevinrowlinson]

I would say it applied to the skilled and experienced tradesmen.

King's Regs (1914) has this to say;

Para. 744

Artificers course- A N.C.0. or man recommended must be of good character, and should have worked at his trade before he enlisted.

He will be tested before recommendation. The test for a smith, fitter or wheeler is shown in appendix XX.

An application may, at any time, be submitted to a commandant, Ordnance College, but in a case of a N.C.O. or man of the RA., through the officer i/c records.

The duration of the course depends on the abilities and previous training of the man.

N.C.O.s and men selected for these courses will be sent to Woolwich with their kits and equipment, but without rifles.

Also under "Artificers" you may also see in KRs paragraphs 687, 1200 and 1201regarding pay, employment and qualifications.

Kevin

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Old Tom

You will find the term "artificer" in use in tables of war establishments to include farriers, shoeing0smiths, saddlers, fitters and wheelers, as a separate category from both sergeants and rank & file. There were also "armament artificers" of the AOC attached to artillery units to help with maintenance of the guns.

Generally artificer refers to a specialist role rather than a supervisory one, although no doubt they could obtain any extra unskilled labour from the rank & file as required - just as field engineering work was often carried out by infantry "under RE supervision."

Ron

[Old Tom]

Thanks Kevin and Ron. It would appear that artificers, at least as far as AOC was concerned were not unlike those of the modern army in that they were selected and received special training. The regulation helpfully quoted implies that the training was at an Ordance College at Woolwich. These would have become the armament artificers; a title that remained in use for many years up to and after WW2. However Ron's information implies that tradesman of other arms and services could also be artificers. I wonder if they were also subject to selection and special training and if this training was at the Ordnace College.

Old Tom

[Old Tom]

Ron,

I am reading about a RFA Battery and came across the first reference I recall about an artificer. This one was making seats, or benches, to ease a long train journey, to Italy. From your knowledge of establishments I would be grateful if you could quote the rank and corps of the artificer in such a battery. I have known many modern artificers and was not surprised that even in 1914-18 they were adaptable chaps.

Old Tom

[nigelfe]

There were also "armament artificers" of the AOC attached to artillery units to help with maintenance of the guns.

I think not. 'Repair' yes, as is the case with REME today but 'maintenance' was and is the responsibility of the No 1 and his detachment. Maintenance was periodic (daily, etc) and while firing for prolonged periods. Repair was when something was broken. Topping up the oil in the buffer is not repair, its maintenance, that's why guns had tools as part of their equipment, tools for maintenance. Terms have meaning.

[Ron Clifton]

Nigel

I take your point, but I wasn't using "maintenance" as a term of art. Certainly the gun detachment (or team, or crew, or whatever people wish to call them - and I know that "detachment" is the official term) were responsible for keeping the gun in serviceable condition, but for minor repairs they would occasionally need the services of an armament artificer, which is why I described his role as to "help with maintenance". In modern helpline terms, he provided second-level support.

Old Tom

Each RFA brigade had one armament artificer AOC who is shown as attached to the brigade HQ. Given the specialised tasks and the lack of other close AOC support, I would expect him to be an NCO but the establishment tables don't specify. An infantry battalion had an AOC specialist who was specifically an armourer-sergeant.

Each RFA battery also had two saddlers and two fitters and wheelers. As indicated in my post #3 these were classified under the general term artificer, but here again, ranks were not specified. They were RFA personnel, not AOC. I think rank may have depended on service and experience: there were also four shoeing-smiths per battery, one of whom was a corporal, and these were also grouped among the artificers.

Ron

[nigelfe]

Actually in modern terms I think its still 1st Line support, the role of the unit's REME fitter sect/LAD (although some units have workshops that do 1st and 2nd Line IIRC). Routine maintenece is by the detachment, they don't need any assistance to do it (which doesn't mean the gun fitter isn't sniffing around). As an example to help understand the matter think about the batteries that since about 1960 deployed their guns or launchers individually (eg Rapier and nuclear delivery), the individual guns etc had no REME for miles, when the needed repair help the fitters were summoned. Of course all these equipments had an advantage, the tracked vehicles were automatively American and didn't need packlifts every few days.

[kevinrowlinson]

Old Tom,

There may have been any number of men in the Bde. who could have knocked up a couple of benches, but it may interest you to see the basic tests for the likely candidates at the start of the war. I would guess Gunner Wheeler.

Kevin

[Old Tom]

Kevin,

Many thanks for that. Interesting that this was the test to be passed in order to be trained as an artificer. In more modern times a candidate for artificer training would be tested to ascertain his potential as a supervisor, indeed as a potential officer, having already passed testds of his trade ability. The subsequent course would contain technical, supervisory and military instruction.

Nigel,

Its easy to become confused with the terminology that includes, unit, field and base and well as 1st line 2nd line etc. The first is the nature of the work and the line is where the work is carried out. I don't think the terms were applicable to WW1.

May I widen the discussion to look generally at the repair of artillery equipment. I believe the situation was:

Each battery had RA fitters and wheelers who with tools and spares in the battery could replace broken items and carry out simple repairs to carriages. I suspect they could do little to ordnance but could make some repairs to recoil systems.

In the RFA each brigade has an AOC armament artificer. I don't know if he had access to spares other than those in the batteries. But he will have had a tool kit. I assume he could advise the brigade staff, carry out inspections of battery equipments and advise battery tradesmen. I suspect he would have had to obtain the agreement of an AOC Engineer Officer to condemn ordnance (I think thats the word for deciding that ordnance is worn or otherwise damaged to the extent that it must be replaced.

Each Army Corps had a number of AOC Workshops, notionally mobile, but with heavey tools. I assume that an officer from these workshops could be called on to confirm condemnation of ordnance and they may have had mobile detachments to do repairs in battery locations.

Other Army Corps units held spare complete equipments. I do not know how such equipments got to batteries when needed.

Most of this is my suposition as I have found little published on the subject.

Old Tom

[kevinrowlinson]

Old Tom,

You may care to read some of the pages from 82nd Canadian Ordnance workshop which may give you some idea of what they did. Always good to see original documents, even if it doesn't go into too much detail.

http://data4.collectionscanada.gc.ca/netacgi/nph-brs?s1=Ordnance+Mobile+Workshop&s13=&s12=&l=20&s9=RG9&s7=9-52&Sect1=IMAGE&Sect2=THESOFF&Sect4=AND&Sect5=WARDPEN&Sect6=HITOFF&d=FIND&p=1&u=http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/archivianet/02015202_e.html&r=2&f=G

Kevin

[nigelfe]

Some of the heavier repair would be beyond the physical capabilities on one man, so I've no doubt that some repair was done by the detachment under artificer supervision with him doing the technically critical bits. Of course MHE wasn't really invented (definitely no HIABs!) so any heavy lifting probably wasn't done in the battery it had to be by a workshop, despite the undoubted skills of RGA in emplacing coast guns whcih could be far heavier that any thing in the field except rail guns. That said I've had a REME art armaments make a critical piece for a breach mechanism in the field!

[Old Tom]

Kevin,

Again many thanks, a quick look shows that the War Diary will be an interesting read. Surprising to see that sort of detail for a logistic unit so readily available. In passing, I recall a long time ago, possibly 1958/59 having slight dealings with the RCEME Field Workshop in BAOR, their ASM was an impressive chap, name long forgotten.

Nigel

Nice to hear.

Old Tom

[Old Tom]

Kevin,

Having read some of the diary, I find an impressive amount of work being done. The reference to the BEF staff before the Canadians took over as 'Imperial' caught my eye, no doubt that was the practice of the time, although I would have thought the term could have been applied to the Canadians themselves, all part of the same empire (not a matter of any importance). A couple of questions which you may be able to answer:

There seems to have been one officer ,the OC I guess, referred to as an IO?, I could not make out the third initial. The Imperial equivalent would OMEO (Ordnance Mechanical Engineering Officer). Have you any detail of that officer? Presumably not a pre war soldier.

Other than the artificers, who were I suppose Canadian Army Ordnance Corps, how many tradesmen were there and is it possible to say if they were civilian tradesman before the war.

Old Tom

[kevinrowlinson]

Old Tom,

I haven't studied the diary in detail, I just thought it would be something that may interest you. I will have another look and post later. I was surprised to see "Range Finder Artificer" mentioned in the diary, and the amount of work he did. Never heard of it before.

I am not sure how much research you are going to do regarding this subject but for further background during the war I have already posted a couple of ACIs that are perhaps relevant. See my thread http://1914-1918.inv...ic=176097&st=50 posts 58 and 59. Although my interest is the RGA I would have thought that the workings for both Corp were similar. As I see it there were your normal artificers, Smiths (later Fitters), Fitters, Wheelers or Saddlers that were part of the establishment of a Battery (Brigade RFA). There was also the armament artificer, the Ftr/S/Sgt. Whilst with a battery he was under the command of the OC of that battery and had the responsibility for the main repairs and maintenance of the guns. Although in an ideal world there would have been one on the establishment of the battery at all times, with the increase of both the RFA and RGA they never really caught up with the supply to demand. I would suggest that it was the Ftr/S/Sgt under the authority of a Armament Officer (nearest Ordnance Workshop) who first decided what should be done. Whether a gun had to go to a workshop would obviously only arise if he, or anyone under him, couldn't repair it. I don't think the question about heavy lifting was necessarily a problem either. If a battery could assemble a 9.2 How. I think they could dismantle it sufficiently to be repaired if that were possible, if it wasn't repairable then obviously it would have to go to a workshop.

I shall post a trade certificate for a Ftr/S/Sgt and what he was qualified to do to either 6in or 8in BL Hows. for 1917. Not sure how well it will come out.

Kevin

[kevinrowlinson]

Old Tom,

Had a quick look.

Lt. H Durling, normally signs COC. Apart from Canadian,Corp, Camp and Commandant and Ordnance or Officer (all being on stamps) I do not know what it actually stands for, perhaps someone can verify, obviously also Commanding. IOM is Inspector of Ordnance Machinery. There's a stamp on one of the pages he has signed. Interesting that he states that the majority of men were mechanics taken from the infantry and trained in ordnance work. During February they started to cultivate a little bit of ground to grow vegetables. I think I have seen previously there were 47 men but without spending more time going through all the diary I cannot immediately find it. If nothing else I would read the last page of each month. Also a correction- Range Finding Artificers.

Kevin

[nigelfe]

"I don't think the question about heavy lifting was necessarily a problem either. If a battery could assemble a 9.2 How. I think they could dismantle it sufficiently to be repaired if that were possible, if it wasn't repairable then obviously it would have to go to a workshop."

Bringing a gun into action is not the same thing a removing and replacing a major sub-assembly. 9.2 was transported in three loads designed to slide together under muscle power (helped by pulley gearing) and be assembled reasonably swiftly (laying and leveling the base and filling the ballast box was probably what took time.) Removing the cradle would be a different matter altogether, you could probably do it with gins and pulleys on the gun position (under supervision of a "District Officer' as they were called in coast arty - a commissioned RGA warrant officer) but I suspect that in practice it was a workshop job by ordnance corps.

[Old Tom]

Kevin,

Thanks for the steer towards the ACIs etc on the other thread. I am slowly becoming aware that there were artificers other than those in AOC. It seems that RA artificers might have been trained by AOC but there seems to have been provision for tradesment, fitters etc to be apppointed artificer in the field. The title of the OC of the workshop is not important, the COC you quote could well be Canadian Ordnance Corps. I will extract some detail of production from the diaries and if it seems of interest in relation to the small amount of data I had already will post it as a new topic.

Old Tom