V.C. Awards. Ratio of Officers to Other Ranks.

[neverforget]

For anyone who might be interested, I have broken down the V.C.s awarded in WW1, basically to put to bed speculating that has developed "off topic" in another thread about soldiers shot at dawn.

I won`t tell you how many hours this has taken me, or you`ll be sending for the men in white coats.

I have found that there were 281 officers who received the award, and 347 other ranks.

This shows a 45/55% split, with other ranks just edging it.

There were 145 privates, 102 corporals, and 101 sergeants.

There were 3 chaplains, 3 drummers, and 2 pipers, whom I have lumped in with the privates, which were 137 beforehand.

We have to bear in mind that the number of officers were about 3% of the field, and so, all things being equal, one might expect them to receive only 3% of the awards, not 45%

However, all things were not equal, as we know, and there are reasons why officers (particularly junior officers) were decorated disproportionately to the anonymous amongst the other ranks.

You may draw your own conclusions.

[Scalyback]

Chaplains are officers, they still hold a commission just not to lead troops except in exceptional circumstances.

[neverforget]

Chaplains are officers, they still hold a commission just not to lead troops except in exceptional circumstances.

Fair enough. That`s three more for the officers then.

[Guest]

" However, all things were not equal, as we know, and there are reasons why officers (particularly junior officers) were decorated disproportionately to the anonymous amongst the other ranks.

You may draw your own conclusions. "

It's also their job to lead, and do " brave things " which a great many of them did, so here's to them.

Mike

[neverforget]

I quite agree Mike, which is why I drew attention to them.

Another thing that surprised me as I was trawling through them was the amount of celebrated officers that came through the ranks rather than Sandhurst etc.

[CaroleHope]

Fair enough. That`s three more for the officers then.

There were also over 550 MC's awarded to Chaplains (can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head and including a couple of Bars) and there were about 3,500 chaplains in post by end of the war.

[David Filsell]

Leadership has greater obligations and risks. Or are you suggesting class causation?

[neverforget]

I`m not suggesting anything, merely presenting the figures.

In fact, my reason for posting was to disprove inaccurate claims, and to end speculation about the ratio of awards between the two camps, following a comment on another thread, that put the figure as high as 90% in favour of the officers. So I decided to find out the truth.

I did point out that there were reasons for the disparity, and drew attention to the junior officers, but didn`t wish to influence the debate either way, as I wanted to see other peoples thoughts on the subject.

I will say that I didn`t find many VCs that in my opinion, weren`t thoroughly deserved, be they won by officers or men.

That said, I would suggest that it was harder for an OR to win the award, because of his anonymity, and the role of leadership put officers in a more prominent position for consideration.

After careful consideration, I don`t think I found anything to suggest that the endemic class distinction within the army affected the distribution of awards.

[BullerTurner]

In many OR or NCO cases, the award was won for acting in a leadership or exemplary role. Officers often acted in this way, as it was part of the job description. One frequently hears of officer cases where a decoration was not considered or forwarded because that was what was "expected of an officer of the Loamshires".

[Muerrisch]

For anyone who might be interested, I have broken down the V.C.s awarded in WW1, basically to put to bed speculating that has developed "off topic" in another thread about soldiers shot at dawn.

I won`t tell you how many hours this has taken me, or you`ll be sending for the men in white coats

Thank you very much indeed for this analysis. It obliterates one very silly claim amongst several very silly claims and statements on the other thread.

[neverforget]

For anyone who might be interested, I have broken down the V.C.s awarded in WW1, basically to put to bed speculating that has developed "off topic" in another thread about soldiers shot at dawn.

I won`t tell you how many hours this has taken me, or you`ll be sending for the men in white coats

Thank you very much indeed for this analysis. It obliterates one very silly claim amongst several very silly claims and statements on the other thread.

My pleasure. We may as well deal with the facts, and I thought that others might be interested to see them, as I was.

Another interesting side-line relevant to the debate, would be the percentage of deaths of officers against O.Rs. We would have to include all officers in this though, and not just the ones that "led from the front".

[hazelclark]

Don't know that "percentages" would be very meaningful here. The ratio of officers to ORs would be very high, but since the life expectancy of a junior officer was about six weeks, I think that says it all.

Post #8 says it all in terms of V.C.s also.

Hazel

[neverforget]

Thanks for that, Hazel. I thought I would post a further breakdown of V.C.s in case it may be of interest to anyone. Sorry about the wobbly lines but it`ll have to do.

Number of Victoria Crosses Awarded to Regiments

Regiment Victoria Cross Active Bns VCs per Bn

Grenadier Gds 7 4 1.75

Coldstream Gds 7 4 1.75

Scots Gds 5 2 2.50

Irish Gds 4 2 2.00

Welsh Gds 1 1 1.00

R Scots 6 22 0.27

RW Surrey 4 13 0.31

E Kent 1 10 0.10

R Lancaster 8 12 0.66

Northumberland F 5 31 0.16

R Warwickshire 5 16 0.31

R Fusiliers 12 21 0.57

Liverpool 6 24 0.25

Norfolk 1 13 0.07

Lincolnshire 3 11 0.27

Devonshire 2 15 0.13

Suffolk 2 15 0.13

Somerset LI 1 11 0.09

W Yorkshire 4 19 0.21

E Yorkshire 4 12 0.33

Bedfordshire 7 8 0.87

Leicestershire 3 11 0.27

R Irish 1 4 0.25

Yorkshire 10 12 0.83

Lancashire Fus 17 21 0.80

R Scots Fus 4 11 0.36

Cheshire 2 19 0.10

R Welsh Fus 8 23 0.34

S Wales B 6 12 0.50

K.O.S.B. 4 9 0.44

Scottish Rifles 3 15 0.20

R Inniskilling Fus 7 9 0.77

Gloucestershire 4 16 0.25

Worcestershire 8 12 0.66

E Lancashire 4 11 0.36

E Surrey 7 11 0.63

D.C.L.I. 1 9 0.11

W Riding 5 13 0.38

Border 5 11 0.45

R Sussex 3 16 0.18

Hampshire 3 18 0.16

S Staffordshire 3 9 0.33

Dorsetshire 0 6 0.00

S Lancashire 4 13 0.30

Welsh 3 23 0.13

Black Watch 4 15 0.26

Ox & Bucks L.I. 2 11 0.18

Essex 1 19 0.05

Notts & Derby 9 19 0.47

LN Lancashire 3 19 0.15

Northamptonshire 4 8 0.50

R Berkshire 2 8 0.25

RW Kent 3 12 0.25

K.O.Y.L.I. 8 12 0.66

Shropshire L.I. 1 9 0.11

Middlesex 5 28 0.17

KRRC 7 16 0.43

Wiltshire 1 7 0.14

Manchester 11 27 0.40

N Staffordshire 4 9 0.44

Yorks & Lancs 4 14 0.28

Durham L.I. 6 24 0.25

H.L.I. 7 20 0.35

Seaforth H 7 11 0.63

Gordon H 4 13 0.30

Cameron H 3 8 0.37

R Irish Rifles 3 13 0.23

R Irish Fus 2 7 0.28

Connaught R 1 4 0.25

A&S H 6 17 0.35

Leinster 4 4 1.00

R Munster Fus 3 6 0.50

R Dublin Fus 3 7 0.42

Rifle Bde 10 19 0.52

H.A.C. 2 2 1.00

London 9 62 0.14

Hertfordshire 2 3 0.66

Totals 351. 1033. 0.33

[Guest]

Don't know that "percentages" would be very meaningful here. The ratio of officers to ORs would be very high, but since the life expectancy of a junior officer was about six weeks,

Hazel

Hazel, the Six Weeks claim is not supported in fact. It is a statistical nonsense repeated again and again and sadly promoted in Lewis-Stempel's book of the same title. There is absolutely nothing that substantiates his ridiculous claim. Given that nearly 80% of Officers who served survived, it is difficult to imagine how officers only survived six weeks.

I have stress tested the subset of Lewis Stempel's claim by crunching the data and it does not stand up. It does however sell books to the gullible masses. MG

[neverforget]

Thanks for the contribution, Martin. I`ve been following your exceptional thread on "attrition" with great interest.

Hats off to you for the amount of work you put into these threads.

[Gareth Davies]

Thanks for that, Hazel. I thought I would post a further breakdown of V.C.s in case it may be of interest to anyone. Sorry about the wobbly lines but it`ll have to do.

Number of Victoria Crosses Awarded to Regiments

Regiment Victoria Cross Active Bns VCs per Bn

Grenadier Gds 7 4 1.75

Coldstream Gds 7 4 1.75

Scots Gds 5 2 2.50

Irish Gds 4 2 2.00

Welsh Gds 1 1 1.00

R Scots 6 22 0.27

RW Surrey 4 13 0.31

E Kent 1 10 0.10

R Lancaster 8 12 0.66

Northumberland F 5 31 0.16

R Warwickshire 5 16 0.31

R Fusiliers 12 21 0.57

Liverpool 6 24 0.25

Norfolk 1 13 0.07

Lincolnshire 3 11 0.27

Devonshire 2 15 0.13

Suffolk 2 15 0.13

Somerset LI 1 11 0.09

W Yorkshire 4 19 0.21

E Yorkshire 4 12 0.33

Bedfordshire 7 8 0.87

Leicestershire 3 11 0.27

R Irish 1 4 0.25

Yorkshire 10 12 0.83

Lancashire Fus 17 21 0.80

R Scots Fus 4 11 0.36

Cheshire 2 19 0.10

R Welsh Fus 8 23 0.34

S Wales B 6 12 0.50

K.O.S.B. 4 9 0.44

Scottish Rifles 3 15 0.20

R Inniskilling Fus 7 9 0.77

Gloucestershire 4 16 0.25

Worcestershire 8 12 0.66

E Lancashire 4 11 0.36

E Surrey 7 11 0.63

D.C.L.I. 1 9 0.11

W Riding 5 13 0.38

Border 5 11 0.45

R Sussex 3 16 0.18

Hampshire 3 18 0.16

S Staffordshire 3 9 0.33

Dorsetshire 0 6 0.00

S Lancashire 4 13 0.30

Welsh 3 23 0.13

Black Watch 4 15 0.26

Ox & Bucks L.I. 2 11 0.18

Essex 1 19 0.05

Notts & Derby 9 19 0.47

LN Lancashire 3 19 0.15

Northamptonshire 4 8 0.50

R Berkshire 2 8 0.25

RW Kent 3 12 0.25

K.O.Y.L.I. 8 12 0.66

Shropshire L.I. 1 9 0.11

Middlesex 5 28 0.17

KRRC 7 16 0.43

Wiltshire 1 7 0.14

Manchester 11 27 0.40

N Staffordshire 4 9 0.44

Yorks & Lancs 4 14 0.28

Durham L.I. 6 24 0.25

H.L.I. 7 20 0.35

Seaforth H 7 11 0.63

Gordon H 4 13 0.30

Cameron H 3 8 0.37

R Irish Rifles 3 13 0.23

R Irish Fus 2 7 0.28

Connaught R 1 4 0.25

A&S H 6 17 0.35

Leinster 4 4 1.00

R Munster Fus 3 6 0.50

R Dublin Fus 3 7 0.42

Rifle Bde 10 19 0.52

H.A.C. 2 2 1.00

London 9 62 0.14

Hertfordshire 2 3 0.66

Totals 351. 1033. 0.33

The Foot Guards and their associates (the HAC) did rather better than the rest.

[Guest]

Thanks for that, Hazel. I thought I would post a further breakdown of V.C.s in case it may be of interest to anyone. Sorry about the wobbly lines but it`ll have to

Does this carry anything meaningful? The award of a VC was completely random and subject to quite complex factors. The fact that the Dorsetshire Regt did not have a VC awarded to any man really does not tell us much about their very broad heroics (a word I seldom use) of this regiment.

I am not a fan of the obsession with VCs as I think it often overshadows the remarkable achievements of hundreds of men who were awarded DSOs or MCs or DCMs or MMs or the thousands of men who were awarded nothing at all and were probably equally brave and who we need to remember with equal weight and respect.

I understand the motive force for responding to the utter nonsense on the other thread, but the table 'ranking' regiments can be rather misleading. If it is to suggest a particular regiment had more "Valour" (sic) I would suggest it is misleading. The 'VCs per battalion' is particularly misleading.

One only has to trawl the sad and complex history of the alleged six VCs before breakfast (actually initially only three) to understand the political motives that change perceptions of bravery. Add to this the propensity for Regiments to 'claim' the VCs of attached personnel, particularly RAMC, in order the bathe in the reflected glory. There were VCs awarded to men in 1914 such as Grenfell and Yate and others whose fanciful citations in the London Gazette bear very little resemblance to multiple independent eyewitnesses accounts and were very likely awarded as part of a deliberate attempt by the Govt to cover some rather unsavoury realities. Grenfell admitted he was quite embarrassed to have been nominated. It is slightly more complex than simple tables.

I am not criticising the post/thread as it is justified in the context of the "90%" claim but I think it tells us little about the war and the men who fought it. MG

[neverforget]

Does this carry anything meaningful? The award of a VC was completely random and subject to quite complex factors. The fact that the Dorsetshire Regt did not have a VC awarded to any man really does not tell us much about their very broad heroics (a word I seldom use) of this regiment.

I am not a fan of the obsession with VCs as I think it often overshadows the remarkable achievements of hundreds of men who were awarded DSOs or MCs or DCMs or MMs or the thousands of men who were awarded nothing at all and were probably equally brave and who we need to remember with equal weight and respect.

I understand the motive force for responding to the utter nonsense on the other thread, but the table 'ranking' regiments can be rather misleading. What is the point? If it is to suggest a particular regiment had more "Valour" (sic) I would suggest it is misleading. The 'VCs per battalion' is particularly misleading.

One only has to trawl the sad and complex history of the alleged six VCs before breakfast (actually initially only three) to understand the political motives that change perceptions of bravery. Add to this the propensity for Regiments to 'claim' the VCs of attached personnel, particularly RAMC, in order the bathe in the reflected glory. There were VCs awarded to men in 1914 such as Grenfell and Yate and others whose fanciful citations in the London Gazette bear very little resemblance to multiple independent eyewitnesses accounts and were very likely awarded as part of a deliberate attempt by the Govt to cover some rather unsavoury realities. Grenfell admitted he was quite embarrassed to have been nominated. It is slightly more complex than simple tables.

I am not criticising the post/thread as it is justified in the context of the "90%" claim but I think it tells us little about the war and the men who fought it. MG

You say you`re not criticising my thread. O.K.

I agree with some of your your sentiments, but as this is a thread dealing with possible biases re. V.C.s, I posted the table to show a relatively even spread of V.C.s across all of the regiments. Hope that explains your question about the point of posting it.

It goes without saying that there were innumerable acts of bravery that went unrewarded, but for me, that doesn`t diminish the individual courage of the men who actually were rewarded, or the award itself.

I for one find it inspiring to read the accounts of these acts of exceptional and selfless bravery, though it may be boring or misleading to others. Each to their own. I only started the thread for people who may have been interested.

[Gareth Davies]

You say you`re not criticising my thread. O.K.

I agree with some of your your sentiments, but as this is a thread dealing with possible biases re. V.C.s, I posted the table to show a relatively even spread of V.C.s across all of the regiments. Hope that explains your question about the point of posting it.

It goes without saying that there were innumerable acts of bravery that went unrewarded, but for me, that doesn`t diminish the individual courage of the men who actually were rewarded, or the award itself.

I for one find it inspiring to read the accounts of these acts of exceptional and selfless bravery, though it may be boring or misleading to others. Each to their own. I only started the thread for people who may have been interested.

But the spread isn't relatively even (by a factor of 25).

[hazelclark]

Likely I'm a member of the "gullible masses". I know I should be more careful when posting anything suggestive of anecdotal evidence here. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a disproportionately high number of junior officers were killed and wounded. Don't suppose it has a lot to do with V.C.s, although if they were dead they could not make recommendations.

Hazel

Hazel, the Six Weeks claim is not supported in fact. It is a statistical nonsense repeated again and again and sadly promoted in Lewis-Stempel's book of the same title. There is absolutely nothing that substantiates his ridiculous claim. Given that nearly 80% of Officers who served survived, it is difficult to imagine how officers only survived six weeks.

I have stress tested the subset of Lewis Stempel's claim by crunching the data and it does not stand up. It does however sell books to the gullible masses. MG

[PhilB]

I've read a fair few WW1 autobiographies but have never come across a description of the process of drawing up a claims list for awards. The aftermath of Lancashire Landing indicates that the CO asked around some of the officers. Was that typical? Did the NCOs & men normally have an input? In the aftermath of a battle, one imagines it to be necessarily a bit hit or miss?

[neverforget]

But the spread isn't relatively even (by a factor of 25).

Perhaps not my most careful choice of words.

I meant to point out that V.C.s were awarded to virtually all regiments across the board.

[Scalyback]

And no mention of the Corps? The PBI took the brunt but without the various corps noting much will happen. Be interesting to see the or/officer split of the infantry vs the Corps. RfC excluded.

Mention of leadership but the VC is for valour, hence I mention the various Corps.

[ianjonesncl]

Royal Regiment of Artillery 18 VC's

Officers 9

OR's 9

Maj EW ALEXANDER

Dvr JHC DRAIN

Dvr F LUKE

Capt D REYNOLDS

Capt EK BRADBURY

S/Mjr GT DORRREL

Sgt D NELSON

Bdr EG HORLOCK

Capt GN WALFORD

Sgt JC RAYNES

Maj L REES

Sgt W GOSLING

2/LT THB MAUFE

Lt STD WALLACE

Sgt CE GOURLEY

Gnr CE STONE

Capt ES DOUGALL

Lt RV GORLE

[Guest]

And no mention of the Corps? The PBI took the brunt but without the various corps noting much will happen. Be interesting to see the or/officer split of the infantry vs the Corps. RfC excluded.

Mention of leadership but the VC is for valour, hence I mention the various Corps.

Try the RAMC per capita.