London Scottish 1914

[pmaasz]

Can anyone provide documentary evidence of exactly what time of day the London Scottish became 'the first Territorial infantry regiment' to be in action?

[Steven Broomfield]

According to J H Lindsay's regimental history, the first orders on 31st October were received at 0800 (British time), and the Bn moved off more or less immediately, coming under shell fire as they did so.

Moving to the 'actual' battle, the same source says the Germans attempted their first attack at about 2100.

[charlesmessenger]

According to Msrk Lloyd's book The London Scottish in the Great War (Leo Cooper, Barnsley, 2001) pp37-39 the Battalion paraded on the St Eloi road at 0400 hours on 31 October and moved to a wood south-east of St Eloi, where it began to dig in. At 0800 it received orders to reinforce 4th Cavalry Brigade on the Wytschate-Messines Ridge and came under artillery fire as they passed through the gun lines. They then proceeded up the Steenbeck and took cover in EnferWood. The CO gave out orders at 1000 hours and thereafter they advanced under heavy fire to take up position. The first German attack took place at 2100 hours.

Charles M

[stripeyman]

It seems you are all using the 24 hour clock.

I was under the impression that it only came into use in 1918

Your comments please..............

Bob Grundy

[Steven Broomfield]

Bob, I translate Great War times into 24 hour clock for ease of use.

I could type 9.00 a.m., but I find 0900 easier, being a rotten typist!

[pmaasz]

How is 'in action' sensibly defined? Is it coming under enemy fire, or should it be actively firing against the enemy? That makes quite a difference to when the London Scottish were 'in action'.

[truthergw]

I don't know if there is an official definition. They were on active service when they stepped off the boat. In action would appear to me to be exchanging fire with the enemy or in a position to do so. That would exclude a man who was hit by artillery while working in the rear areas. He would be wounded on active service but not in action. That is a personal distinction I would make with no official back up.

[Clio]

I dont know about the rest of you but that 31st October action at Messines has always confused me. I've never been able to relate it to the topography but there again, I am lousy with maps.

[tommie]

Taken from the 1914 London Scottish Journal,
the picture is entitled
“Halloween 1914: Stand of the London Scottish on Messines Ridge”, the artist being Richard Caton Woodville.

Just thought i would share it.
Tom

[pmaasz]

First, to Clio. I can understand your problem with the topography. I've been there, approaching from the Steenbeek direction the steepness of the slope up to the Messines Ridge is pretty awesome. (Horrible Americanism but it fits!) Made me realise what a difficult task the lads had to fight there.

Secondly, to truthergw, I like your definition of exchanging fire with the enemy as being the right way to interpret being 'in action' and agree completely that passively receiving fire, especially from artillery, is not the right way to interpret it.

Many thanks for all the replies.

[Stanley_C_Jenkins]

The War Diary of The Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars indicates that the regiment received orders to proceed to Neuve Eglise at 4.00 pm on 30 October 1914. They reported at Neuve Eglise at 6.45 am on 31 October 1914, and were ordered to water their horses before moving to Wulverghem (from where half of the regiment was ordered to go to Messines). I assume that, by that time, they were within the combat zone, although the regiment did not come under "heavy rifle and machine gun fire" until 1 November, when Major Brian Molloy was killed.

[Crunchy]

I don't know if there is an official definition. In action would appear to me to be exchanging fire with the enemy or in a position to do so. That would exclude a man who was hit by artillery while working in the rear areas. He would be wounded on active service but not in action. That is a personal distinction I would make with no official back up.

Tom,

If he were killed by artillery while in the rear area he would be classified as Killed in Action, although I agree that "in action" usually means in contact with the enemy.

Regards

Chris

[Crunchy]

I like your definition of exchanging fire with the enemy as being the right way to interpret being 'in action' and agree completely that passively receiving fire, especially from artillery, is not the right way to interpret it.

This is an incorrect interpretation. I know of no official definition for "In Action." In the our army it refers to being under fire, whether returning fire or receiving it from the enemy. One doesn't have to be returning fire in a firefight to be "In Action."

Regards

Chris