toto123 Posted 15 August , 2009 Share Posted 15 August , 2009 Didn't the structure/size of the seige battery vary according to size of guns? My great unlce was in a 6in seige battery (no248) and i have been trying to build up a picture as to how the 'team' would have looked/performed. He was in the last phase of the war-the 100 days. Letters he wrote suggest that they were moving quickly (how was the gun moved?) and were in the thick of the fighting. Their position was normally behind the infantry/front line but during this period it seems the boundaries became blurred. Anyone have any images of 6in guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Riley Posted 15 August , 2009 Share Posted 15 August , 2009 Bombardier was a the next rank above Gunner or Driver, followed by Corporal and Serjeant. It was not an RA trade. Keith Keith, I understood that; I hadn't got 'trades' in mind at all. My apologies if I have misunderstood. My point was that it is my understanding that Lance Corporal was an 'appointment' rather than a rank even if paid (until something like the 1960's) in the Infantry (and I had assumed in other arms as well wherever the term might be used). This meant that if a man moved unit he did not necessarilly retain the appointment (or the pay) unless moving to fill a Lance Corporal's vacancy (my reading of Pay Warrant 1907 para 899). The warrant seems careful to use the term 'appointed' rather than 'promoted'. I think most people regarded it as a rank but there was, I thought, this technical difference. Interestingly the same paragraph brackets lance corporals with 'acting bombardiers' and treats them on the same terms. The rank of 'Bombardier' does not show up in the index to the pay warrant at all, just 'Bombardier, acting'. Is it therefore possible that all the bombardiers were 'acting' for the purposes of the Pay Warrant and did not have substantive rank? I have a feeling that brigadier-generals were appointments also (a local and temporary rank only - Pay Warrant 1907 para. 39) rather as 'commodore' used to be in the Royal Navy. So my question hung the issue of whether a bombardier in the artillery had more permanence than a lance corporal in the infantry even though they might be, de facto, of the same rank. I suspect he did not. Ian I appreciate that my copy of the Pay Warrant is seven years ante-bellum! It may all have changed by 1914 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 15 August , 2009 Share Posted 15 August , 2009 My grandfather's first three entries on his promotion register are as follows Appointed A/bombadier Promoted Bombadier Promoted Corporal Mind you, this was pre-war and things may have changed in the that period, and I think that the first entry to a/bombadier may have been a local appointment prior to his official promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
206thCEF Posted 15 August , 2009 Share Posted 15 August , 2009 Didn't the structure/size of the seige battery vary according to size of guns? My great unlce was in a 6in seige battery (no248) and i have been trying to build up a picture as to how the 'team' would have looked/performed. He was in the last phase of the war-the 100 days. Letters he wrote suggest that they were moving quickly (how was the gun moved?) and were in the thick of the fighting. Their position was normally behind the infantry/front line but during this period it seems the boundaries became blurred. Anyone have any images of 6in guns? Tonya, here's a photograph of two Canadian 6 in. guns firing.Not the best pic but, better than nothing. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...LAC_3195150.jpg Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Riley Posted 15 August , 2009 Share Posted 15 August , 2009 Quoting rgartillery Post 28 (sorry, Joe's post has come between us, since I used 'fast reply') My grandfather's first three entries on his promotion register are as follows Appointed A/bombadier Promoted Bombadier Promoted Corporal David, That's interesting, particularly the use of 'appointed' for acting bombardier but 'promoted' for the next stage. That might well imply that things moved on from 1907. King's Regulations for 1912 amended to 1 August 1914 (para282 - some paragraph, it's a massive table) shows that the actual rank of an acting bombardier was 'Trooper, gunner, driver, sapper, pioneer (RE), or private' and it was the same for a Lance Corporal. Clearly gunner or driver is appropriate here. The rank of bombardier is bracketed with 2nd Corporal (for Bands and the REs). Bombardier seems to be associated (but not necessarily exclusively) with appointments of 'Bombardier artillery clerk' and 'Bombardier-Cook'. (This is getting a bit abstruse but then what's the Forum for?) The rank of corporal is placed above that. The precedences of rank (para 284) are then stated as Corporal then Bombardier/2nd Corporal (equal) then the private soldiers (including the 'acting bombardiers' and 'lance-corporals'). So it would appear that Bombardier was substantive (higher in the pecking order than a Lance Corporal) but acting bombardier was not. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 15 August , 2009 Share Posted 15 August , 2009 Ian, my line of thinking is that "Appointed bombardier" was an acting rank in which the soldier proved to his superiors that he could cope with the added responsibilities - such as they may have been. G/father was in that rank for 13 months before "promotion" to Bombardier. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Riley Posted 16 August , 2009 Share Posted 16 August , 2009 David, I agree entirely. 'Appointed A/Bombardier' would do exactly that and as an appointment rather than technically being a rank, it would be easy to remove somebody who was not doing well or who was not happy in the rôle. My point was that strictly his rank would be gunner or driver whilst in that appointment of A/Bombardier. When he was promoted to Bombardier, he had that as is his substantive rank with precendence above Lance Corporals (who were privates really) but below corporals. That's my reading of King's Regs. The whole system was full of little quirks and whilst we might think of Warrant Officers as a sinle rank (before Classes I and II were introduced) there was an intricate and recognised pecking order of Conductors and Master Gunners Class I and 'others' Going in search of my bed! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockdoc Posted 16 August , 2009 Share Posted 16 August , 2009 Bombardier seems to be associated (but not necessarily exclusively) with appointments of 'Bombardier artillery clerk' and 'Bombardier-Cook'. (This is getting a bit abstruse but then what's the Forum for?) The rank of corporal is placed above that. Ian, I think the additional title simply gives the man's trade within the Battery, though what a Bombardier Gun Number was called I couldn't say - perhaps just Bombardier? You certainly get Farrier Corporals/Serjeants, for example. It applied elsewhere, unsurprisingly, the RE had Artificer Staff Sergeants in Salonika - who came out to the AA Sections to do gun inspections and it's from their War Diaries that I've found the term - but whether the titles used 'on the job' were reflected on their records I have no idea. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 16 August , 2009 Share Posted 16 August , 2009 Keith, Presumably when an NCO had a specialist title he would have been promoted within that specilization and not within the general rank. One of my g/fathers brothers was a "Saddler Staff Sgt", not only a tradesman but probably promotion depended upon what vacancies occurred within the Saddler department. As an aside when promotion occurred in the navy you were Acting Leading hand etc for a year before being confirmed into that position. Took a warrant to lose your hook but only a co's decision if you were acting - certainly kept one on your toes for 12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockdoc Posted 16 August , 2009 Share Posted 16 August , 2009 I'd think so, David. A Saddler Corporal promoted to Serjeant certainly wouldn't be of immediate use as No 1 on a sub-Section, although I'm equally sure you can never say never! I don't know whether there was a definite time in the Army between being appointed to an Acting rank and receiving confirmation to it but it was obviously a useful device to give someone a chance to prove themselves. As far as officers went, it could be a semi-permanent state. For example, Lieutenants were Acting Captains of some of the Salonika AA Sections, James Orrell of 32nd AAS for example, but reverted to their substantive rank as soon as they were not actually commanding the unit, reviving Acting status on their return from leave or hospital. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggers Posted 16 August , 2009 Share Posted 16 August , 2009 QUOTE:how the 'team' would have looked/performed. Tony Before anyone else gets at you, let me say that the team is made up of horses! D [aka occasional nitpicker] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendellers Posted 16 August , 2009 Share Posted 16 August , 2009 Don't know if this helps but my grandfather's papers show him enlisting 1909 RFA and undergoing preliminary and annual training as a driver 8/4/1912 bombadier 5/5/1914 corporal 12/8/1914 promoted Sargeant 16/3/1915 landed in France 18/3/1916 promoted Battery Quartermaster Sargeant 6/4/1917 transferred to England for training for a commission 24/12/1917 appointed 2nd Lieutenant This is from my notes though and I would have to back to the originals to see if the word promotion was used for bombadier and corporal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toto123 Posted 16 August , 2009 Share Posted 16 August , 2009 Tonya, here's a photograph of two Canadian 6 in. guns firing.Not the best pic but, better than nothing. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...LAC_3195150.jpg Joe Hi Joe many thanks for that picture..most helpful. Bigger gun than i expected. In the latter stages they were being deployed like trench mortars i read which made me think they were smaller and more mobile. Thanks, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urv402 Posted 10 September , 2009 Share Posted 10 September , 2009 My Great granfather was a sergeant in the 59th Brigade and died at Gallipoli on the 18.08.09 is it possible some one could explain what role a sergeant would have had and what he would have been responsible for and would they have had the 18 pounders? John Corbett service number 50049 I am intrested in finding out more information on him but do not really know were to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 11 September , 2009 Share Posted 11 September , 2009 Hello urv402 A serjeant in the RFA would have been the "Number 1" of a gun detachment, in charge of one gun and the men who served it. There were five serjeants in a four-gun battery and seven in a six0gun battery: I don;t know if the extra one was simply a spare to cover casualties or if he had a specific role at Battery HQ, or more probably both. An earlier post lists the duties of the "gun numbers". And yes, 59th Brigade were equipped with 18-pounders. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 11 September , 2009 Share Posted 11 September , 2009 urv402, Welcome to the forum. I have had a look at the Ancestry records and they have nothing apart that he was in B battery on the 59th brigade. At the moment cant go any further than that. D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urv402 Posted 14 September , 2009 Share Posted 14 September , 2009 urv402, Welcome to the forum. I have had a look at the Ancestry records and they have nothing apart that he was in B battery on the 59th brigade. At the moment cant go any further than that. D Thank you for taking the time to look. It would be nice to get to know a little bit more information but I do not suppose there will be much available now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Senior y Morrison Posted 3 October , 2010 Share Posted 3 October , 2010 I have read that a full rank existed between Gunner and Bombardier, namely Acting Bombardier. This was an actual full ranking rather than someone acting in the Bombardier rank before promotion Bombardier was a the next rank above Gunner or Driver, followed by Corporal and Serjeant. It was not an RA trade. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 4 October , 2010 Share Posted 4 October , 2010 'Acting' means just that, they were not 'substantive' in the rank. Acting rank rank would typically be given to someone to fill a vacancy caused by casualties, promotion, or posting. An acting bombadier (in WW1) would have been a 'substantive' gunner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Senior y Morrison Posted 5 November , 2011 Share Posted 5 November , 2011 David, I agree entirely. 'Appointed A/Bombardier' would do exactly that and as an appointment rather than technically being a rank, it would be easy to remove somebody who was not doing well or who was not happy in the rôle. My point was that strictly his rank would be gunner or driver whilst in that appointment of A/Bombardier. When he was <b><u><i>promoted </i></u></b> to Bombardier, he had that as is his substantive rank with precendence above Lance Corporals (who were privates really) but below corporals. That's my reading of King's Regs. The whole system was full of little quirks and whilst we might think of Warrant Officers as a sinle rank (before Classes I and II were introduced) there was an intricate and recognised pecking order of Conductors and Master Gunners Class I and 'others' Going in search of my bed! Ian Ian,a question from Ian .What is meant by promoted A/full Bdr...from rank Gunner? As I take it A/ is acting; how about... full! What about promoted? Bdr is easy as that is Bombardier. Interesting notations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockdoc Posted 5 November , 2011 Share Posted 5 November , 2011 An acting rank is not substantial, whether it's Acting Bombardier, Acting Captain or whatever, and is usually applicable only while the appropriate duties are being performed so, for example, Acting Captains in charge of AA Sections in Salonika would revert to their substantive rank (Lieutenant or 2nd Lt) when going on leave and resume their acting rank on their return. Thus, in the example above, the chap has the substantive rank of Gunner but is acting in the role of Bombardier. When his promotion came through he became a "full" or substantive Bombardier. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Senior y Morrison Posted 7 November , 2011 Share Posted 7 November , 2011 An acting rank is not substantial, whether it's Acting Bombardier, Acting Captain or whatever, and is usually applicable only while the appropriate duties are being performed so, for example, Acting Captains in charge of AA Sections in Salonika would revert to their substantive rank (Lieutenant or 2nd Lt) when going on leave and resume their acting rank on their return. Thus, in the example above, the chap has the substantive rank of Gunner but is acting in the role of Bombardier. When his promotion came through he became a "full" or substantive Bombardier. Keith Thanks. I take it that the notation on the service sheet PROMOTED 16-4-1915 a/full Bdr means Promoted on that date from being a Gunner acting as a Bombardier to substantive Bombardier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now