CSM - Sir or Sarge?

[PhilB]

I once called a CSM "Sergeant". Only once.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Even worse is saluting a CSM or RSM caused when some fool decided the best place for rank badges was attached to a button on front of combats!

[nigelfe]

I'd guess that the situation was a bit confused because of the change. In the 8 coy btns all 8 coys had a CSgt. The change to 4 coys led to the CSM WO2 rank for the senior 4 (and majors to cmmand) and left the junior 4 as CQMS CSgt. This and mobilisation probably led to variation between units. Not sure about other arms, but cav converted to the sqn/regt org in about 1870, and the battery became the arty unit about the same time (changing name from tp and coy) with majors introduced to command instead of captains.

[Muerrisch]

No, sorry. Most companies in the 4 coy. org. were led by senior captains.

The hierarchy was: Lt Col

'Senior major' as 2 i/c

perhaps another major as a company commander

and then enough captains to command the companies, plus 4 junior captains as 2 i/c coy.

If you look at the actuality, as in Westlake's 1914 battalions book, it was thus that the BEF sailed to France.

[nigelfe]

At least one btn, TA of course, went to France with 8 coys, 6 commanded by capts and 2 by Lts. However, I think you'll find that the reorgansiation put the infantry onto the same basis as cavalry and artillery, that is to say companies were to be commanded by majors. This was the official establishment. Of course on the ground the reality was that there were indeed lots of captains commanding coys.

[Muerrisch]

Fine: if you think the official establishment of a 1914 4-company battalion was one Major as 2 i/c and four more as company commanders, I invite you to provided references. The Estabs for War [2 versions consulted from original documents] provide for 'Major or Captain', or Major [or Captain].

A glance at two sources:

1. Army List Aug 1914 suggests about 8 majors per 2-battalion regiment, so that, with a depot to man and the occasioanl officer on the staff or on Colonial attachment, there were simply not enough majors to fill 10 posts.

2. Westlake's '1914' has many lists of officers embarking in Aug/Sep 1914. A quick riffle through just now has unearthed one battalion with 5 majors, the Suffolks. Many made do with one: to name a few:

1st GG, 3 CG, 1st NF, 2nd RWF.

I will bet you £10 donation to the British Legion that the War Establishment was as I say.

PS. I am sitting with the Estabs in front of me, so, make my day!

Probably breaking forum rules in the bargain.

[nigelfe]

"Major [or Captain]" looks to me like a policy of 'company and equivalent level commanders shall be majors' mediated by 'but the infantry are going to need a bit of time to reach this goal'.

Any one who seriously believes that the infantry were going to accept a mix of majors and captains as OC for their new large coys, when arty definitely and cav (I'm fairly sure) had majors, doesn't know much about the politics of these matters. Even the gunners saying that their batteries were actually units and not sub-units like infantry coys wouldn't change the infantry's aspirations. And of course rank like for like would ripple down.

[Muerrisch]

"Major [or Captain]" looks to me like a policy of 'company and equivalent level commanders shall be majors' mediated by 'but the infantry are going to need a bit of time to reach this goal'.

Any one who seriously believes that the infantry were going to accept a mix of majors and captains as OC for their new large coys, when arty definitely and cav (I'm fairly sure) had majors, doesn't know much about the politics of these matters. Even the gunners saying that their batteries were actually units and not sub-units like infantry coys wouldn't change the infantry's aspirations. And of course rank like for like would ripple down.

No, I know nothing about the politics, just the facts. Which demonstrate that the 'average ' company, the norm, was commanded by a captain. If you contend that there was a policy to 'majorise' the posts in due course, you need to prove it in public. Similarly musing on the infantry's aspirations ..... I need to be convinced there was such an infantry aspiration.

My advice is, when in a hole, stop digging.

[nigelfe]

Totally agree about holes. My advise is try to understand the issues and what was going on, what the influences and factors were, and not merely parrot one piece of the jigsaw.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you. I take it you are going to back up your opinions regarding 'majors' and infantry aspirations' with evidence? Otherwise I am content to allow the Forum to come to a judgement on what is a very basic 'issue' regarding the organisation of an infantry battalion. This is my last post on the subject but I look forward to resuming after some evidence is adduced.

[nigelfe]

I'll take the liberty of trying to explain the issues. The old 8 coy btn (some TA of which went to France in 1914) had CSgt as CSMs, Capts as coy comds and a couple of majors enabling the btn to operate as 'half-btns' (or might now be called 'mega-coys'.

40 years earlier, when Caldwell's reforms ended commission by purchase, RA took the opportunity to convert their BCs to major (also renaming RHA troops as btys (connect with cav change) and RGA from coys to btys). Cav seem to have done the same thing when converting from 8 or whatever troops into 3 or so sqns. I don't have a handle on the RE position but I'd put money on the coy (sqn with cav fmns) comds being majors.

Where does this leave the poor old crunchies? Thousand man btns, close to 30 officers and only two majors, talk about a promotion blockage at regimental duty, and there were the other arms where there were majors comding at coy level. At least some in the infantry must have been as sick as parrots.

I'll leave it to someone else to explain the reasoning behind the change to 4 coys, there's probably articles in the Army Quarterly or RUSI Journal at the time (and maybe something in Hansard), however, I put money on improving promotion prospects as being one factor, even if it wasn't openly in the official argument - this is organisational basics 101.

The issue then became how to transition to the new org. 8 into 4 means there's going to be winners and losers in the food chain. However, there would also be a cost, given infantry was the largest arm, and presumably it affected the Indian Army as well. Unhappy bean-counters in London and Delhi, and no doubt teath sucking over seniority and who was qualified. Transitional arrangement one pace forward march - spread out the implementation by allowing capts to remain in comd of some of the new large coys and phase in the majors. Of course the outbreak of a world war was an added complication.