General Staff

[melwar]

Is there any way of finding out who was on the General Staff at any given point in time and in what capacity? And not just at GHQ, but at any level, like Army, Corps and so on. Did anyone keep track? (and write it down?)

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Melwar

There are three possible routes to this information, none of which are available online/

1. The British official publication, Order of Battle of Divisions, in six volumes, by Major A F Becke, lists all the senior GS officers from GHQ down to Divisional level.

2. In class WO33 at the National Archives, there are a few complete lists of staff officers. Browse the class list for "Composition of Headquarters."

3. In class WO95 at the National Archives are all the War Diaries including the GS Branch of each level of formation. These should record the comings and goings of officers but may not be complete, especially at busy times.

Good hunting!

Ron

[truthergw]

Is there any way of finding out who was on the General Staff at any given point in time and in what capacity? And not just at GHQ, but at any level, like Army, Corps and so on. Did anyone keep track? (and write it down?)

General Staff served at GHQ. Every level of command down to division had a staff to administer that level. A staff officer was not necessarily a General Staff Officer. Perhaps if you gave a little more detail of what you are looking for?

[melwar]

Perhaps if you gave a little more detail of what you are looking for?

I've been reading a lot of orders to do with Reserve Army's attacks on Pozieres and Mouquet Farm lately. Some of them have been signed with just initials and I was wondering who these people were and in what capacity they served. I'd really like to build up as detailed a picture of the staffing at various levels as I can.

Thanks, Ron, for some awesome information! I look forward to being able to come over and have a look at those next year.

[Robert Dunlop]

Were the orders issued by Reserve Army? In which case, they will usually be signed by the Brigadier General, General Staff (BGGS) or sometimes the GSO 1.

Robert

[Ron Clifton]

General Staff served at GHQ. Every level of command down to division had a staff to administer that level.

Tom

General Staff opfficers served at every level down to and including Divisions. There were also representatives of the Adjutant-General's and Quartermaster-Generals Branches at all these levels, usually through a combined "A&Q" function.

Melwar - my previous remarks apply equally to these staffs, though "A&Q" kept separate War Diaries.

The Australian War Memorial/Museum may have copies of Becke's books. Otherwise, let me know which initials you are looking for, and which formations within Reserve Army, and the time-frame, and I'll look them up.

Ron

[truthergw]

Hi Ron. Yes, I was aware of that. What I was trying to say was that there were staff officers at various levels that were not General Staff. The orders mentioned by Melwar may have been initialled by an officer on 3rd Army staff. Every commander from ( I think) brigade upwards, had a staff to help him. There was also an Imperial General Staff based mainly in London and led for much of the war by Wullie Robertson. I was trying to find out which staff might be the object of the query.

[Old Tom]

Hello,

This raises all sorts of interesting queries. Generally there was a shortage of staff trained officers and, no doubt, many staff appointments were filled by regimental officers. I am not sure if the GHQ staff - Military Secretary perhaps - or War Office were reponsible for filling the very many posts that have been mentioned; i.e, from the staff captain at brigade HQ up to the CGS at GHQ. Each headquarters would have had an establishment and individual officers would, I suppose, be posted to fill those establishments. I expect senior staff officers were appointed by War Office and would quess that within armies and corps the HQ would arrange for division and brigade staff posts to be filled. During WW1, I think, all staff officers wore the badge of the Staff Corps and wore red tabs (and some other colours) not as now when only Colonels and above are part of the Staff Corps. I wonder if there is a history of the Staff Corps? Each headquarters would have kept a war diary - in the case of large HQs individual branches, howver war diaries do not often mention individual officers names.

Old Tom

[liverpool annie]

I've been trying to find out about this painting of the General Officers of World War I by John Singer Sargent ( I think I have a few names to go with the faces !! ) .... not sure if this fits in with what you guys are talking about - but thought it maybe of interest !

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/l...e=sit&rNo=1

Annie

[Guest]

Hi Annie, all names here

Cheers Mike

[Ron Clifton]

Tom

There is no history of the General Staff Corps because there was, and as far as I know is, NO General Staff Corps in the British Army. Officers regularly rotated between staff and regimental appointments. Staff officers could be distinguished by psc after their names in the Army List if they had passed through the Staff College at Camberley (or the one at Quetta), or qs if they had served in a staff apointment in the field and thus qualified for further staff employment.

There were indeed "staff distinctions" such as the scarlet gorget patches, and it was a result of the unpopularity of these items worn by junior officers in WW1 which led to the restriction in their use to colonels and above in later years.

Ron

[David B]

Just what did they do though. Were they just flunkies running serving the needs of the boss or did they do the detailed planning that the

commander required.

David

[Ron Clifton]

David

Very much the latter! the planning was detailed indeed, often had to be done at very little notice (e.g. for a renewal of an attack the following day) and required very long hours. There are reported cases of officers at GHQ actually fainting/falling asleep at their desks through the pressure of work.

Field Sevice Pocket Book, an official publication, listed all the main duties of the various branches of the staff.

Ron

[truthergw]

Just what did they do though. Were they just flunkies running serving the needs of the boss or did they do the detailed planning that the

commander required.

David

A flunky serving the needs of his boss might well do that by performing the myriad tasks required to plan an operation, administer training, run the QM for several armies, procure the material and manpower for the transport behind the lines of those armies etc. etc.

[chloeflorence]

As the question of what did they do is being discussed, I thought that I would post this quote from my Great Uncle's War Diary dated 11th December 1916. He was then a Captain, in transit to rejoin his unit in Egypt.

"Now that we have left the camp, I may perhaps say how monstrous it is that British Officers should be living in ease and plenty and drawing good staff pay, as the Staff of this Rest Camp are doing, and absolutely neglecting their job and smiling complacently at the unnecessary discomforts and privations of those whom they are supposed to be looking after."

I am sure that many Staff Officers did a necessary job as well as they could, but it seems that there were also the "Captain Darlings" amongst them (Blackadder). The surprising thing to me is that this was not censored, all his diaries were posted home to be typed up.

Jim

[liverpool annie]

Hi Annie, all names here

Cheers Mike

Thank you very much Mike !

Thats great !

Annie

[David B]

David

Very much the latter! the planning was detailed indeed, often had to be done at very little notice (e.g. for a renewal of an attack the following day) and required very long hours. There are reported cases of officers at GHQ actually fainting/falling asleep at their desks through the pressure of work.

Field Sevice Pocket Book, an official publication, listed all the main duties of the various branches of the staff.

Ron

Oooh I bet those naughty boys falling asleep at their work never featured in the book "Shot at dawn", a bit different from the poor old grunt in the

front line. Makes one realize the difference between the "haves"and the "have nots"doesn't it.

Cheers David

[Old Tom]

Ron,

You seem to be a fountain of information on establishments and the like. May I ask for another thought on the 'Staff Corps'. I am sure that in the modern army, at least before 1985, officers of the rank of colonel and above belonged to the 'staff corps' and would be referred to when appropriate as Col Bloggs Staff Corps late RA for example. This may not have been the case in WW1 but then, I think, all staff officers wore what I called the staff corps badge rather than their regimental badge .

Old Tom

[Chris_Baker]

The charge referred to above was 'When acting as a sentinel on active service sleeping at his post', which hardly applies to a hard-pressed staff officer.

[centurion]

The charge referred to above was 'When acting as a sentinel on active service sleeping at his post', which hardly applies to a hard-pressed staff officer.

Someone might creep up and steal the paper clips though

More seriously I wonder how many mistakes ("we're cursing his staff for incompetent fools " Sassoon) were due to stress and exhaustion.

[Ron Clifton]

Tom

In WW1, apart from some specialist corps such as the RAMC, most officers of the rank of colonel and above would be described as "Col Bloggs late HLI" etc. Most of them served in staff appointments (or in command of formations) wore "staff distinctions" i.e. the red gorget tabs and a cap badge of the Royal Crest but there was no "Staff Corps" in as many words and hence you will not find a Staff Corps badge in any of the standard works. De facto, of course, these distinctions amounted to the badges a Staff Corps would have worn.

British officers serving in India belonged to the "Indian Staff Corps" but that was a less specific grouping and amounted in effect to a common pool of officers.

Some colonels belonging to the RA and the RE did remained badged to that corps when in appropriate senior technical appointments. Perhaps this was a throwback to the old Board of Ordnance days!

To some extent it is just a matter of nomenclature, though. You may recall a similar thread on "HQ Companies": something like them existed in fact but not in name.

Ron