Height Conditions

[Robert Malpass]

Good evening

Could anyone please advise me why my Grandfather may have been an exception to the rule of height conditions when he enlisted in January 1915.

He was just 5'-1", height restrictions at this time I think were were 5'-3" then being relaxed in February 1915 to 5'-2".

I Would be very grateful for any views on this topic.

Robert.

[KevinBattle]

Your guesses will be as good as anyone else. He obviously wanted to enlist, would you deny him that right 95 years on?

It may be the time of night but I honestly cannot understand why you would ask such a question.... How do you know he was only 5 foot 1 inch, and not 5 foot 4 inches for instance? Recruitment Officers weren't overly picky if they had an enthusiastic volunteer, look at how many under age lads were signed up before being found out. You don't state his Regiment, presumably not Grenadier Guards, but there were many "Bantam" units, he could have been a giant amongst them.

[SiegeGunner]

Men lied about their age, Robert - perhaps he lied about his height ...

A man who was 5'1" in his stockinged feet would surely be 5'2" in army boots. Do you have documented evidence of his exact height, and perhaps a photograph of him?

[Nigel Marshall]

The shorter man made no lesser a soldier.

Sgt Albert Mountain VC, West Yorkshire Regiment - 5'1" tall.

On 26 March 1918 at Hamelincourt, France, when the situation was critical, Sergeant Mountain with a party of 10 men attacked an advance enemy patrol of about 200 strong with a Lewis gun, killing half of them. The sergeant then rallied his men in the face of overwhelming numbers of the main body of the enemy, to cover the retirement of the rest of the company - this party of one NCO and four men held at bay 600 of the enemy for half an hour. Sergeant Mountain later took command of the flank post of the battalion, holding on for 27 hours until finally surrounded.

Pte William Boynton Butler VC, West Yokshire Regiment - 5'1" tall.

On 6 August 1917 east of Lempire, France, Private Butler was in charge of a Stokes gun in trenches which were being heavily shelled. Suddenly one of the fly-off levers of a Stokes shell came off and fired the shell in the emplacement. Private Butler picked up the shell and shouted a warning to a party of infantry. He then turned and put himself between the party of men and the live shell, holding it until they were out of danger, when he threw it on to the parados and took cover. The shell exploded, damaging the trench, but only contusing Private Butler.

In one of Lyn MacDonald's books, Somme, I think, the story is told of how an underage boy fooled the recruiting staff by packing newspaper into a pair of boots he borrowed from a friend to make him taller and, therefore, to appear older. Other tales from Macdonald's books include one in which a group of friends attempt to join up together. Six or so of the friends pass the medical without any trouble, but the last was going to be failed, until the rest of the group informed the staff that if one man was refused the rest of the group would refuse and they would lose the services of the whole group. The unfit man was duly passed and the men enlisted together.

I know neither of the stories are specifically about short men, but it wouldn't take much adjustment to make them fit your grandfather's case.

The Army was indeed thankful it had the Bantams when it needed them.

Cheers,

Nigel

This is post no. 1914

[bantamforgot]

I don't think height was a problem at anytime but if your relative was indeed 5' 1" he would have been superior in this to many others. As for details of his height wouldn't this be on his enlistment papers or other documents if available. I know the details of my grandfathers height from his medical insurance book from 1912.

As Nigel states "welcomed" (not by all) at a period during the war but alas neglected & almost forgotten by the Army.

Take the case of Henry Thridgould 4' 9" as per attached, courtesy of Sidney Allinson author of "The Bantams"..

Colin.

[Muerrisch]

From my article in ST!, Infantry of the Line only.

Date Minimum height

Pre war 5ft 3ins

7/8th Aug 1914 5ft 3ins

27/28th Aug 1914 5ft 3ins

11th Sep 1914 5ft 6ins except ex-soldiers

11th Oct 1914 5ft 5ins

23rd Oct 1914 5ft 4ins

5th Nov 1914 5ft 3ins

Feb 1915 5ft 2ins

May 1915 5ft 1in

31st May 1915 5ft 2 ins

sorry: the software has b******d my tabulation.

[bantamforgot]

Don't you regard the "Bantams" as infantry of the line Grumpy?

Colin.

[SiegeGunner]

Robert has posted elsewhere that his grandfather was a signaller. Perhaps he could post his full unit details here.

In praise of little blokes, the poem 'The British Bantams' contains the verse:

Each one a pocket Hercules

Five feet and a bit

A sort of Bovril essence

Of six foot British grit

[stoj22]

Don't you regard the "Bantams" as infantry of the line Grumpy?

Colin.

He better do!

[Muerrisch]

Don't you regard the "Bantams" as infantry of the line Grumpy?

Colin.

I fear I do not understand your question.

My tabulation is for ALL infantry other than Guards, which is what 'Infantry of the Line' usually means. It therefore includes Bantams.

Amongst my other crimes against humanity, I wrote 'The Blast of War', the history of 15th Notts & Derbys, Bantams.

[truthergw]

As someone who has been described as height challenged I can confirm that being very short and light in stature is a handicap when it comes to tasks which require physical effort. That is simply a physical fact and does not reflect on the short person. Much of the soldiers' work was simply that, hard manual labour. Carrying materials up to the line, along trenches and over broken ground had the strongest of men exhausted. The smaller man would find that even harder. There are exceptions. In mining areas, it was common to find men who lacked height but were very well developed in every other way. Just over 5 foot but with a 44" chest and well developed arms with a bull neck. This type can be seen in many of the areas where collieries were worked. No problem here as far as the work is concerned, quite the reverse. But there were still drawbacks. A trench built to shelter men of 5'6" to 5'9" in height was awkward for a man of 5'1". Vice versa. Very tall men also suffered from their height. Where Bantams really suffered was when they were recruited from the men I described earlier. Not only short but lightly built. There is a problem of supply as well. Not only uniforms but all kit needs to be made or adapted. A .303 with bayonet of the time becomes extremely unwieldy when in the hands of these men. The sheer weight of a Vickers or a trench mortar and ammunition becomes a tactical factor. Only a fool would question their desire to serve or their bravery but more thought should have been given to the manner in which they were asked to serve. Putting them into the trenches was a mistake and a waste of a valuable resource.

[west coast]

this was posted on the forum some time ago, i can`t recall by who or what was the topic .

cheers , mike.

[SiegeGunner]

And this one was also posted around the same time (apologies for not remembering who by):

[SiegeGunner]

As someone who has been described as height challenged ...

A gross calumny if ever I heard one ...

[west coast]

the height requirment for the irish guards were, under 20yrs= 5 ft 7ins, over 20yrs 5ft 8ins. my question , what becomes of the men who don`t grow to 5/8. and is there any records of "short guards". just curious.

mike.

[stoj22]

The shorter the man, the longer the coat...!!

[bantamforgot]

Grumpy, Yes I am well aware of your excellent book (in my library)hence my query, your list of heights etc. shows just

how wrong some specs. are/were. there were many thousands of under sized Bantams in the Army long before the dates given.

Tom,

The Bantams, especially the 35th. Div. mismanaged from the start showed what they were capable of later in the Somme battles & who would deny that the 40th. (albeit not all Bantams) could & would equal any soldier at Bourlon Wood.

Colin.

[Muerrisch]

Grumpy, Yes I am well of your excellent book (in my library)hence my query, your list of heights etc. shows just

how wrong some specs. are/were. there were many thousands of under sized Bantams in the Army long before the dates given.

Colin.

I can accept that there were a few soldiers [not 'boys', but soldiers 18 years and over] who did not meet the height criteria before bantams were officially recruited.

However, I find difficulty with 'thousands' which, if true, would be most interesting.

May I ask for your source for this figure, please?

[bantamforgot]

Grumpy ,I was talking about the Bantams, the 35th. Div. in particular , you must know their history?

Colin.

[Muerrisch]

I think we have crossed wires here.

Let me try again.

Are you saying that there were thousand of Bantams shorter than 5ft 1"?

What date do you accept the first Bantam unit was raised?

[truthergw]

A gross calumny if ever I heard one ...

A photoshop job that. I am standing in an extremely deep hole and Padre was perched on a bucket. Or was it the other way round? Mind, if we were about to be sent to a frontline trench, I know who I'd rather be.

[Muerrisch]

I carry my own deep hole around with me: it gets used in every photo.

[Muerrisch]

I carry my own deep hole around with me: it gets used in every photo.

The hole is invisible, but its there.

I also lose to her at arm-wrestling.

[truthergw]

...................................

Tom,

The Bantams, especially the 35th. Div. mismanaged from the start showed what they were capable of later in the Somme battles & who would deny that the 40th. (albeit not all Bantams) could & would equal any soldier at Bourlon Wood.

Colin.

I totally agree, I would wouldn't I, but my point is that these men could and should have been used in better ways. There was no shortage of men of average height to man the trenches. The Bantams had a unique attribute which was ignored in exactly the same way that skilled men who ought to have served with RE were dressed in khaki suit and handed a rifle. There were many jobs where lack of height was no disadvantage and could even be an advantage. The men who were formed into Bantam battalions ought instead to have been filtered off to these jobs. This is part of a larger picture where the resources which lay in the population were wasted with a staggering lack of imagination. All of this was recognised at the time and was part of the reason why calls for national service were made from the very beginning and even before. General conscription was only part of that idea. The other was for men to be directed to the job which would best utilise their potential. If that had been done from the start, we might have seen young women with time on their hands and access to a supply of feathers, directed to bedding factories.

[truthergw]

The hole is invisible, but its there.

I also lose to her at arm-wrestling.

I see she brought a gang of toughs in case you made a break for it. You had no chance mate.