Divisional Pioneers and Division creation

[geraint]

How did Army Command form new Great War Divisions, and specifically how was the Divisional Pioneer battalion chosen? The 47th Division prompted this - ALL brigades and battalions included were London battalions - apart for the divisional pioneer battalion which were the 4th RWF from the Wrexham area. Was there a criteria; or were battalions and brigades literally thrown together as they became available? The geographic criteria seemed to hold with some divisions - but it appears piece-meal in general.

Thanks

[dycer]

Geraint,

An unrepresentative answer,from the 8th Royal Scots History.

"In recognition of the excellent work the Battalion had done,and by reason of their adaptability for the work,the Battalion was,selected,on 27th July 1915,to be a Pioneer Battalion.Training for this work occupied the remainder of the month.

On 20th August,the Battalion severed its links with the 7th Division,moved to Bouzincourt,and became Pioneer Battalion to the 51st(Highland)Division."

I suppose it could be argued that there was sense in having a Scots Pioneer Battalion serving in the Highland Division but equally why did the Battalion not continue to serve as Pioneer one to 7th Division having been part of that Division from November 1914?

Sounds like the Army Council chose the Pioneer Battalions and allocated them to Divisions as they saw fit.

George

[Ian Riley]

How did Army Command form new Great War Divisions, and specifically how was the Divisional Pioneer battalion chosen? The 47th Division prompted this - ALL brigades and battalions included were London battalions - apart for the divisional pioneer battalion which were the 4th RWF from the Wrexham area. Was there a criteria; or were battalions and brigades literally thrown together as they became available? The geographic criteria seemed to hold with some divisions - but it appears piece-meal in general.

Thanks

More coal miners in Wrexham than in London? ... but as I type I can see them all being recalled to the pit at Gresford to keep British industry and shipping on the move.

I realise that there was more to being a pioneeer than simple digging and that substantial field engineering skills had to be developed as well as the fighting skills of the infantry, thus needing brain as well as brawn, but might there have been selection from battalions from areas that had a higher proprtion of those more attuned to manual work as opposed to 'commercials'?

Two battalions of the King's Liverpool Regiment Territorials were selected for 'Pioneer Training' during the summer of 1915, not however the 'smarter' office-oriented clerks of the 6th KLR (Liverpool Rifles) or the 10th KLR (Liverpool Scottish). Neither of the battalions that were chosen as pioneers went to that role when the 55th Division formed in France in January 1916; 1/4 South Lancs (the Warrington battalion) was given the task.

Ian

[Steven Broomfield]

Well, the 47th Division was a pre-war territorial formation, formed from battalions recruiting in the County of London: that makes sense. The Pioneer battalion was added during the war (can't tell you the date off hand, but in 1915), and it made sense to utilise battalions containing a high proprtion of men used to hard digging and labouring-type work.

As well as miners, agricultural workers, railway workers, and so on were preferred: if you look at the units which became Pioneer Battalions, you'll see most are from areas which cover that type of soldier.

As for the creation of divisions, well, as with the 47th, Territorail Divisions were geographically raised. The first and second groups of six divisions of the New Army (9th - 14th and 15th - 20th) were formed on the basis of the Army Commands in which the battalions were raised, such as Eastern (12th and 18th), Irish (10th and 16th) or Northern (11th and 17th), with the exception of Southern Command. The 14th and 20th Divisions were largly assembled from "light" units - Rifles and Light Infantry.

It all makes perfect sense.

[bantamforgot]

Don't forget the Western divisions 13th. / 19th.

Colin

[eltoro1960]

"I suppose it could be argued that there was sense in having a Scots Pioneer Battalion serving in the Highland Division but equally why did the Battalion not continue to serve as Pioneer one to 7th Division having been part of that Division from November 1914?"

George , it was decided that the 8th RS as a TF Battalion, could not be the Pioneer Battalion for 7th Division which was regulars, Army logic at it's best, this problem was solved as you say by placing with the 51st HD which was territorial. Seems strange when they had already fought alongside them.

Around 75% of the 8th Royal Scots were coal miners from the coal fields of East and Midlothian, hardy men and pretty nifty with a spade and pick. An old neighbour of mine ,Willie Clelland served with the 8th, as a laddie I watched him in his late 70's dig his garden over like lightning with his razor sharp spade and a bucket of water to keep it clean. He made it look effortless.

John

[geraint]

Thanks for the replies. There's an element of logic - the 4th RWF were also TF, and they had been recognised as being excellent diggers when they dug the Wrexham Tunnel under the double crasiers at Loos in record time. I suppose that an element of 'needs must' really kicked in during 1915, and utilising resources for the greater good made sense. I'm presuming that this occured throughout the Divisions and that the divisional pioneers were the geographical 'odd men out' in general.

[dycer]

Geraint,

I am currently reading "The Best 500-Cockney War Stories".(I've submitted a review in the "What WW1 Book are you reading",Thread.)

In one, the contributor recalls their Divisional Pioneer Battalion was the Monmouthshire Regiment,which comprised mainly Welsh Speakers.

The story contributor was a member of a ration party,taking rations to the Front-Line when some got lost and stumbled into the German Trenches.All returned bar one,a Cockney,who eventually turned up with his rations but mopping a bleeding face.His Colleagues explained that they thought he had been captured,by the Germans, to which he gasped "Germans,GERMANS! I thought they was the Monmouths!"

It would appear the Pioneer Battalions were posted ad hoc to Divisions,possibly with the exception of ensuring Regular served Regular,TF served TF,etc but with little regard to the origins of the individual Pioneer Battalions and whether their language,dialect,etc would cause operational problems.

George

[Chris_Baker]

The selection of the pioneers is explained in depth in K. W. (Bill) Mitchinson's "Pioneer Battalions in the Great War". (Barnsley: Pen & Sword, 1997)

[John_Hartley]

Dunno the how or why, but there's some accounts that 1/5th Cheshires were distinctly unthrilled about not being "proper soldiers" any more. Perhaps their CO pushed for it - he seems not to have been much respected by his junior officers (a lack of personal "offensive spirit", so to speak).

[David B]

Geraint,

Dunno how the Brits selected their pioneers but the Australians just seemed to select whoever they wanted at the time. My uncle first joined an infantry

battalion and virtually before he got his boots on was transferred to a pioneer unit. I mean, he was just a large strapping farmer, would this have made any difference ?

David

[dycer]

David,

I take Chris' point that, as far as we "Poms" are concerned,Bill Mitchinson's Book is the defining work on the subject.

Like you, though, I'm trying to work out how my Uncle's pre-War employment as a Postman qualified him to stay with the Battalion when it volunteered/was detailed, as a Pioneer one.

From the Battalion War Diary it is clear that at least in the early days of its Pioneer service the Machine Gun Section was given its fair share of manual tasks.Whether his Sgt's Rank,in the Section, avoided personal physical work and his specialism as a Machine-Gunner,allowed him to direct subordinates in physical tasks,other than the placing,sighting,etc of guns I do not know.

George

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

The pre-war TF included a number of independent brigades and battalions which did not form part of a division. Many of these were selected to become Pioneer battalions to either TF or Regular divisions although, in the case of the Welsh battalions e.g. 4/RWF and all three Monmouths battalions, skill in digging/mining looks to have been a contributing factor.

The First and Second New Armies each included eight battalions on unattached infantry, mostly from the southern counties which did not produce specific "Southern" divisions. Many of these, and the eighteen similar battalions in the Third New Army, became pioneer battalions but, as can bee seen in the cases of the three K.1 divisions sent to Gallipoli, these battalions (10/Hants in 10 Div, 5/Dorsets in 11 Div, and 5/Wilts in 13 Div) all joined brigades within these divisions, replacing 5/Royal Irish, 6/E Yorks and 8/Welsh respectively, all of which became Pioneers. A mining copnnection might explain at least the last two of these selections.

Ron

[dycer]

Ron,

I fully accept the points you raise.

You will appreciate I have a personal "interest" in the 8th Royal Scots.

If we discount personal interest,for the sake of discussion but using the Battalion as an example.

It was a pre-War TF Battalion,formed in a predominantly mining area,so presumably many of its members,at the outbreak of War,were from the mining communities.

Presumably pre-War,it was linked into a Divisional Command,but possibly to make up for early War losses,was sent piecemeal to France,in November 1914,and as its History meaningfully records it was the first TF Battalion attached to 7th Division.I should add that to bring it up to War strength,Companies from the 6th Royal Scots and 8th H.L.I. were attached to the Battalion.

It is clear from the Battalion War Diary and History, that its first role in France was digging communication trenches, was subjected to various inspections by Senior Command and attached to "experienced" Regular Battalions,in the front line,to determine if it was fit for purpose.

In the early 1915 attacks,it is clear,from its War Diary and History,the Battalion did not have a premier role but played a supporting part.I do not demean its supporting role as I lost a Relative,if I am allowed to declare "interest",holding the line.

If it can be used as a benchmark,a member of the attached 8th H.L.I.,was awarded the V.C..I fully accept,not in major battle,but this demonstrates the Battalion's prowess.

In July 1915 it was designated a Pioneer Battalion,and Jack Alexander,Author of the 16th Royal Scots Battalion Book,must have spoken to ex-8th Battalion men,serving at the time,who felt,their War Service and true worth had been overlooked when its subsequent role was decided.

It is also apparent,from its War Diary, that when the Battalion was sent to a quieter sector,from High Wood,in August 1916,the Senior Officer of 7th Division,was there to greet them off the train.

I would never dispute that the Divisional Pioneer role was required,in WW1,and the 8th Royal Scots were suited to the role.

But the Battalion seems to fall through two stools, when reviewing its role in WW1.

The survivors of the Highland Division,who committed their thought to word discounted its role in the Division.possibly because it was non-kilted.I'm sure a certain member of this Forum will be along shortly not only to extol the Battalion Football Team but also its Pipe Band.

Equally, having met 7th Division's exacting standards it was not allowed to continue its subordinate but important role, speaks volumes,or not?

I sympathise with the High Command,at the time, they realised the Royal Engineers required support,chose the 8th Royal Scots as an example,presumably confidential reports were submitted regarding the Battalion's ability prior ,to its selection,or lobbying by its C.O.?

Bill Mtchinson's Book will remain the definitive Book on the selection,role,pay etc of a Pioneer Battalion.

But it will always allow for debate.

George

[Ron Clifton]

Presumably pre-War,it was linked into a Divisional Command ...

George

Hello George

Actually it was not: in July 1914 it was attached to the Lothian Infantry Brigade which was itself independent of the Lowland Division and was earmarked for Scottish Coast Defences.

It may be for that reason - at least in part - which made its selection for Pioneer training rather more likely.

Like most of the early TF battalions, it had, as you make clear, a distinguished service in France when attached to 7th Division. Far be it from me to suggest in any way that those battalions selected as Pioneers were in any way less competent in ordinary infantry tactics than the battalions within infantry brigades in divisions! I think the non-divisional battalions were simply the ones which came first to mind when the War Office were nominating units for the Pioneer role.

Ron

[geraint]

Again, thanks to all for your detailed replies. There's a tendency for many to think of the pioneers as a 'second rate' battalion - and it's most heartening to read your replies showing the depth of interest and knowledge which you posses.

As with 5th Cheshires John, and the 8th RS George, - the 4th RWF were also 'unthrilled' at having been chosen, but rapidly enjoyed the work and grew into the role very quickly.

Ron! Where do you get your information from??

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Geraint

Pre-war TF affiliations from the Army List August 1914, and E A James' "British Regiments 1914-18"..

Non-divisional battalions and the "switches" with others, from the Army Orders of August 1914 forming the first three New Armies, and from A F Becke's "Order of Battle of Divisions", particularly Part 3A.

It so happens that I am preparing a talk for my local WFA Branch on 25 April, pointing out that not all the men who fought at Gallipoli were ANZACs!

Ron

[hooge1]

Glad to see a post on the Pioneers!!

A good little history of the 20th battalion Kings Royal Rifle Corps (Pioneers) free download http://www.archive.org/details/20thbattbelpione00turbuoft

I think the final page by Capt A. S. Turberville MC says it all

The work was of a most arduous character, and demanded a heavy physical effort and much endurance. It is a hard life to have to march night after night over foul, heavy roads or tracks for five or six miles, heavily laden with bulky implements and materials for much of the way, after that to put in some six or eight, or even on occasion some twelve, continuous hours of strenuous muscular labour, and then march back those five or six miles again. When it is remembered that the work was most often done in darkness, frequently in torrents of rain, deep in mud or slush, in the midst of shells and bullets and with the chance of death an ever present factor, it will be realised that the strain on the nerves was even greater than the physical strain. This was particularly the case with officers and N.C.O.'s who had the responsibility of carrying through the work, often when plans unavoidably miscarried owing to enemy action and conditions seemed to render success impossible. The work may have been only the digging of a ditch or the erection of a wire fence-inglorious enough it sounds-but it cost much in thought and resolution and effort, and often in human life to do such work, and, however notable and distinguished old 20th men may become in their civilian occupation in the future, they will never accomplish anything of which they have better right to be proud than those pioneering jobs they saw carried through in France. Many good men died, many more were wounded, injured or broken, by the work the 20th K.R.R.C. were called upon to perform. Less showy, less well advertised than that of some other arm in the services, it was not less dangerous or responsible or necessary than theirs. Indeed it was the essential work-that of defending, strengthening and advancing that British Line which protected our shores and kept our homes inviolate.

Nick

[dycer]

Ron,

Again if I loosely refer to the 8th Royal Scots.

I attended a talk some years ago, from a researcher of the 7th Cheshires.

He,obviously stressed its importance and prestige and readiness after the War was declared but was somewhat taken aback when I asked him why his TF Battalion, which he obviously "loved" ,had not gone to France in the early Months of the War.

He quite reasonably responded by saying the 7th Cheshires formed part of the Welsh Division whose Commander wished his Division to serve as an entity.

As the 7th Cheshires did not recruit from a mining area I am not suggesting they would have been suitable for the Pioneer role.

But it seems that at least one unattached Battalion,who went to France in 1914,were designated as Pioneers.

I possess some pre-War photos of the 8th RS,at camp and indeed if you access the photo-gallery section of John Duncan's web-site-Newbattle at War-you will see them and also photos of the Battalion, in France and its transition to the Pioneer role.

Certainly the pre-War Camp photos give no indication of their role in event of War,and none of the Camps,seem to have been held at the seaside.

I am content to accept the 8th Royal Scots were nobody's baby,and the Powers that be identified and designated its ultimate role,in the defeat of the then enemy.

As Geraint has said,the Pioneers worth is often overlooked when WW1 is discussed and equally it should be recognised that Battalions,who served as Pioneer ones,were spared the losses of men,that the "illustrious" Battalions accepted.

But losses from a Pioneer Battalion are no less harder to accept today as they were 90 years ago as my Christian Name signifies.

George