Army Corps - Italy

[Ruth Ward]

Hello

I would be very grateful if someone could clarify for me which Army Corps 293 SB were with from the end of December 1917 to 1st April 1918. I'm particularly interested in the whole of January 1918. The sources I am using are not clear (to me) and I suspect 1 or 2 of them may contain errors. There again, it might just be me being dim.

Italy was 293's second theatre, going out on 18.12.17. They arrived 23.12.17 and joined 104 HAG 31.12.17. They finally joined 94 HAG 12.1.18 with no subsequent change. (Info courtesy of Op-Ack & confirmed in war diaries).

The unit war diary says they were inspected by G.O.C. RA on 29/12/17. Inspected by O.C. X1th on 1/1/18 & the Brigade diary says that on 9/1/18 The counter-battery Staff-Officer, X1 Corps, took over counter-battery with the V111th Italian Corps. 12/1/18 H.A. & section moved to position at Spressiano under 94th H.A. group in Italian army - move ordered as temporary. 27/1/18 G.O.C. Heavy artillery, X1th corps took over the H.A. control in the area Nervesa-Casa Palazzon. 4/2/18 Inspection by G.O.C. RA. 6/2/18 Battery inspection by CinC. 12/4/18 Inspection by G.O.C. H.A.

I also need to establish whether they came under the command of any of the Italian armies (Italian 3rd?) during this time.

References would be extremely useful, too.

Many thanks

Ruth

ps My knowldege of Army structures is very limited.

Edit: Additional info from war diaries added

[nigelfe]

According to Farndale 'The Forgotten Fronts and Homebase 1914-18', 104 Heavy Artillery Group (Lt Col WHB Jacob) de-trained in Italy from France on 31 Dec 1917. It was part of major reinforcemnt of the Italian Front (responding to the disaster of Caporetta), 104 HAG was one of 4 HAGs, 4 Army Field Bdes, an AA Group, an Air Bde RFC not forgetting 11 Corps HQ with 5 and 48 Inf Divs and their organic artillery. This joined the recently arrived 14 Corps (Lt Gen the Lord Cavan) with 7, 23, 41 Inf Divs) under overall command of the newly arrived Gen Plummer establishing the British GHQ (Italy) and his MGRA Maj Gen CR Buckle. 94 and 95 HAGs had arrived early in 1917, lack of heavy artillery was an Italian weakness.

293 Siege Bty arrived with 104 HAG.

However, in early 1918 the RGA was reorganised. Groups were abolished and standard Brigades intoduced. This was significnat in France, probably less so in other theatres. A Group was an HQ and batteries (heavy or siege) were assigned to or removed from it as necessary. A Brigade RGA was a fixed organisation. In France there were three types of Brigade RGA (Mixed (CB dedicated), Howitzer and Mobile) with different combinations of btys in terms of their types of gun and howitzer. However, in Italy there was only a few 60-pr btys and almost nothing bigger than 6-in How so organisationally the new RGA org was irrelevant.

The first three months of 1918 were quiet, there were no British operations of importnace although CB was continuous (as per Brtish doctrine). 11 and 14 Corps were both in the line side by side.

In the spring Plummer returned to France, with 41 Div and 11 Corps HQ, and Cavan took over. However, at some point, possibly about 6 Jan 1918 293 Bty joined 15 HAG and moved to support 1st Italian Army in the area Brenta-Asiago where it was joined by other HAGs in early April as part of 14 Corps. A major enemy offensive was expected in mid June, both 15 and 94 Brigades had CB roles. I think the Commander Heavy Arty 14 Corps was Brig-Gen TRC Hudson and GOCRA B-G Wardop).

By October the planned Piave offensive had 14 Corps redeploy to there, with 7 & 23 Divs, leaving 48 Div under the Italian 12 Corps. However, the RGA redployment is unclear, some bdes remained with 48 Div while others went with 14 Corps. It also seems that by Nov 293 Bty were part of 94 Bde, but when they left 15 is unclear.

The GOCRA commanded all artillery assigned to a corps, the Commander Heavy Artillery (same rank) was subordinate to him. The CBSO was on the GOCRA's staff but invariably located with the heavy arty HQ!

[Ruth Ward]

Many, many thanks for going to the trouble of posting all this information, Nigelfe. It's much appreciated. However, (& unfortunately) I'm still a bit confused - not down to you I hasten to add - I'm just struggling to understand which Corps/Army 293 SB were with.

As of 31/12/17 293 SB were with 104 HAG which was attached to X1th Corps -?

As of 12/1/18 293 SB joined 94 HAG (-brigade war diary), which was attached to X1th Corps (-?), which in turn was under command Italian Army (-brigade war diary) - ? (Which one?)

The official history of the medical services in Italy says that, "The British artillery groups were attached to this corps...", which I take to mean X1th Corps (headquarters) mentioned at the beginning of the previous paragraph. However, it also says that the X1th formed part of a mixed British, French & Italian force under General Duchesne of the French 10th Army. (p.337).

I will add all the relevant info I've got to my original post in the hope it will help.

Thanks again

Ruth

[ororkep]

Ruth,

It is rather complicated so I will try and simplify it as much as possible…..

First all the sources you have written from are correct. On the 31^st December 1917, 293 under Major Snowdon were in 104 Brigade, XI Corps (HQ at Loreggia where 293 were inspected) which was detailed to act under the command of General Maistre of the X French army with 64^th French Division and XXX Italian Corps (for tactical purposes).

On the 10.1.1918 certain units were ordered on attachment to 3^rd Italian Army (49^th Raggruppamento Asiedo-Col. Gatto) to carry out CB work in the area North of Treviso which was in the Italian VIII Corps area. This area was further divided into zones. In the zone 94 Brigade was responsible for as one of the cooperating units, reconnaissance of the area indicated an imbalance of allied guns to that of the enemy, in favour of the enemy so changes were made. Thus 293 along with others came to join 94 Bde on the 12.1.1918 (still XI Corps).

Rgds

Paul

[nigelfe]

Farndale states that 293 joined 15 HAG in early 1918. At some point they joined 94 HAG because that's who they were with on 11/11/18.

11 Corps HQ was only in Italy for a short time, 14 Corps was there for the duration. In spring 1918 British forces there were reduced and moved back to France to face the anticipated German offensive, hence 11 Corps HQ left or disbanded, since it was on the BEF ORBAT on 11/11/18 it would seem that it returned to France.

British corps were not fixed organisations, divisions could and did come and go, the same applies to corps units such as HAGs.

There was no British Army HQ in Italy, and my understanding is that Plummers GHQ did not act as one. This means that British corps would have been subordinate to an Italian HQ, either an Army or higher.

Farndale, pg 183 state "very litle occurred between 1st January and 10th March 1918 when Plummer handed command back to Lord Cavan and returned to France. The British were not engaged in operations of any importance. They took over more of the line with 11th Corps coming up on the right of 14th Corps. Air activity and counter-battery work continued relentlessly. 15th HAG with three siege batteries was moved in support of the Italian Fist Army in the north (171st, 240th and 293rd Siege Batteries). 94th HAG (302nd, 307th, 315th, 316th, 317th Siege Batteries) was moved to the Italian Fourth Army Sector at Asiago."

Comment. The five btys listed in 94 HAG are the same five that arrived with the HAG from Aldershot in about May 1917 (Farndale pg 174). By 11/11/18 302 and 307 were in 15 Bde RGA with its original 155 Heavy, 171 & 197 Siege Btys (the HAG arrived with only 3 btys). On 11/11/18 104 Bde comprised 19 Heavy, 240, 390, 391 & 438 Siege Btys (19, 240 & 438 arrived with the Bde in Italy, 390 & 391 had originally joined 95 HAG in Italy in July 1817).

Farndale pg 181 has a photo of a "6-inch 30 cwt howitzer of 293rd Siege Battery, Italy, 1918", the gun detachment and section comd seem to be a jolly bunch, but there's no ammo or other signs of it being an in-action position and I suspect its a staged photo away from the front.

Farndale pg 184: "A major offensive was planned for the Italian front northwards up the valley of the River Brenta with the Italian 20th Corps on the right, the French 12th Corps in the centre and the British 14th Corps on the left directed at Asiago. The only British troops remaining in Italy were by then 7th, 23rd and 48th Divisions and 15th, 24th, 80th, 94th and 104th Heavy Artillery Groups RGA, these consisting of 19th, 90th, 155th, and 1/1st Warwickshire Heqavy batteries (each 6 x 60 pr (24)) and 105th, 137th, 171st, 172nd, 176th, 181st, 197th, 229th, 240th, 247th, 289th, 294th, 302nd, 307th, 315th, 316th, 317th, 390th, 391st and 438th Siege Batteries (each 4x6-inch howitzers (80) and one 9.2-ich howitzer."

Comment: 294th should be 293rd (F. pg 389)

"The new plans meant that 14th (British) Corps had to move north to the Asiago area and it was relieved at Montello by the Italian 51st and 58th Divisions. . . . The heavies remained in the Montello area. 80th HAG with 51st (Italian) Division and 24th, 94th and 104th Batteries remained under command 8th (Italian) Corps. This left only 15th HAG in action spread between the Brenta and Asiago where it had been since 6th January 1918. However, it was then decide3d to concentrate this Group under 14th (British) Corps and to move the other four Groups up to join it; this occured in early April."

[Ruth Ward]

Ruth,

It is rather complicated so I will try and simplify it as much as possible…..

First all the sources you have written from are correct. On the 31^st December 1917, 293 under Major Snowdon were in 104 Brigade, XI Corps (HQ at Loreggia where 293 were inspected) which was detailed to act under the command of General Maistre of the X French army with 64^th French Division and XXX Italian Corps (for tactical purposes).

On the 10.1.1918 certain units were ordered on attachment to 3^rd Italian Army (49^th Raggruppamento Asiedo-Col. Gatto) to carry out CB work in the area North of Treviso which was in the Italian VIII Corps area. This area was further divided into zones. In the zone 94 Brigade was responsible for as one of the cooperating units, reconnaissance of the area indicated an imbalance of allied guns to that of the enemy, in favour of the enemy so changes were made. Thus 293 along with others came to join 94 Bde on the 12.1.1918 (still XI Corps).

Rgds

Paul

Many thanks for this Paul.

Am I right in thinking, then, that 293 SB (via 94 HAG), despite being "attached to" the Italian Army were, on a day-to-day, practical level still, ultimately, under command of the British Army? One of the things I am trying to get at is at which level/s, if any, the Italian Army/Corps (or French) had command over X1th Corps? Was it more a diplomatic thing, so that the Italians, technically (& publically) were seen to be in overall command, but the reality was that X1th Corps was still fully under the command of the British Army (& therefore, British sick & wounded still had full access to the British medical services that had been set up)?

Are your notes from the official history - Forgotten Fronts - Farndale?

Ruth

[Ruth Ward]

Many, many thanks for your trouble (& patience), Nigelfe.

It is going to take me a while to go through the information & make sure I understand it all etc. No doubt I will have 1 or 2 more questions by then.

Ruth

quote name='nigelfe' timestamp='1312603184' post='1627047']

Farndale states that 293 joined 15 HAG in early 1918. At some point they joined 94 HAG because that's who they were with on 11/11/18.

11 Corps HQ was only in Italy for a short time, 14 Corps was there for the duration. In spring 1918 British forces there were reduced and moved back to France to face the anticipated German offensive, hence 11 Corps HQ left or disbanded, since it was on the BEF ORBAT on 11/11/18 it would seem that it returned to France.

British corps were not fixed organisations, divisions could and did come and go, the same applies to corps units such as HAGs.

There was no British Army HQ in Italy, and my understanding is that Plummers GHQ did not act as one. This means that British corps would have been subordinate to an Italian HQ, either an Army or higher.

Farndale, pg 183 state "very litle occurred between 1st January and 10th March 1918 when Plummer handed command back to Lord Cavan and returned to France. The British were not engaged in operations of any importance. They took over more of the line with 11th Corps coming up on the right of 14th Corps. Air activity and counter-battery work continued relentlessly. 15th HAG with three siege batteries was moved in support of the Italian Fist Army in the north (171st, 240th and 293rd Siege Batteries). 94th HAG (302nd, 307th, 315th, 316th, 317th Siege Batteries) was moved to the Italian Fourth Army Sector at Asiago."

Comment. The five btys listed in 94 HAG are the same five that arrived with the HAG from Aldershot in about May 1917 (Farndale pg 174). By 11/11/18 302 and 307 were in 15 Bde RGA with its original 155 Heavy, 171 & 197 Siege Btys (the HAG arrived with only 3 btys). On 11/11/18 104 Bde comprised 19 Heavy, 240, 390, 391 & 438 Siege Btys (19, 240 & 438 arrived with the Bde in Italy, 390 & 391 had originally joined 95 HAG in Italy in July 1817).

Farndale pg 181 has a photo of a "6-inch 30 cwt howitzer of 293rd Siege Battery, Italy, 1918", the gun detachment and section comd seem to be a jolly bunch, but there's no ammo or other signs of it being an in-action position and I suspect its a staged photo away from the front.

Farndale pg 184: "A major offensive was planned for the Italian front northwards up the valley of the River Brenta with the Italian 20th Corps on the right, the French 12th Corps in the centre and the British 14th Corps on the left directed at Asiago. The only British troops remaining in Italy were by then 7th, 23rd and 48th Divisions and 15th, 24th, 80th, 94th and 104th Heavy Artillery Groups RGA, these consisting of 19th, 90th, 155th, and 1/1st Warwickshire Heqavy batteries (each 6 x 60 pr (24)) and 105th, 137th, 171st, 172nd, 176th, 181st, 197th, 229th, 240th, 247th, 289th, 294th, 302nd, 307th, 315th, 316th, 317th, 390th, 391st and 438th Siege Batteries (each 4x6-inch howitzers (80) and one 9.2-ich howitzer."

Comment: 294th should be 293rd (F. pg 389)

"The new plans meant that 14th (British) Corps had to move north to the Asiago area and it was relieved at Montello by the Italian 51st and 58th Divisions. . . . The heavies remained in the Montello area. 80th HAG with 51st (Italian) Division and 24th, 94th and 104th Batteries remained under command 8th (Italian) Corps. This left only 15th HAG in action spread between the Brenta and Asiago where it had been since 6th January 1918. However, it was then decide3d to concentrate this Group under 14th (British) Corps and to move the other four Groups up to join it; this occured in early April."

[Seany]

I'm confused - depending upon which source you use 293 were either under 15 HAG or 94 HAG at the same time

[nigelfe]

Given that British ammunition was totally different to anything used by the Italian army, and Brtish troops would almost certainly be extremely unimpressed by Italian rations (if there were such things) then British units would have to have been supplied by the ASC. Obviously discipline remained with the British chain of command.

In WW1 the British army really only had two C&C relationships 'command' and 'support'. Command also meant there was a chain of command - a Corps Commander did not directly command every platoon! Support, for artillery, meant delivering firepower as needed, and in this case probably planning/coordination of positioning.

British corps could be under command of an Italian Army, but there would have been some agreement about their task. To understand who was responsible for what the place to start would be the GHQ Italy war diaries, which, hopefully, include copies of operation orders/administrative instructions.

[Ruth Ward]

Given that British ammunition was totally different to anything used by the Italian army, and Brtish troops would almost certainly be extremely unimpressed by Italian rations (if there were such things) then British units would have to have been supplied by the ASC. Obviously discipline remained with the British chain of command.

In WW1 the British army really only had two C&C relationships 'command' and 'support'. Command also meant there was a chain of command - a Corps Commander did not directly command every platoon! Support, for artillery, meant delivering firepower as needed, and in this case probably planning/coordination of positioning.

British corps could be under command of an Italian Army, but there would have been some agreement about their task. To understand who was responsible for what the place to start would be the GHQ Italy war diaries, which, hopefully, include copies of operation orders/administrative instructions.

Have you any knowledge of how the Medical Services fitted into the general scheme of things? The official history gives me the impression that the Medical Services were responsible, on the whole, for the treatment & evacuation of sick & wounded BEF - even when the corps or brigade was attached to an Italian Army/Corps.

Ruth

[nigelfe]

Well, if trains were involved in casualty evacuation they would almost certainly have been Italian and run by Italians but with British medical staff.

I'd assume there were the usual corps and lower level facilities (Regimental Aid Posts, Casualty Clearing Stations, Field Hospitals and motor ambulance units for transport). Behind the corps rear boundary there would have been British Line of Communications units, probably including Base/General Hospital(s). Not sure where they would be, perhaps Vincenza, if this was the British base area?

I'd expect the force medical plan to be something produced by GHQ Italy, each corps and possibly division dealing with treatment and evacuation in its Admin Instruction. It will all have been written, it's what staff officers in HQs do, you can't run wars any other way.

[Ruth Ward]

Well, if trains were involved in casualty evacuation they would almost certainly have been Italian and run by Italians but with British medical staff.

I'd assume there were the usual corps and lower level facilities (Regimental Aid Posts, Casualty Clearing Stations, Field Hospitals and motor ambulance units for transport). Behind the corps rear boundary there would have been British Line of Communications units, probably including Base/General Hospital(s). Not sure where they would be, perhaps Vincenza, if this was the British base area?

I'd expect the force medical plan to be something produced by GHQ Italy, each corps and possibly division dealing with treatment and evacuation in its Admin Instruction. It will all have been written, it's what staff officers in HQs do, you can't run wars any other way.

Trains were used. If I've understood the text correctly, it seems that, prior to the BEF arriving in late 1917, arrangements were in hand to establish a 'new line of communication', which went from Treviso & Mestre through Arquata (the base), Cremona, Genoa and on to France. The Mediterranean L of C, which had been used previously, was then given over to the French forces.

What I wonder about, is how things worked on a day-to-day practical level when corps of different nationalities were working together - did they share facilities, for example, or were they duplicated/segregated - particularly when resources were scarce? It would be interesting to read some of the documents produced by GHQ Italy.

Ruth

[nigelfe]

I'd guess that they were generally separate. Hospitals would have probably been in suitable large buildings, presumably requisitioned under Italian military law.

[Heid the Ba]

There is a related thread here.

Was it the BEF in Italy? I have seen it referred to as the IEF but can't see that designation on the LLT.

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

From what I've read, it does seem that Italian control of the British forces in Italy was purely at the operational level. For all supply and support services, including medical facilities, and for administrative purposes, the British force was self-supporting. In the same way, the BEF in France, even when placed under French generals (Nivelle and Foch) were fully self-contained for these purposes.

Towards the end of the war, Lord Cavan was actually appointed to command an Italian Army (12th, I think) within which the three remaining British divisions were serving.

Ron

[Ruth Ward]

There is a related thread here.

Was it the BEF in Italy? I have seen it referred to as the IEF but can't see that designation on the LLT.

Yes, it was the BEF - perhaps IEF was a typo?

Thanks for the link. It's strange it should mention 'San Martino' Hospital at Genoa - Skirth says he was treated at San Martino hospital just outside Vincenza, but I guess there could be more than one.

[Ruth Ward]

I'd guess that they were generally separate. Hospitals would have probably been in suitable large buildings, presumably requisitioned under Italian military law.

The history of the Medical Services certainly gives the impression that they were separate. However, I've found an entry in the 94th brigade war diary for July 1918 - General Narrative, stating that, "Whilst the Batteries were at Tiarno di Sotto arrangements for an Italian M.O. to inspect the sick were made, and for the men to have hot baths." Presumably this was a rare enough occurrence for it to be mentioned in the GN? I haven't come across any other refs in the WD.

[Ruth Ward]

According to the unit war diary, 293 SB joined 85th HAG 7/11/17, but there is no ref to say when they joined 104th HAG. Did they join on 31/12/17, or before then? (A source I can quote in my research would be very useful).

Any suggestions as to how I can deal with the conflicting accounts of which HAGS/Corps 293 SB were with in my research? Do I refer to the one Nigelfe quoted in an end note? What reason do I give for the conflicting accounts ? (Does this sort of thing happen a lot?)

Ruth

ps Sorry about all the questions.

[Heid the Ba]

Yes, it was the BEF - perhaps IEF was a typo?

Thanks for the link. It's strange it should mention 'San Martino' Hospital at Genoa - Skirth says he was treated at San Martino hospital just outside Vincenza, but I guess there could be more than one.

Definitely not a typo, could be an informal designation though.

San Martino is (among other things) the patron saint of the poor and beggars so I imagine most poorhouses and many hospitals are named after him.

[Ron Clifton]

Definitely not a typo, could be an informal designation though.

San Martino is (among other things) the patron saint of the poor and beggars so I imagine most poorhouses and many hospitals are named after him.

IEF was the designation used for the various forces sent out by the Government of India. IEF "A" was the original Indian Corps in France; IEF "D" was the force sent to Mesopotamia. There were others, lettered up to G.

St Martin is also the patron saint of soldiers. Coincidentally, his feast day is on 11 November.

Ron

[Ron Clifton]

According to the unit war diary, 293 SB joined 85th HAG 7/11/17, but there is no ref to say when they joined 104th HAG. Did they join on 31/12/17, or before then? (A source I can quote in my research would be very useful).

Any suggestions as to how I can deal with the conflicting accounts of which HAGS/Corps 293 SB were with in my research? Do I refer to the one Nigelfe quoted in an end note? What reason do I give for the conflicting accounts ? (Does this sort of thing happen a lot?)

Ruth

ps Sorry about all the questions.

Ruth

The primary source for the order of battle of the British forces in Italy is this file at the National Archives:

WO 95/5472 Italy 1917 Nov. - 1919 Mar.

Both Farndale and the British Official History, Military Operations, Italy will give you information on the allocations of batteries to HAGs and, later, to brigades RGA.

During 1917 the allocation of batteries to HAGs was a variable matter, depending on availability and ther needs of the moment, but from Feb 1918 all HAGs were converted to Brigades RGA, with the same numbers, and thereafter there were very few movements of batteries between them. As far as I can see from the sources, 293 SB remained with 94 (9.2" Howitzer) Brigade RGA, formerly 94 HAG, from Feb 1918 until the end of the war.

This file at Kew:

WO 95/5494 Locations of Army Units 1914-1919

contains sveral sub-files, one of which covers the allocations of RGA siege batteries to HAGs and Brigades in detail.

Ron

[Ruth Ward]

Ruth

The primary source for the order of battle of the British forces in Italy is this file at the National Archives:

WO 95/5472 Italy 1917 Nov. - 1919 Mar.

Both Farndale and the British Official History, Military Operations, Italy will give you information on the allocations of batteries to HAGs and, later, to brigades RGA.

During 1917 the allocation of batteries to HAGs was a variable matter, depending on availability and ther needs of the moment, but from Feb 1918 all HAGs were converted to Brigades RGA, with the same numbers, and thereafter there were very few movements of batteries between them. As far as I can see from the sources, 293 SB remained with 94 (9.2" Howitzer) Brigade RGA, formerly 94 HAG, from Feb 1918 until the end of the war.

This file at Kew:

WO 95/5494 Locations of Army Units 1914-1919

contains sveral sub-files, one of which covers the allocations of RGA siege batteries to HAGs and Brigades in detail.

Ron

Many thanks for the information & sources, Ron

Ruth

[nigelfe]

See post #2.

In Italy they didn't have the three types of standard Bde RGA as they did in France, because there were almost no heavy howitzers. In Italy there was just a single 9.2" How on 11/11/18 according to Farndale, but I've a vague idea I've seen something about this expanding to a bty or at least full section, and another 6" How bty converting to 8". Furthermore, while 60-pr btys in Italy expanded to 6 guns (unlike other theatres outside France), 6" How btys remained at 4 guns.

[ororkep]

Ruth,

I first spotted the potential anomaly in the book years before 293 ever became the topic of discussions on this forum. Realising that it questioned the validity of the allocations, not just for 293 but other batteries in the theatre as well, I went out of my way to check everything, and database and catalogue it all. You ask "Does this sort of thing happen a lot?" I would reply thankfully not, but even prime sources can contain errors, but it can be very difficult understanding where they are found and what they are. You already know there is a glaring error on the very next page that just happens to concern your battery of interest, (This subject has been a topic on the forum in the past in which the same author featured).

The Orbats in this case are not of use as they contain Nov, Dec 1917, then jump to May18, but still useful in confirming 293 were with 94 Brigade for the duration. This was already apparent from the official 293 WD and 94 Bde WD which I believe you hold copies of; the information contained could not be clearer as to when they joined 94 Brigade.

Therefore your first reference is the allocations as per the dates supplied by member Flory and myself to you. That should be good enough to cite; if not, then confirmation can be found in 104 HAG WD, and for a third verification throw in 11 Corps WD for good measure. As a cross-check all other relevant surviving HAG and Corps war diaries were also examined, along with all MT ASC diaries for the Amn Cols, the two Sge Parks and all component Coys, ADOS. SMTO etc etc.

The end result is that I am confident I know how the error occurred and why. But an error it is, and my dates could not be clearer.

Simples…!

Rgds

Paul

[Ruth Ward]

Ruth,

I first spotted the potential anomaly in the book years before 293 ever became the topic of discussions on this forum. Realising that it questioned the validity of the allocations, not just for 293 but other batteries in the theatre as well, I went out of my way to check everything, and database and catalogue it all. You ask "Does this sort of thing happen a lot?" I would reply thankfully not, but even prime sources can contain errors, but it can be very difficult understanding where they are found and what they are. You already know there is a glaring error on the very next page that just happens to concern your battery of interest, (This subject has been a topic on the forum in the past in which the same author featured).

The Orbats in this case are not of use as they contain Nov, Dec 1917, then jump to May18, but still useful in confirming 293 were with 94 Brigade for the duration. This was already apparent from the official 293 WD and 94 Bde WD which I believe you hold copies of; the information contained could not be clearer as to when they joined 94 Brigade.

Therefore your first reference is the allocations as per the dates supplied by member Flory and myself to you. That should be good enough to cite; if not, then confirmation can be found in 104 HAG WD, and for a third verification throw in 11 Corps WD for good measure. As a cross-check all other relevant surviving HAG and Corps war diaries were also examined, along with all MT ASC diaries for the Amn Cols, the two Sge Parks and all component Coys, ADOS. SMTO etc etc.

The end result is that I am confident I know how the error occurred and why. But an error it is, and my dates could not be clearer.

Simples…!

Rgds

Paul

Hello Paul

Many thanks for your post. It's reassuring to know that this sort of things doesn't happen very often. It just so happened that this anomaly coincided with me finding a couple of others in official sources (though unrelated to HAGs/Brigades/Armies). Hence the reason for my question.

I appreciate what you've said about OrBats and your own checking of everything - not an easy task I'm sure. I have absolutely no doubt at all that the information you have given me is correct. However, having been made aware of the anomaly, I'm not comfortable just ignoring it in my research, as these things have a habit of coming back, at a later date, to bite me on the derriere as it were. Also, it's more than likely that Skirth was aware of this anomaly (& others) when doing the research for his memoir. There is an argument to be made showing that the timing of certain events in TRT was done deliberately to take advantage of such anomalies - the timing of his breakdown & transfer to Schio hospital being a good example. So, unless anyone can give me a good reason why not, I'm inclined to acknowledge the anomaly in some way either as an example, or by way of a footnote - with an explanation as to why I've used the 85/104/94 HAG route.

Thanks again for explaining which sources to cite - it's all very helpful.

Regards

Ruth