Lance Corporal (unpaid)

[doogal]

dear everyone,

for an infantry regiment in 1918 in France, what duties, responsibilities and authority would a Lance Corporal (unpaid) have within his platoon and section?

- and what kind of quality/behaviour would be required to get you noticed and appointed to the dizzy heights of L/cpl unpaid in the first place?

One reason for asking, is the first thing my gt grandfather did on appointent was to go AWOL/absent for two weeks in the UK.

I'm primarily interested in getting a picture of what he might have been doing whilst with his regiment between January 1918 and March 1918 and a very broad idea of why he might have achieved this appointment in the first place.

rgds

doogal

[Captain Dave]

If I may dip my toe in the water and risk incuring the wrath of more informed people with bigger brains who have not bothered to reply.

An infantry L/Cpl would have been the second on command of a section of either riflemen (7 pers) or a Lewis Gun Section (4 pers)

In 1918, each Bn had four rifle coys, each coy had four platoons and each pl had two rifle sections and two Lewis gun sections. Obviously as casualtys occoured, these numbers would fluctuate. (Info from 'Ameins to the Armistice', J P Harris, pub 1998)

As far as responsibilities go, he would have been responsible for the administration of the men, and understudying his section commander in case he had to 'step up.' His admin duties would have entailed the usuals of distribution (and accounting for) of ammunition, rations and water, as well as handing out extra stores that had to be carried for whatever tasks they were on. He would have liaised directly with his pl sgt for most of these things, leaving his sect comd free to liaise with the pl officer to cover the tactics and command side.

The criteria for promotion to this rank would be fairly basic, an understanding of the way things worked, been around for a time and percieved as a good steady soldier by his sect comd and officer. Quite often casualty rates caused men to be stepped up to acting rank until a suitable replacement was posted in and the man reverted back. More often acting rank carried the reponsibility, but no extra pay. It also hinted that you were being sounded out for possible substantive promotion in the future. A testing phase if you will. Men also took acting rank out of neccesity, but were also happy to revert when someone more willing was found, not wanting to complicate their lives unduly with unwanted rank. It is one thing to be a acting L/Cpl in the trenches, quite another to have to do it in the rear and the billets where for some people, it would become an encumberance.

The first step up the food chain is alwaya the hardest, men who were one day one of the lads, suddenly become the next day one of the bosses. This can incur a wealth of responses and emotions from the troops and the recipient of the rank, not all of them positive or helpfull.

As far as authority goes, acting rank was usually treated the same as substantive, if an acting L/Cpl wanted to charge someone, he could, and it would be heard by the OC of the Coy like any other charge.

Essentialy he was probably a chap who showed a bit of promise to those above him, He was given the acting rank due to casualtys in the unit and may have decided it was not for him at the end of the day.

I hope this is of some assistance, if anyone wants to correct me, please do so.

I would also suggest you get a copy of the book mentioned above for some more info.

Compliments.

[PhilB]

Spot on, Captain Dave. I`d only add that the "unpaid" bit means nothing as far as his duties go, and I`d second your comment about the potential stresses of no longer being one of the lads - especially if you still have to live and sleep among them Phil B

[terryb95]

My question is why would he account for the SAA it would have been an expense item and written off when issued?

Terry

West Aust

[Captain Dave]

Whilst lots of stuff could be written off under 'operations' training does usually not allow such an approach.

SAA could be happily written off if it was expended in action, however he would be reponsible for getting more to the men through the Pl Sgt. Obviously if his section came out of the line and had no ammo after having seen no small arms action, people would be asking questions.

His accounting duties would have been flexible in the front line, but not so flexible out of it. After all, soldiers could not wander around on leave or in base areas away from the front with pockets stuffed with ordanance. It's a recipie for disaster, young men, too much spare time, lots of agression, a bit of alcohol and access to weapons.

He would have been responsible that his section had handed in all their ammo when they were in designated rear areas.

[doogal]

Dear Captain Dave,

Fantastic - this was exactly the kind of insight I was hoping to get - I shall proceed to read and digest.

with thanks for the time you took to put it together

regards

doogal