MGC Cavalry

[jay dubaya]

Hi folks,

I'm currently researching the 8th MG Squadron and in particular nos. 5 & 6 sections which were formed from the Essex Yeomanry. A relative was KiA with this unit during August 1916 along with one other member of the unit. My relative is remembered at Theipval as Essex Yeomanry whilst his pal was interred at Mesnil with Essex Yeomanry on his headstone (the CWGC entry states secondary unit MGC Cavalry attatched 8th Sqdn). Having scanned through other casualties of the 8th Sqdn all are listed with their mother unit and attatched to the 8th Sqdn until early 1917 when they are all listed as MGC Cavalry with no mention of the mother unit. Whilst I realize that some of these later casualties would have no mother unit other than MGC, why are the earlier casualties listed as 'attatched'? The 2 casualties mentioned above were with the 8th Sqdn from it's formation and no mention is made on their MICs of a connection to the MGC which poses the question of what insignia they were wearing at the time of their deaths and why is no mention of the MGC mentioned on my relatives CWGC entry?

Any help with understanding this would be of great assistance and much appreciated.

cheers, Jon

[SFayers]

For the earlier casualties, are their service numbers Essex Yeomanry service numbers and the later casualties MGC numbers? It may be that the later casualties were after the official transfer of these men from the EY to the MGC (Cavalry). I don't know when these transfers occurred wrt the MGC (Cavalry), but certainly with the MGC (Infantry) men seem to have been transferred from late 1915 to summer 1916.

As an example, one of 'my men' who was originally in the machinegun section of 1/5th Suffolks was attached, along with his comrades, to the 163rd Machine Gun Company in May 1916 (retaining his 1/5th Suffolks service number and regimental status) and then officially transferred to the MGC (Infantry) (same unit but with with new MGC service number and status) in August 1916. I'm wondering if it could have been a similar scenario for your men; hopefully others will have a definitive answer!

All the best

Steve

[pmaasz]

I believe that when the machine-gun sections of yeomanry (and perhaps other regiments too) were transferred to the MGC (Cavalry) there was great reluctance sometimes to relinquish their original regimental associations, even to the extent of continuing to wear the regimental badge and not the crossed guns badge. I think, too, that it is for this reason that the verbal record of the fighting at Rifle Wood on 1st April 1918 given by Trooper H. Ward to Lyn Macdonald and published in her book 'To the Last Man - Spring 1918' (p.333) shows him as 'A Sdn, Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars' whereas he was at the time in the MGC. No doubt the QOOH association weighed more heavily with him.

[Steven Broomfield]

Additionally, the Essex yeomanry (in common with all but the QO Oxfordshire Yeomanry) were broken up in spring, 1918 (after the German offensives had ended), and many of the men transferred to the MGC.

In the case of the Essex, the 11th Hussars received a (very good) squadron from them, the remainder going to MGC.

There is a history of the Essex yeomanry (combined with that of the 10th Royal Hussars); happy to have a look and see if any light is shed.

[Guest]

Additionally, the Essex yeomanry (in common with all but the QO Oxfordshire Yeomanry) were broken up in spring, 1918 (after the German offensives had ended), and many of the men transferred to the MGC.

It is worth highlighting that not all the Yeomanry were broken up and put into different roles. Perhaps on the Western Front (except the QOOH) but quite a few others remained intact - the Derbyshire Yeomanry for example - in other theatres. A small but important point that the QOOH were not the only Yeomen to have served as Yeomanry throughout. The Derbyshire Yeomanry kept their MGs throughout the whole war in the mounted role (with a dismounted break for Gallipoli). The man in the Avatar was the SNCO in charge of their MGs through Gallipoli and most of the Macedonia campaign (mounted) where the Hotchkiss proved to be of some considerable utility when it was not jamming. There is one account of them mounting an MG to the wheel of a GS wagon on its side in order to get full 360 degree mobility in the AA role.

Brig James' "British Regiments 1914-1918" has a very useful appendix II to Part I 'Analysis of the Service and Employment of Yeomanry regiments in the Great War' Listing the other Yeomanry Regiments that were not re-designated and kept their Cavalry role. In addition to the QOOH, 12 other Yeomanry Regiments remained in the mounted role (horses not bicycles) to the end of the war...so 13 of the 57 Yeomanry Regiments in total. A Further 4 were absorbed into regular Cavalry regiments, so a grand total of 17 remained in the saddle. MG

[pmaasz]

re. Martin G's post: "The man in the Avatar was the SNCO in charge of their MGs through Gallipoli and most of the Macedonia campaign (mounted) where the Hotchkiss proved to be of some considerable utility when it was not jamming."

I'm pretty certain that it is not correct to include the Hotchkiss gun when referring in this context to machine-guns. While the [Vickers] machine-gun sections transferred to the MGC the mounted regiments retained their Hotchkiss weapons throughout, to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, I think all the regimental records that I have accessed in my researches refer to the Hotchkiss as a rifle or automatic rifle and not as a machine gun.

[Steven Broomfield]

I'm also not sure the Hotchkiss wasn't received until 1915. The Maxim or Vickers were brigaded in 1915, and the Hotchkiss automatic rifle (as pmaasz says, it is often referred to as such) was received in replacement.

Incidentally, I was referring to the Western Front (where the Essex Yeomanry were) in my earlier post; sorry for any confusion but I didn't see the relevance of Palestine to the topic.

Of course, the two Indian cavalry divisions which went from the WF to Palestine in early '18 had their regular British cavalry replaced with yeomanry regiments, the regular units left behind (plus the Canadian Cavalry Brigade) replacing the disbanded yeomanry regiments in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Divisions.

[pmaasz]

Yes, I was a little loose in my use of the word 'throughout'. I was intending to emphasise the difference between the true machine guns and their sections, and the Hotchkiss rifles. The QOOH history records that Hotchkiss guns were 'first issued to the cavalry in April 1916.'

[Steven Broomfield]

I'll try and look this evening: the 11th Hussars history certainly mentions the issue.

[Guest]

Interesting....I will check again but I am pretty certain the MG Section had their Vickers replaced with the Hotchkiss while in Macedonia (DY serve there from Jan1916 onwards).. and were still regarded as the MG Section throughout. I have his papers which has him as the MG section SNCO as a Sgt .....he was not promoted to this rank until 1916 (Cpl and A/Sgt at Gallipoli with Vickers). While I understand that the Hotchkiss might not be an MG, it was (I think) in the Yeomanry in Macedonia issued only to the MG Section. Maybe splitting hairs but worth checking again. The references are among the Derbyshire Yeo, South Notts Hussars and Sherwood Rangers Yeo war diaries and Histories. MG

PS. The Vickers were not Brigaded in 1915 in this unit (3rd Notts & Derby Mtd Bde - DY, SNH, SRY) or the higher level unit (2nd Mtd Div) in 1915 except for the attack on Scimitar Hill on 21st Aug. Outside that event they were kept with their regiments in Egypt prior to deployment at Gallipoli and again after the 21st Aug right up to the disembarkation from Gallipoli. The reason for this is that the (Yeomanry) MGs were brigaded only for offensive action at Gallipoli, and the 21st Aug marked the last major offensive action at Gallipoli. Thereafter it became stagnant trench warfare and MGs were required all along the very extended line. Of this I am absolutely certain - the unit War Diaries are clear on this. MG

[pmaasz]

Could it be that in regiments outside of the main European theatre (France and Belgium) the organisation of the Vickers gun sections and the assignment of Hotchkiss rifles followed different paths?

[Guest]

Some quotes from the Derbyshire Yeomanry War History 1914-1919:

p.134: 4th June 1916 (post) "Our machine guns were at last changed for the light Vickers gun, and it speaks well for our old guns that they had been in service of the Regiment for thirteen years and were still in serviceable condition"

p.154: New Year 1917: "...In addition to this the regiment had just been given twelve Hotchkiss guns, and the training of their detachments was at once taken in hand."

p. 159: " On August 2nd [1917] one of our patrols got a bit of its own back. On points of the patrol approaching a redoubt about 400 yards south of Dolop thy were fired on and immediately retired. this was too great a temptation for the Bulgars and two of them immediately jumped up onto the edge of the parapet in order to get a better shot at their foe. This opportunity was not missed by the patrol and, which had a Hotchkiss gun and one of the Bulgars was dropped fair and square..."

p. 162: 24th Oct 1917. "On 24th the Regiment took over duties of patrolling from the Surrey Yeomanry to the South and east of Osman Kamilla. It was considered that one troop of not less than twenty men with one Hotchkiss gun would be sufficient for the objects in view, namely to keep the enemy's forward line under constant observation and to locate all posts and wire.."

p. 174 : Aug 1918.. "Piton Gallieni is almost due south of Doiran and on reaching here HQ, together with B Sqn and the MG Section, moved on to Waring's Bridge.." [my underlining]

So it seems that the old MGs were exchanged in June 1916 for a 'light Vickers' . [Any ideas what a light Vickers is/was? or did they have Maxims that were replaced by light(er) Vickers?].... and in Jan 1917 had received 12 Hotchkiss guns (note not referred to as machine guns as highlighted by Pmaaz). Clearly the Hotchkiss guns were parcelled out and attached (embedded?) with Troops on patrol....and the MG Section was clearly still in existence in Aug 1918... So I wonder if the MG Section kept its Vickers and the Regt was given an additional 12 Hotchkiss which were deployed within the Troops...or the MG Section relinquished their Vickers and took control of the Hotchkiss guns and were detached/attached to Troops as required. The MG section was in 1914 (and in 1915 as they headed to Gallipoli) 1 Officer +26 ORs (multiple War Diary references).. so splitting 12 Hotchkiss between 26 ORs would be fairly neat, leaving a SNCO plus one extra (assuming 2-man gun teams on the Hotchkiss). ... just a thought. MG.

P.S. I will check the War Diary (thankfully continuous from Aug 1914 to Nov 1918) and cross ref with South Notts Hussars and Sherwood Rangers histories and WDs. MG


Edit: The Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry (SRY) referred to their "twelve year old MGs jamming" in Apr1916 in Macedonia (note similar age to the DY MGs)....On 6th Jan 1917 a reference to "...2 troops with one Vickers and two of the new Hotchkiss guns.." which would imply that the Vickers were not exchanged for the Hotchkiss i.e there were Vickers and Hotchkiss in the Regt at the same time. ...and an account of the MG Section of one Officer and 55 ORs forming a detachments as part of the newly formed 20th MG Sqn. The MG Section seems to have doubled in size (from 1+26) , either because Vickers and Hotchkiss teams were consolidated into a larger MG Section, or the MG Section was bolstered for the formation of the 20th Sqn....or 1+55 represents the consolidation of the SRY and SNH MG Sections plus a few extras.


The South Notts Hussars (SNH) refer to receiving the Hotchkiss guns in Dec 1916 (a month earlier that the DY and SRY). The SRY an SNH were moved to Palestine in mid 1917 leaving the DY in Macedonia. The SNH record in July 1917 the "MG Setion (Maxims) were now formed into Sqns of the MG Corps (Cavalry)...". I wonder if this is just poor memory and the 'Maxims' were in fact Vickers....which also raises the question of the DY reference to 'light Vickers' (see above)...maybe they all started with Maxims (surplus from the Boer War? - 12 years old in 1916 means on 2 years after the Boer War ended) and then got lighter Vickers MGs as they became more widely available?..... any thoughts?

What is certain:
1. Maxims, Vickers and Hotchkiss were all used between 1904 and 1918
2. MG Sections still existed throughout the war in the case of the DY (note DY stayed in Macedonia dn SRY and SNH deployed to Palestine, losing their MG Sections to the new MG Sqns (Cav))

What is uncertain (to me at least)
1. Were the Hotchkiss guns embedded in the Troops/Sqns or were they consolidated under an enlarged MG Troop and then detached to Troops/Sqns?

MG

[pmaasz]

In regard to your last question, so far as the QOOH are concerned it is quite clear that the Hotchkiss rifle teams were a part of (embedded in?) each Troop in each of the three Squadrons. They were not organised as a separate Section. This is different from the original Vickers machine-gun set-up, which was a Section that was part of Headquarters until it was transferred to the 4th Cavalry Machine Gun Squadron in February 1916.

Going back to Jon's original post, it does not surprise me, given the changes to the organisation of these machine gun sections that took place over a period, that there is inconsistency in recording the regiments of men KiA.

[Robert Dunlop]

As noted, there were two separate changes took place. The earlier Maxim MGs were replaced with the Vickers, referred to as 'light' by way of comparison to the weight of the Maxim. Hotchkiss automatic rifles were issued as a separate process, in the same way as the infantry were issued with the Lewis gun (also an automatic rifle). The distinction between machine gun and automatic rifle was, at least in the minds of machine gunners, based on the ability to lay down accurate indirect fire using a tripod. This was a characteristic of the machine gun, whereas the automatic rifle was primarily used with a bipod for direct fire.

RObert

[jay dubaya]

Many thanks for the enlightening replies gents. From what I can gather, the 1917 onwards casualties fall into 2 MGC number blocks 515?? and 1003?? all are listed as having served with the EY, those with the 515?? numbers all served with the 8th MGC Sqdn whilst the 1003?? were split between several MGC Sqdns. I'm struggling to find service and/or pension records for EY to MGC (Cav) transfers but I suspect that the lack of MGC numbers for my relative and his pal were due to administration proceedings and that they were still wearing their EY insignia and not that of the MGC. But why the anomaly with the CWGC records?

I have a copy of the EY and 10th Hussars history but sadly hasn't really helped in my search but it does mention the use of the Hotchkiss also when my relative arrived at Mesnil on 27th July 1916 with the 8th MG Sqdn it is noted in the war diary that 3 limbers contained 6 boxes each of 'Hotchkiss SAA'

cheers, Jon

[mcassell]

The attached photograph showing the MG section of the Essex Yeomanry in April 1915 maybe of interest. According to the War Diary of 8 Squadrom MGC(Cavalry), Lieutenants T. Preston and W.P. Batters, 66 ORs Essex Yeomanry, 4 machine guns, 94 horses and 6 limbers formed Nos. 5 and 6 Sections on 29 February 1916. It is worth noting that these men were not officially re-numbered as MGC until the end of June 1916; this may explain why the original Essex Yeomanry numbers persisted into August.

The photograph shows an officer (probably Second Lieutenant W.P. Batters as he has Essex Yeomanry insignia), the MG Sergeant and 25 ORS - the full complement of a Yeomanry MG Section. When the MGC (Cavalry) Squadrons were formed, additional men were transferred as horse holders, drivers, etc.

Of interest, the Essex Yeomanry MG Section included Private H.S. Mugford who would win the VC at Monchy-le-Preux with 8 Squadron, MGC, in April 1917. Consulting several photographs of Mugford, my guess he is the man standing third from right, back row though others have suggested he is the No.1 at the gun in front of that man. Anyone have any thoughts?

[jay dubaya]

Nice photo gunner and thanks for the input, I'm attemting a little number crunching with the 515?? series which covers both the EY and YH that made up what I believe to be nos. 5 & 6 sections. I suspect that 3 of the 4 of the numbers that appear unnamed may be that of Pte's Catton, Jerrard and Lord all of who had died on the Somme (I only have the 8ths diary upto September 1916 so I'm unsure of Catton). Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Isn't Mugford standing third from left?

Jon

[mcassell]

I don't think the gentleman on the third left is Mugford: look at the attached picture of Mugford which I copied from a postcard in the late Canon Lumiss' collection of VC winners. I think it matches with third from right. There is a photo of Mugford in later life on several websites (e.g. www.newhamstory.com) that matches the Lumiss one so am pretty convinced it is of him. Still......

BYW, do you have any numbers for the Yorkshires Hussars who went to 8 Squadron. I know Lieutenant T. Preston was YH but have never been clear how he arrived with 8 Squadron.

[jay dubaya]

These are the ones so far, new # left, old YH # right. Still some way to go...

51547 CURPHY Hugh 2564

51548 COLLINS Ernest H. 2566

51549 DALBY John J. 2574

51550

51551

51552 BROWN Alfred W. 3183

51553 BOND William 2330

51554 CURTIN Daniel 2989

51555

51556 EARL Charles S. 2304

51557 FENTIMAN Frank E. 3243

51558 HORN Ralph 3186

51559 HORSFIELD Eric 2413

51560 HUTCHINSON John G. 2584

51561 MOUNTAIN Thomas 3099

51562 POWER Arthur 3255

51563 RICHARDSON Allen 3222

51564 RATCLIFFE Nelson 2179

51565 RAW Edgar 3291

51566 SWABY George 2980

51567 TAYLOR Oliver N. 2204

51568 WARD William 2810

51569 WHITELEY John W. 3219

51570 NETTLETON Harry 2458

Here's the only pic I've seen of the young Mugford and at this time of night through the bottom of an empty glass I'm still none the wiser,

cheers, Jon

[mcassell]

Had not seen that photograph of Mugford - looks like Army rations had filled him out a bit by 1915! I notice you list 24 numbers (a few without names) from YH which, plus Lieutenant Preston suggests at some time the complete MG section of the Yorkshire Hussars was transferred to 8 Squadron though I cannot find a mention in the War Diary. I also notice that except for two men who received the 1914-15 Star, all the others got the BWM and VM with one also getting the TFWM. The RHQ and A Squadron YH went to France on 18 April 1915, while B Squadron landed on 5 May 1915 and C Squadron on 8 May 1915. The MG section may have gone later, possibly 1916, and transferred to MGC (Cavalry) on arrival. Perhaps a YH expert can fill in the details.....

[Mike Cross]

The MGC numbers of the YH men are almost adjacent to those issued to the QOOH soldiers who were transferred to the 4th MGC. This is not recent work but my records show that 51433-51505 are among the earliest numbers, followed by the ranges 101411-101421 and 105099-105109, plus quite a lot of arbitory numbers both in between and later.

MC

[jay dubaya]

The YH section was attatched on 29th Feb 1916, the day the 8th MG Sqdn was formed at Marant, Lt T. Preston was also attatched on this date.

Mike, I've started on the QOOH numbers and have found the odd EY man numbered 51488 and also 2 QOOH men with the same number (51574 - S.A Jennings and G Butlet)

Jon

[Steven Broomfield]

Here's an interesting sidelight on Hotchkiss rifles, with an Essex Yeomanry connection. I came across t by pure chance this morning while working in the archives of the KRH in Winchester (specifically relating to the 10th Royal Hussars (OWO) and 11th Hussars (PAO). It comes from a small volume, Officer's Notes on Cavalry Training, by Lt Col FHDC Whitmore, DSO. It is not dated, but must be 1917 or 18, as Whitmore's DSO was gazetted i the New Year's Honours of 1917. It also states that he commanded the Essex Yeomanry in 1916; obviously he went on to be CO of the XRH.

The "book" is a pocket-book sized volume, obviously intended for officers to write in as about 75% of the pages are blank. I contains several small printed memoranda, of which thw following is one, titled Notes on the Hotchkiss Automatic Rifle. I quote it in full:

"General Use.

It must not be confused with the machine guns, nor put to the same use, i.e. it must be considered as so many extra rifles to the Troop to which it is attached. The rifle goes where the Troop goes and vice versa where the rifle goes, so the Troop goes. Its position and powers should never be disclosed unless absolutely necessary, as its powers are infintely greater if it carefully hidden before firing. The rifle should not be used for "Spraying" or "Watering" the ground, except possibly in rearguard actions when the expenditure of ammunition justfies the same.

Tactics in Trench Warfare

The same remarks apply to its use in Trench Warfare. It must not be considered with the machine guns, the majority of which are a separate command, although the Battalion Commander will have certain guns placed at his own disposal.

The rifles will be found of great value if given positions where a machine gun would be put if available, but where it is not thought practical to put a machine gun, owing to the field of its fire being too small.

Open Cavalry Operations

Never put the rifle in conspicuous places - choose long grass or hedges where it can be easily hidden. On no account use houses or doorways, which, in these days of high-explosive shells, are good marks and eaily blown to pieces.

The Hotchkiss rifle should not be used in large numbers parked together for holding attacks.

The volume of fire is not large enough and this duty will be performed by the machine guns.

In rearguard actions good work can be done by feigning retreat with the mounted men and leaving the Hotchkiss rifles behind with a small escort, always providing the rifles are properly concealed and well placed.

Troop Leaders should be given ample practice in selecting tactical points that should be seized with a view to getting up into position Hotchkiss rifles without the possibility of discovery by the enemy.

About six to eight Nos 1 of the rifles will be trained in each Troop. These men will be expert in the mechanism and be able to strip and reassemble the rifle.

Every man in the Troop will be taught to fire the rifle.

In holding a position on a convex slope, the Hotchkiss rifle should be pushed well forward to command the slopes by a cross fire, while the men hold a line well back and non-exposed to hostile artillery fire."

It is defintely an official publication, so we must assume that Col Whitmore was speaking with authority on this. I thought it interesting. If it has been seen before, I apologise, but this is new to me.

[Guest]

The attached photograph showing the MG section of the Essex Yeomanry in April 1915 maybe of interest. According to the War Diary of 8 Squadrom MGC(Cavalry), Lieutenants T. Preston and W.P. Batters, 66 ORs Essex Yeomanry, 4 machine guns, 94 horses and 6 limbers formed Nos. 5 and 6 Sections on 29 February 1916. It is worth noting that these men were not officially re-numbered as MGC until the end of June 1916; this may explain why the original Essex Yeomanry numbers persisted into August.

The photograph shows an officer (probably Second Lieutenant W.P. Batters as he has Essex Yeomanry insignia), the MG Sergeant and 25 ORS - the full complement of a Yeomanry MG Section. When the MGC (Cavalry) Squadrons were formed, additional men were transferred as horse holders, drivers, etc.

Of interest, the Essex Yeomanry MG Section included Private H.S. Mugford who would win the VC at Monchy-le-Preux with 8 Squadron, MGC, in April 1917. Consulting several photographs of Mugford, my guess he is the man standing third from right, back row though others have suggested he is the No.1 at the gun in front of that man. Anyone have any thoughts?

Is it my imagination or does the sign in front of the EY MG Section men say "Nobody Knows, Nobody Cares"?.....is that symbolic of the MG Section being 'outsiders' from the sabre squadrons I wonder.

In the early years it would seem that Cavalry (and Yeomanry) attitudes to the MG were not universally positive as the account below might show: From a Yeomanry Officer's published biography. He was Capt Wedgwood Benn DSO, DFC MP, Middlesex Hussars, later Lord Stansgate. I thought it particularly interesting as this dissenting voice came from within the cavalry ranks and was railing at the resistance to adopting the machine-gun by the Yeomanry.

" I will turn to the attitude of mind of the regular cavalry officer towards the Gun-Section, which was part of the official establishment of a mounted regiment. He was utterly unsympathetic. Our allotment of guns at the time was two per regiment,and we had only just advanced a stage past the point when the machine-gun was carted about on a limbered wagon as if it had been a formidable piece oordnance. The section was at time frankly embarrassment to those who arranged our mimic battles. One day as a galloper I was privileged to take part in the conference collected to decide the plan of assault on a ridge of hills held by a 'skeleton' or 'flagged' enemy. "You will make a frontal attack: you will work round to the left: you will hold yourself in reserve , and you" turning to the unhappy machine-gun commander, "oh! You had better exercise the section separately to-day". The poor enthusiast incharge was a paraiah and his troop semi-outcasts. It almost became a formal threat against a man brought into the Orderly Room for some minor offence "If you are caught at it again you will be sent to the Gun-Section". There was one exceptional senior officer who at his own expense had doubled the equipment of machine-guns for the unit under his command. And I remember the broad smile of satisfaction which greeted the order that the surplus guns were to be handed in......They were looking backward, never forward. In the Yeomanry we heard of nothing but the arme blanche and "shock tactics"; important I dare say and in the desert warfare in which we were ultimately engaged, a very useful accomplishment, but compared with the machine-gun for instance what did they matter?

[Guest]

Here's an interesting sidelight on Hotchkiss rifles, with an Essex Yeomanry connection.

"General Use.

It must not be confused with the machine guns, nor put to the same use, i.e. it must be considered as so many extra rifles to the Troop to which it is attached. The rifle goes where the Troop goes and vice versa where the rifle goes, so the Troop goes. Its position and powers should never be disclosed unless absolutely necessary, as its powers are infintely greater if it carefully hidden before firing. The rifle should not be used for "Spraying" or "Watering" the ground, except possibly in rearguard actions when the expenditure of ammunition justfies the same.

Steven - many thanks for posting this. It seems very clear from the quote above that the Hotchkiss and the MGs were considered very different types of weapons. It was interesting to note that there were instructions for many men in each Troop to be trained on the Hotchkiss. The introduction of the Hotchkiss seems to be a good example of the trade-off between mobility and firepower. MG.