Lance Bombardier & Bombardier in the RA

[Muerrisch]

you mean troubling to make a posthumous amendment?

[Muerrisch]

reporting back.

Graham Stewart, in all his vast ACI collection, has nothing to help us. Thank you for trying Graham.

[Muerrisch]

Quote, "So we have a "not later than" date for the appointment being used."

I think you may have to cross reference these earlier dates with the mens records. I suspect it could be just an efficient clerk updating his appointment, such a 92121 Nuttall, James Ernest, http://www.cwgc.org/search-for-war-dead/casualty/574641/ . He is only listed as Pd/A/Bdr in his records.

Kevin

I am busy trying all the 1917 dead listed as L/Bdr rather than A/Bdr, with a view to eliciting a "not later than" date. I am afraid Nuttall's papers tell me nut-all to help, so to speak, as he died a little before the intro. of the change and I see no record of any post-mortem updating. Have I missed something here please?

[David_Underdown]

Looking through my research notes for something else yesterday, I noticed that for one man I had recorded (something like) "appointed pd/a/bombardier, followed by a series of complicated minor adjustments to his status". I'll try to look out the record again

[kevinrowlinson]

For those that may still be interested I will post again later when I have obtained all the necessary ACIs and AOs that I have seen mentioned in records and hopefully we will get a complete time line for the use of Bombardier and Lance Bombardier, including when L/Bdr became a rank.

Kevin

[Muerrisch]

For those that may still be interested I will post again later when I have obtained all the necessary ACIs and AOs that I have seen mentioned in records and hopefully we will get a complete time line for the use of Bombardier and Lance Bombardier, including when L/Bdr became a rank.

Kevin

Many thanks: whereas I have access to all AO via Cambridge Uni Library, they do not hold ACI. This subject has become an itch difficult to scratch!

[Ron Clifton]

... including when L/Bdr became a rank.

I suspect it will turn out to be 1967, when Lance-Corporal in the infantry etc ceased to be an appointment and became a substantive rank.

As far aw the men were concerned, the difference between a rank and an appointment is unlikely to have been of more than academic interest. If a L/Bdr gave a Gunner an order, he had to obey it, even though they both held the same substantive rank.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

I suspect it will turn out to be 1967, when Lance-Corporal in the infantry etc ceased to be an appointment and became a substantive rank.

As far aw the men were concerned, the difference between a rank and an appointment is unlikely to have been of more than academic interest. If a L/Bdr gave a Gunner an order, he had to obey it, even though they both held the same substantive rank.

Ron

Ron, my notes say L-Cpl as rank 1961 ...... my misprint or yours?

I think, however, you may be missing the point of the above quandrary, which, as I see it, is when the appointment of acting-bombardier became the appointment of lance-bombardier, which seems, subject to further research, to have been piecemeal in 1917 and thereafter and bricked-in in 1920.

[Ron Clifton]

Ron, my notes say L-Cpl as rank 1961 ...... my misprint or yours?

It could well be mine! 1960s, anyway. But it is a separate question from the main subject.

Ron

[pjjobson]

But interesting never the less!

It's giving me nightmares, as I am now trying to compile a suitable entry for the next edition of my book on RA terminology! It was so much easier when I thought it all happened in the 1920's with the abolition of the rank of Corporal in the RA.

Phil

[Muerrisch]

But interesting never the less!

It's giving me nightmares, as I am now trying to compile a suitable entry for the next edition of my book on RA terminology! It was so much easier when I thought it all happened in the 1920's with the abolition of the rank of Corporal in the RA.

Phil

Do you have access to Soldiers Died in the Great War and also Ancestry ....... between these two you should be able to trace all early L-Bdr deaths logged as such by SDIGW [say, 1917] and then painstakingly search for these men on Ancestry and then see if their paperwork logs a change from A-Bdr to L-Bdr or indeed Gunner or Driver direct to L-Bdr. Such changes should quote an authority.

I started on this trail a few days ago but other tasks have got in the way ..... as they do!

National Archive has all ACI and AO ...... I suspect the answer to our quest is in ACI of 1917.

[kevinrowlinson]

Do you have access to Soldiers Died in the Great War and also Ancestry ....... between these two you should be able to trace all early L-Bdr deaths logged as such by SDIGW [say, 1917] and then painstakingly search for these men on Ancestry and then see if their paperwork logs a change from A-Bdr to L-Bdr or indeed Gunner or Driver direct to L-Bdr. Such changes should quote an authority.

I started on this trail a few days ago but other tasks have got in the way ..... as they do!

National Archive has all ACI and AO ...... I suspect the answer to our quest is in ACI of 1917.

As I said in my first post the earliest recorded change is the ACI that I posted. I have not seen a reference to L/Bdr before this ACI and is why I posted it. Not sure what you are looking for.

The times that the actual entries are made may vary, which I have put down to when the the records were actually brought up to date. I have other copies with this reference but cannot see any benefit in posting more of the same reference.

Kevin

[David_Underdown]

These are my notes relating to William Cheesman, plus links to his records on Ancestry for those with subs:

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=BritishArmyService%2c&rank=0&gsfn=william&gsln=cheeseman&sx=y&=%2c%2c%2c&gs1co=1%2cAll+Countries&gs1pl=1%2c+&year=&yearend=&sbo=0&sbor=&srchb=r&prox=1&ti=5538&ti.si=0&gss=angs-d&pcat=39&fh=53&h=321884&recoff=&fsk=CIAABMMABOsg&bsk=&pgoff=

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=BritishArmyService%2c&rank=0&gsfn=william&gsln=cheeseman&sx=y&=%2c%2c%2c&gs1co=1%2cAll+Countries&gs1pl=1%2c+&year=&yearend=&sbo=0&sbor=&srchb=r&prox=1&ti=5538&ti.si=0&gss=angs-d&pcat=39&fh=54&h=321885&recoff=&fsk=CIAABMMABOsg&bsk=&pgoff=

Attested 25 November 1915 to RGA 85952 (form also has ASC on), still at 2 Trentham Cottages, Superintendent of Cemetery. 5'8.25”, 37” chest, 1.75” expansion, 132 lbs.

Mobilised, 22 May 1916 to Dover, posted 155 Siege Battery 3 June 1916. To France 29 August 1916 from Southampton, arrives Le Havre following day. Admitted to hospital influenza 12 – 22 January 1917 Appointed paid acting bombardier 15 July 1917 sequence of complicated minor adjustments to this status. Leave to UK in November 1917. Confirmed Bombardier 16 April 1918. To Second Army Rest Camp 13-29 August 1918. 22 Observation Group from 4 September 1918. Leave to UK December 1918, then back for demob January. Demobbed 26 February 1919

[Muerrisch]

KEVROW. I detect anote of asperity, impatience perhaps, with the interest that your thread-starter aroused, so I will explain my thought process.

Most/all of this you know, but there are others that do not, so, for their benefit at least, here goes.

The authority on rank structure, and the appointments that those ranks can hold, is Kings Regulations. Like a lot of other Forum members, I hold KR 1912 amended officially to 1914 and reprinted 1916. The authority for Pay to these ranks and appointments is the Pay Warrant 1914, reprinted 1916.

Neither of these, unsurprisingly, deals with Lance-Bombardier [henceforward LB].

As I have a great interest and some knowledge of rank, appointment and pay, I also hold all the relevant Army Orders throughout the war ...... one or two may have missed my trawls, but not many. A primary function of AO is to promulgate amendments to KR, thereafter painstakingly written in, or scissors and pasted, by clerks at unit level. None of mine mention LB. A primary function of Army Council Instructions is to explain, clarify, amplify AOs. I hold many, but none mentioning LB. In general, ACI do not usually amend KR or the Pay Warrant directly.

Hitherto, the received wisdom [including accepted authorities such as Dawnay and Campbell] has been that the changes to the rank and appointment structure of the RA, including the change from Acting to LB, occurred in 1920, although both these gentlemen leave the subject a little fuzzy without good references.

The next KR that I hold [and the next that I know of] are 1923 .... these are straightforward LB without benefit of the side-bars that denote an amendment.

You may imagine the interest of members interested in both the RA and in the rank/pay structure when they read that an ACI 30th November 1917 introduced LB for AB as early as 1917 ........ trivial, as I said, in the greater scheme of things, probably of little consequence to the individual or battery, but nevertheless something new to chew on.

I think we are agreed that implementing such a change was likely to be piecemeal and over a period of time: even, possibly, posthumously although I for one do not think that likely, and very much dependent on the clerk.

Thus my interest in soldiers who died apparently as a LB as early as June 1917 ........ were these all posthumous amendments, or was there an earlier AO or ACI of which we are unaware?

Your example at #37 pre-dates the ACI by a month and I submit that we do not know if that was added before or after the ACI quoted.

Either way, the Forum owes you thanks for re-writing a tiny bit of history, but you must forgive those of us who want chapter, verse, every i dotted and t crossed. It is what the Forum does, and does it rather well.

[Muerrisch]

I gather [from the elapsed time since], nay, hope, that my detailed explanation has either or both placated/ edified my readership.

[daggers]

Entertained and edified, at least about the scholarship of the contributors here.

Daggers

One-time local acting unpaid L/Bdr.

[Ron Clifton]

Daggers

One-time local acting unpaid L/Bdr.

Hello daggers

Sounds as if you were conned! Extra duties, extra responsibilities, NO extra pay, NO guarantee of tenure. Unless it enabled you to get out of the nastier "squaddie" jobs, I'd say a definite con.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Hello daggers

Sounds as if you were conned! Extra duties, extra responsibilities, NO extra pay, NO guarantee of tenure. Unless it enabled you to get out of the nastier "squaddie" jobs, I'd say a definite con.

Ron

Which is why my RAFVR father 1940-45 refused to go beyond LAC: at that, he was three grades up, in a skilled trade [barrage balloons], had his own balloon and winch vehicle, and a small crew. No LCpls in RAF [and no SAC in his day] so LAC with a good-conduct badge was a good place to be. Coventry in the Blitz was not, but he survived it and then guarded the shipping on the Suez canal for 3 years before flying his balloon on a D Day ship and thereafter.

[Scalyback]

Sorry still trying to fully understand this!

AO stands for??????

Intresting that 2nd Cpl went in 1920, Royal Corps of Signals had it's warrant in 1920 and apparently the rank of bombardier appeared at the same time. The gentlemen of the ordnance had a post war sort out of the paperwork

Yes ordance was per WW1! But your marks on commison still affected choice RA or RE for a job.

[Muerrisch]

AO = Army Order. These issued, numbered, in each year, so number 255 in 1920 would be 255/20.

About 200 to 400 per year, all important, some actual amendments to King's Regs, to be entered forthwith, some announcing medal awards, some announcing changes in pay, to be enetered into Pay Warrant.

Next down in hierarchy was Army Council Instructions, amplifying/ amending/ explaining AOs.

[Scalyback]

So KR---->AO----->ACI?

Apart from KR, is there any point where things are subject to negotiation? I assume this is ACI? Where is the cutoff for things to get onto part 1/part 2 orders?

Anything I can read to get a good background in this? Sorry for questions but this has aroused(ohhh matron) my intrest.

As always many thanks Grumpy.

[Muerrisch]

Your flow chart correct, except of course minor matters are only at ACI and below [not forgetting Regimental SOs, published by authority KR]. Such minor matters concern disposal of military dung, unofficial thereof, prohibited.

ACI are certainly subject to amendment/ iteration resulting from exposure to the real world: the series of "what we meant was ....." regarding regimental numbering is actually hilarious if you have such a mind-set. Page after page of increasingly obscure drivel.

The trouble is that, any currently or recently serving soldier has only had experience of modern ways, with a great deal never getting into print before superceded. It is many years since Foot Guards Standing Orders were in book form, and even longer since QR were republished as a coherent whole. 1975 from memory.

[tharkin56]

Grumpy

Dont suppose you have anything from your Dads days in Coventry, always looking for items, notes to add to my archive.

[Muerrisch]

Grumpy

Dont suppose you have anything from your Dads days in Coventry, always looking for items, notes to add to my archive.

PM me.

[Scalyback]

Your flow chart correct, except of course minor matters are only at ACI and below [not forgetting Regimental SOs, published by authority KR]. Such minor matters concern disposal of military dung, unofficial thereof, prohibited.

ACI are certainly subject to amendment/ iteration resulting from exposure to the real world: the series of "what we meant was ....." regarding regimental numbering is actually hilarious if you have such a mind-set. Page after page of increasingly obscure drivel.

The trouble is that, any currently or recently serving soldier has only had experience of modern ways, with a great deal never getting into print before superceded. It is many years since Foot Guards Standing Orders were in book form, and even longer since QR were republished as a coherent whole. 1975 from memory.

Thank you for that grumpy. Something I would like to look into further alongside rank and appoitment matters.

In regards of dung disposal, it would of been addrssed as I had to use the converted stables in a barracks. Bad enough with a few land rovers and stores in there. Horses and dung? suprised there was not more problems!