Button & insignia removal

[Chester837]

Whilst reading the history of the 2/9th Btn (QVR's) London Regt, I was intrigued to read that when they embarked on the raid of Mow Cop (nr Havrincourt, France) in 1917, all members of the raiding party were instructed to remove all regimental buttons, markings, paperwork and "other means of identification" prior to zero hour.

Was this a common practice back then? If so, was this something that originated in the Boer war by any chance?

[johnreed]

I have the Orders of a Trench Raid by the 1/18th Bn London Irish Rifle on the 7th April 1917 and contained in those Orders was the following:

"Assaulting troops were, prior to the raid, to divest themselves of letters, identity discs, regimental badges and buttons, but every man was to carry in the right-hand pocket a slip of paper bearing his name and regimental number."

18th Bn. London Regt., will carry out a raid in Left Section, CANAL Sub-Sector on night 7/8th. April.

John

[sonofacqms]

I thought that all British Infantry wore the General Service Buttons, However, seeing as the two above mentioned instances involved men of the London Regt. it must be that they retained their own individual Battalion buttons and did not wear the General Service Buttons.

My only thoughts as to why the buttons were removed.

Rob

[FROGSMILE]

I thought that all British Infantry wore the General Service Buttons, However, seeing as the two above mentioned instances involved men of the London Regt. it must be that they retained their own individual Battalion buttons and did not wear the General Service Buttons.

My only thoughts as to why the buttons were removed.

Rob

Most of the London Battalions were Rifles units and wore the generic black rifles buttons that alone were enough to give a clue to a unit within a mixed brigade.

[scottmarchand]

Most of the line Regiments had buttons for that unit, most prevalent on officers SD, but potentially on OR's too. The Canadians were very active in generating distinct battalion buttons and collars for all ranks. In most cases these were privately made by the units and purchased individually or from private unit funds etc. The uniform makers had ready supply from makers like Gaunt. Often but not always SD officers jackets had removable buttons secured by little rings similar to modern key chain rings. This facilitated cleaning too. Many officers would have more than one jacket in the line and conceivably had one in a more generic fashion for this purpose. Many also wore leather buttons later in the war too.

I think it depended on the nature of the raid. This was to prevent the dead or captured by the Germans from disclosing who was in the line opposite them and give away intel that might suggest to the Germans about possible future British offensive action on a larger scale. In some cases special markings were worn if multiple units were engaged in a larger formation raid. Raids were typically for nuisance and recconaissance purposes to maintain the desired offensive spirit required by HQ. At times even the specific equipment to be taken or left behind was specified. It is to much of a case by case situation to adequately generalize. It evolved over time from lessons learned too.

[FROGSMILE]

Most of the line Regiments had buttons for that unit, most prevalent on officers SD, but potentially on OR's too. The Canadians were very active in generating distinct battalion buttons and collars for all ranks. In most cases these were privately made by the units and purchased individually or from private unit funds etc. The uniform makers had ready supply from makers like Gaunt. Often but not always SD officers jackets had removable buttons secured by little rings similar to modern key chain rings. This facilitated cleaning too. Many officers would have more than one jacket in the line and conceivably had one in a more generic fashion for this purpose. Many also wore leather buttons later in the war too.

I think it depended on the nature of the raid. This was to prevent the dead or captured by the Germans from disclosing who was in the line opposite them and give away intel that might suggest to the Germans about possible future British offensive action on a larger scale. In some cases special markings were worn if multiple units were engaged in a larger formation raid. Raids were typically for nuisance and recconaissance purposes to maintain the desired offensive spirit required by HQ. At times even the specific equipment to be taken or left behind was specified. It is to much of a case by case situation to adequately generalize. It evolved over time from lessons learned too.

If I understand your first sentence correctly you are stating that most (British?) Line Regiments had unit (i.e regimental?) buttons? If so, that is untrue and in fact generic General Service (GS) buttons were worn by all below the rank of officer. Alternatively, men of Rifle regiments wore the black GS Rifle button in the same manner, with again the officers only in regimental pattern buttons. Foot Guards, however, did wear regimental buttons as a matter of course. These were the regulations in general, but as the war went on there were a few units (often TF) who found a way to procure regimental buttons as you have suggested, but these were expetions to the norm. Canadians no doubt were different and enjoyed a degree of autonomy in matters of dress.

[Grovetown]

On one of my London SDs, which sports black horn strung bugle Rifles buttons, the buttons are - unusually and like KD - ring-fixed. I've always assumed that this was for easy de- and re-mounting in the circumstances described above.

Indeed, I've a feeling another London SD has just the same arrangement - but I wouldn't swear to it without checking it (which isn't easy right now).

Cheers,

GT.

[Chester837]

I seem to remember reading either in the unit history or war diary that the men fastened their tunics with safety pins which would certainly suggest that this was a departure from the norm for them.

As an aside, was there really such a desire for secrecy as to the raiding units ID? I was under the impression that both sides were fairly well informed as to who was facing who at any given time. What sort of useful info would either side gain, knowing whether the raiders were from A Regt or X Regt?

[tipperary]

Pinpointing who an individual unit was would give enough to help work out the order of battle in a given area,such and such a unit belongs to thingme division so whats there name are probably near by with yokibob etc. Put together with other info much could be learned from a button.john

[Chester837]

I appreciate that, but what help was that? Was there that much difference between one division / brigade and another. I know in today's military, knowing whether you are up against the Guards Dvn or 3 Cdo Bgd does give you an insight into the style / tactics / capability of your opponent; I wasn't aware that there was that much difference between them back then.

[tipperary]

If a particular division always brought trouble to the enemy you would want to know they were around gives you a chance to beef up your line in expectation. Units did vary in their offensive nature some had rightly or wrongly a reputation for live and let live likewise with the enemy.john

[Chester837]

Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't aware that there huge differences between them, I guess I just assumed that a 'non professional' (and please don't take that as an insult) army wouldn't have varied wildly in skill / aggression. Love the info & insight you get from this forum!

[Tom Morgan]

The Germans found it particularly useful to know which units were opposite because the British "cycled" their battalions, regularly moving them between locations, often moving units a considerable distance to do so. By comparison, the Germans tended to keep their units in the same location for longer. When the Germans had identified a unit opposite, they could check their records and see where the enemy formation had been the previous week, month, two months etc., and form some ideas about where the British were moving battalions to or from, and why.

Tom