London TF strengths 1909-10 from TF Assoc minutes

[Charles Fair]

TF enthusiasts may be interested in the attached table taken from the minutes of the County of London Territorial Force Association.

It shows comparative strengths of all units - infantry, yeomanry, artillery, engineers and RAMC - on 1 July 1909 and 1 July 1910.

Please note that units adminstered by the City of London TF Association (such as 1st - 8th battalions of the London Regiment) are not included here.

It is interesting to see how few units increased in strength. Only one of the infantry battalions (London Scottish 14th Londons) appears to have been at establishment.

I would be interested in any comments from the Pals.

My understanding is that the national TF strength was already in decline by mid 1910. Was this decline of 3.5% typical of other parts of the country? However, I suspect (but cant yet prove for sure) that the London TF went into decline slightly earlier than other regions.

I am also trying to analyse the strengths by % of establishment. I know infantry battalion establishments, but does anone know what establishments would have been for the other units?

Charles

(PS Chris - please would you be able to put this on the mother site? Many thanks)

London_TF_Strengths_190910_word_version.doc

[Wienand Drenth]

Hello Charles,

Interesting notes. As for the strength of the various units of the TF, I have four copies of the Annual Return of the TF (1909, 1910, 1911 and 1913). Included are the number of men attending camp, etc etc. In your list, the battalion that seems most below establishment is 10th London. In 1912 this battalions was disbanded, most likely because of this. From the Annual Returns:

the old 10th Londons (Paddington Rifles) had on October 1st, 1911 a strength of 21/508 out of 28/978 (officers before the / and nco's and men after).

the new 10th Londons (Hackney) had on October 1st, 1913 a strength of 23/989 out of 28/974. So this battalion was in fact overrecruited! I hope you can explain this, my topographical of the City and County of London is quite limited, so I don't really know the differences between Paddington and Hackney as being good recruiting areas.

I am tempted to incorporate all the statistics from thos Annual Returns in some spreadsheet like thing. This would show the size of the TF between its formation in 1908 and outbreak of the war. But I don't have the time to do it right now. And I also lack the 1912 edition.

As for the establishments of the other units, I will put that in a second reply.

Regards,

Wienand

[Chris_Baker]

Charles, I'll add it in the TFSG area.

[Wienand Drenth]

Charles,

As promised the establishments. Please note that the establishments varied a little (why?), at least according to those Annual Returns. For infantry it seems to be between 975 and 1000 nco's and men. Notation: officers before the /, and nco's and men after.

Yeomanry: 24 / 437

RHA: 7 / 214

Bde, RFA: 22 / 597

MTn Bde, RGA: 21 / 778

(H) Bde 15 / 371

RGA: 6 / 210 (this being the divisional Heavy Battery)

Divnl RE: 15 / 491

Divnl ASC: 19 / 480

Fld Amb: 10 / 250 (second number varies between ca 244 and 275)

Mtd Bde ASC: 4 / 115

Mtd Bde Fld Amb: 6 / 115

cyclist bn: 20 / 483

general hospital: 3 /43

Numbers for Defended Ports RGA are less clear as each unit had different number of companies etc. On average, the establishment for a Heavy Bty is ca 5 / 125, and for a Company 5 / 100 (being average numbers).

If you need more numbers, don't hesitate to ask.

Regards,

Wienand

[Muerrisch]

Regarding turnover, which these figures hint at: from a study of regimental numbers, there appears to have been an astonishing turnover between 1908 and 1914 in the relevant SR and TF battalions of RWF. Do Pals have any collateral on this? In some cases, implied turnover is close to establishment per annum!

[Terry_Reeves]

Charles

I can't comment on the TF strength nationwide, but there does seem to have been a problem in 1910 in Coventry with recruiting for the local battalion 1/7 Royal Warwicks. The works magazine of the Rudge Cycle Company notes a recruiting drive for that year which resulted in the company providing a complete unit - D Company - for the battalion. Out of interest , Courtaulds Ltd provided a substantial amount of men for B Coy, although I have yet to confirm this happened in the same year. Equally some of the Birmingham based battalions of the RWR (TF) also recruited from factories. It would be interesting to see if this occured at the same time, for the same reasons.

Terry Reeves

[Jock Bruce]

From regimental numbers I would estimate that for the 5th Seaforth about 2300 men served between 1908 - 1914, something over twice establishment.

Actual OR strengths v establishement were

1908 - 461/980

1909 - 682/980

1910 - 647/992

1911 - 772/992

1912 - 863/989

1913 - 772/984

1914 - 786/984

Compared with other TF battalions in the Seaforth and Cameron Brigade (4 & 6 Seaforth, 4 QOCH) these aren't bad.

Charles - some stuff inbound to you on this subject.

Jock

[Charles Fair]

thanks for comments everyone. Wienand, will respond to yours in another post

Chris, thanks for adding this to your large list of things to do.

Regarding turnover, which these figures hint at:  from a study of regimental numbers, there appears to have been an astonishing turnover between 1908 and 1914 in the relevant SR and TF battalions of RWF.  Do Pals have any collateral on this?  In some cases, implied turnover is close to establishment per annum!

LB - I have some data on reenlistment rates, turnover, and reasons for discharge in the London TF. I will post those as an attachment on a new thread in due course.

The 19th Londons certainly had a turnover problem, tho not as high as your example. Study of the medal rolls has shown that their numbering system had reached approximately number 2010 on the outbreak of war. This implies quite a high turnover given that strength peaked on or around 1/7/09 at 28 Officers and nearly 900 ORs and declined slowly thereafter.

On 2 August 1914 the rifle companies were entraining for annual camp. According to the St Pancras Gazette, the strength of the battalion on this date was 860 all ranks. This appears to have remained a fairly consistent figure during the summer of 1914, since the strength at the end of May is given as “789 men, 48 sergeants and 27 officers” i.e. a total of 864 all ranks.

[Charles Fair]

As promised the establishments. Please note that the establishments varied a little (why?), at least according to those Annual Returns.  For infantry it seems to be between 975 and 1000 nco's and men.

Wienand, many thanks for these. it will be interesting to see if some of the less glamorous TF units which no one talks about such as RE, ASC etc had greater problems in recruiting and retaining people. I have no idea as to why establishments would have varied slightly - reasons are probably buried in army orders or ACIs.

[Charles Fair]

As for the strength of the various units of the TF, I have four copies of the Annual Return of the TF (1909, 1910, 1911 and 1913). Included are the number of men attending camp, etc etc.

Wienand - i have been intending to find these - they must be in a class at the PRO that I have not yet got to. I think they may also be in the House of Commons Archives as TF strengths often get referred to in Hansard.

In your list, the battalion that seems most below establishment is 10th London. In 1912 this battalions was disbanded, most likely because of this. From the Annual Returns:

the old 10th Londons (Paddington Rifles) had on October 1st, 1911 a strength of 21/508 out of 28/978 (officers before the / and nco's and men after).

the new 10th Londons (Hackney) had on October 1st, 1913 a strength of 23/989 out of 28/974. So this battalion was in fact overrecruited! I hope you can explain this, my topographical of the City and County of London is quite limited, so I don't really know the differences between Paddington and Hackney as being good recruiting areas.

I knew the 10th had moved because of poor recruiting, but dont know the exact reasons. I intend to plot all London TF drill halls on a map to see if that gives any clues. Suspect that the 10th may have suffered from proximity to the Kensigtons who I suspect may have been a bit more glamorous. Hackney seems to have been a relatively empty area.

I am tempted to incorporate all the statistics from thos Annual Returns in some spreadsheet like thing. This would show the size of the TF between its formation in 1908 and outbreak of the war. But I don't have the time to do it right now. And I also lack the 1912 edition.

That is exactly what I want to do too - i think there would be some fascinationg stats to come out of this exercise. How about this as a collaborative project for the pals? Woule be happy to enter data into a spreadsheet on my train into work in the mornings. we should be able to find the 1912 edition between us.

regards

Charles

[Jock Bruce]

Charles,

They're at WO114/114 for 1908 - 1914 and are a complete run, wartime strengths are at WO114/44 onwards with gaps.

Happy to a bit of copy-typing.

Jock

[Charles Fair]

From regimental numbers I would estimate that for the 5th Seaforth about 2300 men served between 1908 - 1914, something over twice establishment. 

Actual OR strengths v establishement were

1908 - 461/980

...

1914 - 786/984

Compared with other TF battalions in the Seaforth and Cameron Brigade (4 & 6 Seaforth, 4 QOCH) these aren't bad.

Interesting comparison Jock - total recruitment until outbreak of war about 200 more than in the 19th. Your figures may even suggest higher turnover too - I dont believe the 19th ever reached the 900 mark, and appear to have had a low point of about 750.

regards

Charles

[Wienand Drenth]

Hello Charles,

That is exactly what I want to do too - i think there would be some fascinationg stats to come out of this exercise. How about this as a collaborative project for the pals? Woule be happy to enter data into a spreadsheet on my train into work in the mornings. we should be able to find the 1912 edition between us.

That sounds like a good plan to me! And please forgive my ignorance, but who do you mean by "pals" (I am feeling embarrased right now). Are you planning to incorporate those statistics in the TF book I have been reading about at the TFSG site?

Nicest would be to have all that data in some .xls format, so that people can choose individual units, brigades, divisions, commands, etc etc etc. Since it is "only" data that has to be added and multiplied, it is doable I think (never had anything to do with databases before). Looking forward your ideas, and how you would like to have it etc etc. Must rush to work now.

Cheers,

Wienand

[Ron]

It is interesting that the 17th (Poplar and Stepney) had one of the largest increases. It was the East End Regiment and perhaps reflects the rising tide of prosperity in that part of London, so eroding the popular image of the area as a downtrodden and poverty-stricken slum.

Ron

[AndrewThornton]

Charles

Here is some information from my research into Staffordshire TF units that may be of interest.

From the available data concerning enlistments for the four infantry battalions of the Staffordshire Brigade, the number of former Volunteers choosing to transfer to the Territorial Force varied considerably between different units. The 5th Battalion, The North Staffordshire Regiment, formed from the old 1st Volunteer Battalion, recorded the best retention figures amongst the infantry battalions, with 605 other ranks re-enlisting by June 1908, this number increasing to 657 by the end of July. In contrast to the relatively positive response from the volunteers in the Potteries, the number of Volunteer Force men who chose to transfer to the 6th Battalion, The South Staffordshire Regiment based at Wolverhampton was disappointing. By June 1908, only 332 former members of the 3rd Volunteer Battalion had re-engaged and this total had only increased by 50 men by the end of the following month. Of the former Volunteers who had transferred to the Territorial Force, many had chosen to enlist for a period of one year only. In one unit, the 6th Battalion, The North Staffordshire Regiment, the gravity of the situation was such that the Adjutant, Captain Fox, held a meeting at the Drill Hall at Burton-on-Trent to try and persuade the old volunteers to extend their period of service. The results of this meeting were less than satisfactory. Of the 240 men who had enlisted for one year, only 43 decided to extend their engagement.

Significant numbers of new recruits were therefore required to bring the infantry up to strength. From the returns made by the four infantry battalions during June 1908, 936 new recruits had joined the four infantry battalions, a figure that had increased to 1,502 by late July 1908. In spite of obtaining 504 new recruits by the end of July 1908, the 6th Battalion, The South Staffordshire Regiment remained under-strength and Lieutenant-Colonel Waterhouse, the commanding officer, was compelled to widen the units’ recruiting area. On 3 November 1908 a meeting was held at Wednesfield to raise a detachment of 60 men in the town. In addition to the Wednesfield contingent, which eventually formed part of “C” Company, further detachments were proposed for Codsall, Tettenhall Wood and Penn. In spite of these early difficulties, the four infantry battalions of the Staffordshire Brigade were only eleven officers and 93 other ranks short of the Brigade’s establishment of 116 Officers and 3,920 men by May 1909.

As far as turnover is concerned, based on the allocation of regimental numbers, all of the battalions of the Staffordshire Brigade had over 2000 men serving with them between April 1908-August 1914. The nominal rolls for five companies of the 6th Battalion, The North Staffordshire Regiment for the first half of 1914 have survived and provide a valuable insight into the length of service of members of the unit at this time. These books, more properly known as the Army Book 220, were kept at the company Drill Halls and recorded several important details that were required for the general administration of a unit. By using the data preserved in the nominal rolls for “E” Company, which had its Drill Hall at Lichfield, the composition of a typical Territorial Force sub-unit in Staffordshire can be assessed.

The names of two officers and 91 other ranks are recorded in the nominal roll for “E” Company. The Company’s Officer Commanding, Captain Cedric Longstaff, had held the appointment since January 1909, having previously serving with the 2nd Volunteer Battalion of the East Surrey Regiment. His junior officer, Second-Lieutenant John Masfen Stack, had served with the Company since being commissioned in February 1908, shortly before the creation of the Territorial Force. Of the ten men serving with the Company in 1914 who had enlisted during 1908, six had been members of the Volunteer Force and had re-engaged on the creation of the Territorial Force. The man with the longest continuous service with the Company was 426 Lance-Sergeant R. Roberts, who had originally joined in 1885. It is noticeable, however, that over two-thirds of the members of the unit had less than four years service. Seven men are noted as having left the Company during the first half of 1914. Three men left on the expiration of their four-year engagement and chose not to re-enlist. Two others joined other units, one on transferring to a Territorial Force unit in Birmingham and one enlisting into the Special Reserve. Private P.E. Smith left the Company after seven months service on joining the Royal Navy. The seventh man to depart from the Company during this period was Sergeant A.V. Rockingham, who died on 18 February 1914. The situation in “E” Company reflected the Territorial Force nationally, with around 80 per cent of serving Territorials having less than four years service at this time.

[Muerrisch]

Gentlemen, do you believe the individuals' numbers were allocated from number one onwards in each TF battalion of 'your' regiment ? RWF had the SR, and each of the four TF battalions with their own series of numbers. Unless [possible but unlikely] the ex-Militia men clung to their old numbers, then SDIGW and CWGC should, by perusing the dead of Nov and Dec 1914, give a fair idea of how the turnover had been. For example, a TF man killed in Nov 1914 with a number like 3000 could hardly be other than a peacetime enlistment, so that at least 3000 men would have enlisted from 1908 to summer 1914. Crudely, with an establishment near to 1000 men, that is a turnover of about 500 men per annum. Or have I missed something?

[Jock Bruce]

Charles (and anyone else who is interested),

Some quick stats from the 5th Seaforth.

Attached is a graph showing known enlistment dates (from SWB rolls and soldiers' papers) between Apr 08 and Aug 14.

Obviously a big chunk in Apr 1908. I reckon at least 430 former Volunteers joined 5th Seaforth on formation of the TF - and I can account for 65 of these still serving in Aug 14, say 100 in round figures. At least 40of them actually made it to France in May 15.

Recruiting does seem to be concentrated in the winter/spring months - I don't know how much this is tied to the TF training cycle and how much is due to local conditions (we're talking about a recruiting area dominated by farming and sporting estates). Looks like 10/11 and 13/14 are the winters of big recruitment - I wonder if there was a push in 10/11 in anticipation of guys hitting the 4-year point?

As we've discussed before I think one of the reasons for the relative stability of the 5th was the lack of other attractions - none of the bright lights of St Pancras to distract my loons from their military duties! In some of the small villages the only communal facilities would be the kirk, the school and the drill hall. The sports and social side of the TF was certainly a draw. One of the battalion worthies remarked during active service on the Western Front 'I only joined for the Ball, but it's all balls now' - he did come safe home with an MM for his trouble.

I suspect there were also pressures from employers and the kirk. Certainly anybody working for a big farmer or other employer who was either a TF officer or took a keen interest (like the Duke of Sutherland) would doubtless be looked upon with favour. And although the kirk did not have quite the hold on rural Scotland of popular imagination, I'm sure the ministers would have seen the TF as a respectable and socially useful pastime (one had a son serving in Aug 14 (KIA in Jul 15), another took a TF Res commission to serve in the Supernumerary Coy).

Incidentally, there is some sort of story behind the apparent spike in Oct 08 - these are all ex-RGA (V) men. The local Volunteer artillery was not continued into the TF era. The gunners seem to have held of joining the TF - the local papers may clarify things.

Jock

stats.doc

[Charles Fair]

They're at WO114/114 for 1908 - 1914 and are a complete run, wartime strengths are at WO114/44 onwards with gaps.

I didnt know they were in the same sequence. Will have a look next time im in the PRO

ive used the wartime strengths ones, but have considered them to be an overstatement of the front line strength (by 200-300 men) which I think is accounted for by men in the 47 Div depot/IBD, drafts en route between the depot and the bn, and men in the CASEVAC chain not yet SOS.

[Charles Fair]

It is interesting that the 17th (Poplar and Stepney) had one of the largest increases. It was the East End Regiment and perhaps reflects the rising tide of prosperity in that part of London, so eroding the popular image of the area as a downtrodden and poverty-stricken slum.

It would be interesting to see if this situation reversed in 1912-13 because of the 1912 dock strikes, and the active discouragement of TF membership by the trades unions.

[Charles Fair]

That sounds like a good plan to me! And please forgive my ignorance, but who do you mean by "pals" (I am feeling embarrased right now).

Are you planning to incorporate those statistics in the TF book I have been reading about at the TFSG site?

Nicest would be to have all that data in some .xls format, so that people can choose individual units, brigades, divisions, commands, etc etc etc. Since it is "only" data that has to be added and multiplied, it is doable I think (never had anything to do with databases before). Looking forward your ideas, and how you would like to have it etc etc.

Wienand

Pals = members of this forum!

The whole lot of stats would be too bulky to include in the book (not to mention unpublishable because the market for it would be very limited). However, there is a huge amount of fascinating analysis that could be done - key findings of which would be drawn on throughout the book.

Excel makes sense - will take a look and get heads together with Jock et al as to how to do this.

Charles

[Wienand Drenth]

Hello Charles,

Happy to know who are meant by the Pals!!

As an exercise I will play arond with excel this evening. Just to see how easy or difficult it is, sort of recon. I will give you feedback about that, so that information might help you and Jock further I hope. I have seen wonderful things with excel, so I hope the best for it!

Regards,

Wienadn

[Charles Fair]

Gentlemen, do you believe the individuals' numbers were allocated from number one onwards in each TF battalion of 'your' regiment ?

LB - You are right - with the battalions of the London this seems to have been the case. I know for certain that the 7th, 14th, 15th and 19th Londons and the Inns of Court OTC all numbered from 1 on 1 April 1908. This was probably the case for the other bns. (I suspect that, if any, the LRB and possibly the Artists might have been the exceptions.)

I know that the 19th had at least 300 men who had enlisted by 30 June 1908, which suggests uptake from the volunteer unit was slow. The number had reached about 2010 by the outbreak of war.

The 7th Londons recruited more slowly than the 19th having reached about 1700 by the outbreak of war. However, I believe that the 'class' battalions may have been recruiting at a slightly faster rate e.g. the 14th Londons (London Scottish) had reached 2055 by 30 April 1914.

I am hoping that those of us researching the various London bns can pool our knowledge of where numbers had reached by the start of the war. Combined with the strength stats from the returns, we should be able to estimate comparative recruiting and retention patterns.

[Charles Fair]

Attached is a graph showing known enlistment dates (from SWB rolls and soldiers' papers) between Apr 08 and Aug 14.

great stats Jock. I dont yet have enough data to be able to do this with any authority for the pre-war period.

Obviously a big chunk in Apr 1908.  I reckon at least 430 former Volunteers joined 5th Seaforth on formation of the TF

I reckon that the 19th probably only had a couple of hundred immediate joiners.

Recruiting does seem to be concentrated in the winter/spring months - I don't know how much this is tied to the TF training cycle.

I think this is may also be true in London. The data that I have for all County of London TF does suggest an upswing in the winter/spring, then a fall from June- Sept.

Looks like 10/11 and 13/14 are the winters of big recruitment - I wonder if there was a push in 10/11 in anticipation of guys hitting the 4-year point?

Can't comment on 1910/11, but there certainly was an upswing in London in 1913/14. The total OR strength for all units in the County of London (as per the table in my first post above) was 18,776 on 1 April 1913, and it had risen to 20,995 on 1 July 1913.

The sports and social side of the TF was certainly a draw.  One of the battalion worthies remarked during active service on the Western Front  'I only joined for the Ball, but it's all balls now' - he did come safe home with an MM for his trouble.

Less the case in London. I have some evidence (from Brigade War Diaries and accounts) that the wartime volunteers of 1914 were fitter and better motivated than the prewar men some of whom had joined up for the wrong reasons (the social) and were caught out by the war.

I suspect there were also pressures from employers and the kirk.

Some London employers were pro TF - large retailers seem to have been in favour, as were obviously the Post Office and Civil Service, yet many small/medium employers were not as they couldnt afford it.

[Wienand Drenth]

Dear all,

I have compiled an overview of the stengths of the battalions of the London Regiment (1st - 24th only a the moment) for the years 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913 (I lack 1912... anyone with the 1912 Annual Return?). For convenience I have included also the strength (and establishments) of the battalion's predecessor in the Volunteer Force for the year 1907. However, please note that the conversion from the Volunteer Force to the Territorial Force went a little more subtle as indicated by those figures which are related to one volunteer battalion only. Please use the Word document in the next message for a more complete overview of the amalgamations etc upon transfer to the TF in 1908. An update on the 1907 numbers wil include some more details.

I hope the TF enthousiasts find this list useful. I have not looked in detail into the numbers, but to me it seems there was a general trend of falling numbers (save a few exceptions). Looking forward to your comments.

Best regards,

Wienand Drenth

londonregiment.xls

[Wienand Drenth]

And the file that links the Volunteer Force battalions to the Territorial Force battalions.

Wienand

LondonRegt.doc