Ghurka infantry establishments

[Muerrisch]

I have been re-reading John Masters's marvellous Bugles and a Tiger.

This set me wondering about the apparent lack of Ghurka NCOs above havildar = sergeant.

He describes his 1935 battalion as having a white CO, 2 i/c, four companies commanded by white ranks variously from major to 2Lt [!], an adjutant and a few others.

He then describes Viceroy Commissioned Officer Ghurkas as company 2i/cs and platoon i/cs at subadar and jemadar respectively. The senior VCO was the subadar-major with no specific role that I can fathom out. Theere was also a Ghurka assistant adjutant.

OK but that leaves colour-havildars [or CQMHavildars] company havildar-majors, and RQMHavildar and RHavildarM as not being mentioned.

Since these very senior NCO and WO levels were reckoned by all to be the backbone of the infantry, I can't believe the Ghurkhas managed without.

SO PLEASE DOES ANYONE HAVE A GHURKA BATTALION ESTABLISHMENT TABLE FOR OUR PERIOD OR CLOSE TO IT?

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Grumpy

Although I don't have a specific establishment for Gurkha battalions, or other Indian units, in my lists, I am quite certain that they did have ranks above Havildar. In Ceremonial 1912 there is a diagram of the way an Indian Mountain Battery is to be paraded, and the Havildar Major and Pay Havildar are specifically mentioned.

The Subedar-Major (Rissaldar-Major in a cavalry regiment) was the senior "native" officer and acted as the CO's adviser on cultural matters in particular. The assistant adjutant you mention was called the Woordi-Major.

My various books on the Indian army (not many, I admit) are currently inaccessible so I can't give you chapter and verse. If Mr Broomfield sees this thread, he may have more information.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Ron many thanks, I shall alert said Broomers!

[Steven Broomfield]

PM received. I won't be home till 10-ish tonight 9and as i have to get up at 0600 to do it all over again tomorrow I'll be straight off to Bedfordshire), so if no-one else gets there first...

That said i would be extremely surrpised if there wasn't the whole gamut of NCO and WO ranks and appointments.

[Steven Broomfield]

Slipped away slightly early and had a (very) quick look.

History of 6th GR reports (page 64) that the 1st Battalion, on mobilisation, had 12 British Officers, 18 Gurkha Officers, 1 Sub-Assistant Surgeon,82 NCOs, 685 Riflemen, 24 Signallers, and 16 Buglers - total, 826; and 45 Followers, 12 mules and 12 ponies.

Each of the 8 Companies had a Subedar and a Jemadar, with the Subedar Major and an Adjutant Jemadar, plus one Subedar and 2 Jemadars with the Reinforcements.

A Colour Havildar is mentioned in the Honours and Awards (actually, two are), and a Company Havildar Major is mentioned in the text.

That's very brief. I'll look further tomorrow evening when I (one hopes) get home at normal time.

[Muerrisch]

Brilliant: many thanks ................ your notes are of an 8 company establishment so the Indian Army had not [like our TF] converted by declaration of war.

[Ron Clifton]

Yes, that's right. I think they had a rather hybrid organisation in that I have seen references to "double company commanders" - the British officers being responsible for two companies, though these were administeered separately.

However, Broomers does seem to have answered your basioc question - there were Indian NCOs above the rank of havildar.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Thanks Ron ........... when Masters arrived c. 1935 as a new 2Lt with one year on frontier with a British LI battalion he was

PUT IN CHARGE OF A DOUBLE COMPANY IMMEDIATELY AS A TEMPORARY EXPEDIENT.

[Guest]

Gordon Corrigan's "Sepoys in the Trenches - the Indian Corps on the Western Front 1914-15" mentions Colour Havildars (which he states is the equivalent of a British CSM) Quartermaster Havildars, Pay Havildars etc and mentions that there were no equivalents to a Regimental Sergeant Major.

It is worth noting that the Viceroy Commissioned Officers' function was not an exact reflection of the British Officers' ranks system. The VCOs were technically subordinate to British Officers and therefore fulfilled some of the duties that were undertaken by Warrant Officers in a British unit. Due to the small number of British Officers and high casualty rates among those Officers in the early years of the war, many Indian Army double companies were commanded by VCOs. In my day (1980s) we had a direct replication of every rank in a British unit as well as Queen's Gurkha Officers (QGOs the modern equivalent of a VCOS) and very occasionally Gurkha Commissioned Officers (GCOs) which effectively jammed more distinct ranks into a Gurkha battalion than an equivalent British battalion. Influence in a Gurkha battalion sits with Gurkha Officers rather than the Senior NCOs.

The 1915 Army List has "double company commanders" and "double company officers" for all 20 Gurkha battalions as well as every Indian Army battalion. If memory serves, the Indian Cavalry had a different structure to the home based British Cavalry too.

Philip Mason's book "A Matter of Honour" is a standard work on the Indian Army and provides the historical structure - originally nine companies, but later reduced to eight - as well as details on rank structure.

MG

Edited.

P.S. Pedant's corner....... conventional spelling is Gurkha or very occasionally Goorkha (particularly with regards to the Simoor Rifles) but not Ghurka, although one often sees the 'misspelling' in British diaries when describing Gurkhas. The orthography of 'Gurkha' is summarised in the definitive Nepali Dictionary by Ralph Lilley Turner MC MA, professor of Sanskrit in the University of London 'and sometime adjutant of the 2nd Battalion 3rd QAO Gurkha Rifles' which uses 'Gurkha' throughout. Technically is is a romanised phonetic translation of devanagri. His dictionary was published in 1931 and makes reference to A Turnbull's "Nepali Grammar and Vocabulary" (among others) first published in 1887, 2nd ed. published in 1904 which seems the most likely reference book for any British Officer in a Gurkha regiment in 1914. There is also "Gurkhali Manual" by G W P Money published in 1918 and 'Khas Gurkhali Grammar and Vocabulary published in 1899. Note that the spelling is always Gurkha (edit. Corrected)

Lastly, the definitive "Handbook for the Indian Army: Gurkhas" compiled 'under the orders of the Government of India' by Lt Col Eden Vansittart, 2nd Bn 10th Gurkha Rifles in 1906 uses Gurkha throughout. This book would have been compulsory reading for all British Officers serving in the Gurkhas.it is effectively an enlarged edition of his "Notes on Gurkhas" (1890) and "Notes on Nepal" published in 1895. MG.

Edited for typos.

[Steven Broomfield]

. If memory serves, the Indian Cavalry had a different structure to the home based British Cavalry too.

Indeed: Indian Cavalry, and British Cavalry on the Indian Establishment, were on a four-squadron basis, compared to three in the British Army. This necessitated a bit of shuffling when the four remaining British regiments left the two Indian Cavalry Divisions in early 1918.

[Muerrisch]

Thanks to all contributors ....... books to read!

Pedants Pedant's Corner: did someone really write: . Note that the spelling is always Gurhka-.

Now I know better!

[Guest]

Indeed: Indian Cavalry, and British Cavalry on the Indian Establishment, were on a four-squadron basis, compared to three in the British Army. This necessitated a bit of shuffling when the four remaining British regiments left the two Indian Cavalry Divisions in early 1918.

The parallels between the Indian Army and the TF are also interesting. The Yeomanry (TF) also worked to a four Sqn structure prior to 1914 when they had to change to a 3 Sqn formation on mobilisation. This caused some consternation among the men of the Sqns that had to be broken up and more problems when the Yeomanry abandoned Yeomanry drill and adopted the (simpler) cavalry drill in Sep 1914. I am not sure when the TF Infantry changed from eight companies to four, but Westlake's very excellent "The Territorial Force 1914" shows eight companies in 1914 viz A Coy, B Coy.....H Coy for TF battalions. . The Indian Army and the TF appear to have a more Victorian structure than the regulars and the New Army. I can only assume the TF structure accommodated the wider dispersion of the geographic locations of the men enlisted in the TF and therefore it was easier to maintain a more fragmented Company structure.

[Guest]

Thanks to all contributors ....... books to read!

Pedants Pedant's Corner: did someone really write: . Note that the spelling is always Gurhka-.

Now I know better!

A typo now corrected. Pedantically speaking, the word Gurkha is defined in a series of official documents relating to the establishment of the first Gurkha regiments..... that would be the authority.......and the word Ghurkha does not exist in any of the dictionaries or handbooks (all written by ex Gurkha officers) so it is axiomatic that 'Ghurka' is not the convention. To my knowledge, no Gurkha regiment ever used 'Ghurka' in its title in 1914-1919 (the Army list certainly doesn't) or any other year for that matter, in preference to Gurkha or occasionally Goorkha. In the same way 'English' is not spelled Inglish in contemporary British documents. While the OED is not the law, it is a commonly accepted standard for the English language. Similarly Turnbull, Turner, Money and Vansittart, Gurkha regimental records, the Army List, London Gazette, the Gurkha Museum, the Gurkha Welfare Trust etc ad nauseam are in an unbroken etymological chain that does not recognise 'Ghurka' as any variant. Regiments tend to get quite tightly wound when their titles are spelled incorrectly. There are established conventions and Army Orders etc that govern this, and I don't think there is an official Army document from 1914-1919 that uses Ghurka. I think only the French are arrogant enough to put the spelling of words into law, and to outlaw foreign words in official documents. Note I chose the word 'convention' In my first post. When I served, spelling Gurkha as Ghurka would have triggered a few 'extras'. Trust me on this, for anyone who served in the Gurkhas (sic) it makes them cringe when they see 'Ghurka'.

I believe the Royal Welsh Fusiliers of 1914-1919 became Royal Welch Fusiliers in 1920 which involved an Army Order as the authority, such was the pedantry in the British Army.

Ayo Gurkhali.

Edited.

[Ron Clifton]

The Indian Army and the TF appear to have a more Victorian structure than the regulars and the New Army. I can only assume the TF structure accommodated the wider dispersion of the geographic locations of the men enlisted in the TF and therefore it was easier to maintain a more fragmented Company structure.

More to the point, the Regular infantry only adopted the four-company organisation in November 1913, to conform with the French and German practice. Geographical reasons in the case of the TF, and the "class company" system in many Indian battalions, may have played their part, but basically the TF and Indians simply caught up with the Regulars' change as they went overseas.

Ron

[Matthew B.]

Thanks Ron ........... when Masters arrived c. 1935 as a new 2Lt with one year on frontier with a British LI battalion he was

PUT IN CHARGE OF A DOUBLE COMPANY IMMEDIATELY AS A TEMPORARY EXPEDIENT.

I seem to having some problem with posting to the forum but here is what I can say. Masters appointment would not have been unusual. On consulting my copy of the January 1936 Indian Army list he joined the 2nd battalion 4th Prince of Wales Own Gurkha Rifles on the 9th October 1935. Of the 19 British officers on the books of the regiment, 7 officers were serving away from the regiment. Of the 4 company commanders, 3 were absent - one on Staff, one with the Burma Military Police and one on leave pending retirement. This leaves 12 officers to juggle the running of the regiment, and does not include any taking local leave in India. Junior British Indian Army officers were given responsibilities way above what his opposite number in the British Army of the same period would do. In the BA he would be a platoon commander, a role occupied by Jemedars in the Indian Army. He would have been a company officer from the start and given more responsibilities within the company, including administration. The running of a Indian Army regiment was different from a British Army regiment. As to his temporary appointment, as long as he listened to his long experienced company VCO's - the Subedars and Jemedars and basically let them get on with it he would not screw it up. I hope that helps. Matthew

[Guest]

More to the point, the Regular infantry only adopted the four-company organisation in November 1913, to conform with the French and German practice. Geographical reasons in the case of the TF, and the "class company" system in many Indian battalions, may have played their part, but basically the TF and Indians simply caught up with the Regulars' change as they went overseas.

Ron

Thanks Ron...very interesting. I have often wondered when and why the regulars changed to a more concentrated model. You have anticipated my next question. My sense is that as mobilisation occurred, the TF' legacy structure became redundant and almost overnight they were forced into a radical change that would have disrupted the status quo. this must have been destabilising and it makes me curious to explore the impact this might have had on the first TF battalions that went overseas. MG

[Muerrisch]

I seem to having some problem with posting to the forum but here is what I can say. Masters appointment would not have been unusual. On consulting my copy of the January 1936 Indian Army list he joined the 2nd battalion 4th Prince of Wales Own Gurkha Rifles on the 9th October 1935. Of the 19 British officers on the books of the regiment, 7 officers were serving away from the regiment. Of the 4 company commanders, 3 were absent - one on Staff, one with the Burma Military Police and one on leave pending retirement. This leaves 12 officers to juggle the running of the regiment, and does not include any taking local leave in India. Junior British Indian Army officers were given responsibilities way above what his opposite number in the British Army of the same period would do. In the BA he would be a platoon commander, a role occupied by Jemedars in the Indian Army. He would have been a company officer from the start and given more responsibilities within the company, including administration. The running of a Indian Army regiment was different from a British Army regiment. As to his temporary appointment, as long as he listened to his long experienced company VCO's - the Subedars and Jemedars and basically let them get on with it he would not screw it up. I hope that helps. Matthew

So there were two battalions in the regiment in the 1930s sharing 19 King's Commissioned Officers [KCO my abbreviation]?

Say one for the depot if any, that leaves 9 per battalion?

So what was the establishment for the battalion I wonder.

KCO Lt Col as CO,

KCO Major as 2i/c,

KCO Capt or Lt as QM,

KCO Lt or Capt as Adjt,

leaves five KCO Captains or subalterns to command 4 companies with one spare?

The puzzle is the career progression because I see few posts likely for captains if subalterns commanded platoons.

The other puzzle is the role of subadars if jemadars commanded platoons. As 2i/c company perhaps? But Broomers does not have enough jemadars for each platoon by a long chalk, does he?

The more I learn from our erudite experts the more questions buzz around.

Thanks to all so far.

And of course I realise that the 1914 set-up was 8 company to begin with, as Ron said, the regulars had only very recently bitten the bullet to change to 4 companies.

[Ron Clifton]

In 1914 each Indian infantry battalion had 13 British officers and 17 Indian officers. The organisation was in eight companies.

British officers: CO, Major 2i/c, Adjutant, QM, and one other, who I think was the officer i/c machine-gun section, with four double-company cdrs and four double-company officers.

Indian officers: Subedar-major, sixteen subadars and jemadars, each commanding a half-company (equivalent to a platoon in the four-company organisation). One of the officers acted as Woordi-major, or native adjutant.

Given the tendency between the wars to increase the number and responsibilities of Indian officers it seems quite feasible that a battalion of 1935 could manage with only nine British officers, effectively doing away with the "double-company officers".

There may have been slight differences in Gurkha regiments (which had two battalions in peacetime throughout the period in question) as distinct from other Indian regiments, which in 1914 were single-battalion units (except for one or two) but in the 1920s were re-grouped into twenty new regiments with five or six battalions each.

The British Army moved along similar lines after 1957, with the formation of "large regiments" such as the Royal Anglian Regiment and the Royal Green Jackets.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Ron, I am getting more relaxed by the minute!

That makes sense indeed.

Many thanks.

[Guest]

The Army list breaks the appointments down into;

Commandant

Double Company Commanders (including a 2IC)

Double Company Officers (including Adjt and QM)

Medical Officers

Within Gurkha Regiments the numbers could vary considerably...... take the 1st and 2nd Bns of the 1st King George's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Malaun Regiment) in May 1915 [source: The Army List] the 1st Bn had 8 Officers serving in the Bn with 2 more serving away. This included the Commandant, 2IC, Adjutant, and QM leaving only 4 British Officers for the four double companies. The 2nd Bn had 16 serving in the Bn with one more serving away from the Bn. In addition each had an MO.

Breakdown:

Commandants (note CO's in the Gurkhas were called commandants in all 10 Gurkha Regiments)

1st Bn - one

2nd Bn - one

Double Coy Commanders:

1st Bn: one serving as 2IC with another on the supernumerary or seconded list

2nd Bn: 3 of which one was serving as 2IC

Double Company Officers

1st Bn: 6 (including one acting as Adjutant and another as QM) with another on the supernumerary or seconded list - effectively only 4 Double Company Officers serving in the companies.

2nd Bn: 12 (including one acting as Adjutant and another as QM) with another on the supernumerary or seconded list

Medical Officers - one per Bn.

The 4th Gurkha Rifles' two battalions at the same time were more evenly balanced with the 1st and 2nd Bns having 8 and 9 Double Company Officers serving at company level.

The 5th Gurkha Rifles were evenly balanced with 10 Double Company Officers

The 6th Gurkha Rifles' 1st Bn and 2nd Bns had 11 and 7 Double Company Officers serving at company level respectively....

Interestingly the Army List shows a few Majors in the Gurkha Rifles serving as Double Company Officers rather than Double Company Commanders and (not in the same Regiment) Captains serving as Double Company Commanders, so the rank/appointment seems to have been rather fluid at times. The lowest number of Double Company Officers serving at company level I can find is 4 and the highest is 11.

It is unclear whether the 2IC and Double Company Commander's roles were combined. Ditto Double Company Officer and role of Adjt or QM. I suspect they were not double hatted, as per the establishment highlighted by Ron.

MG

Edit: A Cursory glance across the 130 regiments on the Indian Infantry shows a similar wide spread of British Officers serving at Double Company Officer level. The lowest was the 83rd Wallajahbad Light Infantry which had just 2 Double Company Officers of which one was the QM. Curiously this regiment had two Officers at the rank of Lt Col serving as Double Company Commanders. Of the seven British Officers (ex MO) three were Lt Colonels, two Captains one Lt and one 2nd Lt. A rather top heavy regiment....

[MaureenE]

I have been re-reading John Masters's marvellous Bugles and a Tiger.

This book may be read online as follows:

Bugles and a Tiger by John Masters is available to read online on the Digital Library of India website. The original edition Bugles and a Tiger; a Volume of Autobiography published in 1956 is available to read online through the Internet Archive (Archive.org) Lending Library. The main restriction is that only one person can see a particular book at one time (so the book may be ‘checked out’). For more details see Online books-Archive.org

The above paragraph is an extract from the FIBIS Fibiwiki page North West Frontier Campaigns, section Historical books online

http://wiki.fibis.or...al_books_online

Cheers

Maureen

[Muerrisch]

A very interesting window on how the old Indian Army was officered ............ "fluidly and with a lot of variety" would be my summary.

In John Master's time he was, as a 2Lt newly appointed, temporarily i/c two compamies [new-style, four in a battalion] whereas the only major serving as a company officer was i/c the MG company. Clearly the VCOs were excellent if such a junior officer could carry the burden, even if only for a short while. Masters describes writing letters to himself as he he alternated hats.