Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

'shock' division - 41st (?) and any others


Jim Hastings

Recommended Posts

Dear All

On being advised to read 'Sapper Martin' by a friend to gain a ground-eye view of 41st Division, I was surprised to find Jack Martin state in his entry for 22nd July 1917: " ...It has been quite evident that we are only recuperating and preparing for another attack. Apparently we are a 'shock' division ...". Were particular Divisions deemed 'shock' divisions, if so was 41 Div really one or was this Other Rank rumour? Also, if so, which other Divs were deemed 'shock' ones?

Appreciate any insight from Forum Pals

All the best

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim

I think a lot of divisions liked to consider themselves shock troops; or divisions that were picked for big attacks. It could be argued that whatever a division's reputation the turn of the handle on big offensives would find them taking their place in the front line to conduct attacks - this could understandably make soldiers feel that they were being picked if they engaged in more than one attack at 3rd Ypres, say, whereas more often than not every division was in the same boat having to make multiple attacks. There have been plenty of arguments on this forum and elsewhere as to which divisions were or weren't 'shock troops' - again the name can be open to plenty of interpretation. I wasn't aware of the 41st Division having that acclaim but it's not a unit with which I'm intimately familiar. It could be argued that the divisions picked for being sent to Italy in late 1917 (of which the 41st was one) were the best we could send to support our brave Italian Allies; or conversely were divisions that could be spared from the Western Front. The problem was that a division could gain a reputation for success and have a bad battle (18th Division and Cherisy) of could have a mediocre rep but have a good battle (46th Division and the Hindenburg Line). I don't want to start up this debate up as any example could be extensively discussed. I always wondered if corps or army commanders ever mentioned in diaries or letters the arrivals of divisions into their areas with pleasure or dismay - the few I have read do not seem to mention such aspects though. I suppose it is the views of these gentlemen and GHQ as to the reputation of divisions which ultimately count - all members of divisions will generally have a stilted view of their own unit.

I hope that provides a general answer

Kind regards

Colin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Colin,

I think that covers it brilliantly, and I equally do not wish to start a thread that compares one division to another in terms of 'shock' status or proficiency - personally I think divisions were too fluid, in terms of manpower, hierarchy and, hence, experience to develop a sort of league table or whatever. What struck me was that Martin seems to be a very straight forward thinking and speaking writer, his diary is starkly honest about his attitude to the war and his part in it. There is no unit up-man-ship on his part (indeed he mentions the 11th RWK more greatly, so far), he just wants to do his job, do it professionally as a part of personal honour and to get through the war. He seems as surprised almost as I was by his discovery that his division was a 'shock' one - his response:

"Apparently we are a 'shock' division which, I suppose, the military mind would consider a matter for self-congratulation and pride"

but it is evident the "military mind" is not his, its as though 'some people may see it as something to be proud of, I can understand that, but I don't necessarily see it'. It was his character that got me thinking about the statement about 'shock' division I reckon. Had I been reading a gusto, all action memoir I don't think I'd have thought twice about it, other than as an author's expression of unit pride.

What do others who have read 'Sapper Martin' think? I suppose on reflection some 'gusto' officer may have said it to him and he's commenting on it and his own belief/disbelief in it?

The Italy deployment is a good query Colin, I wonder what the thought process was in allocation?

Hope this post does not develop into a thread comparing divisions against one another, but any evidence (e.g. from GHQ etc.) for 'shock' attribution to divisions would be interesting. For my part, if I've interpreted his tone correctly, I don't think Martin thought his division 'shock', but amongst many trying to just get the war won...

Thanks again Colin

All the best

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if author meant stock, many Division's saw themselves are Stock troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem that the Germans did indeed have a list of divisions that they feared and I have posted that on another thread and so see no need to repeat it here. However...

I do wonder if it (shock division) was a term applied by the press of the time. Particularly as it might have been used to label successful divisions or those who had recently had a successful battle or even run of battles. It is a term I have seen applied to the 51st Highland Division and yet in all the reading I have done from literature of the time, nowhere do they use or apply the term to themselves.

Similarly I was intrigued that the Scots were apparently referred to by the Germans as the Ladies From Hell. Only to find years later that this was not in fact true and the term was first used by the press.

While I have not read the book the comment which I may have taken out of context, smacks of being on the sardonic side. I have read instances where the troops on the ground were highly critical of the press at home.

I have also noted in my reading that the term also seems to have been applied to some Germans too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you 6th Shropshires and Seaforths,

Sadly Martin does not give the source for he finding out he was in a 'shock' division. It may have been the press, as you suggest Seaforths, or an officer (he was not very fond of them, less one!!), maybe even from a Brigadier's pep talk ?? I tried to search for your thread re: units Germans feared, but it is not listed in your posts and I could not find it on a general forum search, could you please post the link?

Thanks again

Best wishes

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to search for your thread re: units Germans feared, but it is not listed in your posts and I could not find it on a general forum search, could you please post the link?

Thanks again

Best wishes

Jim

No Problem Jim,

Posts #20 and #24 here: http://1914-1918.inv...opic=193396&hl=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Seaforths, what an interesting piece of intelligence, a fascinating read. Funnily enough, they (51st, 29th, Guards) were the divisions that I thought may have come up from my original post. Even in my service days, the adage seemed to be 'if you want to capture a town send in the Highlanders' ...

Thanks for sharing

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome and so by pure coincidence I was looking through this book tonight for information on something totally unrelated when my attention was caught by the lines around 5th from the bottom of the page. I wonder who gave them that label? The author? It does seem to me as though it was others that applied the labels at home!

Anyway I hope this link works: http://www.ambaile.o...f the Great War

You then need to jump the pages in chunks till you reach page 214 (on the subject of Loos)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be right there Seaforths, looking at the example you posted above (thank you for the link by the way, worked great) - maybe such titles as 'storm' or 'shock' units did come from the pens of authors and journalists. Somehow think Sapper Martin had little time for such titles, if I read him in the correct tone

Thanks yet again

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Jim, I eagerly await the publication of 'Engine of Destruction' in a few weeks and after this discussion, whether a modern writer/author will perpetuate the vocabulary of his professional forbears or, perhaps the clue is in the title! Maybe he will reference the source(s)

:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all

In the British Official History relating to Italy, it mentions that, when it was decided to send a corps of two divisions there after Caporetto, Haig was instructed to select a "good man" as corps commander, and to send two "good divisions." The first two selected were 23rd and 41st, both incidentally New Army divisions. Two Regular divisions (5th and 7th) and one TF (48th) followed soon afterwards. although 5th and 41st were brought back to France in March 1918.

So there is strong ground for the argument that 41st could have been a "shock division", whatever that term actually means. It is probably relevant that its commander, Maj-Gen S T B Lawford, had been in post for over two years (since April 1915) and so had a firmer "grip" on his troops than one more recently appointed would have. In many cases it appears that a division's fighting qquality depended very much on its GOC. It is the other side of the coin to the old saying "there are no bad troops, only bad officers."

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ron,

That is a very good argument and makes total sense. I have read some info on 1st East Surreys (5th Div.) and they were praised by commanders from very early in the war onwards. Strong divisions would have had to be sent to Italy I suppose - firstly to bolster an ally and the front and secondly to show the mettle of the British Army. Likewise, for the 5th and 41st to be returned to the WF when needs greatest in 1918 can only say something of their reputation.

Great addition, thank you so much

Best wishes

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic

'No bad troops, only bad officers', No bad soldiers, only bad colonels' - this saying comes in several variations and I've seen it ascribed to Napoleon. BUT in my 19th C copy of Napoleon's military maxims it's not there. Can anyone suggest the origin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...