Old Tom Posted 30 November , 2013 Share Posted 30 November , 2013 A thread in the soldiers forum deals with the possiblity of optometrists transferring from RAMC to RGA and being commissioned in the process. It suggests that with the expansion of RGA experience and skills of RGA gunners and perhaps artificers would decrease and that optometrists would be valuable. My thoughts are that the AOC trained artificers and I assume RGA batteries would have one on establishment or that one, or more, would belong to each group. I would think that the skills of optometrists were in the field of lens and spectacles and that their most likely employment would be in AOC workshops as NCOs. not officers. This assumes that gun sights which were damaged or suspect would be replaced and returned to AOC workshops for repair, and that detailed work on sights would not take place in the battery. Are there any gunners who can comment? Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 1 December , 2013 Share Posted 1 December , 2013 Sight testing was a mtter for the battery, actually quick sight tests were part of the daily routine. Little if any repairs to damaged sights and instruments such as directors would have been done by bty artificers, particularly if it involved opening up the instrument. Since intruments are easy to move around its possible that repairs were centralised in an army level workshop. I'd assume that each battery held a spare dial sight, clino, etc, presumably the bty AFG 1098 would reveal spares holdings (if it was 1098 in those days). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 1 December , 2013 Author Share Posted 1 December , 2013 We seem to be agreement. I have just stumbled on a post that shows that a RGA battery had a Staff Sergeant Fitter, not an artificer. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 2 December , 2013 Share Posted 2 December , 2013 My suspicion is there wasn't much repair of instruments. I suspect that battle damage, eg hit by a shell fragment, made them pretty much beyond repair, although some components might be salvaged. Normal use and transport in a case meant that accidental damage was unlikely. One problem could be water or internal condensation if sealing leaked. The only sights I've known to suffer such problems were Italian ones in tropical conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 2 December , 2013 Share Posted 2 December , 2013 Just a couple of points. Surely a Staff Sergeant Fitter was an artificer even in the RA. In the war diary for the Canadian Army Ordnance Corps workshop there is mention of a "Range Finder Artificer", and which has been discussed before; http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=190207&hl=artificer . The workshop was repairing British guns and instruments as well. On the question of why there were men being commissioned from the RAMC to the RGA then perhaps looking at a number of service records for such officers may indicate what the they were actually doing. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 2 December , 2013 Share Posted 2 December , 2013 A "normal months" repair to optical equipment can be seen at http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e062/e001536907.jpg Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 2 December , 2013 Author Share Posted 2 December , 2013 Kevin, Thanks for that, an interesting list. Re artificers, perhaps I have too much in mind the present day meaning of the term, but my understanding is that in WW1 in the British army artificer trained by AOC and a Staff sgt fitter would not have had that training. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 2 December , 2013 Share Posted 2 December , 2013 Quote, "but my understanding is that in WW1 in the British army artificer trained by AOC and a Staff sgt fitter would not have had that training." I thought that had already been discussed in the previous thread that I gave in post 5. In that thread I showed the certificate for a RGA Staff Sergeant Fitter who had passed his particular course at the Ordnance College. I am inclined to think they thought he was an artificer whether he was with a battery or attached to an Ordnance Workshop. I am not sure they would have been too worried either way as long as he could do the job. Have a look at KRs 1220, "Wheelers & Smiths; Trained artificers in garrison". Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 3 December , 2013 Share Posted 3 December , 2013 Interesting but I'm not sure how typical the numbers were, Sep 17 for the Cdn Corps was probably still recovery from Messines. One technician for a corps isn't exactly a huge number for the BEF. The other question is how much of the work was 'repair' and how much was 'modification' to improve such things as water-proofing. The No 7 DS was only 5 or so years old in 1917, and was the first complex optical sight for arty so it was probably stil in the 'reliability growth' stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 3 December , 2013 Author Share Posted 3 December , 2013 Kevin, My apologies. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now