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

Remembered Today:

Royal Engineers arm insignia


DaveTomo

Recommended Posts

My first post so please be gentle. A family photo has recently been found of my Grandad William Tomlins & I was wondering if anybody could please identify the insignia on his arm.I know he was in the Royal Engineers & looking through the National Archive information seems a little scarce.Any help ot guidance would be very much appreciated,the meaningof the insignia & ideally what colours they were as i would like to "colourise" the picture, thank you.

post-113822-0-05722600-1407587658_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the National Archive, you'll have to excuse my ignorance,can anyone expalin these meanings also,very much new to this but very keen to learn, again thank you

post-113822-0-23646000-1407587868_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi and Welcome to the Forum.

This page from the Forum's Mother site , The Long Long Trail (LLT) will help you with your second query. The LLT, link at top left of the page, is always a good first port of call when seeking information. :)

http://www.1914-1918.net/soldiers/interpretmic.html

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo shows on the right cuff the maximum no. of overseas service chevrons awarded, 4 blue and one red, the red signifying overseas service prior to 31st Dec 1914. His MIC has no 14 or 15 Star. can this be correct?

Eddie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is in fact another medal card.. this is not uncommon for regulars .. albeit possibly misfiled/misnumbered etc.. it seems so with these details..

Medal card of Tomlin, W. Corps: Royal Engineers. Regiment No: 27298. Rank: Sapper Acting Lance ...

War Office: Service Medal and Award Rolls Index, First World War. Medal card of Tomlin, W. Corps Regiment No Rank Royal Engineers 27298 Sapper Acting Lance Corporal.

  • Date range: 1914 - 1920
  • Reference:WO 372/20/50536
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sewn on brassard on his right arm shows that he was a signaler [the colours are blue and white,] the triangle on the brassard is most probably a divisional one someone more learned than me should be able to identify it

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He appears to be a member of the Royal Engineers Signal Service supporting the famous 29th Division, whose badge was a point up triangle. They were a regular Division and first came to fame in the ill fated Gallipoli campaign, but deployed to the Somme in time for the 1916 battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He appears to be a member of the Royal Engineers Signal Service supporting the famous 29th Division, whose badge was a point up triangle. They were a regular Division and first came to fame in the ill fated Gallipoli campaign, but deployed to the Somme in time for the 1916 battles.

29th Div triangle was very flat: this one is not it.

Cheers,

GT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29th Div triangle was very flat: this one is not it.

Cheers,

GT.

The baseline of the red felt badge actually worn by 29th Div was indeed slightly longer than the upper diagonals but not hugely so. The representative badge on Page 17 of Osprey 182, when looked at from the same angle as the photo above, seems commensurate to me. The most common badge worn on signallers arm bands was Divisional, as this was the lowest formation level where RE signallers were organised. Perhaps you had another division in mind, if so which? I can find no other remotely similar at that level.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2014 at 05:52, FROGSMILE said:

The baseline of the red felt badge actually worn by 29th Div was indeed slightly longer than the upper diagonals but not hugely so. The representative badge on Page 17 of Osprey 182, when looked at from the same angle as the photo above, seems commensurate to me. The most common badge worn on signallers arm bands was Divisional, as this was the lowest formation level where RE signallers were organised. Perhaps you had another division in mind, if so which? I can find no other remotely similar at that level.

Cheers!

Waring's Pamphlet has lots of these triangles and - regardless of likelihood - it's an assumption that it's a division, especially without dimension and colour.

Either way, it looks all wrong shape-wise for 29th, even allowing for the vagaries of theatre manufacture.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Grovetown says, the 29th Division sign is a flat triangle. Photos and surviving examples on uniforms and helmets bear this out. Whether it is divisional, brigade or something else, the one in this photo is not 29th Division. It is simply too tall for that.

Add: It looks as if it is 15th Scottish Division. See this thread - post 104 refers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Grovetown says, the 29th Division sign is a flat triangle. Photos and surviving examples on uniforms and helmets bear this out. Whether it is divisional, brigade or something else, the one in this photo is not 29th Division. It is simply too tall for that.

Add: It looks as if it is 15th Scottish Division. See this thread - post 104 refers.

I disagree that the OPs photo shows a tartan triangle. It is clearly of one colour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waring's Pamphlet has lots of these triangles and - regardless of likelihood - it's an assumption that it's a division, especially without dimension and colour.

Either way, it looks all wrong shape-wise for 29th, even allowing for the vagaries of theatre manufacture.

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=160706

I am well aware of the shallow dimensions of the Div Sign when represented on war memorials and in your linked photos. All I can suggest is that you look at the original badge referred to in my last post and you will see that when looked at from the same angle of view the badge has clear similarities with that shown in the OPs photo. I can only imagine that there were indeed theatre vagaries. RE signallers were not allocated to Brigade level in WW1 and Divisional signs were the usual badge superimposed on an arm band where any badge was worn at all. We will just disagree on this and that is fine. I have been looking at other Div signs and so far have been unable to find any other that matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether 15th or not, dunno - but it certainly looks, when enlarged, to have feint diagonal lines across it: tartan then being a strong possibility.

Cheers,

GT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The additional MIC shows 16 August 1914 as date of entry, so neither 15th nor 29th Division was his original Division....

It must have been one of: 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 5th Divisions. That doesn't mean he wasn't in a different Division at a later date. The photo is no earlier than 1918.

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found another contender that might fit the bill. The 66th (East Lancashire) Division, a Territorial Force formation, had a point up equilateral triangle as their badge. However it was bi-coloured, blue and yellow, in thirds. The top third was blue, the middle third yellow and the bottom third blue. The 66th Div arrived in France in March 1917.

If the triangle appears to be plaid when 'enlarged' (something I have not done) then it might indeed be 15th (Scottish) Division, as although battle patches were not generally worn by that Division's fighting units, other than company indicators, it is recorded that support troops wore a tartan triangle on their sleeves.

post-599-0-86639700-1407791148_thumb.jpg

post-599-0-44559300-1407792351_thumb.jpg

post-599-0-92436400-1407792371_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did Third Division adopt the inverted red triangle in the black triangle?

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did Third Division adopt the inverted red triangle in the black triangle?

Steve.

The GOC in WW2 (Montgomery) changed it in 1941 from its WW1 pattern to the black and red triangle within a triangle that is still used today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think it was the correct period, but I am not an insignia person as a a rule - and it is obvious why!

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you chaps, I don't know if this helps, I've enlarged the image of the triangle as much as I dared without losing its clarity

I think that the horizontal white line in the plaid would have shown in your enlarged image if it was tartan. Is it just me or does the central part of the triangle look a different shade to the top and bottom parts?

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...