BEF 1914. Marksmanship, Musketry and the Mad Minute

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Boer War? Few Boer War veterans were in the ranks in August 1914, and those few  tended to occupy CSM/CQMS/ SNCO and battalion staff jobs.

 

This is a good example. It takes less than 10 minutes to determine the number of Boer War veterans in any first cohort or any 1914 Star cohort simply from their Army Numbers. Nixon's website (free access) gives a very accurate guide. All this already covered on the thread. Of the 12 rolls of the 1914 star I have transcribed, less than 3% could have served in the Boer War. I will revert with accurate data. This is freely accessible information. 

 

Separately one does not even have to have knowledge of Nixon numbers. Service was 12 years Colours and Reserves (regardless of whether 9&3, 3&9 or 7&5 unless extended) (also covered on this thread). so it stands to reason that anyone who enlisted in the Boer War  would have been discharged and fulfilled his or her obligation before Aug 1914 unless they had extended. The residual would be men or women who extended their service who were insignificantly small in number. 

 

These are some basics that the thread covers in very early posts. MG

[Muerrisch]

50 minutes ago, QGE said:

 

This is a good example. It takes less than 10 minutes to determine the number of Boer War veterans in any first cohort or any 1914 Star cohort simply from their Army Numbers. Nixon's website (free access) gives a very accurate guide. All this already covered on the thread. Of the 12 rolls of the 1914 star I have transcribed, less than 3% could have served in the Boer War. I will revert with accurate data. This is freely accessible information. 

 

Separately one does not even have to have knowledge of Nixon numbers. Service was 12 years Colours and Reserves (regardless of whether 9&3, 3&9 or 7&5 unless extended) (also covered on this thread). so it stands to reason that anyone who enlisted in the Boer War  would have been discharged and fulfilled his or her obligation before Aug 1914 unless they had extended. The residual would be men or women who extended their service who were insignificantly small in number. 

 

These are some basics that the thread covers in very early posts. MG

 

Martin, I fear that this is an over-simplification. Among several reasons is the presence of almost indistinguishable SR men where a SR number series has an overlap with the Regular series. The use of the 3/ prefix was neither universal nor was it introduced in time for the 1914 roll. Even some TF men qualified for the star, and, again, there are overlaps in the TF series with Regular and SR.

As an example,  SDIGW for all battalions of RWF contains at least 40 pairs of identical numbers below number 10000 (10000 chosen to keep the statistics manageable whilst providing some insight) among the dead, and there were probably considerably more among the survivors. The known RWF pairings, living and/or dead, below 10000 comprise two each of the following numbers: 1098 1140 1305 2600 2637 2694 2785 2917 3211 3248 3249 4343 4356 5120 5289 5358 5549 5575 5588 5590 5926 5977 6111 6112 6137 6253 6326 6379 6429 6430 6846 6893 7000 7602 7615 7797 8112 8780 8843 8901 9046 and 9114.  Two pairs are noteworthy: the surviving Regimental Sergeant-Major 5588 Boreham 2nd RWF and the dead Pte 5588 Dando 1st RWF, and the surviving RQMS 9046 Hughes with the dead Pte Morris 3/4th RWF

 

Your approach is good enough to estimate "not more than" but with quite a lot of noise.

[ss002d6252]

2 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Martin, I fear that this is an over-simplification. Among several reasons is the presence of almost indistinguishable SR men where a SR number series has an overlap with the Regular series. The use of the 3/ prefix was neither universal nor was it introduced in time for the 1914 roll. Even some TF men qualified for the star, and, again, there are overlaps in the TF series with Regular and SR.

As an example,  SDIGW for all battalions of RWF contains at least 40 pairs of identical numbers below number 10000 (10000 chosen to keep the statistics manageable whilst providing some insight) among the dead, and there were probably considerably more among the survivors. The known RWF pairings, living and/or dead, below 10000 comprise two each of the following numbers: 1098 1140 1305 2600 2637 2694 2785 2917 3211 3248 3249 4343 4356 5120 5289 5358 5549 5575 5588 5590 5926 5977 6111 6112 6137 6253 6326 6379 6429 6430 6846 6893 7000 7602 7615 7797 8112 8780 8843 8901 9046 and 9114.  Two pairs are noteworthy: the surviving Regimental Sergeant-Major 5588 Boreham 2nd RWF and the dead Pte 5588 Dando 1st RWF, and the surviving RQMS 9046 Hughes with the dead Pte Morris 3/4th RWF

 

Your approach is good enough to estimate "not more than" but with quite a lot of noise.

That's interesting to see (Out of curiosity when was the principal of using '3/' actually introduced)

Craig

[dansparky]

it was meant in sum and adding that as a collective it may not have made as much difference as it may be imagined.  Apologies for replicating other content Martin.  Do you know how I can investigate musketry returns as you have in your excellent posts?

 

Hi Muerrisch, it was written as an example that's why I added (etc).  You are most definitely right and that was my point.  Very few were Boer war vets, but many publications (not all, but particularly those in agreement with the traditional narrative) do not really go into detail about an effect of reservists and when they do it is of a positive nature.  For example, were Boar vets or other's are present (even in small numbers), we often read that this raised morale.  They only real negative is the fitness, but this thread has shown there may have been other negative impacts with a High number of reservists that had had a lengthy absence from the colours.  

Apologies for repetition I was just clarifying my previous post.  Hopefully, over te next few days i will find some nuggets in my archive material (fingers crossed :-) )

 

 

Edited 1 November , 2016 by dansparky

[Guest]

Can we get back on topic please?

 

I have a separate thread running on Nonne Bosschen  and Polygone wood, 31st Oct -14th Nov 1914. This is the specific period where Wynne (Historical Section) interprets the German  "Ypern 1914" as claiming there were "quantities of machine guns". Wynne's inference from this rather innocuous statement is that the Germans believed the British had machine gun Battalions or Companies and that British rapid rifle fire was mistaken as machine gun fire. To corroborate this he argues that the British Battalion mostly had one or none of their War Establishment 2 machine guns per battalion. His membership of the official Historical Section clearly brings weight to his argument -  weight that in a more enlightened era might be challenged. It became an axiom.

 

It is utter nonsense. Complete nonsense. It is factually incorrect to the extent that it is deliberately misleading. This is important. 

 

A cursory trawl of the diaries shows where the MGs were recorded, some 93% of British battalions had their full complement of machine guns during the critical dates of the alleged (and distorted) remarks.  This itself should raise huge questions over the integrity of Wynne's analysis. Furthermore some battalion's had more than their usual complement of machine guns.

 

The facts completely undermine the idea that the BEF was short of machine guns. In fact the opposite was true, with at least one battalion having double its normal scales of machine guns. 

 

Any mistakes are mine.   MG

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Martin, I fear that this is an over-simplification. Among several reasons is the presence of almost indistinguishable SR men where a SR number series has an overlap with the Regular series. The use of the 3/ prefix was neither universal nor was it introduced in time for the 1914 roll. Even some TF men qualified for the star, and, again, there are overlaps in the TF series with Regular and SR.

 

Your approach is good enough to estimate "not more than" but with quite a lot of noise.

 

Yes I understand this but you 'only' have RWF and I have (due to the kindness of strangers and some hard  yards at the keyboard) 11 additional  samples of BEF Battalions with unique SR identifiers. The point is that this allows us to segregate the SR men and the data is fairly consistent across the 1914 Star sample (well over 20,000 individuals). I will soon have double this number when the Foot Guards are done. The integrity of the data is high. If we carefully select regiments with SR identifiers we can tease out some rather interesting sub-themes. 

 

On this thread is a scatter diagram of the Suffolk Regt's 2nd battalion. The target database was chosen for reasons already explained; in short it significantly reduces the noise in the data as there is no risk of regulars and SR being conflated.. The numbers show only three men who are out-liers at the top end of the data. I assumed they were young buglers or drummers. After further research they appear to be men who recently re-enlisted. Not time-expired old soaks, but men who had served their 12 years and were still under 30. Recently re-enlisted just before the war started; their 'new' numbers sticking out like a bulldog's ******** and worth investigating. 

 

Also of interest was the number of men with numbers in the same number range who were either Reservists or Regulars. As you know there were many who signed on, so the numbering sequence is not a strict guide for the split between serving men and reservists. Again we see similar patters. This is why I focus on Regiments with an SR prefix so I can isolate these men.

 

Separately I discovered today that recruiting into certain line regiments during certain periods was completely blocked (outside SR transfers), which might explain some of the huge differentials in recruiting patterns (something that has always puzzled me) and, (on topic) the huge differentials in the number of trained men available to each battalion; and by extension their musketry skills.

 

On my 1914 Star database we can sort by Army Number and then calculate the difference in number between each consecutive man. It is used as a check to identify if there were any historical cohorts (such as 3&9 men) who were shunned. A large jump in the differential exposes a fault line in number sequences that perhaps years of study could not immediatly discern from the alphabetical distribution on the original medal rolls. I think this is groundbreaking. The data is simply astonishing. I will revert. Food for thought. MG

Edited 2 November , 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

5 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

That's interesting to see (Out of curiosity when was the principal of using '3/' actually introduced)

Craig

 Craig

 

In my experience it was used inconsistently across Regiments. Some applied it, some didn't. I have deliberately chosen to focus on regiments that did use some form of prefix. It is not always a 3/ prefix and can often be a letter identifier. 

 

There is a useful function on excel which highlights duplicate numbers. I have found it to be a rather useful tool that saves hours of time trying to identify double entries or typos.  MG

Edited 2 November , 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

10 hours ago, dansparky said:

it was meant in sum and adding that as a collective it may not have made as much difference as it may be imagined.  Apologies for replicating other content Martin.  Do you know how I can investigate musketry returns as you have in your excellent posts?

 

 

Dan, we have tried and largely failed to find sufficient data. From the few fragments we have managed to piece together my sense is that;

 

1. Musketry demonstrably improved during the inter-war years (Boer War to Great War)

2. Regulars had higher musketry scores than Reservists

3. Regulars had higher musketry scores than the TF

4. The cavalry were as good as the infantry, and in some cases better.

 

None of which should be a surprise given the number of hours dedicated to the pursuit. If by some chance you have not read Pridham's 'Superiority of Fire' it is worth reading (with all its hyperbole and faults). Tread with caution: some of his comments are rather fanciful to put it mildly.  This has also been covered earlier in the thread and I would encourage using the search function to do this as I am reluctant to go over well trodden ground. 

 

I have scoured the National Archives and failed there too. The examples of musketry scores shown have largely been provided by GWF members with arcane knowledge of their own regimental focus. The 11th Hussars comes from its rather excellent published history. The Sherwoods come from its Regimental Annual. This is a potential line to follow (regimental journals) however I only have a decent run of the Sherwoods. An appeal  to GWF memebers on a new thread might flush out Regimental specialists. There are people with forensic knowledge of the RWF, Northumberland Fusiliers, DLI, KRRC, Rifle Brigade, Black Watch, King's Own  the Cavalry etc to name but a few. Some regiments are blessed with a few very knowledgeable GWF members 

 

It is also worth emailing archivists at the regimental museums simply to ask them if they have journals from the period or musketry returns or both. It would be interesting to see what you can flush out.

 

It is worth researching the various musketry competitions. There were dozens of them at various levels - regimental, Brigade, District, Command, National, All India, etc. I supect that regiments that had a strong interest in musketry would produce (over time) a higher proportion of good marksmen. The Sherwoods annuals provide some indication of this; as their scores rose over time, they also did better in competitions perhaps indicating that marksmanship and musketry are more closely related than we might think. My speculation. I would dearly like to see the 4t Bn Royal Fusiliers data when McMahon "The Musketry Maniac" took over as CO. 

 

MG

Edited 2 November , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

Some clarification of the introduction of prefixes, mainly for Craig at #531 above.

Extract from my series of articles, co-authored by Graham Stewart, on Regimental Numbering, published by the MHS.

 

Army Council Instruction (ACI) 123 of 12^th October 1914 entitled ‘Status of Special Reserves, New Armies, and Regular Army’ said:

‘From representations made to the War Office it would appear that there is still some misapprehension with regard to the status of the Special Reserve, and the new armies in process of formation, when compared with the regular army as it existed before war was declared.

It is therefore explained that the New Armies, the reserve units and the Special Reserve are, since mobilisation, to all intents and purposes, portions of the regular army.

It is thus apparent that soldiers, whether attested under the ordinary terms of service in the force before mobilisation, or attested for the duration of the war under the conditions of AOs 295 and 296 of 1914, are, during the period of embodiment, regular soldiers, and are therefore eligible for posting to any of the units of the corps to which they have been appointed, at the discretion of the competent military authority’.

 

One of the effects of this instruction was (should have been) that members of the reserve forces and the new armies should be numbered in the regular regimental series. Most were, although batches were issued to new formations and transferees. Notable departures were 10^th Royal Fusiliers (Stockbrokers) who started at STK/1 in August 1914, the East Yorkshires, whose 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Service Battalions all began at number 1. in 1914, and the Royal West Kents who used compounds G/1 through to about G/3800 for their 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Service battalions. How Recruiting Offices and Depots dealt with the flood of recruits varied widely: in the Lincolnshires, for example, the issuing of numbers appears to be by small batches depending on the enlistment town. As an example, Grimsby enlistees have many blocks of 3, 4, 5, even 50 men in a sequence between 99xx and 11937 by the end of August 1914, and Stamford similarly.

 

Somewhat belatedly, on 18^th May 1915 ACI 144 was issued, entitled ‘Procedure to be adopted in dealing with Duplication of Regimental Numbers’. This duplication arose in regiments where no prefixes or compounds were used, such as the RWF, who had six series (at least) running at that date: a regular series shared by the two line battalions and the Service (New Army) battalions, the separate series of the Special Reserve 3^rd battalion, and separate series for each of the four Territorial Force (TF) battalions 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th. The regular series had moved on, whereas the others were in the zone 4000 to 8000 having either begun at 1. in 1908, or continued previous series from a comparatively low base line. There was therefore an overlap between regular ‘old soldiers’ where numbers around 6000 was still serving, and the others, and 1^st RWF went to war with at least 30 duplicated pairs, comprising SR and regular.

 

The instruction said:

“The following procedure should be adopted, in order to deal with the duplication of regimental numbers which has been found to exist in certain regiments: -

1.       In any regiment in which such duplication exists: -

a.                   Every soldier’s regimental number will be prefixed by the number of the battalion in which he is serving on the date of this letter (eg. 5/3492;

b.                   In the case of men enlisting on or after the date of this letter, the regimental number will be prefixed by the number of the battalion to which the man is first posted;

c.                    In both cases a. and b. the number and prefix will be retained by the man as long as he remains in the regiment, and will not be affected by re-posting to another battalion of the same regiment;

d.                   Officers i/c records should at once take steps to notify these instructions to their offices in which duplication of numbers now exists, and Officers i/c records and COs concerned will take the necessary steps to amend all documents in their possession accordingly;

e.                    Officers i/c records concerned will cause Officers Commanding units affiliated to their offices to furnish a certificate to them by 1^st June 1915 that all documents in their possession have been amended in accordance with these instructions, and Officers i/c records will forward to the War Office by 15^th June 1915 a similar certificate with regard to documents in their possession, adding that the certificates referred to above have been duly received from all COs concerned.

2.       In those regiments in which no duplication of numbers exists, either as a result of separate blocks of numbers having been allotted for each battalion, or in consequence of a system other than that described above having been introduced to deal with the matter, it is not desired that any special orders should now be issued. It should, however, be made clear to all concerned that no alteration of number or prefix should take place if a man is re-posted to a different battalion of the same regiment”.

 

This was a very sensible order apart from the ‘do nothing’ option if no problem was perceived. In this spirit, some regiments, RWF included and with real problems, did nothing, and the problem persisted in those regiments.  Within a year, these battalion number prefixes had become a problem, in that their use in published casualty lists became a source of intelligence to the enemy. They promptly disappeared from public view, but no official instruction has been traced.    

[ss002d6252]

6 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

Some clarification of the introduction of prefixes, mainly for Craig at #531 above.

Extract from my series of articles, co-authored by Graham Stewart, on Regimental Numbering, published by the MHS.

 

Army Council Instruction (ACI) 123 of 12^th October 1914 entitled ‘Status of Special Reserves, New Armies, and Regular Army’ said:

‘From representations made to the War Office it would appear that there is still some misapprehension with regard to the status of the Special Reserve, and the new armies in process of formation, when compared with the regular army as it existed before war was declared.

It is therefore explained that the New Armies, the reserve units and the Special Reserve are, since mobilisation, to all intents and purposes, portions of the regular army.

It is thus apparent that soldiers, whether attested under the ordinary terms of service in the force before mobilisation, or attested for the duration of the war under the conditions of AOs 295 and 296 of 1914, are, during the period of embodiment, regular soldiers, and are therefore eligible for posting to any of the units of the corps to which they have been appointed, at the discretion of the competent military authority’.

 

 

One of the effects of this instruction was (should have been) that members of the reserve forces and the new armies should be numbered in the regular regimental series. Most were, although batches were issued to new formations and transferees. Notable departures were 10^th Royal Fusiliers (Stockbrokers) who started at STK/1 in August 1914, the East Yorkshires, whose 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Service Battalions all began at number 1. in 1914, and the Royal West Kents who used compounds G/1 through to about G/3800 for their 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Service battalions. How Recruiting Offices and Depots dealt with the flood of recruits varied widely: in the Lincolnshires, for example, the issuing of numbers appears to be by small batches depending on the enlistment town. As an example, Grimsby enlistees have many blocks of 3, 4, 5, even 50 men in a sequence between 99xx and 11937 by the end of August 1914, and Stamford similarly.

 

 

Somewhat belatedly, on 18^th May 1915 ACI 144 was issued, entitled ‘Procedure to be adopted in dealing with Duplication of Regimental Numbers’. This duplication arose in regiments where no prefixes or compounds were used, such as the RWF, who had six series (at least) running at that date: a regular series shared by the two line battalions and the Service (New Army) battalions, the separate series of the Special Reserve 3^rd battalion, and separate series for each of the four Territorial Force (TF) battalions 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th. The regular series had moved on, whereas the others were in the zone 4000 to 8000 having either begun at 1. in 1908, or continued previous series from a comparatively low base line. There was therefore an overlap between regular ‘old soldiers’ where numbers around 6000 was still serving, and the others, and 1^st RWF went to war with at least 30 duplicated pairs, comprising SR and regular.

 

 

The instruction said:

“The following procedure should be adopted, in order to deal with the duplication of regimental numbers which has been found to exist in certain regiments: -

1.       In any regiment in which such duplication exists: -

a.                   Every soldier’s regimental number will be prefixed by the number of the battalion in which he is serving on the date of this letter (eg. 5/3492;

b.                   In the case of men enlisting on or after the date of this letter, the regimental number will be prefixed by the number of the battalion to which the man is first posted;

c.                    In both cases a. and b. the number and prefix will be retained by the man as long as he remains in the regiment, and will not be affected by re-posting to another battalion of the same regiment;

d.                   Officers i/c records should at once take steps to notify these instructions to their offices in which duplication of numbers now exists, and Officers i/c records and COs concerned will take the necessary steps to amend all documents in their possession accordingly;

e.                    Officers i/c records concerned will cause Officers Commanding units affiliated to their offices to furnish a certificate to them by 1^st June 1915 that all documents in their possession have been amended in accordance with these instructions, and Officers i/c records will forward to the War Office by 15^th June 1915 a similar certificate with regard to documents in their possession, adding that the certificates referred to above have been duly received from all COs concerned.

2.       In those regiments in which no duplication of numbers exists, either as a result of separate blocks of numbers having been allotted for each battalion, or in consequence of a system other than that described above having been introduced to deal with the matter, it is not desired that any special orders should now be issued. It should, however, be made clear to all concerned that no alteration of number or prefix should take place if a man is re-posted to a different battalion of the same regiment”.

 

 

This was a very sensible order apart from the ‘do nothing’ option if no problem was perceived. In this spirit, some regiments, RWF included and with real problems, did nothing, and the problem persisted in those regiments.  Within a year, these battalion number prefixes had become a problem, in that their use in published casualty lists became a source of intelligence to the enemy. They promptly disappeared from public view, but no official instruction has been traced.    

Thanks David - ACI 144 clarifies it nicely.

 

Craig

[Muerrisch]

With regard to the take-up of Special Reservists qualifying for the 1914 Star, whereas precisely identifying when they landed in F&F [which is not an infallible guide to when they reached the firing line], it is clearly interesting if these men can be isolated by regimental number or by prefix thereto. Some idea of the totals for each regiment for which ssomeone has the Rolls would be instructive.

 

However, bearing in mind the official cascade of preferred take-up [Section A, Section B, Section D, SR] and the unofficial weeding of Section B and D by length of absence carried out by many COs on Mobilization such as the NF, it would be surprising if many SR men recognisable as such were early birds.

 

I suggest that we can safely say that any sets of duplicate numbers, disregarding the availability of a prefix, demonstrate the presence of the SR, and, furthermore, that the second arrival of a pair is highly likely to be an SR man. A little extra care is needed for regiments that deployed a TF battalion of course.

 

Addendum:

 

I would add that the matter of the dreadful muddle regarding soldiers' regimental numbers [if a regiment had, for example,  two regular battalions, two Special/Extra Reserve battalions, and three TF battalions it might well have six separate series, indistinguishable in most cases from  each other, and overlapping in many instances] is a symptom of the Army's unpreparedness for major war.

Such a simple oversight caused very real problems with the administration of postings, attachments and individual soldiers, such that the War Office and Army Council were forced into a bewildering series of orders and instructions, some of which involved order, counter-order, disorder. This was a totally unnecessary distraction from fighting the war.

[stiletto_33853]

Fascinating thread. I will not flood this thread with musketry scores as Regimental records give battalion by battalion scores even down to the Depot, army competitions etc year by year.

These examples are for the 1st Rifle Brigade in 1903, they go on for pages and pages.

 

 

 

Edited 2 November , 2016 by stiletto_33853

[stiletto_33853]

Edited 2 November , 2016 by stiletto_33853

[dansparky]

Thanks, Martin I think that will be my next project.  Extremely fascinating aspect of this topic, Pridham ordered.  Who is the author of the 11th Hussars? Cpt L R Lumley ? Or Richard Brett Smith?

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, stiletto_33853 said:

Fascinating thread. I will not flood this thread with musketry scores as Regimental records give battalion by battalion scores even down to the Depot, army competitions etc year by year.

These examples are for the 1st Rifle Brigade in 1903, they go on for pages and pages.

 

 

 

 

This is a gold mine.

37.6% were Marksmen.

77.8% were either Marksmen or 1st Class shots.

It is also noticeable how many of the best shots are NCOs.

 

I assume from the regimental Chronicle? If so, do we have this level of detail for every year between 1902 and 1914? I have some of the Chronicles but all relating to the war years.

 

It would be very interesting to see how scores changed as the Musketry Test changed in 1905 and again 1909 for a barticular battalion

[seaforth78]

I wonder if being a Rifle Regiment with its reputation at stake would that have had influenced it's musketry scores? I would be greatly interested to see by contrast what the marks of either the 1st or 2nd Battalions of the KRRC were? Further how did the Rifle Regiments compare to the rest of the line in this period? 

Edited 2 November , 2016 by seaforth78

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, dansparky said:

Thanks, Martin I think that will be my next project.  Extremely fascinating aspect of this topic, Pridham ordered.  Who is the author of the 11th Hussars? Cpt L R Lumley ? Or Richard Brett Smith?

 

11th Hussars author was LumleyCovers 1908 -1930s.  An expensive book and difficult to find. It is still in copyright and has not been reprinted. It is arguably one of the finest regimental histories in terms of detail. It rubs shoulders with Stacke's massive tome on the Worcestershire Regiment.  MG

[Steven Broomfield]

18 minutes ago, QGE said:

 

11th Hussars author was LumleyCovers 1908 -1930s.  An expensive book and difficult to find. It is still in copyright and has not been reprinted. It is arguably one of the finest regimental histories in terms of detail. It rubs shoulders with Stacke's massive tome on the Worcestershire Regiment.  MG

Doesn't fall apart so easily, though.

 

Brett-Smith (post 542) was author, IIRC, of the Famous Regiments volume from the 70's.

[dansparky]

36 minutes ago, seaforth78 said:

I wonder if being a Rifle Regiment with its reputation at stake would that have had influenced it's musketry scores? I would be greatly interested to see by contrast what the marks of either the 1st or 2nd Battalions of the KRRC were? Further how did the Rifle Regiments compare to the rest of the line in this period? 

 

 

In a post a while back  posted some data showing the 2KRRC were the best-performing battalion of the 10th Brigade, in terms of musketry.  Haldane also mentions that the other battalions must attain this standard (or words to that effect).  There is a suggestion that musketry was the primary focus, Haldane felt that other were at times lazy or focused too much on sport.

Edited 2 November , 2016 by dansparky

[seaforth78]

I suspected as such. Thanks Dan. I hope I could the musketry tables for 2/KRRC in the Cronicle of that Regiment if published. 

[stiletto_33853]

1905, 1st battalion. Martin, I will e-mail you the rest as there is 8 pages for 1905 1st battalion with various competitions in Malta. Yes, all from the Chronicles back to 1890.

 

 

Edited 2 November , 2016 by stiletto_33853

[seaforth78]

12 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

Doesn't fall apart so easily, though.

 

Brett-Smith (post 542) was author, IIRC, of the Famous Regiments volume from the 70's.

This isn't bad at all. Snap it up lads while its up! 

 

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/the-eleventh-hussars-prince-albert's-own-1908-1934/author/lumley-l-r/

[dansparky]

4 minutes ago, seaforth78 said:

I suspected as such. Thanks Dan. I hope I could the musketry tables for 2/KRRC in the Cronicle of that Regiment if published. 

Hi, Seaforth, not quite sure what the last sentence means?  Snapped it up on ebay £18.  Not the best copy ever and plates missing (sigh), but the rest is there.  

[seaforth78]

2 minutes ago, dansparky said:

Hi, Seaforth, not quite sure what the last sentence means?  Snapped it up on ebay £18.  Not the best copy ever and plates missing (sigh), but the rest is there.  

Well if you see the above from stiletto who very kindly has contributed the musketry table results for 1/RB for 1903, I had  queried if a similar list was published in the KRRC's journal as well for that time period. 

 

85 quid for an original Lumley Regimental copy is excellent value. 

[stiletto_33853]

1905

 

I will e-mail the 1909 results to you as this was the year the Elrington Cups started.

 

 

Edited 2 November , 2016 by stiletto_33853