'Smartest' cavalry regiments

[NZHighlander]

G’Day, as some of you may recall a couple of months ago I had a series of questions about the regimental system. These questions were answered with extreme detail, and it was suggested that I purchased “Military Identities” by Prof. David French for further self research. I did, and have digested it over the summer, however while some areas were covered extremely well, one particular area left me with more questions than answers – then I thought of the combined knowledge of you lot!

While French gave a great overview of the ‘smartness’ of a regiment and the pecking order there was some minor questions that sprung to mind. The hierarchy he lists hardly comes as a surprise; Household brigade, four or five line cavalry regiments, 60^th Rifles and Rifle Brigade, remainder of cavalry, Highland, Lowland etc. He even lists all the Infantry Regiments, in the various groupings of popularity (about five or six in total) which made extremely interesting reading! (Even if in my copy the Dublins were listed twice, and there was no mention of the 18^th foot!)

However my main issue is the way the cavalry was displayed. He divided them into two groups (made up of ten in the first, and eleven in the second). What made it frustrating was that he used the post 1922 amalgamations, which from my count should have made a total of twenty regiments, not twenty-one! Also with the 1^st DG listed in both categories only add to the confusion.

What I’m trying to find out is, what were the four or five cavalry regiments he was referring to as being the ‘smartest’ so to speak, while the 10^th Hussars obviously held this spot, my research has found the 1^st Royal Dragoons, 9^th Lancers and 13^th Hussars all ranking up there. I would suspect the Scots Greys would be up there too. Does anyone have a rough guide as to the remaining order? I’d assume the 19^th and 20^th Hussars, and the 21^st Lancers would rank towards the end. What I gather is that the Colonel, its polo playing ability and is seniority all played a part

.

In the divide between the more and less fashionable regiments he lists the 17^th/21^st Lancers as being at the higher end of the social scale, along with the 13^th/18^th Hussars. Could one assume it’s because of the former’s connections rather than their newer partner?

Also due to the mixed signals over the 1^st King’s DG does anyone know where they would rank?

Secondly, nowadays it seems that particular regiments of the RAC target specific areas i.e 4^th RTR had very strong connections in Scotland, did this develop after the First World War (Obviously for the RTR it did!!)? I can’t seem to find any evidence of it until the fractioned cavalry era.

Cheers,

Hamish

[Steven Broomfield]

Hamish, answering the last question first, I believe localisation of cavalry regiments didn't come about until post-WW2. In the GW, recruitment of other ranks was very much into a "Corps of ..." (Dragoons, Hussars, Lancers), rather than into specific regiments. After cavalry was included into the Royal Armoured Corps and all recruitment went that way, local connections were extremely limited. The establishment of Home Head Quarters (as opposed to Regimental Head Quarters) and establishment of a "base" was a 1950's thing.

For example, the 11th Hussars established HHQ in (IIRC) Cirencester, tying the regiment pretty well to Gloucestershire and the West Country. That also established ties to the local Yeomanry regiments, with Permanent Staff being allocated to the 'local' yeomanry. Now, for example, the King's Royal Hussars have a recruiting area covering the West Country (Hampshire, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire) and Lancashire, Merseyside and Cumbria.

Regarding French's lists, I'll have a look and get back to you.

Good book, though, isn't it?

[NZHighlander]

Cheers Steven, you've cleared that up! Yes, it's a great read, very grateful for the recommendation. Look forward to to your thoughts on those lists.

[Steven Broomfield]

I'll crack on this evening.

[Steven Broomfield]

Assuming we're looking at the notes on page 166, his list of the top ten is

KDG (1st Dragoon Guards), Royals (1st Dragoons), Greys (2nd Dragoons), 5DG, 7H, 10H, 11H 13/18H, 9L, 16/5L and 17/21L (yes - that's eleven!)

And the next raft are:

KDG (again), Bays (2DG) 3/6thDG (later 3rd Carabiniers - amalgamation of the 3rd DG and the 6th DG), 4/7DG, 12L, 3H, 4H, 8H, 14/20H and 15/19H (10)

The confusion in the second list is because he's referred to the 3/ and 6/ Dragoon Guards: the 3rd DG amalgamated with the 6th DG (Carabiniers) and were initially the 3/6th DG, but became 3rd Carabiniers after a few years. regarding the KDG I have no idea, I'm afraid. I would have thought they would have been up the social scale but their inclusion on both lists makes me feel he maybe meant to put them in the second.

I'm interested in why you have the 13th Hussars "up there": I don't think they had a Royal Colonel, did they? Not that is an exclusion, but I would have thought a friend at Court would help!

I can't really comment too much on them, to be fair, but a plough through the 1914 Army List would be revealing, I bet.

Sorry I can't help much more, but I will keep thinking.

[Muerrisch]

This is a rather unreal subject.

Anyone who has served or indeed had any affiliation knows that THEIR REGIMENT is the best

[Guest]

French's methodology focuses on some very simple analysis across four arbitrary dates. It is restrictive in a number of ways;

1. None of the dates are representative of the Army during the Great War and its universal expansion. If one wanted to analyse which regiments were considered 'smart' one might consider looking at the 1915 Army List. It provides a snapshot of the Army after a massive expansion and importantly, during the volunteer period. Notably the main regiments considered the smartest saw little expansion, meaning the zealous titled men and their sons and relatives had to seek out other regiments. This would I think provide a very good idea of how dispersed the titled Officers were and provide some insight on the alleged second tier.

2. The high incidence of Scots regiments in the higher tranches of the alleged hierarchy is distorted by the disproportionately high number of Scottish seats carrying titles. The Scottish aristocracy was significantly more fragmented than the English. Proportionally speaking there were more to go around the small number of Scottish Regiments. French's methodology makes no adjustment for this.

3. Within the Peerage there was and still is a hierarchy. The Peers were ranked (there is a specific Act of Parliament that coverers the order) so that. Duke ranked significantly higher than a Baron. Having a Duke or two in a Regiment would I think be far more significant than the sons of Barons. French's simplistic methodology weighs them the same. On this adjustment the Yeomanry would catapult up the so called 'rankings'.

4. The methodology only counts titled Officers and their eldest sons*. I suspect if anyone mentioned in Debretts is included the results would be radically different, particularly for the Army in late 1915 compared,say to 1910 (one of the arbitrary dates. The number of Officers from titled families who did not (then) carry titles runs into hundreds. Some of the regiments at the bottom of French's list had a number of (untitled) Officers from titled families. His methodology misses these, particularly during the war years.

The nearest dates he takes are 1910 and 1930 which rather misses the largest Army Britain ever had. Given that 99% of eligible Public Schoolboys served during the War one might reasonably expect most men from titled families signed up if they could. To trace these is a very hard task that would I think take many months. Gliddon's book goes some way towards this, but the lack of an index makes it a difficult book to use.

French makes some effort to make the analysis scientific but it really needs developing considerably if it is to have any real meaning. One of the other social factors was whether a Regiment (Cav) or Battalion (Inf) was stationed in England. For the social hierarchy the ability to stay in contact with London society in particular would have carried significant weight. On this basis it is hardly surprising that the Household regiments (Cav and Inf) were seen to be more attractive.

Whatever methodology is used, it will remain subjective.

* Eldest sons of Dukes and Marquesses have their own titles. The eldest sons of other peers are 'The honourable' etc. Younger sons don't carry titles and are therefore significantly more difficult to spot in things like the Army List. This probably explains French's methodology, however it means that hundreds of younger sons, and indeed many brothers, uncles, nephews cousins of titled families are missing from the lists. French's approach is therefore rather limited in its catchment and I believe not really representative as it only includes the progenitors. MG

[rclpillinger]

No Competition!

Tenth (Prince of Wales Own) Royal Hussars

[Guest]

To illustrate how French's arbitrary choice of dates distort the results; the Suffolk Regt allegedly had no titled Officers on the dates chosen., however the nephew of the 3rd Earl of Lonsdale (1st Viscount Ullswater) served in the Suffolk Regt in 1914-15. He was the third son of the viscount's brother and therefore not counted.

Gerald Cadogan who was the 6th Earl in 1915 was formerly a Captain in the 3rd Bn Suffolk Regt as well as the 1st Life Guards.

The Hon M G Tollemache served in the 1/4th Suffolks incidentally alongside PW Cobbold.

Etc etc...

MG

[Stoppage Drill]

* Eldest sons of Dukes and Marquesses have their own titles. The eldest sons of other peers are 'The honourable' etc.

Strictly speaking, they don't, but they are allowed to use a subsidiary title of their father, as a courtesy.

[Guest]

Strictly speaking, they don't, but they are allowed to use a subsidiary title of their father, as a courtesy.

Which is what appears in the Army Lists....the point being they are easy to spot (and count) while other descendants of Peers are not...and therefore missed in considerable numbers.

Example: Capt Hugo Francis Charteris (Royal Gloucestershire Hussars Yeomanry) can not be found in the May 1915 Army List as he was recorded as Lord Elcho. Son of Hugo Richard Charteris 11th Earl Weymss and 7th Earl of March. Elcho died while serving. His two brothers, also served, in the KSLI and KRRC. As sons of an Earl, (even second and third sons), they were permitted to the use the title Honourable. They were recorded in the Army List as the Hon G L Charteris and the Hon I A Charteris.

Contrast this with their cousins. The 11th Earl Weymss had a brother: Lt Col Hon Richard Charteris who had two sons; Lt Col R B Charteris Warwickshire Yeomanry and Capt E B Charteris, Private secretary to Sir R H Brade KCB, Secretary to the War Office. Neither of these nephews of the 11th Earl Weymss carried a title and would be missed using French's methodology.

The fact that they are directly descended from a titled family (grandsons on an Earl) is not immediately apparent without a considerable amount of work. In this simple example there were five grandsons of an Earl and only three carried titles. If we did the same analysis on a Baron's family, the proportion of 'untitled' sons and grandsons of 'titled' families would be much greater. Greater still if the analysis is expanded to great-grandsons etc.

This is why French's method, whilst mildly interesting, is rather simplistic. For it to carry any authority it would need to be expanded greatly. His list of 'social hierarchy' after the Household regiments is rather subjective and not founded in particularly robust analysis. Edit: It really only scratches the surface. MG

Edit. Gliddon's book omits the RB and EB Charteris too.

[rolt968]

I have found smartness (or exclusiveness) of infantry regiments immediately before WW1 interesting for quite a long time - probably since I first saw some discussion of it in the introduction in Tim Carew's Vanished Army many years ago. Annoyingly I have never found any source for his social hierarchy which if I remember rightly went: the Guards, the Rifle Brigade (+KRRC, though I think he forgot them), the Highland Regiments ..... then it petered out to putting the "big city" regiments like the Manchester Regiment at the bottom. (Apologies to former Manchesters!) My eyebrows went up a bit that the Royal Scots were not considered equal to the Highland regiments

I haven't yet had a chance to read French's book, but I find a lot of the arguments given so far effective.

Two or three other odd points.

In addition to there being five ranks of peers there were four different peerages. UK, English, Scots and Irish; only the first two sitting in the House of Lords automatically, the other two being represented if I remember rightly by elected representative peers.

Gliddon's book is very interesting as he draws the line at inherited titles - so baronets are in but knights are not. Although I'm not sure what measure I would use, I always felt that this was artificial when a number of landed gentry were untitled but were wealthy and had held houses and large areas of land for a very long time.

If by "smart" we mean "exclusive" would how much it cost to be an officer in 1914 be an effective measure? Didn't Montomery having no private income look for an "unfashionable" regiment?

R.

[Steven Broomfield]

On the third point, Byng, on joining the 10th Hussars in the 1880's could only maintain his place (he was the 7th son of an extremely impecunious peer) by buying, training and selling-on polo ponies. A commission in the Shiners cost £600 a year to keep up at the time.

[NZHighlander]

Steven, the reference to the 13th Hussars was in a book called "Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880-1918" by Stephen Badsey.

I have found smartness (or exclusiveness) of infantry regiments immediately before WW1 interesting for quite a long time - probably since I first saw some discussion of it in the introduction in Tim Carew's Vanished Army many years ago. Annoyingly I have never found any source for his social hierarchy which if I remember rightly went: the Guards, the Rifle Brigade (+KRRC, though I think he forgot them), the Highland Regiments ..... then it petered out to putting the "big city" regiments like the Manchester Regiment at the bottom. (Apologies to former Manchesters!) My eyebrows went up a bit that the Royal Scots were not considered equal to the Highland regiments

I haven't yet had a chance to read French's book, but I find a lot of the arguments given so far effective.


If by "smart" we mean "exclusive" would how much it cost to be an officer in 1914 be an effective measure? Didn't Montomery having no private income look for an "unfashionable" regiment?


R.

Interestingly in French's book he puts the "big city" regiments such as the Manchesters and King's Liverpool towards the top (after the Buffs, Norfolks, Glosters, Royal Fusiliers and a sprinkling of LI regiments), and followed off by roughly Southern regiments, followed by the Northern, rounded up by the Midlands.Placing the Royal Warwicks towards the bottom which would be the "unfashionable"regiment Monty found.

[Steven Broomfield]

Steven, the reference to the 13th Hussars was in a book called "Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880-1918" by Stephen Badsey.

A book which, annoyingly and surprisingly, I don't have (although I have read it). I must rectify that.

[Guest]

Badsey (page 7) accepts that there in an 'inevitable degree of subjectivity' in any analysis of this sort. He uses 'Military Identities' as one reference (and questions why the Royal Scots are not considered 'smart'). The Other reference is 'Social Life in the British Army by Cairnes' (originally published anonymously). First published in 1900.

Cairnes' military career: - Royal Irish Fusilier (Militia), 3rd Dragoons Guards (1 week), South Staffordshire Regt before moving to 1st Bn Royal Irish Fusiliers - all within a few months. He died in 1902.

[brummell]

Further to Martin G's criticism of French's methodology, in his biography of Douglas Haig, Gary Mead describes the 7th Hussars as 'together with the 10th Hussars, one of the most fashionable elite regiments in the British army...at the forefront of British military snobberies, courting princes and the aristocracy, and accepting as officers only those who were unquestionably gentlemen.'

Haig of course was a mere whiskey merchant, solidly middle-class in origin with no title of any kind. But he did have the had the schooling, university and money (and indeed talent) to pass quite easily into the 7th Hussars from Sandhurst and later be promoted to Commanding Officer of the 17th Lancers, another regiment in French's top flight.

Could it be that French arrived at a 'ranking' that was broadly accurate, as far as a measurement of generalised opinion can be, despite his dodgy terms of reference?

[Guest]

Could it be that French arrived at a 'ranking' that was broadly accurate, as far as a measurement of generalised opinion can be, despite his dodgy terms of reference?

That is a possibility. Badsey (page 7) uses French and Cairnes (1902) as his references but does not specifically tie them to his list. I think few can argue against the Household Cav, Foot Guards, Rifle Brigade and KRRC as being the regiments that the titled were mostly attracted to. I would also add the 10th Hussars due to their undoubted (British) Royal patronage. None of the sources dispute these. The subjectivity rises as other regiments are introduced into the equation. Aside from French's noble but slightly flawed attempt to provide some form of framework, views, even if sourced from contemporary publications will always carry an element of subjectivity - something that Badsey acknowledges (see prev post). He does not specifically attribute the reason why the 9th Lancers or 13th Hussars appear on his list of 'smartest' cavalry regiments.

After the initial list on which most seem to agree, it then becomes highly subjective. If Royal Patronage was an essential requirement, how does one weigh foreign royalty? Presumably below British Royalty and above no royalty. A number of cavalry Regiments come into the frame when foreign royalty are considered:

1st KDG (Austria-Hungary),

1st Royal Dragoons (Prussia)

2nd Dragoons (Scots Greys) (Russia)

10th (PWO) Hussars (The King)

11th (PAO) Hussars (Germany and Prussia)

16th Lancers (Spain)

One might also add 7th DG (Princess Royal) 6th Inniskilling Dragoons (Duke of Connaught), 19th Hussars (Queen Alexandria).

If we use French's method to see if this Royal patronage creates desire among the titled to join these regiments, the 1915 Army List shows the relationship is rather lumpy and the Shiny Tenth along with the Scots Greys stand out from the crowd of Line Cavalry. Patronage by the British monarch clearly carried a Regiment by way of attracting other titled officers. Edit - however this did not extend to the Yeomanry. There were three Yeomanry Regiments who were patronised by the King (Duke of Lancasters, Norfolk and Suffolk), and their titled officer count does not vary much from the other Yeomanry regiments. Here is the Cavalry for may 1915 (Source: Army List)

1st LG - One Duke, one Earl, two Viscounts, two Lords, two Baronets, eight sons of Peers - total 16

2nd LG - one Royal (Prince), one earl, one Lord, three Baronets, two sons of Peers - total 8

RHG - one Duke, two Marquesses, two Earls, five Lords - total 10

1st KDG - no titled officers

2nd DG* - no titled officers

3rd DG* - no titled officers

4th DG - no titled officers

5th DG - no titled officers

6th DG* - one baronet

7th DG* - no titled officers

1st Dragoons - 3 sons of Peers

2nd Dragoons - 1 Royal (Prince), 1 Earl, 2 Viscounts, 2 Lords, 2 sons of Peers - Total 8

3rd Hussars* - no titled officers

4th Hussars - no titled officers

5th Lancers* - one son of a Peer, one Baronet

6th Dragoons - Duke as Col in Chief, no other titled officers

7th Hussars* - one son of a Peer, one Baronet

8th Hussars* - two sons of Peers

9th Lancers *- one Earl

10th Hussars - one Earl, two Viscounts, two Lords, five sons of Peers and one Baronet - total 11

11th Hussars*- five sons of Peers

12th Lancers - one baronet, one son of a Peer

13th Hussars* - no titled officers

14th Hussars - no titled officers

15th Hussars* - one baronet, two sons of Peers

16th Lancers - no titled officers

17th Lancers* - one Lord

18th Hussars* - one son of a Peer

19th Hussars* - no titled officers

20th Hussars - no titled officers

21st Lancers* - no titled officers

* denotes Colonel of the regt was Knighted.

Clearly this is very simplistic but does show how titled officers concentrated into a few regiments. It also does not reveal any distinct pattern among the alleged 2nd tier such as the 13th Hussars for example. I am aware that a single date can not be extrapolated across a generation, but it is worth considering this was may 1915 when the Army was undergoing expansion. Note the May 1915 Army List included many officers who died in 1914. MG

Edit: Foot Guards by way of comparison

Grenadier Guards - two Royals (Princes), one Duke, three Earls, two Viscounts, six Lords, eight Baronets, twelve sons of Peers - total 34

Coldstream Guards - seven Viscounts, two Lords, four Baronets, fifteen sons of Peers - total 28

Scots Guards - five Earls, one Viscount, nine Lords, five Baronets, ten sons of Peers - total 30

Irish Guards - one Earl, three Viscounts, four Lords, four Baronets, twelve sons of Peers.- total 24

Summary

Foot Guards (4 Regts/13 Bns*)....116...... ave 29 per Regt or roughly 13 per Regular Battalion.

Household Cav (3 Regiments).......34.......ave 11 per regt

Line Cavalry (28 Regiments).........43.......nearly half (19) in two Regiments - Scots Greys and 10th Hussars. Interestingly on this simple measure the 10H were as 'smart' as the 2nd LG.

* 9 Regular and 4 Reserve Battalions.

Note all data from May 1915 Army List

[charlesmessenger]

Interesting that the 10th Hussars are well up there. They considered themselves 'flash' in the 1820s and were the subject of satirical cartoons at the time. They were still flash in the 1960s and the 11th Hussars, a very gentlemanly and understated regiment in spite of the colour of their trousers, were filled with gloom when they were told that they were to amalgamate with the 10th.

Charles M

[Gareth Davies]

Clearly this is very simplistic but does show how titled officers concentrated into a few regiments.

I guess this is to be expected. To this day officers join the Regiment they feel most comfortable with which is often the one in which they feel they will fit in to best, based on the like minded/like-titled people already in the Regiment. Or possibly it's a case of ducks selecting ducks.

[Steven Broomfield]

Interesting that the 10th Hussars are well up there. They considered themselves 'flash' in the 1820s and were the subject of satirical cartoons at the time. They were still flash in the 1960s and the 11th Hussars, a very gentlemanly and understated regiment in spite of the colour of their trousers, were filled with gloom when they were told that they were to amalgamate with the 10th.

Charles M

Indeed. The history of the two regiments post-war, and subsequently of the amalgamated Royal Hussars, Remember With Advantages (Henry Keown-Boyd) contains this gem, from no lesser Cherrypicker than Louis Spears to another old Cherrypicker, Bobby Hartman: "I feel terribly sorry about the amalgamation with the 10th, whom I have always considered, perhaps unjustly, as mounted poodle-fakers."

[rclpillinger]

I have in my albums a photograph of the Officers of the Tenth Hussars taken, I think, in about 1892, although I stand to be corrected on this, and they all look pretty smart to me! In the centre the Duke of Clarence, with Lord Airlie, Col. Harvey Alexander, Col Manners Charles Wood, Col. Liddell, Col. Fisher-Childes, and others. I am at present trying to identify them all and if anyone can help I would be very grateful. It may be a bit early for this forum, if so, please accept my apologies.

In the !0th Hussars Gazette of June 1914, a report lists the Officer guests at a dinner of the Old Comrade Association. It reads:

Later in 1914, in the Gazette of July of that year, there appears a fulsome report of the proceedings of the Annual Gathering and Dinner of the Tenth (PWO) Royal Hussars Old Comrades Association, held at the Holborn Restaurant, on Tuesday May 14^th 1914. Major Pillinger was back home and appears as a Guest:

The Editor goes on to list the Officers who attended as:

Major-General Viscount Downe K.C.V.O., C.B., C.I.E., PRESIDING

Present were: Major-Generals Sir J.P.Brabazon K.C.B., C.V.O., Combe C.B.,

Colonels Alexander D.S.O., Baird, Fisher-Childe, C.B., Hon J Napier, St Quinton, Spottiswood, Viscount Valentia C.B., M.V.O., M.P., Vaughan D.S.O., Wilson D.S.O.,

Majors Barry D.S.O., Lord Bellew, Hon. W.G Cadogan M.V.O., Crichton, Viscount Hampden, Hughes-Onslow, Sir J Milbanke, V.C., Pillinger, Poole, Waite, Sir M. Wilson, Bart., C.S.I. M.P.,

Captains de Tuyll, Gibbs, Greenwood, Hon G Portman, Lord G Scott, Grenfell, Earl of Mayo, Lord Southampton, Sir W Bass, Bart., Hon. D. Pelham, Messrs. Dorrien-Smith, Chaplin, Bouch and Potter.

A telegram from the King was read at the dinner as follows:

“... will you convey my thanks to all members of the Old Comrades Association assembled, for their good wishes and loyal assurance.

GEORGE R.I. Colonel-in-Chief.

Apologies were received from Major-General Lord Kerr, the Earl of Gainborough, Cpt. the Hon. H Allsop, ... the Earl of Shaftesbury, A Farquharson of Invercauld, Lord Southampton, the Hon A. Annesley, Major the Hon. J Dawney, ...

[Guest]

Another benchmark: The 1st Bn Irish Guards as they set off for war on 10th Aug 1914; Of the 30 battalion Officers, 13 were titled. One Viscount, five Lords and the remainder Baronets or sons of Peers. In No.3 Coy every Officer was titled. I suspect with a small amount of research one would be able to establish most Officers were only one point of separation from a titled family. The Battalion 2IC Maj H F Crichton was the son of Lt Col the Hon Charles Crichton and Lady Madeleine Crichton for example.

Headquarters

Lt Col Hon G H MORRIS Commanding Officer

Maj H F CRICHTON Senior Major

Capt LORD DESMOND FITZGERALD Adjutant

Lt E J F GOUGH Transport Officer

Lt E B GREER Machine Gun Officer

Hon Lt J HICKIE Quarter Master

Lt H F SHIELDS RAMC Medical Officer

Lt Hon AUBREY HERBERT MP Interpreter

No.1 Company

Capt Hon A C MULHOLLAND

Capt LORD JOHN HAMILTON

Lt Hon H R ALEXANDER

Lt C A WALKER

2 Lt N L WOODROFFE

2 Lt J LIVINGSTON LEARMONTH

No. 2 Company

Maj H N STEPNEY

Capt J N GUTHRIE

Lt E J F GOUGH (see above)

Lt J S N FITZGERALD

Lt W C HOPE

2 Lt O HUGHES-ONSLOW

No. 3 Company

Capt Sir J DELVES BROUGHTON (replaced by Capt H H BERNERS)

Capt Hon T E VESEY

Lt Hon H W GOUGH

Lt LORD GUERNSEY

2 Lt VISCOUNT CASTLEROSSE

..............................One Officer short.

No.4 Company

Capt C A TISDALL

Capt A A PERCEVAL

Lt N REYNOLDS

Lt R BLACKER-DOUGLASS

Lt LORD ROBERT INNES-JONES

2 Lt J T P ROBERTS

Details for Base.

Capt LORD ARCHER HAY

2 Lt SIR GERALD BOWKE

[Stoppage Drill]

I wonder how this thread will play in Peoria ?

Shudder to think.

[Muerrisch]

My opinion entirely.