FROGSMILE Posted 9 August , 2015 Share Posted 9 August , 2015 If you blow up the WO badge photo in post #1 to 400%, it looks very much like a slightly smaller version of the OR badges. It seems to have changed, having more gaps, in the version in post #6. I think one may discount the possibility of a WO wearing a bent badge! That's v helpful Phil. It makes me think that the badge might well be of collar pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.hood Posted 10 August , 2015 Author Share Posted 10 August , 2015 The photo in post#6 is a blown up and cropped version of the same photo as that in post#1, so should not be any different with regard to the badge. The only difference is that I took the extract shown in post#6 from a higher resolution version of the original group photo (above the limit that is allowed on the forum) and that perhaps could be the reason that the badge looks different, the gaps would probably be more blurred. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 Frogsmile, As a novice, I don't really understand the point you make re Warrant Officers, NCO's and Officers with regard to their badges. Also, the drift of the thread seemed to me to be towards the subject group being a Company unit rather than a Regimental unit. You refer to RSM. Does that mean you think this group is a 9th Battalion HQ unit? David I am sorry to have confused you David, my reply was purely in relation to Geoffrey Churcher's specific comments and not the photo per se. It is indeed a company level group with a CSM sat at the centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 The photo in post#6 is a blown up and cropped version of the same photo as that in post#1, so should not be any different with regard to the badge. The only difference is that I took the extract shown in post#6 from a higher resolution version of the original group photo (above the limit that is allowed on the forum) and that perhaps could be the reason that the badge looks different, the gaps would probably be more blurred. Jim The badge worn by the CSM seems to be smaller than that worn by the other sitters Jim. The debate seems to be leaning towards it being a smaller Tank Corps badge, although some feel it might be another units badge with the CSM on attachment to the Tank Corps. Personally I think that it is probably a collar badge, perhaps of officer quality, but that is pure conjecture as it is impossible to see clearly. I am surmising this because wearing a superior quality collar badge would be a way for WO to maintain a long standing Army tradition that WOs and battalion or regimental 'staff sergeants' wore a superior form of insignia, although this might have been unofficial as the Tank Corps was a new unit and still evolving its traditions, not all of which would necessarily have been approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 (edited) This same guy appears in another photo I have of the same period. Officers cap badges were as you know bronze and not polished so tend not to "shine" in photos like the brass OR badges which received a good polish. I still think it looks more like another unit's badge rather than a Tank Corps collar worn as a cap badge. Edited 10 August , 2015 by Geoffrey Churcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 Here is an officer from the same photo who I believe is indeed wearing a Tank Corps collar as a cap badge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 (edited) The badge shape and cut outs definition is quite different IMHO, though the original photo is 7MB it is not that sharp, even so, the officers collar worn as cap shows the cut out quite clearly. This may be because the officers is bronze and his is polished brass so reflecting the light which blurs the image. Just for completeness here is the standard ORs cap badge on the chap next to him at the same scale. Ive spent the thick end of 40 years staring at Tank Corps crew photos and collecting medals and badges etc to them but Im afraid I just do not recognise, for sure, what the badge it is !! Edited 10 August , 2015 by Geoffrey Churcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 (edited) Looking through a few more photos I see on this large group of Tank Corps soldiers there is one Private in the window who has a cap badge suspiciously similar in scale and shape to the CSM under discussion ? Edited 11 August , 2015 by Geoffrey Churcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 Quite a few Tankmen came from the Life Guards.........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 The original photo has more the look of 5th Londons (London Rifle Brigade) ref: KK1820 to me. Only a thought. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 I agree that the CSM's cap badge in the alternative photo does not look like a Tank Corps badge of any kind, but I am fairly confident personally that it is not a Life Guards badge. This leaves me back at square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 10 August , 2015 Share Posted 10 August , 2015 Just a thought - could it be a Canadian Tank Battalion badge ? (Or an ANZAC one?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 (edited) On the Canadian ones the tank oversails the oval both sides so is quite distinctive and I don't think the NZ TC ever got there. Thinking about other specialists attached to TC, there were medics, signallers and engineers, RAOC, ASC and RA. plus a few naval gunners - there was also the mass absorption of 2nd King Edwards Horse - I'm not a badge collector (other than TC) so I don't know if any of these are a serious possibility, but from what I can see not really. Edited 11 August , 2015 by Geoffrey Churcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenbecker Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 Mates, Sorry not an Anzac Badge, as the Tank Corps was not formed here till after the war, when the UK sent out some tanks (Australia brought them) in the twenties and thirties. S.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 Geoffrey Amazing to find another photograph of the same officer. Do you know the subject group of the photograph in posts #30 and #31? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 On the Canadian ones the tank oversails the oval both sides so is quite distinctive and I don't think the NZ TC ever got there. Thinking about other specialists attached to TC, there were medics, signallers and engineers, RAOC, ASC and RA. plus a few naval gunners - there was also the mass absorption of 2nd King Edwards Horse - I'm not a badge collector (other than TC) so I don't know if any of these are a serious possibility, but from what I can see not really. None of the badges for attached specialists fit I agree. In fact no other regular Army badge does either. I think it is most likely a TF badge and probably Yeomanry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 A couple of queries:- 1/ Would the WO`s jodhpurs and riding crop indicate a cavalry/yeomanry background? 2/ Would a WO with tank arm badges retain a non-tankie cap badge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 A couple of queries:- 1/ Would the WO`s jodhpurs and riding crop indicate a cavalry/yeomanry background? 2/ Would a WO with tank arm badges retain a non-tankie cap badge? 1. Mounted duty wear was common to all men in horse oriented units, so would have included horse and field artillery in addition to cavalry and yeomanry. 2. Men on attachment from other units usually retain their parent cap badge, but accept some unifying feature of the unit where they are employed, e.g. RFC wings (aircrew), or Tank Corps tank badges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 Infantry transport sections, and ASC horsed transport men, AVC, Remount service, RE ............ the list of mounted duty men in those days was legion. The country ran on horse power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 I am amazed to see the debate about the badge is still going. I have had this enlarged as far as possible, and still see it as nothing other than a very well polished (and possibly slightly curved) but otherwise very ordinary Tank Corps cap badge, worn by a very senior NCO in the Tank Corps, amongst a group of other Tank Corps men. Although the flash appears to have whited-out the top of the badge to some degree, it has at the same time beautifully high-lighted the three asymmetrical gaps at the bottom of the badge that are distinctive, and dare I say unique, to the Tank Corps badge. Under extreme magnifcation other details such as the sloped sides of the tank and the scroll at the top of the badge can just (very faintly) be made out. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... ? http://postimg.org/image/as8170ed5/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 I thought that we had established that a WO II is not an NCO, however senior? As to the badge, I think it is Tank too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 I thought that we had established that a WO II is not an NCO, however senior? Yes, but it is still the easiest way to describe it for all practical purposes. Above most true NCO's but still below most ordinary commisioned officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 Yes, but it is still the easiest way to describe it for all practical purposes. Above most true NCO's but still below most ordinary commisioned officers. It might be easy but it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 Andrew if you deleted "most" above we could agree. Other than in Foot Guards [where Colour-sergeants are addressed as "Sir"] the WO II is the lowest rank to attract a sir. I am sure that you know all this, but there are others who may read this who must not be misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 It might be easy but it is wrong, sorry. So, in five words or less, what is correct? 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