dgibson150 Posted 16 December , 2015 Share Posted 16 December , 2015 I have I think finally managed to pin down Lt-Colonel A George McClintock as the officer, front row centre in the athletics photograph in Jim Hood's post #86. The attached is copyright of the Worcestershire Yeomanry Museum Trust who have kindly supplied this photograph of the then Captain McClintock while he was adjutant of their regiment in around 1910 (seconded from the 5th Lancers). He is wearing I think a 5 Lancers cap badge and harp collar badges plus a QSA medal ribbon. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.hood Posted 18 December , 2015 Author Share Posted 18 December , 2015 Well done David, there now seems little or no doubt that this is our man. This thread has far exceeded my expectations and produced many interesting posts, and my thanks go out to all contributors. You never know, there may be more to come yet!! Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 6 March , 2016 Share Posted 6 March , 2016 To continue. Geoffrey Churcher in post #30 showed a photograph of the front row of a 9th Battalion Group in which the Company Serjeant Major of the "What Group could this be" was included. I believe that the person next to the mystery CSM in the Churcher photograph is Regimental Quartermaster Serjeant Major HGV McKenzie who wrote the eyewitness account of the battle of Sauvillers/Moreuil, which was published in Tanks and Trenches (David Fletcher). I append a photograph (which I got from a public family tree on Ancestry.com) of HGV McKenzie in about 1932 along with, for comparison, an extract from Geoffrey Churcher's group photograph and wondered if the forum thought that there was indeed a visual match. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 21 March , 2016 Share Posted 21 March , 2016 Certainly looks favourable to me David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 23 March , 2016 Share Posted 23 March , 2016 Thanks Geoffrey. On aura and general feel, it seems right. I managed to find another photograph of HGV MacK on the same public Ancestry tree (owner colin_shears to whom thanks is due). It was attached to his father hence my missing it before. The photograph is a much more convincing match, see below. Does anyone agree? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.hood Posted 25 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 25 March , 2016 Good to see that this thread has still got some life in it, and yes I agree David that this latest photo of HGV Mackenzie appears to be a pretty close match to the "Regimental Quartermaster Serjeant Major" in the Churcher photograph. Many thanks for sharing this information with us. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 26 March , 2016 Share Posted 26 March , 2016 Thanks for a most interesting thread, gents. The intricacies of the WO/NCO boundary still intrigue. Since a Lance Corporal is a Non-Commissioned Officer, it follows that everyone above private is an officer, commissioned or uncommissioned. The WO is not commissioned, therefore he is, technically, an uncommissioned or non-commissioned officer. The fact that we say he isn`t an NCO is a service assumption or adaptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 26 March , 2016 Share Posted 26 March , 2016 Thanks for a most interesting thread, gents. The intricacies of the WO/NCO boundary still intrigue. Since a Lance Corporal is a Non-Commissioned Officer, it follows that everyone above private is an officer, commissioned or uncommissioned. The WO is not commissioned, therefore he is, technically, an uncommissioned or non-commissioned officer. The fact that we say he isn`t an NCO is a service assumption or adaptation. Simply not true. When WOs were invented in 1879 they were specifically defined in the Royal Warrant "junior to all commissioned officers and senior to all non-commissioned officers". Nothing has changed, and nothing could be more straightforward. By the way, in our period, the lance-corporal was not a rank, but an appointment [either paid or unpaid] for a private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 26 March , 2016 Share Posted 26 March , 2016 Sorry to be pedantic but... Are you claiming that a WO is not non-commissioned or not an officer (as is a sergeant, say)? I suspect that should read "junior to all commissioned officers and senior to all other non-commissioned officers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 26 March , 2016 Share Posted 26 March , 2016 I am not claiming anything, merely repeating the facts. viz: Pay Warrant 1881 Section 518 The position of such Warrant Officers shall be inferior to that of all Commissioned Officers, but superior to that of all Non-Commissioned Officers. That is an exact transcript. The preceding para listed the appointments for WOs ....... the list had grown substantially since the inception two years previously. Interestingly, the 1881 edition of QVR para 68 could be held to support the case for WOs being NCOs but was quickly cancelled by General Order 12 of 1882 which quotes the Army Act ........ no doubt the WOs had exerted a little pressure. Every precedence list since that date lists the WO appointments, then lists the NCO appointments, all strictly in order of precedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 26 March , 2016 Share Posted 26 March , 2016 Quite right, Grumpy, but the official document http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Elements_of_the_British_Army.pdf contains the statement:- "4. The rank structure within the Army is split into two categories; Commissioned Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers, both will be depicted within this handout. " However, we all know what a WO is so maybe it`s time to draw a veil over this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 26 March , 2016 Share Posted 26 March , 2016 I note from the reference that private soldiers are necessarily NCOs, there being "two categories". Yes, draw a line, here is mine ======================================================================================================================================================== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 4 April , 2016 Share Posted 4 April , 2016 Jim I can now confirm that the original post photograph is, I am certain, A Company of 9th Battalion, though I think it is impossible to say, as its 1919, for sure which Section. I have recently acquired the MM group to Cpl J Sunderland and he is in the front row far right. He was made acting Corporal on 22nd March 1919 and returned to UK for demobilisation on 24th September, so the photo must be in this timeframe. Sunderland has his MM ribbon up and his single wound stripe up, both earned on 1st October 1918. Sunderland was in 1 Section (Tank Crew I2) during the late 1918 battles, but there is no data to support section details post armistice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 4 April , 2016 Share Posted 4 April , 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 4 April , 2016 Share Posted 4 April , 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanks3 Posted 4 April , 2016 Share Posted 4 April , 2016 Geoffrey In the enlarged photo you have posted you can clearly see a badge above the cheverons of both men. Can you identify this badge? Tanks3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 5 April , 2016 Share Posted 5 April , 2016 On their left arm that is the French badge awarded to 9th Battalion following the action on 23rd July, on the their right arm that is the tank badge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.hood Posted 5 April , 2016 Author Share Posted 5 April , 2016 Geoffrey Many thanks for the really interesting information and your conclusions in the above posts (#113 to #115). The identity of Cpl J Sunderland is indeed a great find and adds 'another piece of the jigsaw' to the many pieces received during the long run of this topic, including identities and other possibles contributed by David Gibson, among other really useful contributions. Thanks once again for sharing your knowledge with us, and long may this topic, and The Forum, continue. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 5 April , 2016 Share Posted 5 April , 2016 Geoffrey Fantastic. Only eight more of the original post photo to identify. Hopefully we will get a lot closer to a full house in the end. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 8 April , 2016 Share Posted 8 April , 2016 Well done Geoffrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 23 May , 2018 Share Posted 23 May , 2018 I thought I had identified a good possibility for the WOCLII at the centre of the first row in the original post. I was a bit disappointed when I finally tracked down a photograph of the likely candidate. My wife however is convinced that the photographs could be of the same person. I attach below the two photographs side by side and wondered if the forum could resolve this disagreement. I would guess that the time lapse between the two photographs is about three or four years. The moustache confuses matters somewhat. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberley John Lindsay Posted 23 May , 2018 Share Posted 23 May , 2018 Dear David, I know the feeling well! As far as the WO2 'candidate' is concerned, what is the name of the younger soldier (with similar mouth and eyes - but the ear?)? Knowing that, might help make an identification easier, because it is so tempting to give in to 'wishful thinking'. My first frustrating "Was He or Wasn't He", was Capt E. P. Yeates, 1/12/Pioneers, Indian Army (shown, possibly sitting far left, with T/Brig-Gen Dyer in Persia, 1916), and 1926 (when he was invalided out of the Indian Army and attended a Pioneers reunion). My second "Was He, etc.," was Capt A. W. Fagan, IARO and Political Officer, South Persia (shown as a scholar at Winchester; possibly standing far left with an A/Brig-Gen and Native leader; and as a City Tea Companies Director)... Voila! Anybody who can positively identify either, will be sent a Goodie... Kindest regards, Kim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 24 May , 2018 Share Posted 24 May , 2018 Thanks Kim for your input. The younger soldier is Charles Claud Shepherd born 24 Jan 1887 with a Tank Corps service number 78092. He was a 9th Battalion CSM from May/June 1919 until 17 September 1919. I agree that the ear, as is, doesn't match at all. I wondered though if the head had been cut out of another photograph and remounted. There is an odd photograph of Brigadier-General E B Hankey on the Worcestershire Regiment website which seems to have suffered a similar fate. The photo is about half way down here and having just looked at it again, there are several others. Kind regards David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberley John Lindsay Posted 24 May , 2018 Share Posted 24 May , 2018 Dear David, Thanks for that! Brilliant portraits of the Worcestershire Officers and NCOs, especially Lieut. G. A. Slaughter with his MC group up. Most interesting, also, to read of the lack of initiative displayed by the young Bavarian soldiers at a critical moment. Kindest regards, Kim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie962 Posted 24 May , 2018 Share Posted 24 May , 2018 22 hours ago, dgibson150 said: the photographs could be of the same person david to my inexpert eye nothing matches- certainly not the ears but not even mouth or nose. After 4 years of war he may have aged considerably but it still doesn't look like the same man. But how are you going to decide- straw poll amongst forumites ? Wish we had access to a more technical assessment! Good luck. Charlie 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