CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Guest]

I am fairly certain that Guards Officers' insignia (stars, buttons) were plated with a thin layer of gold*. OR's were brass (an alloy of copper and zinc) or more correctly a specific type of brass called gilding metal (brass made of 95% copper and 5% zinc - the British Army regs allegedly 8 parts copper to 1 part zinc). If my assumptions are correct, these two metals corrode at vastly different rates; gold plating being a rather inert element** and gilding metal being an alloy rather susceptible to corrosion which tends to generate verdigris; the signature green-blue of copper corrosion often seen on copper roofs of churches -  a mixture of copper carbonate and copper sulphate. This process varies depending on the acidity of the soil. It seems unlikely that the metal of an Officer's insignia would corrode at the same rate as that of an ORs....making conflated mis-identification even less likely as an Officers insignia will corrode at a significantly slower rate and be more easily identifiable.. 

 

I don't think the Foot Guards in 1915 were wearing bronze badges.

 

The Rifles (of any variety) which have been offered as a potential source of confusion would have had blackened brass insignia.  Again the rates of corrosion would have been rather different and I doubt could have been confused for gold plated brass or gilding metal. 

 

Just a thought. Happy to be corrected. MG

 

* probably mercury vapour rather than electroplated.

** which is why hordes of gold jewelry and adornments such as Sutton Hoo survive centuries while their iron accoutrements corrode and ultimately decay.

Edited 2 September , 2016 by Guest

[Andrew Upton]

5 hours ago, QGE said:

I am fairly certain that Guards Officers' insignia (stars, buttons) were plated with a thin layer of gold*. OR's were brass (an alloy of copper and zinc) or more correctly a specific type of brass called gilding metal (brass made of 95% copper and 5% zinc - the British Army regs allegedly 8 parts copper to 1 part zinc). If my assumptions are correct, these two metals corrode at vastly different rates...

 

* probably mercury vapour rather than electroplated.

** which is why hordes of gold jewelry and adornments such as Sutton Hoo survive centuries while their iron accoutrements corrode and ultimately decay.

 

My own experience of original period Guards rank stars on original SD uniform has been they were either bronzed finish or (more commonly) highly polished brass (possibly gilding metal). Even if the latter were originally gilded (which I would like to see some more definitive proof before I accepted it as a certainty) it would suggest that in practice the regimental bull that the Guards were famous for quickly stripped them of it.

 

Even then, solid gold items and items that are merely plated with a thin layer of gold behave in quite different ways to each other, like chalk and cheese. Plated items in particular need only a small flaw in the thin protective surface (or sometimes, especially with cheap items, some speck of dirt or similar to have been covered over by the same in the manufacturing process) to introduce everything needed to kick-start corrosion into the underlying base metal. After five years burial underground I would be willing to bet that if any such protection had originally been present then would have been long gone by the time the exhumation party got to work...

 

As an illustrated example, I have created a comparison picture of two badges. One is a standard OR's brass cap badge, the other is an (admittedly, probably bronze or originally bronze finished) officers collar badge. Both recent battlefield recovered items (the officers collar badge was Henry John Innes Walker's) of different materials with similar times of exposure to the elements. Difference in appearance colour wise after all this time? Absolutely minimal:

 

https://postimg.org/image/o3fx7vcq5/

 

 

I do not believe for one moment that the GRU unit would have made a decision as to whether someone had been an officer or not simply on the level of preservation of some of his insignia. There are simply too many other factors that they could not fail to have been aware of (chalk vs soil, dry vs boggy ground, etc) that could easily have speeded up or retarded decay and decomposition that would have varied from case to case.

[Andrew Upton]

I knew this one was about somewhere, and just found it again by accident. More evidence of oddness when it came to how the GRU recorded things and then later interpreted them. GRU burial return that included "Unknown Officer", rank recorded as "Lieut", and means of identification recorded as "Star". Note the latter is singular, not plural, which may or may not be significant (the use of the singular seems to be normal in such cases, it would be very odd if all the other soldiers were identified by a single numeral, ie shoulder title or other insignia). This was later struck through and the details relating to 2nd Lieutenant Hugh Manning Spencer of the 7th Bn East Kent Regiment who died on the 12th October 1917 written in it's place: 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton

[Andrew Upton]

Finally also located an online article I've read before that I would highly recommend anyone looking to better understand the varying levels of skill and care displayed in exhumations in the immediate post-war period:

 

http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/clearingthedead.html

 

One section in particular stands out to me:

 

"The IWGC had a poor view of the efficiency of the way the work was being carried out: "Exhumation Companies, obsessed with the idea that their reputation depended on their concentrating the highest possible number of bodies in the shortest possible time have often paid little or no heed to the essential matter of identification."⁶² (Indeed, identification errors by the British at Hooge Crater led to an inquiry where the Australian Major A. Allen accused some British units of "chopping men in halves in order to double their body returns.")⁶³

 

On 27 October 1919 Major Lees on Gallipoli wrote home: "We have identified not far short of 10,000 which is a fair average and many more than I thought possible at one time." His attempts to achieve identification are clear in his letters. On 28 August 1919 he wrote: "Ask Harold for an exact description of a Grenadier Guards button. We have found a button on an officer with a crown on top G. R. and G. R. reversed and then a grenade; if it is Grenadier Guards it is Col Quilter, but no one can identify the button." On 10 Oct 1919 he wrote: "Not absolutely certain about Col Quilter's grave. He is buried in rather a mysterious little cemetery where there are 10 candidates for five graves but if I can't find him elsewhere I will give him a home." Lees appears to be implying that he would 'manufacture' identification to put the search of those at home to rest.

 

Identification was of course the main psychological preoccupation of the bereaved. Corpses could only be identified by the accompanying effects, and remains found with such were very much in the minority. In April 1920 it was noted that of corpses found with effects, 20% were identified by identity discs; 25% were confirmed by discs; 30% were identified by other methods; with 25% unidentifiable.⁶⁴ A name on a compass, a photograph case, a key tab, a spoon or a pipe bowl might reveal the owners name. In France, however, as the task went on, the emphasis on identification fell away. E.A.S. Gell wrote in May 1921 that DGR&E were only undertaking exhumations for identification "when they had the time."⁶⁵ Although 600 bodies a week were being recovered at this time, identification was achieved in only 20% of cases.^66"

[Terry_Reeves]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Upton said:

Finally also located an online article I've read before that I would highly recommend anyone looking to better understand the varying levels of skill and care displayed in exhumations in the immediate post-war period:

 

http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/clearingthedead.html

 

One section in particular stands out to me:

 

"The IWGC had a poor view of the efficiency of the way the work was being carried out: "Exhumation Companies, obsessed with the idea that their reputation depended on their concentrating the highest possible number of bodies in the shortest possible time have often paid little or no heed to the essential matter of identification."⁶² (Indeed, identification errors by the British at Hooge Crater led to an inquiry where the Australian Major A. Allen accused some British units of "chopping men in halves in order to double their body returns.")⁶³

 

On 27 October 1919 Major Lees on Gallipoli wrote home: "We have identified not far short of 10,000 which is a fair average and many more than I thought possible at one time." His attempts to achieve identification are clear in his letters. On 28 August 1919 he wrote: "Ask Harold for an exact description of a Grenadier Guards button. We have found a button on an officer with a crown on top G. R. and G. R. reversed and then a grenade; if it is Grenadier Guards it is Col Quilter, but no one can identify the button." On 10 Oct 1919 he wrote: "Not absolutely certain about Col Quilter's grave. He is buried in rather a mysterious little cemetery where there are 10 candidates for five graves but if I can't find him elsewhere I will give him a home." Lees appears to be implying that he would 'manufacture' identification to put the search of those at home to rest.

 

Identification was of course the main psychological preoccupation of the bereaved. Corpses could only be identified by the accompanying effects, and remains found with such were very much in the minority. In April 1920 it was noted that of corpses found with effects, 20% were identified by identity discs; 25% were confirmed by discs; 30% were identified by other methods; with 25% unidentifiable.⁶⁴ A name on a compass, a photograph case, a key tab, a spoon or a pipe bowl might reveal the owners name. In France, however, as the task went on, the emphasis on identification fell away. E.A.S. Gell wrote in May 1921 that DGR&E were only undertaking exhumations for identification "when they had the time."⁶⁵ Although 600 bodies a week were being recovered at this time, identification was achieved in only 20% of cases.^66"

See my post no 549

 

TR

[Andrew Upton]

2 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

See my post no 549

 

TR

 

Thanks Terry, threads got so long I'm missing things! Didn't pick up it was the same one you'd already mentioned. Been looking for that one a while too, as I thought the section relating to the struggle to identify a particular regiment based on a well preserved button of particular relevance.

[Muerrisch]

44 minutes ago, Andrew Upton said:

I knew this one was about somewhere, and just found it again by accident. More evidence of oddness when it came to how the GRU recorded things and then later interpreted them. GRU burial return that included "Unknown Officer", rank recorded as "Lieut", and means of identification recorded as "Star". Note the latter is singular, not plural, which may or may not be significant (the use of the singular seems to be normal in such cases, it would be very odd if all the other soldiers were identified by a single numeral, ie shoulder title or other insignia). This was later struck through and the details relating to 2nd Lieutenant Hugh Manning Spencer of the 7th Bn East Kent Regiment who died on the 12th October 1917 written in it's place: 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not see the significance of "Lieut" juxtaposed with singular "star". when I first posted upstream. I do now.

 

Surely this is another nail in the CWGC/ Parker & Legg coffin re. Kipling.

 

Andrew has pointed to a star being used to identify a full lieutenant. ["numeral" meant shoulder title, used interchangeably].

 

Very significant, worth another paragraph in my magnum opus!

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

 

I did not see the significance of "Lieut" juxtaposed with singular "star". when I first posted upstream. I do now.

 

Surely this is another nail in the CWGC/ Parker & Legg coffin re. Kipling.

 

Andrew has pointed to a star being used to identify a full lieutenant. ["numeral" meant shoulder title, used interchangeably].

 

Very significant, worth another paragraph in my magnum opus!

 

And annotated later in red in with "2nd Lt..." rather than the typewritten "Lieut"...which is proof positive that the GRUs could conflate 2 Lts with Lts... or possibly use the generic 'Lieut' to cover Lieutenants and 2nd Lieutenants (edit) given the single 'star'.... Something that CWGC seemed to have considered then rejected later. MG

Edited 3 September , 2016 by Guest

[Terry_Reeves]

40 minutes ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

Thanks Terry, threads got so long I'm missing things! Didn't pick up it was the same one you'd already mentioned. Been looking for that one a while too, as I thought the section relating to the struggle to identify a particular regiment based on a well preserved button of particular relevance.

No worries Andrew, these things happen.

 

TR

Edited 3 September , 2016 by Terry_Reeves

[charlesmessenger]

I may have missed something, but I don't think Guards officers wore regimental identifying badges on their shoulder straps - the spacing of their buttons was a sufficient identifier. I am also surprised at the criticism levelled at the GRUs at the time. It was an exhausting and unpleasant job that they were doing, but they must have been aware of the vast niumber of families still desperately wondering over the fate of their loved ones, who so often had been posted as Missing in Action.  Yes, they would have made mistakes, but I doubt whether they would have confused  Guards officer with a Guards OR or, for that matter, someone from another regiment. 

 

Charles M

[Guest]

If one trawls the seemingly endless number of Concentration Reports where bodies have been exhumed and relocated for reburial, it is interesting to see how the information is sometimes built in layers and how that information changes between the different documents pertaining to the same person. The default setting seems to have been "UBS" (Unidentified British Soldier). In many cases additional information has been added as further investigation generated more information. Sometimes in two different styles of handwriting. It might suggest that identification by the GRUs was a two-stage process (at least) or more on occasion. The numerous documents also confirm that the information was likely transcribed two or three times, each process creating potential for further transcription error.  Clearly there is a possibility of different teams doing the secondary analysis which might further increase the scope for errors. My speculation. MG.

 

 

[Andrew Upton]

6 hours ago, charlesmessenger said:

I may have missed something, but I don't think Guards officers wore regimental identifying badges on their shoulder straps - the spacing of their buttons was a sufficient identifier... but I doubt whether they would have confused  Guards officer with a Guards OR or, for that matter, someone from another regiment. 

 

This is incorrect - as has already been mentioned (multiple times) they would also have been wearing rank stars of regimental pattern, displaying the shamrock at centre.

 

I think some people seem to have a overly idealized view of how the exhumations were carried out and those doing it. In the Hodgkinson article I linked earlier he recounts the experiences of Private J. McCauley, recovering from wounds, who was attached to one of the new special burial details between August and November 1918:   

 

"For the first week or two I could scarcely endure the experiences we met with, but I gradually became hardened.... Often have I picked up the remains of a fine brave man on a shovel. Just a little heap of bones and maggots to be carried to the common burial place. Numerous bodies were found lying submerged in the water in shell holes and mine craters; bodies that seemed quite whole, but which became like huge masses of white, slimy chalk when we handled them. I shuddered as my hands, covered in soft flesh and slime, moved about in search of the disc, and I have had to pull bodies to pieces in order that they should not be buried unknown. It was very painful to have to bury the unknown. ²¹

 

That's the experiences of a wartime man, displaying obvious concern for identifying the dead. But Hodgkinson also reports:

 

"It is notable that the described effects of wartime clearance were emotional in nature, namely depressed mood (and other post-traumatic symptomatology), which was both marked and common, if transitory.

 

The post-war exhumers were more prone to behavioural disturbance: drinking, insubordination, and rowdiness. It would be predicted that the psychological impact of exhumation would be greater on the latter than on wartime clearers because there was no real break to the task, and the distraction of other duties was absent.⁶⁰

 

Those responsible for the Kipling grave exhumation would have been working at the time the latter was becoming prevalent. Does that sound like every man then could be relied upon to execute the same level of devotion as McCauley under the same conditions? I already quoted this earlier, but "the IWGC had a poor view of the efficiency of the way the work was being carried out: "Exhumation Companies, obsessed with the idea that their reputation depended on their concentrating the highest possible number of bodies in the shortest possible time have often paid little or no heed to the essential matter of identification".

 

Those strike me as exactly the sort of conditions that confusion and inaccuracy would proliferate in, and the IWGC (who were actually there at the time and probably in a better position than any of us today to pass judgment) seem to have known only too well and not been shy in saying so.

Edited 4 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton

[Guest]

A letter written by Rudyard Kipling to the War Office in Sept 1916 mentions that Jack Kipling was wounded in the leg. Might this just have been a colleague of Jack's just trying to ease a father's pain, also, it looks like the War Office were unsure of his rank at this time. He was a full Lt by time, wasn't he?

 

Click

 

Mike

[Guest]

A letter written by Rudyard Kipling read out during at a debate of the War Graves Commission in 1920 in Parliament click

 

"You see we shall never have  any grave to go to. Our boy  was missing at Loos. The ground is of course battered and mined past all hope of any trace being recovered. I wish some of the people who are making this trouble realised how more than fortunate they are to have a name on a headstone in a known place."

 

Kipling was of course heavily involved in the War Graves Commission. It's own evolution was wrapped in controversy from the start. "The Unending Vigil: The History of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission" by Philip Longworth is a worthwhile read for anyone wanting to explore its extraordinary history.  Martin G

[Guest]

On 9/2/2016 at 19:00, Terry_Reeves said:

See "Clearing the dead" by Peter R Hodgkinson, available on line. The men involved in it had no special knowledge.

 

TR

 

 

A nice discovery and a very informative article. Thank you. I note that N Christie is given as a source for a few quotes on how the GRU operated. The same N Christie that started the controversy when working for the CWGC and who made the original re-assessment of Kipling's grave.  MG

 

Edit. An image of Irish Guards pips form the British Military Badges website. Not sure if these are Great War era but does at least show the distinctive shamrock. Presumably based on the original designs. 

 

Edited 4 September , 2016 by Guest
Date deleted

[Muerrisch]

I think those rank stars are of the reign of Queen Victoria. The crown design suggests that.

Edited 4 September , 2016 by Muerrisch
speelings

[Andrew Upton]

14 hours ago, QGE said:

Edit. An image of Irish Guards pips form the British Military Badges website. Not sure if these are Great War era but does at least show the distinctive shamrock. Presumably based on the original designs. 

 

And not a hint of gilt on either of them I see

 

I have also finally located a good image of one of the typically highly polished IG specific brass pips I normally associate with Guards tunics. Interesting to note it is a very slightly different shape to the bronzed ones above. Here they both are on the right in comparison to the standard OR's shoulder insignia used in the WW1 period on the left:

 

https://postimg.org/image/5xdvogtsr/

 

 

The same elements of the badges are visually all common to each other - an 8-pointed star containing a circular band with the Latin motto of the regiment "Quis separabit" over "MDCCLXXXIII" surrounding a shamrock (itself containing three crowns, one per leaf) overlying a cross at the very centre. And all virtually identical in size and material construction to each other...

Edited 5 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton

[CdrSAN]

There is a problem with pursuing the design of IG metal pips. I've checked my own library (real books) as well as the internet to ascertain when cloth pips & stripes on officers' cuffs were replaced by metal shoulder pips. This practice was authorised officially in 1917, with cuff rank markings abolished finally in 1920. The pips worn by Kipling or Jacob would have been embroidered and thus unlikely to have survived for several years after September 1915.

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, CdrSAN said:

There is a problem with pursuing the design of IG metal pips. I've checked my own library (real books) as well as the internet to ascertain when cloth pips & stripes on officers' cuffs were replaced by metal shoulder pips. This practice was authorised officially in 1917, with cuff rank markings abolished finally in 1920. The pips worn by Kipling or Jacob would have been embroidered and thus unlikely to have survived for several years after September 1915.

 

There are a few photos of Kipling and his brother Officers in service dress in 1915 which clearly show him and others wearing metal pips. There are two fairly well known portrait photos of him (at slightly different angles) that also confirm him wearing metal pips (2nd Lt). All Foot Guards in 1915 were wearing metal rank insignia on their shoulders. This should not be in question. By contrast the line infantry were wearing cloth rank insignia on their cuffs in 1915. It would be nigh impossible for the GRU to confuse the two unless someone had zero knowledge of Guards' uniforms. 

 

The Concentration Report with 'UBS Lieutenant Irish Guards' includes a number of UBS*, and one UBS Irish Guards (Other Rank) identified by his 'numerals' . As pointed out by Muerrisch (aka Grumpy) 'numerals' and 'titles' were used interchangeably. In this case it means the 'IG' part of the shoulder titles. If the GRU had an Irish Guards OR it would in my view make it even less likely to confuse another Irish Guards OR with an Irish Guards Officer. There is no way of proving or disproving these theories and I suspect these will not sway the CWGC one iota. 

 

Edit. If the UBS Lieutenant Irish Guards was identified from his shoulder rank, it seems highly unlikely that the rest of his tunic, buttons and button holes were missing. Given OR's buttons were spaced singly, again it makes confusion between an Officer and OR's tunics unlikely. Put another way, if faced with an Irish Guards OR's body with a tunic, the GRU would have had to have zero knowledge of uniform peculiarities to confuse it as belonging to an Officer.

 

MG

 

* UBS = Unidentified British Soldier

 

Photo of John Kipling held in the Kipling Papers at the University of Sussex.

Edited 5 September , 2016 by Guest

[CdrSAN]

Quite right,  I've just come across this reference confirming that the Guards wore shoulder pips, and also that line regiments started wearing them in 1915:

Andrew Mollo's "Army Uniforms of World War I" (Blandford Press, 1977, ISBN 0 7137 0821 2):

" Stars and crowns were embroidered in drab and buff worsted, while the Household Regiments had the metal star of the Order of the Garter, except Scots Guards who had the Thistle, and Irish Guards who had the Star of the Order of St Patrick, instead of the standard pip on the shoulder straps. Contrary to regulations Guards and Household Cavalry officers did not wear rank distinctions on the cuffs. Rank badges on the cuff were found unsatisfactory, and from 1915 officers at the front removed them, and began to wear dulled metal pips and crown on the shoulder straps. In 1917 this practice, which had been forbidden in England – was officially recognised, although the old cuff system was not finally abolished until 1921."

[Muerrisch]

Beware secondary sources, particularly ones about 40 years old.

 

Mollo is good but, like the rest of us, not inflammable.

[Guest]

Rudyard Kipling's History of the Irish Guards is available for 99p on Kindle. Here is the extract covering the events of his son's death. Note R Kipling he uses 2nd Lt not Lt throughout the account, something that Parker Legg have ignored. The book's copyright has expired. MG

 

The attack of their Brigade developed during the course of the day. The four C.O.’ s of the Battalions met their Brigadier at the 1st Grenadier Guards Headquarters. He took them to a point just north of Loos, whence they could see Chalk-Pit Wood, and the battered bulk of the colliery head and workings known as Puits 14 bis, together with what few small buildings still stood thereabouts, and told them that he proposed to attack as follows: At half-past two a heavy bombardment lasting for one hour and a half would be delivered on that sector. At four the Second Irish Guards would advance upon Chalk-Pit Wood and would establish themselves on the north-east and south-east faces of it, supported by the 1st Coldstream. The 1st Scots Guards were to advance echeloned to the right rear of the Irish, and to attack Puits 14 bis moving round the south side of Chalk-Pit Wood, covered by heavy fire from the Irish out of the Wood itself. For this purpose, four machine-guns of the Brigade Machine-gun Company were to accompany the latter battalion. The 3rd Grenadiers were to support the 1st Scots in their attack on the Puits. Chalk-Pit Wood at that time existed as a somewhat dishevelled line of smallish trees and brush running from north to south along the edge of some irregular chalk workings which terminated at their north end, in a deepish circular quarry. It was not easy to arrive at its precise shape and size, for the thing, like so much of the war-landscape of France, was seen but once by the men vitally concerned in its features, and thereafter changed outline almost weekly, as gun-fire smote and levelled it from different angles. The orders for the Battalion, after the conference and the short view of the ground, were that No. 3 Company (Captain Wynter) was to advance from their trenches when the bombardment stopped, to the southern end of Chalk-Pit Wood, get through and dig itself in in the tough chalk on the farther side. No. 2 Company (Captain Bird), on the left of No. 3, would make for the centre of the wood, dig in too, on the far side, and thus prolong No. 3’ s line up to and including the Chalk-Pit— that is to say, that the two companies would hold the whole face of the Wood.

 

Nos. 1 and 4 Companies were to follow and back up Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. At four o’clock the two leading companies deployed and advanced, “keeping their direction and formation perfectly.” That much could be seen from what remained of Vermelles water tower, where some of the officers of the 1st Battalion were watching, regardless of occasional enemy shell. They advanced quickly, and pushed through to the far edge of the Wood with very few casualties, and those, as far as could be made out, from rifle or machine-gun fire. (Shell-fire had caught them while getting out of their trenches, but, notwithstanding, their losses had not been heavy till then.)

 

The rear companies pushed up to thicken the line, as the fire increased from the front, and while digging in beyond the Wood, 2nd Lieutenant Pakenham-Law was fatally wounded in the head. Digging was not easy work, and seeing that the left of the two first companies did not seem to have extended as far as the Chalk-Pit, at the north of the Wood, the C.O. ordered the last two platoons of No. 4 Company which were just coming up, to bear off to the left and get hold of the place. In the meantime, the 1st Scots Guards, following orders, had come partly round and partly through the right flank of the Irish, and attacked Puits 14 bis, which was reasonably stocked with machine-guns, but which they captured for the moment. Their rush took with them “some few Irish Guardsmen,” with 2nd Lieutenants W. F. J. Clifford and J. Kipling of No. 2 Company who went forward not less willingly because Captain Cuthbert commanding the Scots Guards party had been adjutant to the Reserve Battalion at Warley ere the 2nd Battalion was formed, and they all knew him. Together, this rush reached a line beyond the Puits, well under machinegun fire (out of the Bois Hugo across the Lens– La Bassee road). Here 2nd Lieutenant Clifford was shot and wounded or killed— the body was found later— and 2nd Lieutenant Kipling was wounded and missing. The Scots Guards also lost Captain Cuthbert, wounded or killed, and the combined Irish and Scots Guards party fell back from the Puits and retired “into and through Chalk-Pit Wood in some confusion.”

 

The C.O. and Adjutant, Colonel Butler and Captain Vesey went forward through the Wood to clear up matters, but, soon after they had entered it the Adjutant was badly wounded and had to be carried off. Almost at the same moment, “the men from the Puits came streaming back through the Wood, followed by a great part of the line which had been digging in on the farther side of it.” Evidently, one and a half hour’s bombardment, against a country-side packed with machine-guns, was not enough to placate it. The Battalion had been swept from all quarters, and shelled at the same time, at the end of two hard days and sleepless nights, as a first experience of war, and had lost seven of their officers in forty minutes. They were reformed somewhat to the rear along the Loos– Hulluch road. (“ Jerry did himself well at Loos upon us innocents. We went into it, knowing no more than our own dead what was coming, and Jerry fair lifted us out of it with machine-guns. That was all there was to it that day.”) The watchers on the Vermelles water-tower saw no more than a slow forward wave obscured by Chalk-Pit Wood; the spreading of a few scattered figures, always, it seemed, moving leisurely; and then a return, with no apparent haste in it, behind the wood once more. They had a fair idea, though, of what had happened, and guessed what was to follow. The re-formed line would go up again exactly to where it had come from. While this was being arranged, and when a couple of companies of the 1st Coldstream had turned up in a hollow on the edge of the Loos– Hulluch road, to support the Battalion, a runner came back with a message from Captain Alexander saying that he and some men were still in their scratch-trenches on the far side of Chalk-Pit Wood, and he would be greatly obliged if they would kindly send some more men up, and with speed. The actual language was somewhat crisper, and was supplemented, so the tale runs, by remarks from the runner addressed to the community at large. The demand was met at once, and the rest of the line was despatched to the near side of the Wood in support. The two companies of the Coldstream came up on the left of the Irish Guards, and seized and settled down in the Chalk-Pit itself. They all had a night’s energetic digging ahead of them, with but their own entrenching tools to help, and support-trenches had to be made behind the Wood in case the enemy should be moved to counter-attack. To meet that chance, as there was a gap between the supporting Coldstream Companies and the First Guards Brigade on the left, the C.O. of the 2nd Battalion collected some hundred and fifty men of various regiments, during the dusk, and stuffed them into an old German communication-trench as a defence. No counter-attack developed, but it was a joyless night that they spent among the up-torn trees and lumps of unworkable chalk. Their show had failed with all the others along the line, and “the greatest battle in the history of the world” was frankly stuck. The most they could do was to hang on and wait developments. They were shelled throughout the next day, heavily but inaccurately, when 2nd Lieutenant Sassoon was wounded by a rifle bullet.

 

In the evening they watched the 1st Coldstream make an unsuccessful attack on Puits 14 bis, for the place was a well-planned machine-gun nest— the first of many that they were fated to lose their strength against through the years to come. That night closed in rain, and they were left to the mercy of Providence. No one could get to them, and they could get at nobody; but they could and did dig deeper into the chalk, to keep warm, and to ensure against the morrow (September 29) when the enemy guns found their range and pitched the stuff fairly into the trenches “burying many men and blowing a few to pieces.” Yet, according to the count, which surely seems inaccurate, they only lost twenty dead in the course of the long day. The 3rd Guards Brigade on their right, sent in word that the Germans were massing for attack in the Bois Hugo in front of their line. “All ranks were warned,” which, in such a situation, meant no more than that the experienced, among them, of whom there were a few, waited for the cessation of shell-fire, and the inexperienced, of whom there were many, waited for what would come next. (“ And the first time that he is under that sort of fire, a man stops his thinking. He’s all full of wonder, sweat, and great curses.”) No attack, however, came, and the Gunners claimed that their fire on Bois Hugo had broken it up. Then the Brigade on their left cheered them with instructions that Chalk-Pit Wood must be “held at all costs,” and that they would not be relieved for another two days; also, that “certain modifications of the Brigade line would take place.”

 

It turned out later that these arrangements did not affect the battalions. They were taken out of the line “wet, dirty, and exhausted” on the night of the 30th September when, after a heavy day’s shelling, the Norfolks relieved them, and they got into billets behind Sailly-Lebourse. They had been under continuous strain since the 25th of the month, and from the 27th to the 30th in a punishing action which had cost them, as far as could be made out, 324 casualties, including 101 missing. Of these last, the Diary records that “the majority of them were found to have been admitted to some field ambulance, wounded. The number of known dead is set down officially as not more than 25, which must be below the mark. Of their officers, 2nd Lieutenant Pakenham-Law had died of wounds; 2nd Lieutenants Clifford and Kipling were missing, Captain and Adjutant the Hon. T. E. Vesey, Captain Wynter, Lieutenant Stevens, and 2nd Lieutenants Sassoon and Grayson were wounded, the last being blown up by a shell. It was a fair average for the day of a debut, and taught them somewhat for their future guidance. Their commanding officer told them so at Adjutant’s Parade, after they had been rested and cleaned on the 2nd October at Verquigneul; but it does not seem to have occurred to any one to suggest that direct infantry attacks, after ninety-minute bombardments, on works begotten out of a generation of thought and prevision, scientifically built up by immense labour and applied science, and developed against all contingencies through nine months, are not likely to find a fortunate issue. So, while the Press was explaining to a puzzled public what a far-reaching success had been achieved, the “greatest battle in the history of the world” simmered down to picking up the pieces on both sides of the line, and a return to autumnal trench-work, until more and heavier guns could be designed and manufactured in England. Meantime, men died.

 

Kipling, Rudyard. The Irish Guards in the Great War: The First & The Second Battalion (Volume 1&2 - Complete Edition) (Kindle Locations 5067-5070). e-artnow. Kindle Edition. 

 

Edited 5 September , 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

Indeed, and was touched upon earlier in the thread I think Click

 

Mike

[Andrew Upton]

14 hours ago, QGE said:

 

Edit. If the UBS Lieutenant Irish Guards was identified from his shoulder rank, it seems highly unlikely that the rest of his tunic, buttons and button holes were missing. Given OR's buttons were spaced singly, again it makes confusion between an Officer and OR's tunics unlikely. Put another way, if faced with an Irish Guards OR's body with a tunic, the GRU would have had to have zero knowledge of uniform peculiarities to confuse it as belonging to an Officer.

 

 

This does, again, rather imply that conditions were good for preservation of material and similar, which (given some of the previously listed accounts of exhumations conducted mere months after death) after nearly 5 years in potentially the worst conditions may have completely disappeared, leaving only the metal insignia such as pips, shoulder titles and buttons.

 

That also assumes that the body was buried with its full set of insignia intact, and recovered similarly. In the example of Lt-Colonel Quilter above, though in life he would have worn a tunic with at least TEN regimental buttons fixed to it, in death his body was recovered with exactly ONE button located (which even then those at the time apparently could not find someone to confirm was a Grenadier Guards button, even though a brief Google search now confirms the description a perfect match for the regiment).

 

Regimental buttons in particular seem to have been considered fair game as items that could be removed from the dead prior to burial for reuse by soldiers who were not lucky enough to possess them (accounts relating to OR's salvaging black horn Rifles buttons to replace their brass GS ones seem to be the most common). As previously established, OR's in the IG had the officially sanctioned right to wear the same regimental pattern buttons as those used by officers.

 

It could just as easily be conjectured that, prior to burial, the body was stripped of reusable insignia to some greater or lesser degree by IG soldiers. Or the body wasn't even intact when buried, resulting in some insignia losses. Plenty of reasons for a much reduced set of buttons to be present, and still be an officer buried in the grave. Or not...

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

This does, again, rather imply that conditions were good for preservation of material and similar, which (given some of the previously listed accounts of exhumations conducted mere months after death) after nearly 5 years in potentially the worst conditions may have completely disappeared, leaving only the metal insignia such as pips, shoulder titles and buttons.

 

That also assumes that the body was buried with its full set of insignia intact, and recovered similarly. In the example of Lt-Colonel Quilter above, though in life he would have worn a tunic with at least TEN regimental buttons fixed to it, in death his body was recovered with exactly ONE button located (which even then those at the time apparently could not find someone to confirm was a Grenadier Guards button, even though a brief Google search now confirms the description a perfect match for the regiment).

 

Regimental buttons in particular seem to have been considered fair game as items that could be removed from the dead prior to burial for reuse by soldiers who were not lucky enough to possess them (accounts relating to OR's salvaging black horn Rifles buttons to replace their brass GS ones seem to be the most common). As previously established, OR's in the IG had the officially sanctioned right to wear the same regimental pattern buttons as those used by officers.

 

It could just as easily be conjectured that, prior to burial, the body was stripped of reusable insignia to some greater or lesser degree by IG soldiers. Or the body wasn't even intact when buried, resulting in some insignia losses. Plenty of reasons for a much reduced set of buttons to be present, and still be an officer buried in the grave. Or not...

 

Even if the insignia was completely missing, an Irish Guards Officer's SD tunic would have button holes in groups of four. Two sets on the front and one set on each cuff. This is unique to the Irish Guards. If the tunic was completely missing, having decayed, there would be little else in terms of the remaining uniform that would distinguish the body as being that of an Irish Guards Officer, other than a shirt and tie which under these hypothetical circumstances might also have decayed being made of less robust material. Shoes rather the boots perhaps, but the footwear seems in many cases to be the first items that were removed. Even if these items were intact, what makes them particular to the Irish Guards?

 

If all the insignia and the tunic was missing, I am trying to imagine how the body is identified as belonging to an Irish Guards Officer. Paperwork perhaps, but that again raises questions on how this survived and the tunic didn't. 

 

The GRU report was a 'positive' identification of the regiment, so there must have been something that was specific to the Irish Guards. It was also a positive identification of an Officer, so similarly there must have been something that was specific to an Officer's clothing or equipment. As has already been pointed. Out, the material used for Officers' SD was different from that used for Soldiers. Most of the other bodies on the sheet were simply UBS. 

 

MG

 

While a fascinating debate, the speculation does not get us any closer to solving the puzzle. If the regiment was misidentified no other units insignia comes close, so the alternative units would be a very long list. 

 

If if the body was an Irish Guards OR, I am trying to understand how this could be confused with that of an Irish Guards Officer. 

 

 

Edited 6 September , 2016 by Guest