Alan24 Posted 17 February , 2018 Share Posted 17 February , 2018 Whilst I understand that Pte. and Rfm. are equivalent ranks, would a brand new recruit to the KRRC been known as Rifleman from the start or would he have had to complete some sort of basic training to earn the title rifleman? Whilst I'm particularly interested in the answer applying to the KRRC at this time, I'm also wondering about gunners and troopers etc. Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 17 February , 2018 Share Posted 17 February , 2018 Not sure about riflemen, but 'Trooper' applied only to Household Cavalry: the lowest rank in Line cavalry was Private until 1922. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 17 February , 2018 Share Posted 17 February , 2018 The basic lowest rank was Private but various regiments and corps used their own variants. He would have been known as Rifleman from the time that he joined KRRC - it wasn't a special grade. The only exception I know of is Pioneer RE, which was the title given to men in the RE who had not passed one of the recognised trade tests to qualify them to be called Sappers. This particularly applied to the RE Signal Service where there were originally no special trade tests. on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBrockway Posted 17 February , 2018 Share Posted 17 February , 2018 (edited) Ron is 100% correct - though obviously all rifleman would probably regard themselves as 'a special grade' . Same would also apply in the Rifle Brigade. In looser parlance, any member of either regiment would often refer to themselves as riflemen regardless of rank, as in 'Once a rifleman, always a rifleman' Mark Edited 17 February , 2018 by MBrockway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 18 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 February , 2018 Thanks Guys. Just wanted to be sure that I could refer to my new recruit as a Rifleman as soon as he arrived at Winchester. Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBrockway Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 Incidentally, the abbreviated form is Rfn. rather than Rfm. Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 The only official ranks at the bottom of the pecking order were: Private [included Guards and Rifles], [Boy was a subset of Private] Trooper [Household cavalry only] Gunner RA Driver RA Sapper RE Pioneer RE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 18 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 February , 2018 1 hour ago, MBrockway said: Incidentally, the abbreviated form is Rfn. rather than Rfm. Cheers, Mark Thanks for the correction Mark. Not sure where I got rfm from... regards Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBrockway Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 4 hours ago, Muerrisch said: The only official ranks at the bottom of the pecking order were: Private [included Guards and Rifles], [Boy was a subset of Private] Trooper [Household cavalry only] Gunner RA Driver RA Sapper RE Pioneer RE Correct - 'Rifleman' was an unofficial regimental variant. It was made official in the early 1920's if I remember correctly, but I can't lay my finger on the exact reference just now! This was alongside a few other variants from other regiments - Fusilier, Kingsman? ... again my memory is a bit imperfect on this. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 I imagine it would have been the same time that the 'Trooper' rank was introduced to Line Cavalry - which was 1922, I believe. So to answer the OP, officially, a recruit, or a trained soldier, would still have been a Private in the GW. What would be on his paperwork and - where appropriate - his headstone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBrockway Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 8 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said: I imagine it would have been the same time that the 'Trooper' rank was introduced to Line Cavalry - which was 1922, I believe. So to answer the OP, officially, a recruit, or a trained soldier, would still have been a Private in the GW. What would be on his paperwork and - where appropriate - his headstone? CWGC Great War KRRC headstones generally have 'Rifleman', but obviously I haven't checked every example! KRRC Great War service records also generally use 'Rfn' in preference to 'Pte', though I have definitely seen the latter. Ditto for those KRRC Chronicles published during the war. Published casualty lists use both. MiD lists in the London Gazette mostly use 'Pte'. I haven't checked for LG gallantry awards. The BWM and VM Medal rolls usually have 'Pte' (and so presumably will their corresponding medal inscriptions), but both Star rolls use 'Rfn'. Going further back, both the KSA and QSA rolls use 'Pte'. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 27 minutes ago, MBrockway said: CWGC Great War KRRC headstones generally have 'Rifleman', but obviously I haven't checked every example! A run through KRRC pn CWGC shows that the term "Rifleman" is used for all casualties- at the private soldier rank- with one exception, one soldier of KRRC is listed as "Private"-he died in Greece in July 1916. A local arrangement? Or a CWGC error perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 The permanent headstones in many, if not most, cases were put in place after 1922, after the widening of the options for naming Privates. The classic case is Guardsman which appears on many Foot Guards headstones even though the title was not conferred by George V until after the Armistice. For the same reason, you also see stones where the corps is shown as RASC, RAVC or RAOC. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 18 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 18 February , 2018 3 hours ago, MBrockway said: The BWM and VM Medal rolls usually have 'Pte' (and so presumably will their corresponding medal inscriptions), Mark Yes, the VM I'm researching shows Pte. as does his MIC. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin kenf48 Posted 18 February , 2018 Admin Share Posted 18 February , 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Alan24 said: Yes, the VM I'm researching shows Pte. as does his MIC. Alan. A note that accompanied theBWM & VM when they were sent out by registered post stated:- 'To avoid unnecessary correspondence, kindly note that the Regtl. particulars inscribed on the British War & Victory Medals are those held on first disembarkation in a theatre of war. The rank is the highest attained, PROVIDED IT WAS HELD IN A THEATRE OF WAR OR OVERSEAS PRIOR TO 11.11.18. Appointments such as L/Sgts., L/Cpl/, etc. are not inscribed on Medals, SPECIAL NOTE TO THOSE WHO SERVED IN RIFLE REGTS. 'Rifleman" is not inscribed on War Medals, "Pte." being the correct designation of this rank.' (Their Caps). Ken Edited 18 February , 2018 by kenf48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBrockway Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 On 19/02/2018 at 03:27, voltaire60 said: A run through KRRC pn CWGC shows that the term "Rifleman" is used for all casualties- at the private soldier rank- with one exception, one soldier of KRRC is listed as "Private"-he died in Greece in July 1916. A local arrangement? Or a CWGC error perhaps. IIRC the 3/KRRC rifleman in Salonika who is listed as Private is a 2015 addition to the Doiran Memorial to the missing. I don't think he has actually been added t the Addendum panel yet, s it remains to be seen whether CWGC will inscribe him as Pte or Rfn. See here for some info on the case: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBrockway Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 6 hours ago, MBrockway said: The BWM and VM Medal rolls usually have 'Pte' (and so presumably will their corresponding medal inscriptions), but both Star rolls use 'Rfn'. Going further back, both the KSA and QSA rolls use 'Pte'. A quick look through some DNW catalogues shows both the 1914 Star and 1914-15 Star to riflemen in the 60th were inscribed 'PTE' despite the medal roll using the term 'RFN' Exactly in line with the BWM & VM cover note Ken mentions. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 19 February , 2018 Share Posted 19 February , 2018 On 19/02/2018 at 09:43, MBrockway said: IIRC the 3/KRRC rifleman in Salonika who is listed as Private is a 2015 addition to the Doiran Memorial to the missing. I don't think he has actually been added t the Addendum panel yet, s it remains to be seen whether CWGC will inscribe him as Pte or Rfn. See here for some info on the case: Yes, agreed- I note the story of Private/Rifleman Gravenor has been dealt with on GWF- but that CWGC seems a bit slow in getting a memorial listing updated. I have little doubt that he will in due course be listed as "Rifleman" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBrockway Posted 23 March , 2018 Share Posted 23 March , 2018 On 18 February 2018 at 11:19, Muerrisch said: The only official ranks at the bottom of the pecking order were: Private [included Guards and Rifles], [Boy was a subset of Private] Trooper [Household cavalry only] Gunner RA Driver RA Sapper RE Pioneer RE On 18 February 2018 at 16:04, MBrockway said: Correct - 'Rifleman' was an unofficial regimental variant. It was made official in the early 1920's if I remember correctly, but I can't lay my finger on the exact reference just now! This was alongside a few other variants from other regiments - Fusilier, Kingsman? ... again my memory is a bit imperfect on this. Mark I've found my reference for this at last! It was in Army Order AO 222 of 1923 .... I'd be interested to know more on AO 160 of 1909! Other regiment-specific traditions such as Kingsman clearly came in later. Again, a reference for those would be useful. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin ss002d6252 Posted 23 March , 2018 Admin Share Posted 23 March , 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MBrockway said: I've found my reference for this at last! It was in Army Order AO 222 of 1923 .... I'd be interested to know more on AO 160 of 1909! Other regiment-specific traditions such as Kingsman clearly came in later. Again, a reference for those would be useful. Mark I'd suspect this, of May 1909, flows from AO 160 but the full wording would be interesting. The 1908 Kings Regs don't even recognise Trooper as an appointment (or rank) so presumably part of the order was to alter this. Craig Edited 23 March , 2018 by ss002d6252 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