Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Compulsory Orders


Jojessholli

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys,

 

Does anyone on here have a good understanding of compulsory orders (In the sense of moving people from one regiment to another)?

 

I'm trying to establish  if/when a compulsory order was put into effect - was it to a group of soldiers (in one go) or just to an individual and/or if became effective (for example) due to his professional skills or for some other reason?

 

My Grandfather was in the 307th SMFA (836037), but at some stage was transferred to the South Midland Field Company RE (499986) due to a compulsory order.

 

If you look at the two images on 31/7/17 there was a compulsory order for Robert McWherter to move to the South Midland Field Company RE (61st Division) - would this have been a move for just this individual or for all soldiers within a certain criteria?  McWherter's details show him as 499933  allotted to him at the same time.  I have no records for my GF sadly, so am using this soldier as a guide.

 

Would this compulsory order have affected my grandfather in the same way?

 

Sorry for the questions and if they seem a little silly to some of you, but I've no idea on how to interpret the change from the RFA to the RE.

 

Regards

Vic

 

GBM_WO363-4_007270631_00512.jpg

GBM_WO363-4_007270631_00513.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It authorises an individual move. The order referred to is Army Order 204 of 1916. This is it: 
 

AO204(1).JPG

AO204(2).JPG

Edited by Chris_Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caught my eye because of a recent record I looked at which uses the phrase "compulsorily transferred in the interests of the service under AP 204/1916 etc etc".  The man was being transferred in July 1917 from the ASC to the infantry.

 

Max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris - one of the main reasons I queried it, was because of the numbering 499933 (for McWhirter) and 499986 (for my grandfather) - I wonder if the C/O could also be applied to a batch of men - hence why they are numbered so closely together.  If there were large gaps between them both being moved to the SMRE I could understand the C/O being just for an individual - but as they are within 53 reg numbers I wonder if it could be applied a batch of men rather than just one.

1 hour ago, Chris_Baker said:

It authorises an individual move. The order referred to is Army Order 204 of 1916. This is it: 
 

AO204(1).JPG

AO204(2).JPG

 

Edited by Jojessholli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the latter part of the war, many men from other branches were "combed out" to serve in the infantry, and of course the creation of the Labour Corps meant men could be transferred to it when medical or age conditions required it. I think that, in many cases, batches of men were transferred to other regiments or corps - men from the Bedfordshires were transferred to Irish regiments, for example - but the point of the Army Order was that it had to be applied to each individual soldier in the batch concerned.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ron Clifton said:

In the latter part of the war, many men from other branches were "combed out" to serve in the infantry, and of course the creation of the Labour Corps meant men could be transferred to it when medical or age conditions required it. I think that, in many cases, batches of men were transferred to other regiments or corps - men from the Bedfordshires were transferred to Irish regiments, for example - but the point of the Army Order was that it had to be applied to each individual soldier in the batch concerned.

 

Ron

That makes sense Ron - I have a feeling that the C/O (in this case) was applied to a batch of men who all moved at the same time from the S/M FA to the S/M RE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The order provides authority to transfer a man, but of course several men could be transferred together if there was a reason for it to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Chris_Baker said:

The order provides authority to transfer a man, but of course several men could be transferred together if there was a reason for it to happen.

thanks Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will need to check (which may take some time), but I am fairly sure that I have found at least one case of the use of this order to "comb out" a man from the RFC (ground crew) to the infantry literally on the eve of the formation of the RAF.

 

When I have met the compulsory transfer before it has a note that the man would continue to be paid at his existing pay rate.

RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rolt968 said:

I will need to check (which may take some time), but I am fairly sure that I have found at least one case of the use of this order to "comb out" a man from the RFC (ground crew) to the infantry literally on the eve of the formation of the RAF.

 

When I have met the compulsory transfer before it has a note that the man would continue to be paid at his existing pay rate.

RM

So different uses of the same C/O then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jojessholli said:

So different uses of the same C/O then?

As I said, I would need to check that it was the same order, but I have see the "combing out" compulsory transfer quoting an AO a number of times. In another case a man who was actually a skilled railway man who had enlisted in the RAMC was  transferred to the ROD department of the RE.

RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rolt968 said:

As I said, I would need to check that it was the same order, but I have see the "combing out" compulsory transfer quoting an AO a number of times. In another case a man who was actually a skilled railway man who had enlisted in the RAMC was  transferred to the ROD department of the RE.

RM

Please let me know if you find anything out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In September 1916 in the B/2----- Rifle Brigade and KRRC  A/2----- range of numbers there were batches from other Regiments placed into the RB & KRRC under Army Orders cited by Chris.

RB

B/200000 to B/200033 all came from the 1st Leicester's

B/200034 to B/200070 all came from 1st North Staffordshire's

B/200071 to B/200152 all came from the Norfolk Regiment

B/200153 to B/200171 all came from the 1/22nd London's

B/200172 to B/200205 all came from the 8th London's

 

and so on. Most of these were base grabs with new soldiers going overseas for the first time, although in the mix were old hands returning from injuries. Gives a rough idea but there were many individuals transferred for unreason or another.

 

Andy

Edited by stiletto_33853
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jojessholli said:

Please let me know if you find anything out.

I am fairly sure that I can find the documents for two examples, but it may take a week or so.

 

RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, stiletto_33853 said:

In September 1916 in the B/2----- Rifle Brigade and KRRC  A/2----- range of numbers there were batches from other Regiments placed into the RB & KRRC under Army Orders cited by Chris.

RB

B/200000 to B/200033 all came from the 1st Leicester's

B/200034 to B/200070 all came from 1st North Staffordshire's

B/200071 to B/200152 all came from the Norfolk Regiment

B/200153 to B/200171 all came from the 1/22nd London's

B/200172 to B/200205 all came from the 8th London's

 

and so on. Most of these were base grabs with new soldiers going overseas for the first time, although in the mix were old hands returning from injuries. Gives a rough idea but there were many individuals transferred for unreason or another.

 

Andy

This now starts to make a lot of sense.  I am pretty sure that my Grandfathers transfer from the SMFA to the SMRE was part of a batch - I've no proof (yet) but I'm working on it.  Thanks for the heads up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McWhirter qualifies as a signaller in Feb 1917 at Crecy and is transferred to the Sappers in July that year.  I am sure we have had discussions on here before about men transferred from the gunners to Sappers because they were signallers.  The Royal Signals grew out of the RE Sigs in c1921, so I would suggest that this transfer was in the interests of the service, he is granted Engineer Pay of 6d per day, and was probably an early member of the RE Signals Service.

 

Do you know what your grandfathers trade was?

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I have a feeling that the C/O (in this case) was applied to a batch of men who all moved at the same time from the S/M FA to the S/M RE.

 

I am not so sure.  While it looks as he was one of a number transferred at about the same time if we look at the near numbers in the RE medal roll, we have:

 

499973, 74, 79, 80, 81, 82 are all from the Worcestershire Regiment

83 from the RFA

85 from the RAMC

your 86 from the RFA

after this they are all RE anyway.  Between the other example you took 499933 (who was from the Ayrshire RFA) and those above there are many more infantrymen than gunners.

 

I'd suggest it was simply that he was one of many transferred for the reasons Ron explains above who happened to have been in the South Midlands RFA.

 

Max

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max,

 

If I have read the papers attached at the top correctly, his rank appears initially as Dvr, he attends a signals course at Crecy from 24 Jan to 6th Feb, 1917 and is transferred to 61 Div Sig Coy RE on 7th July 1917 with the rank of Pioneer.  I will admit that I do not know enough Gunner ranks at that time, but presumably Gnr and Dvr were the only two and that Signals was considered a trade and did not merit having its own rank.  I do know that many years later Gnr was the basic RA Rank and you were known as Gnr Bloggs no matter what trade you held.  

 

Pioneer I know was used in the Sappers to denote men who held useful trades but were not considered to have enough knowledge to merit being a Sapper.

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The transfer of RFA signallers [and it seems the recently trained..] to RE I have noted as quite widespread in summer 1917, and I think as part of a growing specialisation of training/equipment/skills and is widely seen, including regular prewar brigades where men were 're-badged' and moved (usually from battery/brigade HQs] to divisional signal companies; although in practice it often looks like some of them continued to fulfil similar roles now 'attached' to their old RFA units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian

 

We are I think at cross purposes.  I was referring to your grandfather for whom as you know we have only the service number.  I was looking at RE numbers similar to his and suggesting that these show no mass transfer from the South Midlands RFA to the South Midlands RE which appears to have been what you were considering had been the case.  (Your quote - .I have a feeling that the C/O (in this case) was applied to a batch of men who all moved at the same time from the S/M FA to the S/M RE)

 

I agree you have read McWhirter's record correctly.  He was indeed from 2/1st South Midland RFA (305 Brigade)  having transferred previously from Ayrshire RHA.You are right too about the RA ranks and signaller being a skill rather than a rank.

 

I also have no problem with the general idea that there were RFA men with that skill transferred to the RE.  It was the mass movement of SM RFA to SM RE that I was suggesting may not be the case.

 

It may be worth looking at the war diary for 307 Brigade in the mid 1917 period to see if there is any mention of movement of men.  I had a very brief look, nothing found (yet) - need also to look at the Division's CRA.  Any "mass" movement would almost certainly be shown.  The Div Signal Company diary for that period also may show something.

 

I hope I haven't misunderstood the basic thrust of your query?

 

Max

Edited by MaxD
Correction of McWhirter's previous unit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max,

 

Yes, one of the difficulties of the Internet is that it is not as easy to understand someone else on a forum like this as it would be face to face and I find it easy to misunderstand what people mean at times.  It was not my grandfather I was commenting on in any case. That was the OP, so you did not misunderstand my query.

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian

 

Indeed.  You rightly point out my stupid error in losing touch with who was asking the question in the first place, my apologies to you!  Best to keep stumm now until the OP returns.

 

Thank you for your forbearance.

 

Max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...