Which RNV became which RND so for example did Eastbourne Seaford Newhaven all go into one division

[arantxa]

Thanks 

[horatio2]

The RNVR did not 'become the RND'.

Eastbourne, Seaford and Newhaven men would all have been enlisted into Sussex Division RNVR (before and during the war). However, a man's RNVR Division did not determine whether he was drafted into the RND or to Sea Service, nor did it influence into which of the naval battalions of the RND he would be drafted.

[arantxa]

So most men who were in the RnvR what would have happened to them in Ww1 from what I read the whole lot became the  London division and then the rnd 

who was the RND recruited from and were the different battalions is Hood. Hawks etc dependent on the region ?

thanks 

[michaeldr]

There is a lot of useful detail in Appendix A of Douglas Jerrold's divisional history

Pages 333> have three Minutes by the First Lord, dated 16 August, 17 August & 20 August 1914

see https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.523461/page/n395/mode/2up

[horatio2]

12 hours ago, arantxa said:

from what I read the whole lot became the  London division and then the rnd 

I cannot imagine where you read that rubbish. The facts are as follows:-

1. Before and during the war men joined the RNVR Division of their local area: London, Clyde, Bristol, Tyneside, Mersey, Sussex or Wales (but no Wales Division pre-war).
2. The numbers of WW1 recruits to the RNVR (identified by a 'Z' prefix to their Divisional number) were as follows: London Division 10,222; Clyde 10,246; Bristol 12,278; Tyne 13,528; Mersey 6,313; Sussex 662; Wales 5,380. Total more than 58,000. So London Division was only fourth of the seven divisions for number of WW1 recruits.
3. Further 'non-regional ' entries into the RNVR came early in WW1 from excess Army recruits (some 6,500 so-called 'Kitchener' men) and through conscription from 1916 (nearly 7,000 men), bringing the total WW1 enlistments into the RNVR to about 72,000. Many pre-WW1 RNVR ratings were also mobilised from their divisional companies.
4. These totals broadly match the number of ratings on the RNVR medal roll.
5. How many of these RNVR men served in the RND? There are RND Record Cards for approx.48,300 RND Ratings but that number includes hundreds of ratings from the RN, RFR and RNR and also includes hundreds who were nominally RND but who were diverted to Sea Service. My 'best guess' is that perhaps half of all RNVR recruits (approx.36,000 - 40,000) had meaningful service in the RND. The other half went straight to the Fleet where they were joined later in the war by many hundreds of men ex-RND.

The opening quote is, therefore, totally removed from the reality.

michaeldr's link to the RND historian is a most useful background into how the RND was first formed in August 1914.

The RND naval battalions had no regional links. The RMLI battalions of the RND were (at first) linked to their RMLI HQ (Portsmouth, Chatham and Plymouth).

Edited 31 March , 2020 by horatio2

[arantxa]

Hello

the so called Rubbish came from the official Sussex Division website see pictures I’m not an expert that’s why I asked it says only a small percentage went to the fleet the rat all went to the RND

is this incorrect ?

[horatio2]

19 hours ago, arantxa said:

So most men who were in the RnvR what would have happened to them in Ww1 from what I read the whole lot became the  London division and then the rnd 

 

arantxa, Your paraphrase of the statement in the book is a bit inaccurate, hence my detailed answer.

 

You quoted "the whole lot became London division" but there is no mention of London Division in the book. The book refers to events in August 1914 and, therefore, to pre-war RNVR men only (Sussex Division did not take wartime recruits until early September). About 500 Sussex pre-war ratings were mobilised from Coys 1-6 and it is true that only about 10% of these went straight to the Fleet ("a small percentage" ). Of those that joined the RND on its formation at Walmer after 22 August a disproprtionate number went into Howe Battalion but they would comprise only about half of that battalion.

Regarding the book's statement on casualties, 74 of the mobilised Sussex men who had RND service were lost but a a third of these men were killed not in the RND but on subsequent sea service.

 

I hope that puts my reply in context.

[arantxa]

Thanks and yes it sort of answers my original question so much obliged 

 

matt 

[Lawryleslie]

On 31/03/2020 at 10:32, horatio2 said:

I cannot imagine where you read that rubbish. The facts are as follows:-

1. Before and during the war men joined the RNVR Division of their local area: London, Clyde, Bristol, Tyneside, Mersey, Sussex or Wales (but no Wales Division pre-war).
2. The numbers of WW1 recruits to the RNVR (identified by a 'Z' prefix to their Divisional number) were as follows: London Division 10,222; Clyde 10,246; Bristol 12,278; Tyne 13,528; Mersey 6,313; Sussex 662; Wales 5,380. Total more than 58,000. So London Division was only fourth of the seven divisions for number of WW1 recruits.
3. Further 'non-regional ' entries into the RNVR came early in WW1 from excess Army recruits (some 6,500 so-called 'Kitchener' men) and through conscription from 1916 (nearly 7,000 men), bringing the total WW1 enlistments into the RNVR to about 72,000. Many pre-WW1 RNVR ratings were also mobilised from their divisional companies.
4. These totals broadly match the number of ratings on the RNVR medal roll.
5. How many of these RNVR men served in the RND? There are RND Record Cards for approx.48,300 RND Ratings but that number includes hundreds of ratings from the RN, RFR and RNR and also includes hundreds who were nominally RND but who were diverted to Sea Service. My 'best guess' is that perhaps half of all RNVR recruits (approx.36,000 - 40,000) had meaningful service in the RND. The other half went straight to the Fleet where they were joined later in the war by many hundreds of men ex-RND.

The opening quote is, therefore, totally removed from the reality.

michaeldr's link to the RND historian is a most useful background into how the RND was first formed in August 1914.

The RND naval battalions had no regional links. The RMLI battalions of the RND were (at first) linked to their RMLI HQ (Portsmouth, Chatham and Plymouth).

H2 if RND battalions had no regional links how do you explain that the majority of men of Collingwood were TZ with home addresses in NE of England, CZ with addresses from Glasgow area and KW ratings from Yorkshire? I can’t vouch for other RND battalions as I do not have historical documents for those, but it seems that Collingwood had regional links judging by their RNVR Division and/or home addresses.

Edited 7 April , 2020 by Lawryleslie

[Keith_history_buff]

39 minutes ago, Lawryleslie said:

H2 if RND battalions had no regional links how do you explain that the majority of men of Collingwood were TZ with home addresses in NE of England, CZ with addresses from Glasgow area and KW ratings from Yorkshire?

 

To counter the statement that 'the RND naval battalions had no regional links' I would expect to see primary source evidence to show that it was by design, and not by accident.

If you look at the infantry, each county regiment has its standard recruiting districts. I would not perceive Lanarkshire, Yorkshire, Northumbria and County Down as a contiguous "region". That's one heck of a number of infantry regiments associated with some places that are north of the Watford gap. 

Most of the RNVR men who performed sea service aboard HMS Caroline at the Battle of Jutland were from the Clyde Division. I don't see there being any evidence that HMS Caroline was intentionally crewed by Scotsmen. For whatever reason the majority of the draft seems to have been fulfilled by that specific Division when the ship was commissioned, and I would have thought it similar when a battalion of the RND came into being. 

[Lawryleslie]

30 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

 

To counter the statement that 'the RND naval battalions had no regional links' I would expect to see primary source evidence to show that it was by design, and not by accident.

If you look at the infantry, each county regiment has its standard recruiting districts. I would not perceive Lanarkshire, Yorkshire, Northumbria and County Down as a contiguous "region". That's one heck of a number of infantry regiments associated with some places that are north of the Watford gap. 

Most of the RNVR men who performed sea service aboard HMS Caroline at the Battle of Jutland were from the Clyde Division. I don't see there being any evidence that HMS Caroline was intentionally crewed by Scotsmen. For whatever reason the majority of the draft seems to have been fulfilled by that specific Division when the ship was commissioned, and I would have thought it similar when a battalion of the RND came into being. 

Was the early manning of the RND battalions perhaps part of the Pals battalions experiment that was largely abandoned in summer of 1916 because of the impact on individual towns and communities when a Pals battalion suffered heavy casualties. This could explain the statement that, certainly for later RND recruitment, battalions had no regional links?

Edited 7 April , 2020 by Lawryleslie

[Lawryleslie]

13 minutes ago, Lawryleslie said:

Was the early manning of the RND battalions perhaps part of the Pals battalions experiment that was largely abandoned in summer of 1916 because of the impact on individual towns and communities when a Pals battalion suffered heavy casualties. This could explain the statement that, certainly for later RND recruitment, battalions had no regional links?

 

[Keith_history_buff]

I'd raise a different perspective with regard to heavy losses. This is an insight that the WFA pension cards have provided, and is a distraction from the original post.

Of the drafts being sent to the BEF battalions, some of those men were from the Special Reserve. The cards revealed more info for two SR men who died, who lived next to each other. Although there is mention of the Pals battalions, heavy casualties among the SR would be an example of where several men from the same street would be killed at the same time (i.e. First Battle of Ypres) some time ahead of summer 1916. The casualties of the BEF in 1914 are above the averaged 11% mortality and 89% survivability that the British Army had overall during WW1.

I would have thought that in those places where the army allowed potential recruits to join the navy as "Kitchener Marines" - in particular Yorkshire - there would be an above average representation when it came to looking at RND casualties, and where they came from geographically in Great Britain.

 

[arantxa]

Thanks all very interesting 

[michaeldr]

9 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

To counter the statement that 'the RND naval battalions had no regional links' I would expect to see primary source evidence to show that it was by design, and not by accident.

 

I think that here you have summed up this question very nicely.

I have seen no evidence of any Admiralty minute giving instructions for a regional aspect to be imposed on the battalions of the RND.

If such an instruction is found then it would be helpful to have it shared here. 

[Lawryleslie]

55 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

 

I think that here you have summed up this question very nicely.

I have seen no evidence of any Admiralty minute giving instructions for a regional aspect to be imposed on the battalions of the RND.

If such an instruction is found then it would be helpful to have it shared here. 

I too have seen no such directive. However I have irrefutable historical evidence that, for the MEF, the Collingwood's were overwhelmingly recruited from Tyneside RNVR, lesser so from Clyde RNVR, with personal addresses showing as such. This cannot have been a coincidence. However with no such data in my possession showing similar recruitment for other RND battalions it cannot be said with100% certainty that this was a policy.

[michaeldr]

Just now, Lawryleslie said:

This cannot have been a coincidence

 

Why not?

[Keith_history_buff]

I think this is like the HMS Caroline scenario. Nature abhors a vacuum, so if there is a large amount of available men from Yorkshire, it makes sense to absorb from that pool.

What would make for interesting reading would be to have a listing in Excel of all these men, to record their enlistment dates and their transfer to a given battalion of the RND. If the Collingwood battalion was one of the later battalions to be established, then it would make sense for there to be a predominance of "Kitchener Marines", with those who had enlisted pre-war, in Sussex and elsewhere, having already been absorbed by the first of the battalions that were formed.

These men were posted to where they were needed, they were not recruited to specifically serve in the RND. They did not enlist and say "I am going to be a recruit in this specific battalion of the RND". (That option was open to soldiers enlisting in 1914, who could state their preferred regiment.)

To go back to your counter argument, that the Collingwood battalion had regional links. If there was a deliberate decision to get men from a region, it would make more sense to have a battalion from a specific Division, in the same manner that county infantry regiments had their own associated recruiting district. 

[Lawryleslie]

1 hour ago, Keith_history_buff said:

I think this is like the HMS Caroline scenario. Nature abhors a vacuum, so if there is a large amount of available men from Yorkshire, it makes sense to absorb from that pool.

What would make for interesting reading would be to have a listing in Excel of all these men, to record their enlistment dates and their transfer to a given battalion of the RND. If the Collingwood battalion was one of the later battalions to be established, then it would make sense for there to be a predominance of "Kitchener Marines", with those who had enlisted pre-war, in Sussex and elsewhere, having already been absorbed by the first of the battalions that were formed.

These men were posted to where they were needed, they were not recruited to specifically serve in the RND. They did not enlist and say "I am going to be a recruit in this specific battalion of the RND". (That option was open to soldiers enlisting in 1914, who could state their preferred regiment.)

To go back to your counter argument, that the Collingwood battalion had regional links. If there was a deliberate decision to get men from a region, it would make more sense to have a battalion from a specific Division, in the same manner that county infantry regiments had their own associated recruiting district. 

Can’t agree with most of your argument. Quickly counting the numbers in my document reveals almost 500 recruited from Tyneside and 220 from Clyde with corresponding home addresses. The remainder coming from other RNVR Divisions and KW ratings. If there was not a policy of regional recruitment into RND then recruitment would be evenly spread. It’s a shame we don’t have such detailed records of other RND battalions. The possibility is that RND battalions recruited from specific RNVR Divisions which in themselves would have recruited from their geographical area.

i agree that the possibility that Collingwood recruited mainly TZ and CZ was because of the late re-formation of the battalion in late 1914 and early 1915 following its decimation at Antwerp when only 22 men returned to UK. 

Edited 8 April , 2020 by Lawryleslie

[horatio2]

A good question from Lawryleslie, prompting a second look at my assertion.

Collingwood was, in many ways, a special case, having been reformed (with Benbow and Hawke) from scratch after Antwerp. The prevalence of Kitchener 'KW' ratings in these battalions should not come as a surprise because all KW ratings were sent to 1st (Naval) Brigade ('KX' ratings to 2nd Bde) and those that got back from Antwerp remained as the seed-corn of the new battalions. That the majority of the New Collingwood Bn. were Tyne and Clyde men is self-evident. I suspect (but it would be extremely time-consuming to verify, there being no equivalent of the "Collingwood Battalion" book that informs Lawryleslie's question) that both the New Benbow and New Hawke BNs.reforming at Crystal Palace were also Tyne and Clyde heavy. I assume that this was for administrative convenience (and not a policy of "regional recruitment"). All new 'Z' recruits were sent to Crystal Palace for initial training. The drafting into the battalions (from November 1914) was done from the training battalions at Crystal Palace, some men remaining at CP to form the three 'New' battalions, while others were sent to Blandford to the five 'intact' naval battalions.

New Collingwood's make-up was, inevitably, very different to the Old Collingwood which drew on all RNVR divisions and many 'KW's as well as the Fleet and RNR, the majority lost to POW or internment.

Noting the 'Clyde/Tyne heavy' complement of New Collingwood, it is worth recalling that men from Bristol, London, Mersey and Sussex Divisions also served in New Collingwood (albeit in smaller numbers) and feature, not least, in the death toll at 3rd Krithia.

Finally, looking back again to Old Collingwood, the 1914 Star Roll yields the breakdown of RNVR ratings. Just to take the first fifty RNVR ratings on the Collingwood Roll: the majority (20) were 1st Bde 'KW' men; London Division provided 15;  9 were from  Bristol Division; and only 6 came from the Tyne. There were none from Clyde. Absolutely no sign of "regional recruitment" in the earliest drafts. The drafting of HO 'Z' ratings did not start until after Antwerp.

Douglas Jerrold in "The Hawke Battalion" comments (pp.30-31) on the make-up of the New Hawke companies, noting that 'A' and 'B' Coys were "in the main London men"; 'C' Coy "was composed almost to a man of North Country miners" and 'D' Coy "formed from the visible remains of a ... battalion of public school men". This perhaps gives an indication that the drafters at CP were attempting to give an 'all of one company' flavour at company level so that men who had recruited together and trained together would fight together. Note, however, that this appears to be at company-level, not by battalions. Note also that this is far-removed from a policy of "regional recruitment".

The previous posters' comments are very instructive. Thank you for taking an interest.

Edited 8 April , 2020 by horatio2

[michaeldr]

37 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

 I assume that this was for administrative convenience (and not a policy of "regional recruitment")

H2,

Under the pressure of a war situation, I cannot imaging that anyone would have had the time to spare to ensure that each of the eight RND battalions had an absolute mathematical and evenly balanced spread of recruits from every division of the RNVR, from the RNR, the K scheme, the stokers without berths, et et etc.

However, that is just my imagining

Keep well

Michael

 

[Lawryleslie]

Thank you all for joining in this interesting debate with very informative opinions and logical assumptions. Given this I will suck back on my original assertion that there was a policy of regional recruitment within the RND. The vacuum of historical information stimulates great conversation and in-depth research for us all especially in this time of having much spare time on our hands. 

Edited 8 April , 2020 by Lawryleslie

[horatio2]

As a post-script, I have taken a look at the rates of recruiting. This would have determined the number of men available from each RNVR Division to enter training at CP. The figures cast an interesting light on the debate. I have ascertained, for each RNVR Division, the dates of entry for their 500^th, 1,000^th and 1,500^th ‘Z’ recruits. Knowing the dates when each Division started recruiting ‘Z’ men the rate of entry (from first entry) can be calculated. For this exercise I have ignored Mersey, Sussex, Wales and Bristol Divisions whose rates were far lower or later.

• Clyde Division began recruiting on 7 September 1914, reached 500 entries on 2 October (125 per week), 1,000 entries on 17 October (167 per week) and 1,500 entries on 26 October (216 per week).
• Tyne Division also began recruiting on 7 September 1914, reached 500 entries on 20 October (83 entries per week), 1,000 entries on 7 November (111 entries per week) and 1,500 entries on 13 November (150 entries per week).
• London Division began recruiting a week earlier on 31 August 1914, reached 500 entries on 29 September (125 entries per week), 1,000 entries on 1 December (71 entries per week) and 1,500 entries on 10 April 1915 (47 entries per week).

This shows that in the first crucial months of ‘Z’ recruiting, it was the Clyde and Tyne Divisions which set the pace with accelerating rates of entry. (Their rates of entry continued to grow with Clyde division reaching Z/2000 approaching a rate of 250 per week into early November 1914.) This alone would explain the proliferation of men from these divisions in the 1914/15 RND battalions. London Division started first and at a rate to match the Clyde over the first 500 but the rate of recruiting rapidly reduced.

 

 

[michaeldr]

It seems the individual volunteer was one element in the random nature of a battalion's make up.

I don't know how typical Joe Murray's recruitment was, but he describes leaving HMS Calliope “among hundreds that had marched from the ship” to Newcastle Central Station and thence by train to London and the Crystal Palace. There “...on October 31^st, there was a call for volunteers to join the Hood, whatever that meant, I readily put up my hand and was warned to stand by for draft to Devonport Naval Barracks.”

[Gallipoli 1915 by Joseph Murray, Cerberus Publishing Ltd., 2004 (previously pub. by William Kimber & Co. Ltd., 1965)]