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

Remembered Today:

Derby Scheme Group 1 but mobilized December 1916?


Chemin Des Dames

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone. Happy Easter and I hope all are well --- and not too bored stuck at home!

The attached document from the War Office in 1935 summarizes the WW1 service of my grandfather (84064 Thomas Glynn, Machine Gun Corps). It's a useful document as his Service Records were destroyed in WW2.

Can anyone help elucidate it? In particular:

 

1. His enlistment date is 9th December 1915 so I assume he enlisted under the Derby Scheme. However, he was unmarried, and born in 1897, which would presumably have placed him in Group 1 of the scheme. According to the Long, Long Trial website, that would have meant he should have been mobilized in February 1916, but the document states he served with the colours only from mid-December 1916. I know he was briefly in a Training Reserve Battalion in December 1916 before being assigned to the Machine Gun Corps, and sent to Grantham for training early in 1917. My question is - is there anything unusual about him not being mobilized until December 1916, despite being in the Derby Scheme? There are family rumours Tom actually fought at the Somme before joining the Machine Gun Corps but I have always been inclined to doubt them.  

 

2. The document also states that Tom (who was from Liverpool) served with the Seaforth Highlanders during the War. This is a mystery to me. One possibility is it happened during Operation Michael in 1918, when Tom became separated from his unit (42 Company, 5th Army) and fell in with a scratch company cobbled together from an assortment of strays. But I don't know. After 42 company was destroyed he was redeployed to the 25th Division and fought on the Lys and the Aisne, but things were a little less chaotic then I think. He wrote a war diary while in the Machine Gun Corps in 1917-1918 and there is no mention anywhere within of the Seaforth Highlanders. 

 

Any elucidations or speculations on either point gratefully received!

84064 Glynn WW1 service.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His MM is in the LG 30962 p 12407 dated 18/10/1918. He is shown as 84064 MGC (Liverpool).

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that time he could have been posted to any unit once he was called up. It's possible that his call-up was deferred for some reason - what was his occupation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI David. thanks for replying. Tom's family had a livery stables and carting business in Vauxhall, a dingy part of Liverpool. Tom looked after the horses. It was nothing fancy. His father had a wooden leg though and might I suppose have found it challenging to operate the business without Tom. Would that have been enough for a deferral?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

He was part of a cohort from Liverpool mobilised to the 67th TRB (ex 21st (Res) Bn KLR) having made his first appearance at the KLR Depot Seaforth Barracks.

 

That's the only connection I can make with the word "Seaforth" - I can't see how he could have served with the Seaforth Highlanders

 

He was transferred to the MGC along with a group of others in Feb 1917

 

Regards

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Russ. Thanks for your reply. Is there any archival data on the TRBs? I wasn't aware of that, though I knew he was in the 67th TRB from his diary. My best guess on the Seaforth Highlanders connection is that he was co-opted into them during Operation Michael in 1918. He was returning from leave when the German breakthrough came, and never made it back to the 42 Company of the 5th army. Instead he was co-opted into a scratch regiment apparently as an infantryman, marched round to Amiens and fought in the battle of Villers-Bretonneux. After that he was reassigned to the MGC in the 25th Division and sent to the Lys. So my only guesses about the Seaforth Highlander connection are (a) that it was during this period or (b) highly improbable -- that somehow he served in the Seaforths earlier in 1916.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I'm not aware of any archival material on the TRBs unfortunately.

 

Your story of his time with the SH does sound plausible.

 

Regards

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Russ. Do you have any opinion as to why he wasn't mobilised in February 1916? Is your suspicion, like Brian's, that "something came up" at home, such as a job considered important to the war effort or whatever, that caused a deferral? i.e. it was just a contingency peculiar to his own circumstances?      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The usual reason is because of occupation and/or a successful appeal.

 

Another possibility is that he was poorly so his mobilisation was simply deferred.

 

There are quite a few surviving service records of men with similar MGC service numbers - you could go through them and see what the distribution is between age/marital status and the mobilisation date to see if there are any other examples/explanations.

 

Russ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The Service Record of 84061 Patrick Edward Kelly has survived.  One of the cohort mentioned by Russ, his statement of service clearly shows ‘Seaforth Mobilised 11.12.16’ as Russ says this is a clear reference to Seaforth  Barracks.  It could easily be misinterpreted by a clerk in 1935.

 

As for his call up, the Local Tribunal could grant a Certificate of Exemption from military service on the grounds of “serious hardship would ensue owing to his exceptional business or financial obligations.”  Exemption on these grounds was usually conditional, three months at a time. It was more and more difficult to secure exemptions after the losses of 1916 and the ‘manpower crisis’ of early 1917 looming.

 

Given the losses to the MGC on March 21st it seems fanciful to suggest he would be posted to the infantry.  In any event if unable to rejoin his original unit he would have been directed to the MGC Base Depot at Camiers, close to but separate from that of the Infantry Base Depot at Etaples.

 

Ken 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I see that another member of this group, 84068 Laurence Burgess, was 19.5 upon attestation in Dec 1915. He was married and was in Group 26, which were scheduled for mobilisation in April 1916. Nevertheless, he was mobilised like Thomas Glynn in Dec 1916.

 

Burgess was a dock worker in Liverpool - so that might have been the reason for the deferral in his case.

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
55 minutes ago, kenf48 said:

 It could easily be misinterpreted by a clerk in 1935.

 

Indeed, it could even lead to a clerical error on contemporary documentation - this from the medical history record of 84061 Patrick Kelly which erroneously states Seaforth Highlanders (abb.) when in fact he joined up at Seaforth Barracks in Liverpool like the others in his cohort. Incidentally, Kelly was also a Docker.

 

 

84061 Kelly.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all. Great stuff. The "administrative error" hypothesis looks good to me on the Seaforths.

 

PS Ken, he was indeed bundled into a scratch regiment briefly during Operation Michael. He returned from leave just after the breakthrough and only made it back to the remnants of the14th Division some days later. There are only a few notes in rushed diary at this time, but I see no mention of the Seaforth Highlanders. For interest, these are the brief notes he made:

 

Leave Boulogne 3 pm 21st, for Flavy-le-Martel.

Arrive Ham 12 midnight.

Stay there till 4 am 22nd and see all civvys leaving town. Told to go to Guiscard 10 kilos away.

When we arrive are told German Off has started.

Party of leave men composed of RE asc RFC RFA ANC etc C188 made into a Company and dig in near Cugny.

[Note - I assume RE, Royal Engineers; ASC, Army Service Corps RFC, Royal Flying Corps; RFA, Royal Field Artillery;  --- no idea about ANC and C188!!! Anyone know?]  

23rd can’t stop Fritz, but Cavalry come to rescue and go over followed by our little crowd. Marvellous charge and they cut the Germans left and right with swords. Take 500 prisoners and 4 machine guns, and take 2 woods. We get orders to charge a wood but no Germans there.

 

Our flanks give way so we have to give right back what we have taken (4 kilos).

 

5 pm 23rd Palm Sunday. Big retreat (about 10 kilos). Thousands in retreat. We are nearly surrounded.

 

No S/O/S line demoralizes.[Assume SOS means artillery support]

Everywhere in retreat all 5th Army.

Afterwards come across a Froggy division digging in. We go out to join division.

Get awoken 3 mornings on run at 3 am with “Come on, Germans are coming.”

Find remnants of Division near Noyon, about 2000 strong out of 15000 (our losses 64).

From 25th to April 5th marching round to Amiens distance 130 kilos (no grub hardly) via Maxence 30 miles off Paris, Compiegne, Oise, Clermont, all time sleeping in open fields.  [Note -- I'm pretty certain Tom's dates and distances are out pf whack in the confusion of the times]

Go in line again 6th (Corbie) in reserve with Australians. 4 mornings we are in; German attack annihilated each time. 4th time the Australians go over to meet him half

way but Germans run back. Aussies go over twice and take ground each time.

Go back to Aubigny in Reserve. Leave for Amiens

8th. Arrive and sleep in Tram cars

Arrive Camiers 12 Stay till 19th.

Warned for  25th Division and arrive Cassell 20th.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The clerk on this one (84069 Parkinson) got so confused you can even just about make out that he was recorded as apparently enrolling into the Seaforth Highlanders with the number 3/16760 (also stated as such on his medical record sheet) whereas he also joined, like the others, at the Seaforth Barracks and this number was actually his 67/TRB number of TR/3/16760.

 

Note he was also a docker. I think they were all dockers.

 

 

84069 Parkinson.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Thank you for the insight into the diary.  These were ‘the details’, or a composite force formed from line of communications troops who could be spared (could ANC be AVC?). In his case men returning from leave. It appears from his diary his Force was attached to a Division and predates the main formation raised by Gough’s Chief Engineer.  As you say no mention of the Seaforths

 

 The majority of men found were Royal Engineers but included all arms and 200 Americans. Over 3,000 men were eventually raised by Major General Grant.  Shortly after Major General Carey arrived back from leave and was given command, the unit then became ‘Carey’s Force’.  The principal aim was to man the Amiens Defence Line.  

 

Carey’s Force has previously been discussed on the forum.

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/33296-careys-force/

 

Short lived, Carey’s Force had no connection to the Seaforth Highlanders.  In a non derogatory sense it was referred to as ‘the bottom of the barrel’ in other words there were no more reserves in France.  We can’t say for certain he was part of this force but it is typical of the way many men who never expected to fire a rifle were thrown into the line at this time.  The famous ‘backs to the wall’order of the day issued by Haig.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ken

This is fascinating stuff, thanks. I hadn't heard of Carey's Force. Whether Tom was part of it I don't know, but many of the components are there -- the rag-tag assortment of soldiers, the cavalry, the defence of Amiens. I was surprised at Tom's account of cavalry charging with swords even in 1918. I see Carey's force had some Vickers guns so perhaps Tom had a role there, once they were in front of Amiens, although prior to that one gets the impression he was serving as an infantryman. Some interesting holiday reading in the offing for me!

 

And Russ

You're right about the dockers. A number of Tom's friends in the MCG who were mobilized and trained with him were dockers and several of them were killed. I don't know why a carter and horse keeper like Tom would have his service deferred. I wonder if Tom had a job on the docks before enrolling in the Derby Scheme. We'll never know. After the war he worked as a timekeeper on the docks until retirement, so it's possible.

 

Many thanks for your insights chaps, and have a good Easter

Alastair 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken

I noticed some very harsh words yesterday in the WD of 30 Div CRA 08/09/1916 (Ancestry p 499/842) about General Carey and wondered, because of the Artillery connection, if it referred to General George Carey.

Brian

16 hours ago, kenf48 said:

The majority of men found were Royal Engineers but included all arms and 200 Americans. Over 3,000 men were eventually raised by Major General Grant.  Shortly after Major General Carey arrived back from leave and was given command, the unit then became ‘Carey’s Force’.  The principal aim was to man the Amiens Defence Line.  

 

Carey’s Force has previously been discussed on the forum.

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/33296-careys-force/

Ken

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, RussT said:

I'm not aware of any archival material on the TRBs unfortunately.

 

Your story of his time with the SH does sound plausible.

 

Regards

 

Russ

I agree.  Troops were sent where they were needed then, with little attention to corps/regimental affiliation.  And not just IRs but whole drafts of, say the Argyll’s, found themselves in the Rifle Brigade.  It was a difficult period to be on the AG side of life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
22 hours ago, Chemin Des Dames said:

Cavalry come to rescue and go over followed by our little crowd. Marvellous charge and they cut the Germans left and right with swords. Take 500 prisoners and 4 machine guns, and take 2 woods.

 

They may have been French Cavalry.  His initial deployment predates 'Carey Force by a couple of days.  Don't know if you have seen this but it clearly shows where his little band was operating.  It's interesting trying to piece together his movements during the retreat. I've also had a look at Bean to see if I could place the Australians he mentions (I can't) but his account gives a good impression of the action in this period.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1416750

(scroll either side i.e. previous record/ next record)

 

 

5 hours ago, brianmorris547 said:

I noticed some very harsh words yesterday in the WD of 30 Div CRA 08/09/1916 (Ancestry p 499/842) about General Carey and wondered, because of the Artillery connection, if it referred to General George Carey.

 

I'm sorry I don't know, however Carey was made temporary Brigadier General in 1915 so i guess it was him.  He is forever associated with 'Carey's Force', it was even mentioned in Parlliament how 'his' ragtag composite force held the line in front of Amiens for six days. He was made CMG for this action, and previously in 1916 appointed C.B. I know little of his earlier career other than, as you say he served with the Royal Artillery in the Boer War.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ken

I hadn't seen the Battle of Noyon film, thanks for posting. The French aspect is interesting. Before going on leave about 2 1/2 weeks before the start of the Offensive, Tom's 42 Company of the 14th Division seems to have been stationed right down at the southern end of the British sector. At one point they relieve a French company, who don't want to come out of the line, such is the quiet -- although all are fearful of the Offensive to come.

 

Tom mentions being in the vicinity of Corbie before repelling German attacks for 4 days with the Australians finally counter-attacking. Corbie is of course about 3 miles from Villers-Bretonneux as the crow flies. One problem is that Tom's dates and estimations of time at this point are seemingly very disorientated, which is understandable, although uncharacteristic. So it's hard to figure out exactly where he was in all this, and when; but the account is an interesting one from the perspective of the individual soldier amid the chaos not cognisant of the strategy he was part of.    

 

Cheers

Alastair

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...