Signals - How Did it Work on the Front Line (1916?)

[Malvernian]

Morning All,

 

Apologies if this is in the wrong forum/section, I'm new to the site.

 

I'm trying to find out how signalling arrangements worked in 1916 (around the time of Fromelles/Somme offensive) and am getting royally confused. I've read a few histories of Fromelles and Priestley's 'WORK OF THE ROYAL ENGINEERS IN THE EUROPEAN WAR', as well as the regimental history of the 2/5 Warks battalion.

 

The impression I am getting is that the Royal Engineers were responsible, through their divisional companies, for signalling/comms from brigade level and above (i.e. brigade to division to corps to army). However, from brigade level down (i.e. brigade to battalion to company) it was the responsibility of battalion signallers. What I am interested in is who did the job described here by Priestley (p. 137):

 

"Each company should detail three or more signallers, each with a 
telephone and a reel of " D1 " cable. The latter should be fixed to an 
instrument in the front trench and securely tied back to prevent any 
strain from coming on the instrument during the process of laying. 
A definite point in the enemy's line, to which these men are to make 
their way, should be decided on previously. This point should be 
published in orders and should be explained to all ranks as being the 
Report Centre to which all messages should be taken. 

The signallers should advance with or immediately behind the 
advancing troops, as it has been proved by experience that, provided 
the wire entanglement has been properly cut, the first line generally 
reaches the trench without much difficulty. They should advance, one 
behind either flank of their company, and the third about the centre, 
keeping well apart and converging on the point previously settled 
upon as the Report Centre. With any good fortune, one at least should 
get through with his line in safety" 

The Long Long Trail defines a battalion of infantry as:

 

'The battalion was usually commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel, with a Major was Second-in-Command. A Captain or Lieutenant filled the role of Adjutant (in charge of administration); a Captain or Lieutenant was the Quartermaster (responsible for stores and transport); an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps was attached to work as the battalion’s Medical Officer. A Chaplain from the Army Chaplain’s Department was assigned.

Headquarters also included the Regimental Sergeant-Major (RSM, the most senior Non-Commissioned Officer) plus a number of specialist roles filled by Sergeants: Quartermaster, Drummer, Cook, Pioneer, Shoemaker, Transport, Signaller, Armourer (often attached from the Army Ordnance Corps) and Orderly Room Clerk. A Corporal and four  Privates of the Royal Army Medical Corps were attached for sanitary and clean water duties; a Corporal and 15 Privates were employed as Signallers; 10 Privates were employed as pioneers (on construction, repair and general engineering duties); 11 Privates acted as drivers for the horse-drawn transport; 16 acted as stretcher-bearers (these often being the musicians of the battalion band); 6 Privates acted as officers’ batmen (personal servants) and two as orderlies for the Medical Officer.'

 

I think these are the guys I am interested in; are they the ones who undertook the role described by Priestley? How were they armed?

 

Thanks a lot for any and all help, this has been bugging me for ages.

 

 

Edited 9 May , 2020 by Malvernian

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Malvernian, and welcome to the Forum!

 

I believe that the signallers referred to in Priestley's book, as following up the attacks, would have been battalion signallers, i.e. infantrymen. They would have been trained in use of the rifle, and may have carried them slung over their shoulders, or they may have left them behind in the attack, to keep down the weight they were carrying and to keep their hands free.

 

Incidentally the item on The Long Long Trail is based on an article I wrote for STAND TO! in the late 1980s, later published as a WFA Factsheet.

 

Ron

[Don Regiano]

If you haven't done so already, you might want to have a read of Old Soldiers Never Die by Frank Richards.  It is considered to be one of the best first-hand accounts of life in the trenches.  Frank Richards was a signaller.

 

Reg

[Malvernian]

Thanks both for the excellent start to this answer.

 

So each battalion would have had a signalling section? (correct term?) comprising a sergeant, corporal and 15 privates? They would have been armed with SMLEs, or nothing, and would have carried cable reels 'over the top' behind the advancing infantry. Did they live in the trenches with the rest of the infantry as well?

 

Reg - will look that book up, sounds promising.

[stripeyman]

46 minutes ago, Malvernian said:

Thanks both for the excellent start to this answer.

 

So each battalion would have had a signalling section? (correct term?) comprising a sergeant, corporal and 15 privates? They would have been armed with SMLEs, or nothing, and would have carried cable reels 'over the top' behind the advancing infantry. Did they live in the trenches with the rest of the infantry as well?

 

Reg - will look that book up, sounds promising.

Frank Richards book is promising, read it today!

[WhiteStarLine]

Hi Malvernian and welcome to the forum.

 

4 hours ago, Malvernian said:

However, from brigade level down (i.e. brigade to battalion to company) it was the responsibility of battalion signallers.

 

No, it did not quite work like that - the principle, which still holds today, is that communications is from higher to lower and left to right.  Therefore the Divisional Signal Company was responsible for communications between division and brigades and it did this by permanently detaching a signals section to each brigade and to attached artillery.  The signal sections (surprisingly large and consisting of sappers (Signal Engineers) drivers, soldiers and runners) were responsible for communications from brigade to battalions.  A big part of that role, particularly later in the war, was training Battalion sigs.  Their role is communications from higher to lower - ie from battalion to company.

 

Priestley in that part of the reference is talking about 1916 trench raids, where the brigade organised a large raid.  Since he cites "flank of their company" in this case he is talking about battalion signallers.  These men worked so closely with their Brigade Signal Section that they rotated in and out of Brigade HQ for experience for several weeks, returning to their battalions to train their own men.

 

In terms of weapons, it is hard to run between trenches to repair cable under shell fire, so at the Brigade level weapons were generally not carried during this kind of work.  Cable is very heavy (still is) so generally 2 men would unreel it behind advancing troops.  When it broke or was shelled, the sapper generally carried pliers and ran under shellfire to repair it.  During an attack, there was a risk of pockets of resistance so the SMLE would have been slung over the shoulder.  My grandfather carried one and when he was on switchboard duty at the Action of Le Hamel in 1918, the rest of his section were held up by a machine gun team who they despatched by bayonet.  Another member of his section team captured 8 Germans from a dugout.  So if the brigade level signallers are carrying and using SMLEs routinely, then the battalion signallers certainly would have been.

 

The battalion signallers became so highly skilled they were rostered in and out of the Brigade signal section to learn advanced skills like power buzzer, amplifier and wireless sets.  The 1918 Christmas card my grandfather kept had 64 names on it and most of the runners or attached signallers are actually on the nominal roll of their own battalion.  And to digress, 13 Military Medals, 2 gun shot wounds to the head, numerous gas shelling, 2 German machine gunners killed and 13 captured.  So being a signaller was a dangerous occupation.

 

So in summary:

• Communications were from higher to lower, so battalion signallers worked from battalion to company;
• Each would have been armed with an SMLE;
• Reeling out cable during an attack would have been a small part of their duties (as most of the time was spent in defence);
• They lived in the same trenches and dugouts as everyone else.

I've got books from Sapper Dadswell, Sapper Martin and many others if you want more information or a lookuup. If you want a quick insight to what a battalion signaller was doing day-by-day, open an Australian brigade unit war diary, say of a busy period like April 1918.  Here is a link: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1344177?image=8 and it contains 210 pages of messages. Then open the corresponding appendix for a subordinate battalion, such as the 41st Battalion.  There you will find the signallers hard at work and you will not notice a great deal of difference between brigade and battalion skill sets and duties performed.  To conclude, here is a battalion signallers message at 4:30 am in April 1918 passing on the need to move 2 platoon posts on the south side of the road:

 

 

 

Edited 9 May , 2020 by WhiteStarLine
Sapper Dadswell had incorrect spelling

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

As I have only just joined this Forum, and almost all my knowledge of WW1 comes from my grandfather's diary (see  https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/281198-accidental-shooting-of-an-officer/ ) I am a bit diffident about contributing to someone else's post, but here goes:

My grandfather was catapulted unexpectedly into being a Signals Officer just before his Battalion (2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers) went to France on 03/05/1915. He had a steep learning curve, being left more or less to pick up the job himself, with the help of some very capable non-commissioned officers. He talks in some detail about the signallers' training, and about fixing up communication in trenches and billets. He also seemed to have responsibility for map-reading when they were on the march. Was this generally part of a Signal Officer's duries, does anyone know?

He never went "over the top" as a signaller, as he became a Company Officer before his unit was engaged an attack, so I can't comment on the original query about the signallers fixing up communications behind advancing troops, I'm afraid.

 

[Malvernian]

25 minutes ago, WhiteStarLine said:

So in summary:

• Communications were from higher to lower, so battalion signallers worked from battalion to company;
• Each would have been armed with an SMLE;
• Reeling out cable during an attack would have been a small part of their duties (as most of the time was spent in defence);
• They lived in the same trenches and dugouts as everyone else.

 

Hi WSL, thanks so much for your detailed answer. It seems I got the 'cut-off' point wrong, then. Battalion Signallers dealt with comms from battalion down to company level, and not from brigade. I wasn't aware of the degree of interaction between the Brigade Section and the Battalion Signallers, either.

 

This is proving a very fruitful exercise, what a great forum.

[Lee Smart]

To this day, in the British Army, Infantry battalions are responsible for their own communications and have a Signals platoon for this function - the format of Battalion Signals has not changed much since 1918. An experienced officer (normally a Captain as it is a responsible post) is assigned the role of RSO (Regimental Signals Officer), commanding the Platoon.

Obviously it was all very new in the First World War but Infantry Signallers were already conducting courses and specialist training from 1902 after the Boer War and proudly wore Signallers Trade Badges (crossed flags) see 1907 photo of 2nd Bn Seaforth Highlanders Mounted Infantry Section below -the two Lance Corporals have their crossed flags on their left forearms). 

 

Primary trained capability (after semaphore flags and heliographs) was telegraph and therefore required training in Morse Code.  Wireless Radio was never really an 'act of war' until later in the war : late '17-18. By 1915 although morse was still the primary transmission method, field Telephones were increasingly available and usable.  Cable Line-laying and repair were also important skill sets. For signallers in the Great War, most effort was spent finding and repairing broken communications cables ('twisted-pair' telephone cable - referred to these days a s 'D10'; don't know what it would have been then))...easily broken by shellfire, passing troops tripping over wires or digging up cable as they extended trenches. - digging in cable runs became the only way to try and protect the cable but they could never be dug deep enough to guarantee survival under bombardment. 

 

Brigade level comms were provided by the Signals Detachments of the Royal Engineers, identifiable by the Blue and White Armbands they wore. The Royal Corps of Signals was eventually formed in 1920 ('twas their centenary year last year)Today the tactical Recognition Flash all Royal Signals Soldiers wear is a Blue and White badge worn on the right arm..

 

 

[pbaker163]

On 09/05/2020 at 14:08, Malvernian said:

 

Hi WSL, thanks so much for your detailed answer. It seems I got the 'cut-off' point wrong, then. Battalion Signallers dealt with comms from battalion down to company level, and not from brigade. I wasn't aware of the degree of interaction between the Brigade Section and the Battalion Signallers, either.

 

This is proving a very fruitful exercise, what a great forum.

Details in war diaries  such as

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7353683

in part 2 of this download PDF on page 67owards full discription of brigade communications...integration of pigeons, dogs, wireless telephone etc 

page 50-52 instructional photographs of wire laying team