Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

owen4256

Corps Battle Patches

Recommended Posts

owen4256
Posted (edited)

I have searched in vain for a source describing Corps Battle Patches as worn on the shoulder. The attached  image was described to me as a IV Corps Battle Patch but I have no idea how to verify this. If anyone can offer sources of descriptions I'd very very grateful

 

 

ATB

 

 

Clive

 

 

image.jpeg

Edited by owen4256

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FROGSMILE

If you can reveal the battalion and regiment it will help to make an ID of the patch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trenchtrotter

Why would you have a Corps patch? You would be forever changing it. Battalion and divisional but Corps? They had insignia but not worn on uniform AFAIK. A corps was merely an administrative dynamic thing that Divs came to and left as required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark holden

Always try the Long Long Trial a goldmine of information. See tab at the top of the page. See here for information on IV Corps

 

  https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/other-aspects-of-order-of-battle/the-british-corps-headquarters-in-france-and-flanders/the-british-iv-corps-in-france-and-flanders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FROGSMILE
44 minutes ago, trenchtrotter said:

Why would you have a Corps patch? You would be forever changing it. Battalion and divisional but Corps? They had insignia but not worn on uniform AFAIK. A corps was merely an administrative dynamic thing that Divs came to and left as required. 


I know what you meant regarding formation patches on the uniform, but Corps command was a lot more than administrative TT, see: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1349874/1/367588.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
owen4256

The soldier is from the Army Cyclist Corps. From the service chevrons the photo is no earlier than 1917, he was therefore serving with a Corps Cyclist Battalion. As the title implies these were permanent Corps Troops and apart from brief loan periods served with their parent Corps throughout the war. On this basis I see no reason why permanent Corps Troops such as the Cyclists and the remainder of the Corps Mounted Troops would not wear a Corps formation patch.

 

I also attach am image of a North Irish Horseman serving in Cologne in 1919 with IV Corps Cyclist Battalion. He wears what looks to me to be the same patch.Given that the NIH man served in Cologne he was almost certainly been part of the draft sent to IV Corps Cyclist Battalion. if this is indeed a Corps Battle Patch, the NIH image suggest that the patch is a IV Corps patch.

 

The question is therefore is this a Battalion patch unique to the IV Corps Cyclist Battalion or a Corps Patch worn by a range of permanent Corps troops?

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FROGSMILE
Posted (edited)

You make a good point about Corps Cyclists units, but I can find no record of cloth formation patches being worn above Brigade and Division level. In some units flashes in regimental colours were worn in addition (i.e. separately) to the formation sign.  This is an important distinction as in many units the Brigade sign was configured in such a way that it was also the battalion sign, so a specifically regimental patch is something different.  In the case of your photo I can only guess that it must be a hitherto unknown of ‘Corps flash’ if it is an Army’s Corps Troops unit.  I enclose an image of a IV Corps sign, which was in dominant colours of red and white with a small black rectangle in the centre.  That is certainly what can be seen on your NIH cyclist’s uniform and as you’ve said, it matches with the photo you posted initially too.

 

There is a special publication covering Corps and Divisional signs by the Military Historical Society that will probably throw more light on the matter but unfortunately I do not possess a copy.  It is something I must look out for.  Notice that the IV Corps sign appears as fig. 11 on the schematic below.
 

EF76E709-2D90-4EDD-B86B-C415E6CF7A29.jpeg

 

C6A14447-ECE0-4C75-BF79-717DEA6B7BDB.jpeg

FACA5F83-48A8-429B-808B-CE39DE03B88B.jpeg

Edited by FROGSMILE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trenchtrotter
22 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:


I know what you meant regarding formation patches on the uniform, but Corps command was a lot more than administrative TT, see: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1349874/1/367588.pdf

 

Yes was a hasty type by way of reply. A strategic, tactical and administrative body but very dynamic and ever changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FROGSMILE
9 minutes ago, trenchtrotter said:

 

Yes was a hasty type by way of reply. A strategic, tactical and administrative body but very dynamic and ever changing.


It was a functional part of an Army.  The Army commander would give instructions to Corps Commanders regarding what he wanted to achieve.  They would then go away and create a battle plan to achieve the Army’s aim using their divisions and supporting arms, and submit those plans to the Army commander who would broadly need to approve them before they could be implemented.  Ergo it was a fully functional command.  It is worth reading the detail at the link.

Share this post


Link to post
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...