Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

In "Clothing Regulations 1914", page 114, line 23 it says Armourer Staff Serjeants wear 3 stripes.  On line 23, page 115 it says that on the SD jacket they also wear a crown and the hammer and pincers.  On page 195, paragraph 8 it says that trade badges should be placed 3/4" above the point of the V of the chevrons and, at least for gunners, the crown would go above the trade badge.  So, my questions:

 

1)  Would crown above hammer and pincers above stripes be correct for the armourer SS?

2)  Would the crown and hammer and pincers be brass or patches?

3)  Would crown hammer and pincers be on both sleeves or just the right one?

 

Thanks, Harvey 

Posted
7 hours ago, Piper42nd said:

In "Clothing Regulations 1914", page 114, line 23 it says Armourer Staff Serjeants wear 3 stripes.  On line 23, page 115 it says that on the SD jacket they also wear a crown and the hammer and pincers.  On page 195, paragraph 8 it says that trade badges should be placed 3/4" above the point of the V of the chevrons and, at least for gunners, the crown would go above the trade badge.  So, my questions:

 

1)  Would crown above hammer and pincers above stripes be correct for the armourer SS?

2)  Would the crown and hammer and pincers be brass or patches?

3)  Would crown hammer and pincers be on both sleeves or just the right one?

 

Thanks, Harvey 


1.  Yes*.
 

2.  In most corps both crown and hammer and pincers were brass, but in general the crown was as per regimental policy and some units wore a cloth crown.

 

3.  Both sleeves as it was an integral part of the rank and appointment insignia.  
 

*In the Royal Artillery the SNCOs gun badge was also worn.

 

32DD0A9F-9E62-4344-8E49-224A2FE25F80.jpeg

Posted

Thank you. 

Posted

I forgot to ask for the approximate dimensions of the crown. 

Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Piper42nd said:

I forgot to ask for the approximate dimensions of the crown. 


I don’t have one to hand, but from memory I think they were around 1.5inches square at that time.  The image above shows accurately the proportionality between the various badges.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

3.  Both sleeves as it was an integral part of the rank and appointment insignia.  

 

I've got a photo that I've been meaning to post on the pre war insignia thread showing a regimental Armr S/Sjt in Highland regalia (HLI I *think*, but can't remember off the top of my head) , and I'm certain he's only wearing the hammer & pincers on his R upper arm. I'll dig out out later.

 

EDIT: maybe what you say applies only to SD? 

Edited by headgardener
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, headgardener said:

 

I've got a photo that I've been meaning to post on the pre war insignia thread showing a regimental Armr S/Sjt in Highland regalia (HLI I *think*, but can't remember off the top of my head) , and I'm certain he's only wearing the hammer & pincers on his R upper arm. I'll dig out out later.

 

EDIT: maybe what you say applies only to SD? 


Yes, it applies to SD only.  On full dress it was worn on right arm only, as were the stripes.  The Armourer Sergeants wore the uniform and insignia of the infantry regiments to which they were attached from 1803 until 1895.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Posted
13 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:


The Armourer Sergeants wore the uniform and insignia of the infantry regiments to which they were attached from 1803 until 1895.

 

I have a couple of images (coincidentally both of which are of Highland regiments) which date from much later than 1895 and which show Armr S/Sjts wearing Highland dress. That would suggest that the wearing of infantry uniform and insignia extended beyond those dates, or that some sort of exclusion applied to Highland regiments.

Posted (edited)
On 28/09/2020 at 10:23, headgardener said:

 

I have a couple of images (coincidentally both of which are of Highland regiments) which date from much later than 1895 and which show Armr S/Sjts wearing Highland dress. That would suggest that the wearing of infantry uniform and insignia extended beyond those dates, or that some sort of exclusion applied to Highland regiments.


I’ve never heard of any exception, but shall remain open minded.  The only exclusions that I know of with certainty relate to the armourer sergeants of the auxiliary, Territorial Force and that too had ended by WW1 (they had remained directly recruited regimental employees - a pragmatic arrangement - and coincidentally a practice also followed by the regular cavalry (albeit for different reasons) until 1899).  
From 1896 all regular armourer sergeants employed by the infantry were absorbed by the AOC as an armourers branch and obliged to wear AOC uniform and insignia.  Regular infantry unit photos from that date show the armourer sergeant wearing AOC uniform.   It’s of great interest to me, as along with a friend in Australia I’ve been compiling information about them since 2007.  He hopes to publish a history, although its gestation is proving rather long.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Posted
4 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:


I’ve never heard of any exception, but shall remain open minded.  The only exclusions that I know of relate to the armourer sergeants of the auxiliary, Territorial Force and that too had ended by WW1. 

 

I don't have them in front of me, but one photo was taken informally in a house in the east end of Glasgow, so that could fit with a TF man - I seem to recall estimating the likely date of the photo being about 1910. The other was serving in India with a regular battalion of the Seaforths. I can't remember exactly, but think it dates from about 1905-10ish. Should be able to lay my hands on them later today. 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, headgardener said:

 

I don't have them in front of me, but one photo was taken informally in a house in the east end of Glasgow, so that could fit with a TF man - I seem to recall estimating the likely date of the photo being about 1910. The other was serving in India with a regular battalion of the Seaforths. I can't remember exactly, but think it dates from about 1905-10ish. Should be able to lay my hands on them later today. 


The first case makes sense if TF, the second most certainly does not.  
 

Each infantry battalion was established for a single armourer sergeant since 1803 (rank ranged after 1881).  Standing regulations entitled him to a private soldier as his day-to-day assistant (largely to fetch and carry and carry out simple, repetitive tasks).  The armourer sergeant served out his days in the battalion workshop and spent most of that time in shirt, trousers and heavy apron (it was of course, dirty, oily work).  As with all the battalion staff sergeants he was excused duties (domestic routine like guards, picquets and orderly sergeant), because his specialised work was considered demanding enough.  
 

He rarely had cause to wear full dress other than for unit photos and even then sometimes wore a frock.  When he left his workshop to attend the mess, etc. photographic evidence shows that he usually wore a frock, or staff sergeants’ style patrol jacket.  Before 1895 this was, along with his insignia of the pattern worn by the regiment to which he was attached.  

 

Examination of individual’s records shows that over a full career (21-years) each armourer sergeant rarely served with more than two units unless extended in service (this latter happened a lot in WW1 when there was a shortage of qualified armourers), so he became a well known figure within his battalion.  
 

After 1895 his routine changed not a jot, but his uniform garments changed to those of the AOC.  Interestingly, together with the RSM he was the highest paid other rank in the unit.  If I recall correctly he was paid more than the bandmaster.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Posted

Just found the 2nd photo, it isn't dated but can be positively ID'd to India between 1908 & 1910. Rest easy, he's in AOC uniform, but he's slightly hidden in the 2nd row of a photo of the Sergeants of 1/Seaforths. On close inspection I can now see that his collar is different and he's wearing a white dash or cross-strap unlike the Highlanders. Problem solved.

 

The other man (HLI?) must therefore be TF, but do you have any idea when that arrangement stopped? 

Posted (edited)
On 28/09/2020 at 12:32, headgardener said:

Just found the 2nd photo, it isn't dated but can be positively ID'd to India between 1908 & 1910. Rest easy, he's in AOC uniform, but he's slightly hidden in the 2nd row of a photo of the Sergeants of 1/Seaforths. On close inspection I can now see that his collar is different and he's wearing a white dash or cross-strap unlike the Highlanders. Problem solved.

 

The other man (HLI?) must therefore be TF, but do you have any idea when that arrangement stopped? 


The uniform of the AOC armourers evolved a little and after initially having to wear a pill box cap and waist belt, they then adopted white pouch belts with black pouches (worn diagonally across the chest and shoulders).  Then followed a field service cap (1900) and finally a peaked forage cap at the same time as the rest of the army (1906). They had abandoned the pouch belt by WW1.


The TF differential ended during WW1, although I don’t have a precise date.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Posted

Headgardener could you post that photo of the Seaforth's serjeants? 

 

Frogsmile could you point me in the direction of some reading material regarding the armourers?  I haven't had much luck finding any.

 

Thank you gentlemen. 

Harvey 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Piper42nd said:

Headgardener could you post that photo of the Seaforth's serjeants? 

 

Sure, but it's a very poor photocopy of an original photo. It came with the man's LS&GC which I bought about 30 years ago (these were the days before you could make scans or take photos of original documents and medals often came with scrappy bits of photocopied paper folded over several times in order to make it fit into a medal envelope), so it was already creased and folded before it came to me. If you do want to see it then I'll happily post it here, but it is a pretty poor image. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Piper42nd said:

Headgardener could you post that photo of the Seaforth's serjeants? 

 

Frogsmile could you point me in the direction of some reading material regarding the armourers?  I haven't had much luck finding any.

 

Thank you gentlemen. 

Harvey 


Harvey, no I can’t point you in the direction of reading material, as there isn’t any.  It’s an absolute travesty that no one has either authored, or published a comprehensive history of the British Army Armourer Sergeant, but that is the situation.  A big problem is that neither of the two contemporary corps associated with the armourers history, the RLC and REME, have shown enough of an interest to cooperate (as they would need to do) in compiling such a history, and the jigsaw pieces of their story are very widely dispersed (fragmented) among numerous archives and other histories.  It is to try and resolve this that I’ve been attempting to assist and encourage my friend in Australia, who in my opinion is probably the (only) world expert on the Corps of Armourers.  I can however, assist you in answering most questions because of the information that I’ve picked up through my association with him and my efforts on his behalf to dig certain pieces of information out.  The best that I can offer is that you continue to ask questions and I will do my level best to give you the answers as I’ve done above.  When I think that no working musket would have meant no empire it does irk me that their story is not better known.

 

NB.  I do have some photos, but I’m loath to post them here without a specific excuse, as they all relate to pre-WW1 and might also become illustrations in my friends book if and when he gets around to finishing and publishing it.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Posted

I just found this photo which may be of interest.  It is the first photo in the book "British Army Proficiency Badges" by Edwards & Langley.  Of specific interest is that the authors say the man on the extreme right is a S/Sgt Artificer.  I can't quite make out the hammer and pincers but presumably the authors could from their original photo.  You can make out the crown though.  Note that the insignia are on the left sleeve.  He also has a sword which, Frogsmile, you told me a couple of months ago that S/Sgt's were equipped with at the start of the war.

 

I would like to see the photo as it is good enough to see differences in the uniforms. 

20200928_094224.jpg

20200926_211731.jpg

Posted (edited)
On 28/09/2020 at 15:08, Piper42nd said:

I just found this photo which may be of interest.  It is the first photo in the book "British Army Proficiency Badges" by Edwards & Langley.  Of specific interest is that the authors say the man on the extreme right is a S/Sgt Artificer.  I can't quite make out the hammer and pincers but presumably the authors could from their original photo.  You can make out the crown though.  Note that the insignia are on the left sleeve.  He also has a sword which, Frogsmile, you told me a couple of months ago that S/Sgt's were equipped with at the start of the war.

 

I would like to see the photo as it is good enough to see differences in the uniforms. 

 

 

 

Yes, he is indeed a Armourer Staff Sergeant (the rank and appointment titles were different previously) and as a battalion HQ staff sergeant he wears a sword and carriage (slings etc) when on parade (including for photos).  He wears the badge of appointment on both arms because he's wearing service dress as I mentioned above.  On full dress rank and appointment badges were worn on the right arm only.

 

I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to say, or did you mean merely to post and comment on the photo?

Edited by FROGSMILE
Posted

I was just posting for the sake of interest and that it confirms information you provided previously. 

Posted
Just now, Piper42nd said:

I was just posting for the sake of interest and that it confirms information you provided previously. 

 

I understand, I just wanted to confirm you were not asking for something else.  If you think of anything else you want to know just ask.  You can always compile your own notes as I know that this relates to your family forebear.

Posted

True and I'll start by saving portions of this thread.  If you decide your photos can be shared let me know and I'll PM you my email address.

 

Headgardener I would like to see the photo.

Posted
1 hour ago, Piper42nd said:

True and I'll start by saving portions of this thread.  If you decide your photos can be shared let me know and I'll PM you my email address.

 

Headgardener I would like to see the photo.

 

As I've said, if you ask me specific questions I'll try and help you, but I can't provide a picture gallery just through curiosity.

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Piper42nd said:

Headgardener I would like to see the photo.

 

Well, I did tell you that it was a tatty 30 year-old photocopy that had been folded up and tucked into a medal envelope along with an LS&GC. I am genuinely embarrassed to post it here, but you did ask, so here it is....... (it has no reference attached to it, I'm guessing that it's copied from 'Cuidich`N Righ', have only been hanging on to it as a reminder to search for the original when I have the opportunity) . 

 

IMG_20200929_123006.jpg

 

This is my man - I hadn't noticed that his uniform was different to the others surrounding him, but in my defence I'd say the picture is rubbish..... 

IMG_20200929_123100.jpg

Edited by headgardener
Posted

It's really not that bad.  I picked the man out from the first photo because, as you said, his uniform was different.  No plaid brooch to start.  What I can't make out is the hammer and pincers.  Can we say this would be the AOC dress uniform? 

Posted

Looks like a couple of white blotches above his stripes, so presumably that's the trade badge and crown. Yes, looks like AOC dress uniform. Definitely AOC shields on the collars. 

 

Remember that I probably last looked at this about 30 years ago and was relying on memory when I first c chipped on on this thread. I wasn't really into uniform photos at that time, so oblivious to any nuance. You don't see unless you look, and all.... 

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...