Remount Service - standalone unit or part of the ASC?

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

What isn’t apparent and what this thread is attempting to find out is the organisational relationship between the Army Remount Service officers and SNCOs on wartime contracts, and those of the regular ASC Remounts Branch.

It seems that, after some interesting pre-amble, you are now following a very specific Army line of enquiry here. - Interesting never the less.

Always good to have a detailed discussion, by a few very knowledgeable members, out in the public space.  I am happy to leave you to it.

As for civilians and the Remounts [And thence to the wider Army - likely as important as the munitions workers were to the guns] - I think we will consider elsewhere, as I see you have recently added/suggested earlier in the thread.  Thank you.

Good luck with your endeavours here.

:-) M

[Tom P-C]

I'm waiting to hear back from the CWGC on what they think the "Army Remount Service" is.  They have five WWI casualties who served with it (two as a secondary unit).  

[ss002d6252]

 

Quote

 

BRITISH ARMY (REMOUNT SERVICE).

 

Mr. SMITHERS asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the particulars mentioned under the following headings for the financial year ended April, 1914, and for the present year; the number of horses and mules on the British establishment; the number of officers and other ranks, including, civilians, in the remount service; the number of animals dealt with by the remount service; and the cost of the remount service?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS (pursuant to his reply) [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1927; cols. 1765-6, Vol. 208], supplies the following statement:

The work of the Remount Department is not comparable with that performed in 1913-14, as it has taken over the Light Horse Breeding Scheme from the Board of Agriculture, and work on classification of the horse population performed by the Territorial Adjutants in 1913-14 but transferred to the Remounts Staff as from April, 1914. Subject to this observation,2485the following is the information asked for:

	1913.	1927.
(1) Horses and mules on British Establishment	28,849	19,603
(2) (a) Officers	34*	83
(b) Other ranks and civilians	264*	311†
(3) Pay and allowances of personal under (2)	£29,000	£86,000
* As from 1st April, 1914, the Establishment was increased to 118 officers and 270 subordinates, and the pay and allowances from £29,000 to £51,500.
† Excluding a certain number of locally engaged employés in Egypt.

 

As regards the number of horses dealt with in the two years, full statistics are not available, but in 1913 some 3,000 horses and mules were purchased but no horses were classified by the Remount Service for Army purposes. In 1927, owing to the fact that horses are available as the result of mechanisation and the Cavalry reductions, to meet other needs, only approximately 1,000 horses and mules are being purchased, but the normal requirements are approxmately 2,500, and, in addition, the Remount Service have to classify for Army purposes some 75,000 a year, in areas in which the horse population is estimated at 2,000,000

 

 

House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers

Hansard

Fifth Series, Volume 208

2484-2486
July 1927

 

[ss002d6252]

 

Quote

 

BRITISH ARMY.

REMOUNT SERVICE.

 

Colonel NEWMAN asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what numbers of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, men, and clerks were employed in the remount service on 1st August, 1914, and 1st April, 1921, and the monthly cost to the country at each period for officers, subordinates, and clerks, respectively?

Sir R. SANDERS: The numbers asked for are as follow:

-	1st August, 1914.	1st April, 1921.
Warrant Officers	3	1*
Non-Commissioned Officers	49	10*
Privates	23	56*
Civilians	156	665
Clerks	30	35
* The military establishment is about to be abolished and will be replaced by civilians who are included in the 665 civilians mentioned, 367 of these and also some of the clerks are employed in connection with the boarding-out scheme which did not exist in 1914.

 

House of Commons Hansard Sessional Papers Hansard Fifth Series, Volume 140 2232-2238 April 1921

[Tom P-C]

Thanks for that SS

Frogsmile, I've also come across this snippet in the BritishBadgeForum

Here is the badge of the Remount Service. Their collar dogs were the same insignia in a pair - horses facing left and right. The Imperial War Museum has a pair of shoulder titles reading 'Army Remount' and 'Depot' in two lines but not sure of the period. 

T

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, Tom P-C said:

Thanks for that SS

Frogsmile, I've also come across this snippet in the BritishBadgeForum

Here is the badge of the Remount Service. Their collar dogs were the same insignia in a pair - horses facing left and right. The Imperial War Museum has a pair of shoulder titles reading 'Army Remount' and 'Depot' in two lines but not sure of the period. 

T

That’s extremely useful Tom and I should have thought to look at the Badge forum (like many forum members here I occasionally post there, but under a different name).  Collar badges and a shoulder title do now imply a discrete organisation separate from the ASC Remounts Branch, as do the 1914 strengths from Hansard mentioned by Craig, but the status in terms of officers, WO/SNCO and rank & file is still not clear cut, as collar badges and shoulder titles would have been required by officers (the latter for KD) anyway.  If they were a full blown separate corps then a full dress and regulations would have been published for them even in wartime.  I’m as confused as you are now, as it remains entirely confusing as to where the ASC sits in all of this.

Edited 21 August , 2021 by FROGSMILE
Clarity

[ss002d6252]

In 1902 there was a 378 page court of enquiry in to how the remount service ran - if anyone wants to wade through it they may get something. I had a quick glance through it only.

EDIT:

2 are another reports of the same time period which might also help.

This was 1899.




Craig

[FROGSMILE]

25 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

In 1902 there was a 378 page court of enquiry in to how the remount service ran - if anyone wants to wade through it they may get something. I had a quick glance through it only.

EDIT:

2 are another reports of the same time period which might also help.

This was 1899.




Craig

Thanks Craig, that’s useful in that it confirms that the overarching organisation term was ‘department’ (rather than service) which is then borne out by the fact that all members are commissioned officers as was usual for departments.  There’s also no mention of ASC in the mix which seems to confirm that their remount branch had yet to be formed. 

[charlie962]

This 1911 article published in The Field seems pretty detailed:

Courtesy Findmypast newspapers

Edited 21 August , 2021 by charlie962

[charlie962]

This article muddies the waters a bit but there seems to be a difference between Officer Staff, Men and Lines of authority ? Thus there was an association between the two rather than subordination.

Arborfield and the Army Remount Service

This page contains quotations from a booklet published in 1984 and written by Colonel Bob Hume, based on articles in the 1980 and 1981 R.E.M.E. Journals. The material is Crown Copyright, and is reproduced by permission of the R.E.M.E. Museum.

'The problem of supplying the Army with remounts in time of war was not grasped until 1887 when the necessary reserve of horses was created by the introduction of a scheme for the registration of privately-owned animals. Under this scheme an owner could offer a number of his horses to the Army for purchase, at a fixed price, in the event of war. In return, the owner received a subsidy towards the cost of keeping the animals that had been accepted for registration.'

 

'The Remount Department was a slender organisation. Purchasing was the responsibility of two Assistant-Inspectors of Remounts; a third controlled the Registration Scheme. There were two remount depots: the old Remount Establishment at Woolwich and a second in Dublin. Woolwich retained its affiliation with the artillery and engineers and the depot in Dublin provided a centre for purchasing activities in Ireland, where most cavalry remounts were obtained. The depots received newly-purchased animals and held them until they were seen to be fit for issue to a unit. Remounts were not trained at the depots. Most had been broken-in before they were purchased and the further schooling that they needed in ceremonial and tactical work was given after they had joined their regiments.

'The depots were commanded by Staff-Captains of the Remount Department and manned by soldiers seconded from the cavalry. In 1891, the responsibility for manning the depots was transferred to the Army Service Corps, who formed a remount company at each depot. Command of the remount depots remained a preserve of the combatant Arms. The association between the Remount Service and the Army Service Corps continued until the Second World War when the Remount Service and the Veterinary Service were amalgamated.' [...]

 

Charlie

[FROGSMILE]

11 hours ago, charlie962 said:

This 1911 article published in The Field seems pretty detailed:

Courtesy Findmypast newspapers

This is the best piece of writing I’ve seen regarding the function, structure and division of responsibilities of the remount organisation, Charlie, thank you.  Now we need just how the relationship with the ASC worked.

[FROGSMILE]

11 hours ago, charlie962 said:

‘The depots were commanded by Staff-Captains of the Remount Department and manned by soldiers seconded from the cavalry. In 1891, the responsibility for manning the depots was transferred to the Army Service Corps, who formed a remount company at each depot. Command of the remount depots remained a preserve of the combatant Arms. The association between the Remount Service and the Army Service Corps continued until the Second World War when the Remount Service and the Veterinary Service were amalgamated.'

And at last we have it.  Brilliant, and thank you.  This proves Tom’s initial hypothesis to be correct, It hasn’t been easy to pin the inter-relationship down, but perseverance paid off in the end thanks to forum members.

It remains intriguing to determine exactly what the roles and appointments of the rank and file in the Remount Service were, as opposed to those of the ASC, who we know were largely grooms (‘strappers’), ostlers and shoeing smiths. I continue to assume they provided some riders for breaking in, but it’s still rather unclear and would suggest a very narrow opportunity for any kind of career structure.

Edited 22 August , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Tom P-C]

Just to add some more background evidence, this is a timeline of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps from the sadly now-defunct regiments.org, available at Wayback Machine.

If I'm interpreting it properly, it seems to show that the Army Remount Department (or some new iteration of it) was formed in 1912 and absorbed into the RAVC in 1941.

Tom

[charlie962]

7 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

It remains intriguing to determine exactly what the roles and appointments of the rank and file in the Remount Service were,

Do you know of any for the WW1 period? I've looked at a number of random service records where "remount" as a keyword finds them. In every case the other ranks are ASC, either as a Remount Company, Remount Squadron or Remount Depot.  Using the keywords 'Remount Service' only brings up officers.

I'm left with the impression it was rather like the old Royal Engineers- Officers were RE and ORs were S&M ? The Medical services did a similar thing at one stage.

Charlie

[FROGSMILE]

3 hours ago, charlie962 said:

Do you know of any for the WW1 period? I've looked at a number of random service records where "remount" as a keyword finds them. In every case the other ranks are ASC, either as a Remount Company, Remount Squadron or Remount Depot.  Using the keywords 'Remount Service' only brings up officers.

I'm left with the impression it was rather like the old Royal Engineers- Officers were RE and ORs were S&M ? The Medical services did a similar thing at one stage.

Charlie

Charlie yes that’s been exactly my argument/belief throughout this thread, apart from a thought that, perhaps the Remounts provided the roughriders, but what stymied that natural divide was the group photo that I posted earlier in the thread, which shows a mixture of rank and file clearly showing both cap badges.  I’ve looked again just to check that they’re not AVC, as the outline shape of their badge was similar, but each time I look it does seem to be the prancing horse as the central motif.  Have a look and give me a third opinion?  If you agree that they are Army Remount Service then it unravels the usual officer only construct. 

Edited 22 August , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Chris Foster]

 Just to add to the thread . An extract from Michael Youngs Army Service Corps 1902-1918

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, Chris Foster said:

 Just to add to the thread . An extract from Michael Youngs Army Service Corps 1902-1918

Yes we’ve got some excellent information compiled in this thread now Chris and thank you for adding to it, it will be really helpful in future to have so much contained here within this thread.  Unfortunately Michael Young’s statement “Men came from a variety of regiments, but were essentially ASC” is a bit of a moot and unhelpful point in terms of the detail that we’re trying to drill down to.  It’s been fairly obvious that the remount units were a joint effort comprising re-employed retired officers and selected SNCOs, Army Remount Service of varying rank, Veterinary staff, cavalry farriers, some civilians, ASC Remounts personnel and increasingly women as the war went on (eventually in uniform), but it doesn’t reveal with clarity who did what.  Ergo what was the role/appointment of those Army Remount Service rank and file in the photos that I posted earlier and why were they not ASC?

[FROGSMILE]

20 hours ago, Tom P-C said:

Just to add some more background evidence, this is a timeline of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps from the sadly now-defunct regiments.org, available at Wayback Machine.

If I'm interpreting it properly, it seems to show that the Army Remount Department (or some new iteration of it) was formed in 1912 and absorbed into the RAVC in 1941.

Tom

Yes Tom that’s very useful and corroborates a stand alone unit of Army Remounts personnel in addition to the ASC Remounts Branch.  Unfortunately it doesn’t take us any further in determining a precise division of role and responsibility between them.  There had to be one else there’d be no justification for them to both exist concurrently.

[MaureenE]

Remount Service The Monthly Army List September 1916

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TsE5AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA7-PA4

(There are many online editions of the Monthly Army List available, see   https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Army_List_for_British_Army_online#Monthly_Army_List )

Maureen

 

  

[FROGSMILE]

On 23/08/2021 at 11:52, MaureenE said:

Remount Service The Monthly Army List September 1916

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TsE5AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA7-PA4

(There are many online editions of the Monthly Army List available, see   https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Army_List_for_British_Army_online#Monthly_Army_List )

Maureen

 

  

Thank you Maureene, it’s very illuminating to scan down the list of officer appointees in the Remount ‘Service’ (a seeming inconsistency again when elsewhere the overarching, superior organisation is referred to as Department) and see the sheer diversity of their backgrounds.  The vast majority were unsurprisingly on retired pay (pension), some in the Reserve of Officers (but not all), and their former units ranged from ex cavalry (including Yeomanry) to ex infantry, RA, and ASC. Riding Masters, too, fall into several different categories, as we might expect.  If only we had something with even remotely similar detail that could show the role differential between rank and file of the Army Remount Service badged personnel and those of the ASC Remounts Branch.  That aspect remains mired in fog.

Edited 28 November , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[charlie962]

4 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

role differential between rank and file of the Army Remount Service badged personnel and those of the ASC Remounts Branch.  That aspect remains mired in fog.

It could be that those who were recruited ASC and then joined Remounts Depot etc remained with ASC badge but those who were say ex cavalry, adopted the Remounts badge whilst there? just a thought.

Edit- but you, frogsmile, are the badge expert so ....

Edited 23 August , 2021 by charlie962

[FROGSMILE]

49 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

It could be that those who were recruited ASC and then joined Remounts Depot etc remained with ASC badge but those who were say ex cavalry, adopted the Remounts badge whilst there? just a thought.

Edit- but you, frogsmile, are the badge expert so ....

It’s a tough one Charlie and our greatest body of evidence is the graves of CWGC.  So far I’ve only been able to find ASC R&F (sometimes with their trade marked, e.g. ‘strapper) and Army Remount Service officers and a colour sergeant.  We don’t even know yet the date of sealing the latter’s badges, or why the badge changed (i.e. the two types), let alone what the trade groups were.  So far I’m stuck on the theory that the ASC provided all the stable hands and the Remounts the riders. This appears to be borne out by the distinct equestrian (i.e. riding) iconography of their insignia compared with the neutral everyman design of the ASC equivalents.

[charlie962]

58 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

and the Remounts the riders. This appears to be borne out by the distinct equestrian (i.e. riding) iconography of their insignia

good thought. Could the initial badge have been slightly informal given the nature of the Service. But there must be an instruction/order somewhere.

The Indian Army orders had been scanned by the Indian Libraries that then migrated to archive.org a few years back. Might be worth a search on there because as well as specific India stuff they tended to copy the (British) Army orders. There was mention from time to time of insignia and medals but it has been a while since I looked and I cannot remember where I might have stored downloads!

Charlie

[FROGSMILE]

2 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

good thought. Could the initial badge have been slightly informal given the nature of the Service. But there must be an instruction/order.

Yes that’s been my thoughts and hope Charlie. 

Good point about the Indian Army aspect, perhaps @MaureenE might be able to help.

Edited 23 August , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Chris Foster]

 The badge with the inverted Horseshoe and Whip design was replaced in 1908  by the Rearing Horse design, and then latterly a third badge, A rearing horse facing in the opposite direction to the 2nd pattern and a slightly larger design.

As Frogsmile has suggested and as this piece suggests, perhaps some of the former members of the Remount Service wore their  original badges out of pride even after being incorporated into the ASC? https://www.lbmhs.co.uk/remount-history/ 

It might account for the rarity of photographs of them being worn and ( so far ) no evidence of the badge/badges appearing on  CWGC, Other Rank's  headstones?