Friends are Good on the Day of Battle: The 51st (Highland) Division during the First World War Craig French

[Crunchy]

Friends are Good on the Day of Battle: The 51st (Highland) Division during the First World War.  Craig French. Helion and Co, Solihull, 2017. 300pp.

The 51st (Highland) Division earned a high, and from their German opponents a fearsome reputation. Its exploits during the Great War have been the subject of at least four histories, the latest being Colin Campbell’s The 51st (Highland ) Division in the Great War: Engine of Destruction, published in 2013, which tends to brook no criticism of the division. So with this latest publication what has Graig French to offer that hasn’t already been said about the 51st? Rather than being another narrative, French’s contribution is an analytical study, in which he seeks to evaluate the division over the course of the war, including its performance as a fighting formation. In undertaking his analysis, he considers four themes: training; recruitment and reinforcements; Espirit de Corps; and battle performance. In doing so, he offers new insights into aspects of the division that have not been addressed as thoroughly as he has.

Recruited in Scotland, the Highland Division was formed in 1908 with the creation of the Territorial Force as a reserve to the Regular Army, being numbered the 51st in May 1915 following the rapid expansion of the army.  This growth created three types of formations: Regular Army divisions, Territorial Force divisions, and New Army divisions - the latter being raised  from the huge influx of ‘Kitchener volunteers’ in 1914 and 1915. During the early months of the war, being a Territorial division created several problems for the 51st. Members of the force had to volunteer for Imperial Service in order to serve overseas, and not everyone did so. Additionally, when sufficient numbers in a unit had volunteered, six of its infantry battalions were despatched to France between November 1914 and February 1915, which required new battalions to be inducted, including four English units from Lancashire.  It is against this background that French considers his first three themes.

Beginning with training, the journey from a low standard in 1914 is examined in some detail, including the difficulties in 1914 and early 1915 associated with a lack of suitable instructors and training grounds. Like all of the new divisions it was largely a matter of the untrained instructing themselves. What becomes evident in French’s analysis is the role of the commander in bringing a unit or formation to a high standard of proficiency. For this he lays much of the credit on the shoulders of Major General Sir George Harper, the 51st’s energetic second commander. In doing so, French convincingly rejects the criticism made about Harper, and highlights his innovative tactics were adopted throughout the BEF. Supplementing the commander’s role was the importance of centralising training programmes, the establishment of training schools at divisional level and higher, and ensuring all units were trained to similar standards. Central to this were the SS (Stationary Series) of pamphlets produced by GHQ which captured lessons learned early, and pushed them out across the BEF. However, French argues that as the war progressed increasing casualties from overcommitment in battle and undertrained reinforcements saw an eventual decline in 1918. Overall, this is a sound analysis, and much can be learned by today’s unit and formation commanders from reading it.

In a fact-filled second chapter, French analyses recruitment and reinforcement, and seeks to determine to what extent this was ‘a significant influence on divisional performance.’ Noting the contribution of the local Territorial Associations, which during the first couple of years of the war played a significant role, including officer appointments, he provides a very thorough discussion of the formation’s regional makeup, its officer recruitment, the yearly impact of casualties, the introduction of conscription, and the areas from which the division’s subsequent reinforcements were drawn - and hence the extent to which the 51st retained its highland character. French concludes that while the percentage of men from the Scottish highlands dropped as the war progressed, and except for the short period in 1915 when the Lancashire units provided one third of the division’s infantry, the 51st essentially retained its Scottishness. Furthermore, due to heavy losses in 1916 and 1917, he claims the quality of reinforcements declined as the war progressed, becoming most marked in 1918 which, in his opinion, affected its performance. French supports his analysis with sixteen accompanying tables and additional statistics, which add credibility to his conclusions.

In considering the division’s Espirit de Corps, he seeks to demonstrate it evolved and adapted, becoming more defined as the war progressed, and was a significant contribution to its successes. In doing so a multitude of subjects are addressed, some of which are discussed in detail, while others receive a brief mention which lack any conviction as to their contribution to Espirit de Corps. Among the more prominent are national and territorial identity, regimental traditions, symbolism, the relationship between officers and other ranks, the attention the division received from the press, and the all important role of the various commanders, in which Harper again played a significant part. French rounds out the chapter with comments of the division’s relationship and reputation with other nationalities, its morale and its aggression. Overall, there is little doubt the 51st had a strong Espirit de Corps, but whether French draws the links together to prove it contributed to the division’s success, or simply presents a number of observations is debatable.

To assess the division’s battle performance he chooses four battles in which it participated: Givenchy - June 1915; Beaumont Hamel in November 1916; Cambrai - November 1917; and the German March Offensive in 1918. Each is discussed in a standard format. Following a brief narrative and analysis of the action, performance is considered against seven criteria: artillery; combined arms; training; command and control; organisation and administration; strength and casualties; and Espirit de Corps. The result is patchy and uneven, sometimes lacking coherence in its presentation of evidence to support his contentions. While several interesting and valuable points are made, French relies too much on the observations and opinions of others, rather than presenting the reader primarily with his own considered views. This reflects what appears to be his unfamiliarity with military operations. When presenting his own assessments, on occasion they are marred by contradiction, or seeking too much to fit his assessments into each of the performance criteria he employs. For example, combined arms is concerned with the integration in battle of the different combat arms - infantry, artillery, cavalry/armour, engineers, and in the case of the Great War the Royal Flying Corps. In relation to Givinchy this aspect is reduced to a brief discussion of the limited numbers of machine guns and bombers within the infantry battalions. On the other hand, he makes a good case in refuting the criticisms of Harper’s tactics at Cambrai, and the destruction of the tanks on the Flesquieres ridge. Overall, this chapter is a mixed bag. Clearly the 51st improved as the war progressed, and while French offers some good insights, often he tends not to link the evidence to support his assessments or assertions.

Although written in an easily read style, Friends are Good on the Day of Battle is presented more as his PhD thesis, which it was, rather than a book which takes the reader on a journey that evaluates the division in its many facets as it progressed through the war. Nonetheless, French provides a more pragmatic assessment and deeper insights into the training, composition, and character of the 51st (Highland) Division than other histories have done, and along way he challenges some long held views.

[Steven Broomfield]

I reviewed this, and Engine of Destruction, for Stand To! a couple of years ago. From memory, I preferred the latter.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 06/12/2021 at 00:35, Crunchy said:

Additionally, when sufficient numbers in a unit had volunteered, six of its infantry battalions were despatched to France between November 1914 and February 1915, which required new battalions to be inducted, including four English units from Lancashire.

I am not in a position to offer comment about the book that is the subject of this thread, which I have not read, but my grandfather has written about his time in the 51st Division as a member of one of those "four English units from Lancashire" referred to in the above quote, namely the 2/5th LF, which became part of the 51st Division in April 1915, proceeding to France with them on 3 May 1915. As such he sheds a small amount of light the the first three of French's themes, namely, training, recruitment and reinforcement, and Esprit de Corps.

The following comment, forming part of my grandfather's journal entry for 5 May 1915, two days after arrival in France, betrays how conscious my grandfather's was of the disparate nature of the unit into which the 2/5th LF had been drafted: 

We were therefore a rather pot-pourri Battalion: an East Lancashire Battalion in a West Lancashire Brigade - in a Scotch Division - in an Indian Army Corps.

On their arrival in France in May 1915 the 2/5th LF were not yet fully trained, and had to be sent for seven weeks' further training at Arques from May to July 1915 before they were ready to be deployed to the trenches. It is easy to surmise, therefore, that the 51st Division were not initially overjoyed to be joined by these part-trained Lancashire troops. However, my grandfather's account suggests that the Lancashire men settled pretty well into the Highland Division during the latter part of 1915, though not forgetting their own Lancashire identity. 

Thus, when the time came for the 2/5th to leave the 51st (Highland) Division in January 1916, on transfer to the re-formed 55th (West lancashire) Division, my grandfather's comment is:

We were sorry to leave our friends, the Scotchmen, but, at the same time, very pleased to be brought back to join our Lancashire Comrades.