2nd Fusiliers rimless brodie help

[Doc2nd112th]

I was gifted this early rimless bridge with painted insignia and am considering doing a tunic up to match it. Is anyone familiar with what unit this specific insignia is associated with, or is a generic 2nd (battalion/rgt?) Fusiliers insignia?

Should I assume city of London regiment, 2nd bn? 

If we can identify which specific unit (or units perhaps if its more generic), I'm contemplating doing up a reproduction tunic for it, so if you have information about the units battle insignia I would be most appreciative. 

 

Side question; when I see unit nomenclature such as 1/2, 1/3, 2/1, etc, is the first number a brigade and the second Battalion? How does regiment fit in? Is the unit structure different than the US Army? I find myself quite confused

In the US it goes; company - battalion - regiment - brigade - division. For example 2/112 is second battalion, 112th (infantry) regiment. 

 

Thank you kindly for any assistance. 

 

[Keith_history_buff]

Hello,

The London Regiment can be a confusing group of battalions. The numbered battalions had certain geographic areas in which they would recruit. Each "numbered" battalion had its own personality, and was a regiment within a regiment, so as to speak. It was common for there to be three iterations of a numbered battalion. To be fair, you see this with other battalions in other regiments where men who enlisted under Territorial Force terms of service. To further confuse matters, some battalions had affiliations with other regiments, and wore variations on their cap badges.

The soldiers of the London Regiment were all Territorial Force, so would presumably be in parallel with the infantry arm of the New York National Guard.

The following thread may be of interest, with regard to basic orientation on the London Regiment, conceptually.

The big question for me would be:
It does look like a fusilier emblem to me. Is it the case that it was owned by a soldier in the 2nd Battalion London Regiment, who did have an affiliation with the Royal Fusiliers? Or is it a soldier from the 2nd Battalion of one of the fusilier regiments of the British Army?

More to follow.
 

[jay dubaya]

Can't help with the insignia but I wouldn't assume anything at this stage. 

The nomenclature which you refer to relates entirely to the Territorial Force (TF) infantry units. Using the London regiment as a first example since this regiment was solely made up of TF battalions and contained no regualar battalions although the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th were affiliated to the regular Royal Fusiliers Regiment .

1/1st = 1st line of 1st battalion

2/1st = 2nd line of 1st battalion

3/1st = 3rd line of 1st battalion

1/2nd = 1st line of 2nd battalion

... and so on

a second example being the York and Lancaster Regiment who had 3 regular battalions 1st, 2nd and 3rd (Reserve). The TF battalions in this regiment being the 1/4th, 2/4th, 3/4th and 1/5th, 2/5th, 3/5th.

The 3rd line battalions were in general the reserves or feeder battalions for the 1st (TF) and 2nd (TF) line battalions who saw active service overseas.

Clear as mud...

[Doc2nd112th]

When you say "line" does this refer to when the unit was raised or something else?

[FROGSMILE]

12 minutes ago, Doc2nd112th said:

When you say "line" does this refer to when the unit was raised or something else?

The TF regiments were originally established in 1908 for home defence.  Around 1910-1912** it was requested that a proportion of men volunteer for overseas should it be needed, but not enough came forward and also a majority of units remained under strength.  In 1914 all those who had volunteered for overseas formed the 1st Line.  Those on home defence only the 2nd Line, and a 3rd Line was then formed as a training and feeder reserve unit.

**there is conflicting information on the date of commencement and I cannot recall which is correct.  I suspect it was a phased thing.

Edited 3 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Doc2nd112th]

Very interesting. I'm so very glad I joined this forum

[Keith_history_buff]

2 hours ago, Doc2nd112th said:

Side question; when I see unit nomenclature such as 1/2, 1/3, 2/1, etc, is the first number a brigade and the second Battalion? How does regiment fit in? Is the unit structure different than the US Army? I find myself quite confused

In the US it goes; company - battalion - regiment - brigade - division. For example 2/112 is second battalion, 112th (infantry) regiment. 

In the Eighteen Century, the British Army's infantry regiments were somewhat random in the manner in which they may comprise only one battalion. Even if a regiment contained more than one battalion, they would not serve together.

In Europe at this time, an infantry regiment typically consisted of three battalions. It is my understanding that when the Continental Army was formed, it was modelled [British spelling] on the reglement of the French Army, as advised by the Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834).

Fast forward to 1914. As I understand it, most European infantry regiments would serve together. An infantry brigade of six battalions would be primarily two infantry regiments. I believe this was the same for the US Army in 1917.

As had been occurring since (at least) the Napoleonic Wars, conglomerate brigades, consisting of men from a variety of infantry battalions, were formed by the British. Thus, you need to know the infantry battalion's brigade and division, to find the appropriate war diary. For European and US infantry regiments, the battalions were not broken up in such a manner.

Typically, a British infantry regiment in 1914 contained soldiers serving under three terms of service. For starters, there were the regulars, whose name is self-explanatory. Then, there were two types of reserve. One of these, formerly known as the Militia, and renamed as the Special Reserve in 1908. The other had its roots in the Volunteer home defence movement, and was renamed as the Territorial Force in 1908.

The first and second battalions contained regulars, and over time both Regular and Special Reserve men were posted to these battalions. In many instances the third battalion contained a pool of men, from whose ranks drafts of reinforcements could be assembled. The third would have started off as primarily mobilised Special Reserve men.

The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth battalions were men who were engaged under Territorial Force terms of service. One potential complication is that the 4/1st could contain men who had signed the Imperial Service Obligation, to serve overseas. The 4/2nd could contain men who, under the terms, were not obliged to serve overseas. (Think of George W Bush and his National Guard terms of service that kept him away from Vietnam.)

Ultimately, the go-to website is the partner site, owned and maintained by Chris Baker. These articles explain all sorts of information about the British Army.

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/the-territorial-force/

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/

http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/how-to-research-a-soldier/

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/

For starters, I suggest looking at the simpler setup of the following county infantry regiment:
https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/regiments-and-corps/the-british-infantry-regiments-of-1914-1918/essex-regiment/

Once you have a better appreciation, then the complex animal that is the London Regiment may be better understood.

Best of luck with learning about the British Army! 

[FROGSMILE]

It’s important to note that the “Lines” that Doc2nd112th was querying and that referred to Acknown’s specific post, relate to the Territorial Force only, and are nothing to do with either, the regular, or the special reserve battalions.  They did not divide into “Lines” in the same way.  It was an arrangement unique to the T.F. and the London Regiment was unusual too, in that it contained no regular units at all, but was instead one of just a few regiments that comprised auxiliary, citizen soldiers only.

Edited 3 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Doc2nd112th]

Thank you both for taking the time to answer these questions, as well as the very helpful links. 

 

I stumbled upon some images from the Beckhurst book on battle insignia and may have got lucky, as on the page with the the Royal Scott Fusiliers it seems to show an image of a black fusiliets bomb in the side of a 2nd RSF helmet. I can't properly zoom in on the picture, but I seems to have a "1" in the center of the bomb. Might this be a typo, as what sense would it make for the 2nd Bn to have a "1" rather than a "2"? Does anyone have a copy of this book to further investigate? I think I shall purchase myself a copy of the book after the holidays

Thanks again

Doc

[KENDO]

Hi Doc,

That looks like a white thistle on the black grenade, it is definitely not the number 1.

Best regards,

Kendo

[Doc2nd112th]

Kendo, thank you kindly. I suppose I'm back to assuming London fusilliers.  I presume you have the book. Would you say its a worthwhile purchase? 

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Doc2nd112th said:

Kendo, thank you kindly. I suppose I'm back to assuming London fusilliers.  I presume you have the book. Would you say its a worthwhile purchase? 

For what it’s worth I think that the 2nd London’s are by far the most likely.  In any regular fusilier regiment a 2 on a universal grenade wouldn’t be relevant, as both 1st and 2nd battalions did not wear a number as part of their identifying insignia.  Wearing a number as battle clothing unit insignia within the British Army of that time was almost exclusively a Territorial Force thing and in regiments with both regular and Territorial battalions, the first number for a TF battalion was generally 4th or 5th.  The London Regiment however, was unique in being Territorials only AND having 28 numbered units (albeit with 27th gapped).  Ergo in the London Regiment a grenade with 2 superimposed confirms at a glance two facts:  it’s the 2nd London Regiment, and the 2nd are Fusiliers. 

Edited 7 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Doc2nd112th]

I see the logic there and I think that puts this to rest. I'm pleased to find this out, not just to identify the helmet, but as I'm fond of the appearance of the blue and red battle insignia. Would that have been worn in conjunction with the cloth 2nd London shoulder title? 

 

The brass title is also very cool, although I'm sure it will be an adventure to find a matching set. I look forward to building the tunic

Thanks again!!!

[FROGSMILE]

8 hours ago, Doc2nd112th said:

I see the logic there and I think that puts this to rest. I'm pleased to find this out, not just to identify the helmet, but as I'm fond of the appearance of the blue and red battle insignia. Would that have been worn in conjunction with the cloth 2nd London shoulder title? 

 

The brass title is also very cool, although I'm sure it will be an adventure to find a matching set. I look forward to building the tunic

Thanks again!!!

Blue and red were the colours of the Royal Fusiliers and seen as ribbon and even for the regimental tie.  As for the cloth battle insignia worn alongside shoulder titles, it depended on the scheme favoured by the Division within which each battalion was placed.  As well as various published works based on information held by the Imperial War Museum and obtained from wartime commanding officers via questionnaires, there are methodical works by David Bilton.  So far he has done the regulars and Kitchener’s New Armies and the next volume will cover the Territorial Force, which will of course include the London Regiment.

The brass titles were standard 1914-15 and the cloth increasingly introduced from 1916 onward, but there wasn’t a 100% consistency and it was a constant battle to maintain uniformity throughout a unit, as men arrived and departed in a perpetual churn of manpower continuously.  

Edited 7 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[KENDO]

Hi Doc,

Yes I have the Beckhurst book, it is a good visual guide to WW1 battle patches but the index could have been better.

Best regards,

Kendo