Help identifying officers in group photo of 2/5th Lancs Fus in Bedford, 1/5/1915, "B" Coy, Hill, Abbotts, H. Waterhouse

[brianmorris547]

Two more names from LG 28937

Geoffrey Clegg Hutchinson - 1911 Census age 17 at Boarding School, Cheltenham.

Two pre war Offences for riding a motor cycle without a light and having no licence. Both show address as Clare College, Cambridge.

The Cheltenham Looker On 15/07/1916 Report of him being wounded. He was at Cheltenham College from 1908 to 1912.

Various papers August and September 1916 have his MC Citation.

Norman Kemp - 1911 Census age 15 Rossall School, Fleetwood

He was the son of Canon Lavers Kemp, Vicar of Blackpool North Shore and obtained scholarships in Mathematics at Rossall.

Reports of his death in the Blackpool and Fleetwood papers in September 1916. I have sent the page from the Blackpool Gazette 19/09/1916 to @A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

No photographs unfortunately so far but some interesting reading.

Brian

Edited 23 February by brianmorris547
typo

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

15 hours ago, PRC said:

Speculation but if the photograph was taken on the 1st May 1915 and I believe you said the Battalion went over to France on the 3rd May 1915, wouldn't the Transport Officer be rather busy? Could he even perhaps have set off with the advance party to the departure port? Does the Battalion War Diary cover this period and give details?

I was initially very enthusiastic about the suggestion that Abbotts might have set off for France before the photo was taken, not least because his MIC gives his date of entry into France as "4.15". I looked at my GF's record first, and there found this in the entry for 1 May 1915 "G. S. waggons, tool carts, M. G. limbers, Field Kitchen, Maltese Cart, Machine Gunners, 9 Cyclist Signallers, Water Carts paraded at 9 pm under Major Milnes, Lieut. Abbotts, Lieut. Hill (M. G. Officer)", which suggests that Abbotts was still in Bedford for most of 1 May 1915.

I then looked at the Battalion WD, which begins with an entry for 1 May 1915, midnight:

Transport and Machine Gun Section entrained for Southampton. Major H.N. Milnes in command, with Lieut W. Abbotts (Transport Officer) and Lieut C.W.B. Hill (Machine Gun Officer).

So the Transport and Machine Gun Sections did set off in advance of the others under the command of Major Milnes, but Major Milnes, was, of course present for the group photograph, so in theory the other two might have been expected to be present also. However, as you say, perhaps Lieutenant Abbotts was just too busy getting ready for departure later that day so couldn't spare the time to pose for a photograph. If so, perhaps the same applied to Lieutenant Hill, and, if Abbotts is the photoshopped man on the left, Hill may be the photoshopped man on the right? Hill's height, at 6 ft 2 1/2 in, might have been expected to have made him stand out in a photograph, but, if he has been photoshopped, his height is immaterial (there are two tall men who have not been named in the middle row, but there are several tall men yet to be identified, as we will come on to in the sister thread that looks at the remaining officers who have not been specifically covered in this thread https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/309430-help-identifying-officers-of-the-25th-lf-part-2-–-“c”-coy-ramsden-h-waterhouse-simon-harker/ )

 

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I was initially very enthusiastic about the suggestion that Abbotts might have set off for France before the photo was taken, not least because his MIC gives his date of entry into France as "4.15". I looked at my GF's record first, and there found this in the entry for 1 May 1915 "G. S. waggons, tool carts, M. G. limbers, Field Kitchen, Maltese Cart, Machine Gunners, 9 Cyclist Signallers, Water Carts paraded at 9 pm under Major Milnes, Lieut. Abbotts, Lieut. Hill (M. G. Officer)", which suggests that Abbotts was still in Bedford for most of 1 May 1915.

I then looked at the Battalion WD, which begins with an entry for 1 May 1915, midnight:

Transport and Machine Gun Section entrained for Southampton. Major H.N. Milnes in command, with Lieut W. Abbotts (Transport Officer) and Lieut C.W.B. Hill (Machine Gun Officer).

So the Transport and Machine Gun Sections did set off in advance of the others under the command of Major Milnes, but Major Milnes, was, of course present for the group photograph, so in theory the other two might have been expected to be present also. However, as you say, perhaps Lieutenant Abbotts was just too busy getting ready for departure later that day so couldn't spare the time to pose for a photograph. If so, perhaps the same applied to Lieutenant Hill, and, if Abbotts is the photoshopped man on the left, Hill may be the photoshopped man on the right? Hill's height, at 6 ft 2 1/2 in, might have been expected to have made him stand out in a photograph, but, if he has been photoshopped, his height is immaterial (there are two tall men who have not been named in the middle row, but there are several tall men yet to be identified, as we will come on to in the sister thread that looks at the remaining officers who have not been specifically covered in this thread https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/309430-help-identifying-officers-of-the-25th-lf-part-2-–-“c”-coy-ramsden-h-waterhouse-simon-harker/ )

 

Those are sensible scenarios that you have posited.  It wouldn’t have been at all unusual for the two junior (‘subaltern’) officers to have gone ahead to the port/point of embarkation with their men and equipment and then the field officer in command join them later to receive their report and take command  for the crossing.  What you suggest abour the photo shopping chimes very well for that situation and could well be right.  For what it’s worth that methodology for deployment by an infantry battalion endured well into the Cold War years (and probably still, as the underlying principles are immutable), and I saw very similar on a number of occasions for a variety of deployments. 

Edited 23 February by FROGSMILE

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

6 hours ago, brianmorris547 said:

Two more names from LG 28937

Geoffrey Clegg Hutchinson - 1911 Census age 17 at Boarding School, Cheltenham.

Two pre war Offences for riding a motor cycle without a light and having no licence. Both show address as Clare College, Cambridge.

The Cheltenham Looker On 15/07/1916 Report of him being wounded. He was at Cheltenham College from 1908 to 1912.

Various papers August and September 1916 have his MC Citation.

Thank you for posting this information, Brian. There is some information about G.C. Hutchinson, including a link to his Wikipedia entry, on the other thread I have started  to cover the other men on this photograph https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/309430-help-identifying-officers-of-the-25th-lf-part-2-–-“c”-coy-ramsden-h-waterhouse-simon-harker/ , which gives details of his later life, including that he became MP for Ilford/Ilford North, and was knighted in 1952, becoming Baron Ilford of Bury. Little would he have dreamed that his misdemeanours with a motor cycle as an undergraduate in Cambridge would be digitally available for all to read more than 100 years later.

6 hours ago, brianmorris547 said:

Norman Kemp - 1911 Census age 15 Rossall School, Fleetwood

He was the son of Canon Lavers Kemp, Vicar of Blackpool North Shore and obtained scholarships in Mathematics at Rossall.

Reports of his death in the Blackpool and Fleetwood papers in September 1916. I have sent the page from the Blackpool Gazette 19/09/1916 to @A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

No photographs unfortunately so far but some interesting reading.

Thank you for posting about Norman Kemp as well, and also for forwarding the obituary from the Blackpool Gazette, which is a moving tribute to a man who must have been very well liked and respected. The obituary mentions that Norman Kemp's adjutant wrote to his parents expressing his sympathy and saying just that. The adjutant would have been Best-Dunkley. Later, in his book  At Ypres with Best-Dunkley, Thomas Hope Floyd, who arrived to join the 2/5th LF in June 1917, 9 months after Norman Kemp had been killed, but whose family must have known him, quoted these words from a letter that he wrote to his parents on 13 June 1917:

Sergeant Dawson (who saw Norman Kemp killed and has the same high opinion of his heroic qualities as everybody else who knew him, whether officer, N.C.O., or man, tells me that he was by far the most loved officer in the Battalion – ‘one who will never be forgotten'.

On the day of his death Norman Kemp was second in command of my GF's company, and took charge after my GF was seriously injured. My GF survived, but Norman Kemp did not, but it could so easily have been the other way around - such was the fine line between life and death.

[brianmorris547]

The remaining names from LG 28937

Reginald William Kirkman - 1911 Census age 20 Undergraduate Cambridge - No trace papers.

John Booth Packman -  possible 1911 Census age 14 as John, 42 Manchester Rd, Bury - No trace papers.

Newton Duckinfield Thompson - 1911 Census age 25 of Caterham, Surrey - Pre war report that NDT of Caterham was in the Police Court for riding a bike with no light.

Kenneth Waterhouse - 1911 Census age 32 of Wayside, Westwood Ave, Timperley, Ches - Various papers in August 1916 report his death on 09/08/1916 and give his details as Rooftree, Arthog Rd, Hale and educated at Giggleswick Grammar School

Malcolm Henry Young - 1911 Census age 16 Stand House, Whitefield, Manchester - The Blackpool Herald 22/04/1916 announced his engagement to Miss Mona Peart Kemp, daughter of Mrs Lavers Kemp of Radcliffe and St Pauls, Blackpool North Shore. This makes Mona a half sister of Norman Kemp (see above). 

Mona was pictured in the Tatler (London) and the Sketch (London) and I have sent @A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy the pages.

Various papers reported that he was listed as Missing on 28/06/1916 and died in German hands.

NB: The Tatler, every week, had a page with two group photographs of Officers, all named, from various Regiments. I checked using Lancashire Fusiliers in the Keywords box from May 1915 in the hope that I might find the Bedford photo but no luck. There was a hit for 13/09/1916 which mentioned LFs and Minden Day but it would not open for me. 

It is however, an excellent source of photographs. I will have a further look tomorrow.

Brian

Edited 3 March by brianmorris547

[brianmorris547]

LG 29015 dated 22/12/1914.

Two 2/Lts to 5 Bn LFs

James Lyell Lee - 1911 Census age 18 of High Legh, 10 Marine Drive Lytham. 

John Cecil Latter - 1911 Census age 14 at Boarding School, Cheltenham.

Lt QM

James Bowd - 1911 Census many alternatives.

This photograph of James Lyell Lee is from the Burnley Times 09/01/1918. Courtesy BNL via FMP

Brian

[brianmorris547]

Although James Lyell Lee is not on Norman Hall's list of Officers who went to France in May 1915 there are only 29 names on his list but there are 30 men on the Bedford photograph. 

The WD of 51 Div A&QMG (WO 95/2848) has Train departures from Bedford showing that on 02/05/1915 3 Officers and 104 Other Ranks left Bedford for Southampton and on 03/05/1915 the remainder of 2/5 left Bedford in two halves, 13 Officers and 449 O/Rs and 14 Officers and 449 O/Rs. That makes 30 Officers who left Bedford. 

No names in the Adjutant WD unfortunately.

Brian

 

[PRC]

2 hours ago, brianmorris547 said:

LG 29015 dated 22/12/1914.

Two 2/Lts to 5 Bn LFs
James Lyell Lee
John Cecil Latter

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/29015/page/10935

I suspect there was a subsequent correction. The May 1915 British Army Monthly List does show Latter on the Officer establishment of the 5th Battalion, serving with the 2nd Line. As shown in the London Gazette J.C. Latter's seniority as a Second Lieutenant dates from the 23rd December 1914.

But Lee is shown on the Officer establishment of the 6th Battalion, serving with their 2nd Line. And in line with the entry in the London Gazette the seniority of J.L. Lee as a Second Lieutenant dates from the 1st December 1914. His MiC shows him landing in France with the 2/6th Battalion on the 26th February 1917 - which ties up with the date that Battalion deployed overseas. By that stage he was a Captain. He would win his Military Cross serving with the 2/6th Battalion, as confirmed by the newspaper article.

Checking the March 1915 British Army Monthly List Lee is also shown then with the 2/6th Battalion.

March 1915 British Army Monthly List: https://digital.nls.uk/british-military-lists/archive/103394811
May 1915 British Army Monthly List: https://digital.nls.uk/british-military-lists/archive/119784518

There may be some way that John Lyell Lee's Army career dipped through the 5th Battalion but it would probably require a look at his army record - and I'm not spotting anything in the way of long papers or personal file for him in the National Archive catalogue.

Cheers,
Peter

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 24/02/2024 at 18:55, brianmorris547 said:

Reginald William Kirkman - 1911 Census age 20 Undergraduate Cambridge - No trace papers.

John Booth Packman -  possible 1911 Census age 14 as John, 42 Manchester Rd, Bury - No trace papers.

Newton Duckinfield Thompson - 1911 Census age 25 of Caterham, Surrey - Pre war report that NDT of Caterham was in the Police Court for riding a bike with no light.

Kenneth Waterhouse - 1911 Census age 32 of Wayside, Westwood Ave, Timperley, Ches - Various papers in August 1916 report his death on 09/08/1916 and give his details as Rooftree, Arthog Rd, Hale and educated at Giggleswick Grammar School

Malcolm Henry Young - 1911 Census age 16 Stand House, Whitefield, Manchester - The Blackpool Herald 22/04/1916 announced his engagement to Miss Mona Peart Kemp, daughter of Mrs Lavers Kemp of Radcliffe and St Pauls, Blackpool North Shore. This makes Mona a half sister of Norman Kemp (see above). 

Thank you @brianmorris547 for posting these details.

I hope that we will come to Kirkman and Packman shortly on the sister thread which I referred to in my last post.

Newton Dukinfield Thompson (nicknamed "Jellicoe") was my GF's 2nd in command while they were training in Southport in 1914, a bit surprising in some ways if Thompson was 28 by then, as my GF was only 22, but perhaps it was to do with my GF's experience in the OTC at school and University, and also he tells us that Thompson was a "Home Service man" at that time. According to Thompspn's MIC he did get to France on 28 February 1917, which would have been with the 3/5th LF, and his appointment to captain was published the LG of 2 January 1918.

Kenneth Waterhouse is well known to me from the pages of my GF's memoir. My GF was second in command to him as CO of "D" (aka "Z") Company for several months during 1915 and 1916, and had huge respect and admiration for him. I believe that my own father, born in 1925, was named Kenneth after him. The CWGC gives the address of his widow, Gladys Constance Waterhouse, as "Ayrfield", Harrop Road, Hale, so she had moved from the address given for Kenneth in his obituary, "Rooftrees", Arthog Road, Hale. Arthog Road is the road where Goldsmith's parents' home was according to the 1911 census. From reading my GF's memoir there is no sense that Goldsmith and Waterhouse were particularly close, other than that they joined the Battalion on the same day, 12 September 1914, and were part of a larger group who tended to congregate at meal times etc., but @brianmorris547 has revealed that they belonged to the same golf club, and clearly they took the decision to obtain commissions in the 2/5th LF together.

It's sad to see that Malcolm Henry Young was KIA only two months after his engagement to Mona Peart Kemp, but such things must have been all too common in WW1. I now, courtesy of Brian, have the pictures of Mona that appeared in the Sketch and the Tatler. She was a pretty girl, and I hope that in time she was able to form a relationship with someone else, though I know that many women who lost their fiances or husbands did not.

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

3 hours ago, brianmorris547 said:

Although James Lyell Lee is not on Norman Hall's list of Officers who went to France in May 1915 there are only 29 names on his list but there are 30 men on the Bedford photograph. 

The WD of 51 Div A&QMG (WO 95/2848) has Train departures from Bedford showing that on 02/05/1915 3 Officers and 104 Other Ranks left Bedford for Southampton and on 03/05/1915 the remainder of 2/5 left Bedford in two halves, 13 Officers and 449 O/Rs and 14 Officers and 449 O/Rs. That makes 30 Officers who left Bedford. 

No names in the Adjutant WD unfortunately.

My GF does not mention Lee at all, not in Bury, nor in Southport, nor in Bedford, nor in the list of Officers who went to France. There are four men whom my GF mentions only for the first time in the list of officers who went to France on 3 May 1915 (specifically Abbotts, Hill, Ramsden and Gray), and it would not be impossible that another man joined them for the first time on 3 May 1915 who stayed with them for such a short time that my GF completely forgot to mention him at all, but given that James Lyell's Lee's MIC shows him landing in France on 26 February 1917, and does not record that he was entitled to a 15 star, this seems unlikely.

My preferred option for the 30th man would be Richard Henry Barnes, mentioned in my posts of 20 and 21 February 1924, whose MIC shows him as being entitled to the 15 star, and moreover records him as having entered in France in May 1915. If it was him it is very odd that my GF does not have him in his list, as he did know him, and mentions him a few times during the training period in Britain.

One reason why I think that Barnes may be the man is that I have looked at his image in the photo of the officers of the 5th Reserve Battalion in Southport and compared that image with Officer 16 in the Bedford group photograph; to me there seems to be something very similar in the bearing of and general facial appearance of the two men, though, if they are the same man, Barnes must either have done something to make him appear smaller in the Southport photograph or be standing on a box or similar in the Bedford photograph. If it was him he must either have been diverted immediately to another unit as soon as they landed in France, or turned around and returned to England immediately. A number of men and NCOs are referred to in the Battalion WD as being left behind, going to hospital, or going to England sick in the first few days, but the only officer who is mentioned as leaving the battalion is Packman, who returned to England on 10 May 1915, and there is no mention whatsoever of Barnes.

By the way, the Battalion WD, which, as mentioned above, records that Milnes, Abbotts and Hill had entrained in Bedford at midnight on 1 May 1915, then goes on to say that 28 officers entrained in Bedford at 4.30pm on 3 May 1915, but I think that the figures in the 51 Div A&QMG quoted by @brianmorris547 will be more reliable.

[brianmorris547]

Peter

Thanks for the info on James Lyell Lee. I was aware that the report mentioned 2/6 Bn and was going to look further today. My mistake because in my notes of names, that I wrote down from the LG, I had put a star against his name. This indicated that he was on the photograph of the Reserve Bn Officers that was in the Bury Times. On checking he was not.

Brian

[brianmorris547]

LG 29027 01/01/1915 

2/Lts 5 LFs

Joseph Walton Hedley - 1911 Census age 31 School master, Copthorne School, Crawley, Sussex. The Yorkshire Post 21/09/1916 reported that he had died of wounds on 07/09/1916. He was the son of the late Rev M Hedley, Langho Village, nr Blackburn. The Cheltenham Chronicle 24/02/1917 in an article about his Will gave his address as 1 East Lawn, Old Bath Rd, Cheltenham.

John Ernest Hartington - 1911 Census age 14 Chemistry student Highfield, Manchester Rd, Heywood. Photographs and reports of MC from the Heywood Advertiser already sent to @A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy. He, and all his siblings, were born in Mexico.

Gabriel Gray - 1911 Census age 28 Assistant Master, Cheltenham College b Northamptonshire. The Rugby Advertiser 14/12/1918 in "Rugby Officer's Return" reported that he had been wounded and taken prisoner on 26/03/1918. 

Brian

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 26/02/2024 at 16:22, brianmorris547 said:

Joseph Walton Hedley - 1911 Census age 31 School master, Copthorne School, Crawley, Sussex. The Yorkshire Post 21/09/1916 reported that he had died of wounds on 07/09/1916. He was the son of the late Rev M Hedley, Langho Village, nr Blackburn. The Cheltenham Chronicle 24/02/1917 in an article about his Will gave his address as 1 East Lawn, Old Bath Rd, Cheltenham.

John Ernest Hartington - 1911 Census age 14 Chemistry student Highfield, Manchester Rd, Heywood. Photographs and reports of MC from the Heywood Advertiser already sent to @A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy. He, and all his siblings, were born in Mexico.

Gabriel Gray - 1911 Census age 28 Assistant Master, Cheltenham College b Northamptonshire. The Rugby Advertiser 14/12/1918 in "Rugby Officer's Return" reported that he had been wounded and taken prisoner on 26/03/1918. 

Thank you, Brian. Joe Hedley is a man who is well known to me through my GF's writing, and who my GF greatly liked and respected. He had originally been 2nd in Command of Kenneth Waterhouse's "Z" Coy, and the two were firm friends. When Goldsmith went to the RE, as mentioned above, Joe took command of Goldsmith's "W" Company, and my GF replaced him as Kenneth Waterhouse's 2nd in Command.

J.E. Hartington, again as mentioned above, has a biography on Mark Hone's Roll of Honour for Bury Grammar School. Born on 11 May 1896. at the time of crossing to France on 3 May 1915 he was a few days short of his 19th birthday. I understand that at that time, at least, men should not have been fighting overseas until they attained their 19th birthday, but he would have been 19 before the unit were actually deployed,

My GF has the following caption under a photograph of Gray that enabled me to identify him in the group photograph: "LT G. GRAY, Wounded AUG 3/16, TRONES WOOD. Later joined 1/5^th LF at Hinges in 1918. Wounded and a prisoner Mar 1918". He survived the war.

Edited 3 March by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy
To delete inadvertent "paste" in the middle of passage, and correct calculation of Hartington's age, with consequential amendment re Hedley

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

23 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

By the way, the Battalion WD, which, as mentioned above, records that Milnes, Abbotts and Hill had entrained in Bedford at midnight on 1 May 1915, then goes on to say that 28 officers entrained in Bedford at 4.30pm on 3 May 1915, but I think that the figures in the 51 Div A&QMG quoted by @brianmorris547 will be more reliable.

As an addendum to the above, I presume that neither the Battalion WD, nor the 51 Div A&QMG would have included wither the MO or the Chaplain in their reckoning? If both were included then the Battalion WD's tally of 31 officers in total would match my GF's 29 officers of the LF plus the MO and Chaplain, but the 51 Div A&QMG's tally of 30 officers would be problematical.

[brianmorris547]

These are the Train Departures from Bedford for The Highland Div.

 TNA/Ancestry WO 95/2848

Shows 30 Officers as stated but the Field State attached to the forms show 31 Officers.

Brian

[PRC]

3 hours ago, brianmorris547 said:

Shows 30 Officers as stated but the Field State attached to the forms show 31 Officers.

Would Field State be the same as Ration Strength or are the two calculated differently?

Ration strength I take it would include the MO and Chaplain.

BTW interesting to note that the 2/5th LF Other Ranks Field State total also doesn't reconcile to numbers on the rail schedule - 104+449+449 is 1,002, not 957. That made me look again at the column headers - which refers to accomodation available on the train so may not necessarily be the numbers who actually travelled for either other ranks or officers.

Edit. For those units where it can be calculated from the above extracts, Railway Accomodation was provided for 30 Officers and 1002 Other Ranks of the 4th Royal Lancs, 8th Liverpool and 2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers. Field State was 30/768, 31/1002 and 31/957 respectively. So unless the value crops up independently and in a verifiable way elsewhere I don't think this source for there being 30 Officers that went to France holds water.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 27 February by PRC
Add the Edit section

[FROGSMILE]

22 hours ago, PRC said:

Would Field State be the same as Ration Strength or are the two calculated differently?

Ration strength I take it would include the MO and Chaplain.

BTW interesting to note that the 2/5th LF Other Ranks Field State total also doesn't reconcile to numbers on the rail schedule - 104+449+449 is 1,002, not 957. That made me look again at the column headers - which refers to accomodation available on the train so may not necessarily be the numbers who actually travelled for either other ranks or officers.

Edit. For those units where it can be calculated from the above extracts, Railway Accomodation was provided for 30 Officers and 1002 Other Ranks of the 4th Royal Lancs, 8th Liverpool and 2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers. Field State was 30/768, 31/1002 and 31/957 respectively. So unless the value crops up independently and in a verifiable way elsewhere I don't think this source for there being 30 Officers that went to France holds water.

Cheers,
Peter

In general ‘States’ are very statistical with immediacy being more important than absolute accuracy.

‘Returns’ tend to be more routine oriented and delivered regularly according to standing operating procedures.  Accuracy is of the utmost importance.

A good example would be in the reporting of casualties.  Initially a state of casualties In officers and men killed wounded or missing is sent.  Subsequently a return giving a nominal roll rationed by the unit is sent.

Below are relevant extracts from the Field Service Regulations including details of ration returns.

 

Edited 28 February by FROGSMILE

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

That's interesting, Brian, Peter and Frogsmile.

So if I have understood correctly, the documents headed "Railway timetable" would be something prepared in advance of the departure from Bedford, i.e. a plan for the departure, showing how many men were expected to be/could be accommodated on each train, which I think is what Peter was saying when he said that the documents did not show how many actually did travel. That would make sense of the word "timetable", which would generally only be used for something that is going to happen in the future, rather than something that has actually happened.

On the other hand, the Field State on Army Form B 231 would be a report compiled as quickly as possible after (in this case) the departure - "immediately" being the word used in paragraph 131 of the Regulations, the purpose of this B 231  report generally being to enable the strategists higher up to know what was going on, i.e what forces were available to fight and how much was needed in the way of supplies. I can see that for this report speed would be absolutely critical once men were engaging with the enemy, more important than complete accuracy, and that detailed accuracy could await a further, more considered, return, which would also show how things had changed since the last return a week earlier, according to the Regulations.

Am I right in thinking that the Field Service Regulations would only have applied once the unit was "in the Field", i.e. once it set out from Bedford. If so, does Frogsmile think it possible that no return would have been required immediately at the time of setting out, because there would be no requirement to compare things with the situation a week earlier, and that the first return would be compiled a week later, charting the men who had fallen by the wayside during the first week in France? Or, if a return was required immediately on setting out from Bedford, is it likely that it would have said the same as the B 231? After all, the departure from Bedford would have been in good order, and with no particular difficulty about getting the figures right. So is it possible that the figures in the B 321 are, in this case, as accurate as it was possible to be?

Something that has struck me about this B 231 (though I should make it clear that I am not familiar with how these Forms would normally look when completed) is that, from the headings to the Form, it looks as though the Fighting Strength should be shown on the left hand side of the form, and that this should, according to the sub-heading, "not include details attached to unit, or personnel detailed to march with the Train, or any men unfit to go into action with unit", while the right had side of the form should show the Rations Strength, which presumably means the number of men requiring to be fed etc., and, according to the sub-heading, was to "include Fighting Strength, Personnel detailed to march with the unit, and all Personnel and animals attached for Fatigue or Forage".

But in this case only one side has been completed. Isn't this a bit odd, as surely not all those who went with the unit would be on the fighting strength, in particular, the Chaplain and MO? On the other hand, the Chaplain and MO would surely have been on the Ration Strength, in that presumably no-one else other than the 2/5th LF would be responsible for feeding them so long as they were attached to that unit? Has the person completing the form simply lumped everyone together. possibly because this was the first report, and at this particular point it was more important to know how many had to be fed than how many were available to fight, as they wouldn't immediately be going into action? Incidentally, the 2/5th LF WD gives the total number of other ranks who entrained at Bedford as 101 on the first train and 840 on the other two trains, so 941, as opposed to 957 on the B 231.

In summary, returning to the Officers, can the B 231 be regarded as the most accurate tally available of the number of officers who entrained at Bedford with the 2/5th LF, i.e. 31 including the Chaplain and the MO (which just happens to be the number in my GF's list of names)?

As an aside, and of no consequence whatsoever, I was delighted to see 9 bicycles listed as going to France with the 2/5th LF, the reason being that my GF tells us in his memoir that in Bedford on 29 April he, as Signalling Officer for the Battalion, "drew 9 bicycles for signallers". So, in a sense, these were my GF's 9 bicycles!

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

On 28/02/2024 at 01:11, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

That's interesting, Brian, Peter and Frogsmile.

So if I have understood correctly, the documents headed "Railway timetable" would be something prepared in advance of the departure from Bedford, i.e. a plan for the departure, showing how many men were expected to be/could be accommodated on each train, which I think is what Peter was saying when he said that the documents did not show how many actually did travel. That would make sense of the word "timetable", which would generally only be used for something that is going to happen in the future, rather than something that has actually happened.

On the other hand, the Field State on Army Form B 231 would be a report compiled as quickly as possible after (in this case) the departure - "immediately" being the word used in paragraph 131 of the Regulations, the purpose of this B 231  report generally being to enable the strategists higher up to know what was going on, i.e what forces were available to fight and how much was needed in the way of supplies. I can see that for this report speed would be absolutely critical once men were engaging with the enemy, more important than complete accuracy, and that detailed accuracy could await a further, more considered, return, which would also show how things had changed since the last return a week earlier, according to the Regulations.

Am I right in thinking that the Field Service Regulations would only have applied once the unit was "in the Field", i.e. once it set out from Bedford. If so, does Frogsmile think it possible that no return would have been required immediately at the time of setting out, because there would be no requirement to compare things with the situation a week earlier, and that the first return would be compiled a week later, charting the men who had fallen by the wayside during the first week in France? Or, if a return was required immediately on setting out from Bedford, is it likely that it would have said the same as the B 231? After all, the departure from Bedford would have been in good order, and with no particular difficulty about getting the figures right. So is it possible that the figures in the B 321 are, in this case, as accurate as it was possible to be?

Something that has struck me about this B 231 (though I should make it clear that I am not familiar with how these Forms would normally look when completed) is that, from the headings to the Form, it looks as though the Fighting Strength should be shown on the left hand side of the form, and that this should, according to the sub-heading, "not include details attached to unit, or personnel detailed to march with the Train, or any men unfit to go into action with unit", while the right had side of the form should show the Rations Strength, which presumably means the number of men requiring to be fed etc., and, according to the sub-heading, was to "include Fighting Strength, Personnel detailed to march with the unit, and all Personnel and animals attached for Fatigue or Forage".

But in this case only one side has been completed. Isn't this a bit odd, as surely not all those who went with the unit would be on the fighting strength, in particular, the Chaplain and MO? On the other hand, the Chaplain and MO would surely have been on the Ration Strength, in that presumably no-one else other than the 2/5th LF would be responsible for feeding them so long as they were attached to that unit? Has the person completing the form simply lumped everyone together. possibly because this was the first report, and at this particular point it was more important to know how many had to be fed than how many were available to fight, as they wouldn't immediately be going into action? Incidentally, the 2/5th LF WD gives the total number of other ranks who entrained at Bedford as 101 on the first train and 840 on the other two trains, so 941, as opposed to 957 on the B 231.

In summary, returning to the Officers, can the B 231 be regarded as the most accurate tally available of the number of officers who entrained at Bedford with the 2/5th LF, i.e. 31 including the Chaplain and the MO (which just happens to be the number in my GF's list of names)?

As an aside, and of no consequence whatsoever, I was delighted to see 9 bicycles listed as going to France with the 2/5th LF, the reason being that my GF tells us in his memoir that in Bedford on 29 April he, as Signalling Officer for the Battalion, "drew 9 bicycles for signallers". So, in a sense, these were my GF's 9 bicycles!

 

 

Apologies for this delayed reply.  Yes the railway timetable would have been worked out in advance, it was one of the key skills of battalion and brigade staff to organise a move by rail.  Ever since the American Civil War and other large scale conflicts in Europe it had been something used as a marker of efficiency and professionalism and so a key subject in the staff college syllabus.  I enclose just two relevant extracts from Army manuals on the subject as a flavour of this.

You have correctly honed in on the key difference between a reported State (situation if you will) and a reported Return (statistical statement) and especially how it pertains to the AF B231.  In the scenario you mentioned the State provides the initial situation and the Return shows the effect of actions carried out, i.e. this is what we started with and then later this is the situation we are in now.  For staff officers at higher formation planning the logistics of resupply and reinforcement the information gives them something to work with.

Field Service Regulations applied as soon as the battalion moved as an entity into the field (deployed out of barracks) and I think you have interpreted correctly how the AF B231 is populated with data.  Fighting strength details on the left and feeding strength on the right.  The left side does not include details attached to unit, or personnel detailed to march with the Train, because they are the responsibility of the parent unit and so would be reported as detached elsewhere on their own units return.  They are however responsible for feeding said men for as long as they’re attached and so appear on the ration strength**.

 I can’t comment with confidence concerning the example you quoted but your theory that the personnel must have been all lumped together at the very beginning of the operation seems very likely.  As regards fighting strength I think that would cover all those functioning at the 1st line (eventually described as ‘fighting echelon’, although I can’t remember when that term was introduced).  To my mind this would include the RMO and Padre by virtue of the fact that both men were generally employed within the RAP, which was the most forward medical facility and therefore invariably within the combatant (de facto - ‘fighting’) zone.  They would indeed be on the units ration strength as they were not attached from elsewhere but belonged to the regiment (on it’s permanent establishment).  Regarding the differential between the entrainment figures and the battalion WD I can only assume either, an error, or that the differential figure travelled by some other means (e.g. the battalion’s Transport would more often move by road).

The AF B231 would certainly have been the battalion’s declared figures as accurately as they knew them to be.  States and Returns were not infallible and errors were made, and units were live and constantly churning entities, but battalions got better at them as they gained in experience and came to understand the potential pitfalls and how to avoid them.

** the short hand ‘attachments and detachments becomes an ever present factor on all kinds of unit operational orders as a result.

Edited 1 March by FROGSMILE

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thank you, @FROGSMILE , as ever, for your very informative reply.

If my grandfather was right about 31 officers in total leaving Bedford, so 29 Lancashire Fusiliers if you exclude the MO and the Chaplain, I have had another thought about who the 30th Lancashire Fusilier in the photograph taken on 1 May 1915 might be. In his diary entry for 25 April 1915 my GF tells us that N.D. Thompson (who has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread and features in the photograph of the 5th Reserve Battalion officer taken in December 1914, albeit there named as N.J. Thompson) "came down from Bury to collect surplus stores". I had rather assumed that he would have been in Bedford only fleetingly before returning to Bury with the surplus stores, but, on reflection, it would make far more sense for him to hang around until the battalion was all packed up and ready to go, or perhaps even until after it had gone, because only then would it become clear what supplies were in fact surplus to what they needed to take with them. The more I think about it, the more I think that he would most likely have been the 30th man. After all, right up until departure they might have wanted to have extra replacements available in case of damage to items already issued. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any other photos of him apart from the December 1914 group photograph.

Regarding the other candidate I had put forward, R.W. Barnes, principally because his MIC says he "landed in France", while I had understood from my GF's memoir that he proceeded to Egypt, is it possible that the journey to Egypt might have been routed via France, i.e. Marseilles, and that this might explain the words "landed in France"? I have found references to ships putting in at Marseilles on the return journey from Egypt, though not as yet any to ships putting in at Marseilles on the outward journey, but that does seem feasible.

I will put the WD of the 1/5th LF for 1915 on my list of things to look at when I next go to Kew, in case Barnes is mentioned by name in it.

Edited 2 March by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[FROGSMILE]

Certainly there was a regular rail route in both directions to Marseilles for troops travelling to and from Egypt. It became well used during the war, especially when battalions were transferred from the Mediterranean Theatre back to reinforce the Western Front.

Edited 1 March by FROGSMILE

[brianmorris547]

LG 29064 09/02/1915 2/Lt 5 LFs Claude Worsley Boyce Hill - 1911 Census age 24 Farmer married to Mary Alfreda Hill at Daws Cottage, Witchampton, Wimbourne, Dorset.

Already mentioned in this thread

LG 29080 23/02/1915 names three 2/Lts 5 LFs

Hugh Waterhouse - 1911 Census age 19, Assistant Master, 4 South St, Retford, Notts. 

Baron Harold Rothband - 1911 Census age 24 of 154 Cheetham Hill Rd, Manchester.

John Frederick Harker - 1911 Census unclear.

I have noticed post war articles about a Hugh Waterhouse being a school master in Lytham, but this article from the Lancashire Daily Post 14/07/1933 confirms it, and a photograph to go with it.

I will find details of the schools so that @A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy can make some enquiries. EDIT The article names the school at Lytham. 

Image BNL via FMP.

Brian

Edited 2 March by brianmorris547

[PRC]

46 minutes ago, brianmorris547 said:

but this article from the Lancashire Daily Post 14/07/1933 confirms it,

Brian,

One of the things mentioned is that he was a member of the Oxford and Cambridge Athletic Team that went to America in 1921.

Would you kindly be able to check the middle one of these three articles to see if any of the pictures on the page are of the team - if not I'll add it to my library hit list but I just can't guarantee when I'll next get a chance to visit.

Image courtesy the British Newspaper Archive.

Cheers,
Peter

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Brilliant to find that article in the Lancashire Daily Post @brianmorris547 , with such a detailed biography of Hugh Waterhouse, and complete with a photograph. We already knew that he was tall, of course, because of his nickname Long'un, but now we know that he was 6 ft 3 in.

I already had my eye on Officer 15 for him, mainly because that man is a 2nd Lieutenant, and because of his height, but also because he looks like a rather thoughtful, sensitive character, which is how Long'un comes across in my GF's writing. Although the photograph in the Lancashire Daily Post is of a rather older man, taken from a 3/4 angle, and quite dark, to me the photograph looks much more like Officer 15 than the other obviously tall man who has not yet been named, Officer 14.

The Hampshire Advertiser for 6 August 1921 looks as if it could be a quite promising source of another photograph, @PRC , thank you. It is interesting to see that Hugh Waterhouse was a team mate of the much better known Harold Abrahams.

Now I have a confession to make. The discovery that Hugh was studying french before the war has caused me to revisit a passage in my GF's diary entry for 4 May 1915, the day after they arrived in France, while they were at a camp just outside Boulogne. I have transcribed it:

Then we officers went to a farm nearby for breakfast. K. Waterhouse and Noton saved the day by knowing French rather well.

Sure enough, the "K" is actually a rather elaborate "H". In my defence, because the passage comes quite early in the memoir, I was not quite used to my GF's old-fashioned hand-writing when I transcribed it, and on the very same page he does write a capital "H" in the way in which we are more used to seeing it, just three plain straight lines, but I still think I should have asked myself the question whether the letter was in fact "K" or "H", rather than just assuming that it was a "K".

On the subject of tall men, we now know that Hugh Waterhouse was 6 ft 3 in, and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, we know that Claude Boyce Worsley Hill was 6 ft 2 1/2 in. Possibly Hill might therefore be a candidate for Officer 14, but I find the suggestion that Lieutenants Hill and Abbotts would be the men photo-shopped in at either end of the back row because they were busy with other duties very persuasive.

We do have one other very tall man in the frame, namely 2nd Lieutenant Mansfield Priestley Evans. In the photograph of the 5th Reserve Battalion taken in December he stands right at the left hand end (our left) of the middle row, next to Captain Barnsdale, and is at least as tall as Barnsdale, who we know was also very tall (from the photograph of "B" Company). Is it possible that Officer 14 is Evans? However, I think that Evans has a moustache in the 5th Reserve Battalion photograph. If so, and if Officer 14 is him, he had shaved it off in the intervening months.

incidentally, in the 5th Reserve Battalion photograph Evans is given the title of Lieutenant, but the entries I can find for him in the London Gazette (which refer to him as M. Priestly Evans or M. Priestley-Evans) show him being appointed as 2nd Lieutenant wef 7 October 1914, then temporary Lieutenant wef 1 October 1915, and then in the LG of 4 August 1917, still a 2nd Lieutenant and temporary Lieutenant, promoted straight to Captain wef 1 June 1916.

[FROGSMILE]

A minor point concerning moustaches Tricia in relation to your penultimate paragraph.  Initially in the war officers and men were obliged to follow King’s Regulations for the Army and leave the upper lip unshaven, as had been the case since Queen Victoria’s reign.  Because of the need to provide a good facial seal on gas masks, during 1916 that regulation was rescinded and shaving of the upper lip authorised.  That change might be a factor in Lieutenant Evans’s change of appearance depending on the date the photo was taken.   

Edited 2 March by FROGSMILE