armourersergeant Posted 5 May , 2005 Share Posted 5 May , 2005 I have two headstone photos of MGC (Motors) men who were killed on 29th April 1918. I know that originally these units were artillery controlled but later transfered over to MGC control but i was wondering if 'Gunner' was the correct rank for them to retain? If they retained artillery ranking what insignia would they have worn. Both men were 4th Battalion were these still motorcycle units in 1918? regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 8 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 8 May , 2005 Just bringing this back up in the hope someone can shed some light regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borden Battery Posted 8 May , 2005 Share Posted 8 May , 2005 The following example is from the Canadian Motor Machine Gun Brigade ... here is the ULR for the Canadian site which lists Privates, Drivers and Gunners under the rates of pay. http://gwp.marcleroux.com/writing/payRates.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david murdoch Posted 11 May , 2005 Share Posted 11 May , 2005 Arm. I have also come across a couple of MGC(M) "gunners", when searching cemetaries for casualties in Mesopotamia and Persia. These were guys serving with L.A.M.B (armoured car) units, who were killed/died 1919/1920. I took it to mean they were gunners as in trained machine gunners. The forerunner of the MGC(M) the Motor Machine Gun Service - the original bike units were under the Royal Artillery - the lowest (3000 ish) MGC service numbers stem from there. My Grandfather was 2133, and on his MIC has M.M.G.S/ MGC (M), with "RA" penciled on the side. If these guys of yours have a higher (later) MGC number, I would guess (could be wrong) it is an MGC rank rather than one retained from RA. so I am sure they would have been wearing MGC insignia. Even though the M.M.G.S was under RA "control" most of the original members were recruited specifically into these units. Don't know if they still had the bikes, by this time as some of the original units disbanded, or merged to form armoured car units. Also some of the bike units reverted to being "normal" machine gun units due to the ground conditionson the Western Front. Check them out on the Long Long Trail. Hope it helps. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 11 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 May , 2005 Thanks for both replies guys. I am wondering if i am being thick here. I am supposing that all non coms in the MGC were privates, is a simple answer that machine gunners were tagged as Gunners not privates? below are the two headstones i came across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 11 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 May , 2005 and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 11 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 May , 2005 Both of these men have low numbers so could have been 'Artillerymen' if I am understanding you correctly David. It would be interesting to see other ranks etc of this unit! regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will O'Brien Posted 11 May , 2005 Share Posted 11 May , 2005 Arm...........Had a thought & checked these guys online MIC indexes............Both Thomas Snaith & Ian MacGregor's unit is referred to Motor Machine Gun Service Royal Artillery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 11 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 May , 2005 Good call Will, Now the question is should they have RA insignia or MGC? Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will O'Brien Posted 11 May , 2005 Share Posted 11 May , 2005 Good call Will, Now the question is should they have RA insignia or MGC? Arm. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Haven't a clue............perhaps Dick Flory the resident RA expert might know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 11 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 May , 2005 I think it should be artillery if they were part of that arm but i bet they wore MGC badging. I find if you hang around this part of the world long enough Dick Flory turns up Tralala tumpty tumpty, Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffsyeoman Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 I have seen a photograph taken in 1915 of a group of MMGS NCOs where some were clearly wearing the MMG cap badge with RFA shoulder titles and the NCO's 'piece' (gun to non members of the Royal Regiment ;-) ) above their rank stripes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 12 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 May , 2005 I would have thought in best corps tradition that the Artillery would have wanted to identify the MGC with them and badge them as thus. So is it likely that any insignia combinations were 'unofficial' and adapted by those in the feild? Thus I assume making any standard study will hit a wall as different units adopted different versions of their own idea? I am finding this topic fascinating something that does not normally stir my interest. regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 12 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 May , 2005 I have seen a photograph taken in 1915 of a group of MMGS NCOs where some were clearly wearing the MMG cap badge with RFA shoulder titles and the NCO's 'piece' (gun to non members of the Royal Regiment ;-) ) above their rank stripes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Phil, Can you recall where you saw this photo i would be interested in seeing it? regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Robertson Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 Arm, Just to throw you off in a different direction mate, I think that the inscriptions on the headstones are confusing. What I think you are looking at is the "machine-gun" element on the headstone. I believe that the Tank Corps originated from the "Heavy Section Machine-Gun Corps" and that the designation "Gunner" refers to the fact that the soldier was employed on the tank to use the 6 pdr gun. The term "Motors" on your headstones indicates "TANK" to me - not light cars. As an example of what I am suggesting, please look at the picture below of a headstone. This soldier, John Corrie, was the driver of a tank killed at Messines in June 1917. Buried beside him are 2 "gunners" from his tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Robertson Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 I've just looked up the two "Gunners" on John's tank. Both are listed on the CWGC website as rank of "GUNNER". However, their respective MIC's have the rank "PRIVATE". This would seem to contradict what Will found earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 12 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 May , 2005 Derek this is what i had thought originally but surely by 1918 april they would have been designated as Tank Corps? On the main site it says that not all MGC Motors untis were amalgamnated completely until 1922. These two chaps were 4th battalion MGC (Motors). It would be interesting to see what this was designated as. On the main site it refers to batteries etc but not battalions so i am confused. Though i seem to recall that Battalions was a tank designation. It also says in the tanks section that many men did not transfer officially to the Tank corps, so it may be that they remained MGC men but 'rode' with the tankies. confused but intrigued. Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 12 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 May , 2005 I've just looked up the two "Gunners" on John's tank. Both are listed on the CWGC website as rank of "GUNNER". However, their respective MIC's have the rank "PRIVATE". This would seem to contradict what Will found earlier. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It may just be that things were very confused to all concerned and not as regimentally designated as we would assume. It may be that often men were confused to there unit status. regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Robertson Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 Arm, Both graves you used as examples are of men employed on "Tanks". What we need is a definitive explanation for the use of different headstone inscriptions to what is effectively the same Corps. ie Machine Gun Corps (Motors) Heavy Section Machine-Gun Corps Tank Corps Just to confuse the issue even further please look at the picture below, taken in the same cemetery as your 2 men. This chap was killed 4 days earlier and yet his headstone carries the Tank Corps crest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Robertson Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 I raised the question of the different headstone inscriptions with our "tanky" on the trip, Chocolate Soldier, and he was very interested. Perhaps he should be made aware of this thread (so that he can be left as confused as me ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 In the local contemporary Press pre MGC,all the local Cambridgeshire Regt;TF;{& Other Regt} Machine Gunners are referred to as "Gunners" in notices of Embarkation,Wounding & KiA etc; None were ever Artillerymen,I would hazard that "Gunner" was the generic term applied to all Machine Gunners,especially early on in the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 12 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 May , 2005 Derek, Your chap is a different battn. 13th Tank Corps. Where as mine are classed as 4th Battn. MGC (Motors). To me that says two different coprs. How are you arriving at them both being Tank units? As for our Chocolate friend, he is probably watching and laughing at our confusion! regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 Just to add to the thread, I recently sold a Medal pair to a GNR Venables M.M.G.S.-R.A., I always assumed these men were connected to the Artillery in the fact that they were grouped in Batteries, ranked as gunners and had Royal Artillery tagged on to the end of Motor Machine Gun Service. Cheers, Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD60 Posted 12 May , 2005 Share Posted 12 May , 2005 I have several graves photo of MGC Motors soldiers. All are gunner (except for ranks higher). Seems Gunner the general word for this unit on gravestones, like decided for trooper or guardsman at the end of the war. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 12 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 May , 2005 At my local WFA tonight i spoke to a MGC chap who has some vast knowledge of the corps and he has told me that Gunner was only used by those having some affiliation to the old RA designation. So MGC Inf would have been private etc. He also said that 4th Battn as designated by CWGC is not correct and that it should probably have been Battery, thus a throw back to the old Artillery affiliation. He was not sure, though thought these guys would probably have been either Armoured cars or less likely at this stage of the war, Motorcycle combi. So a bit further foward but still not sure. Regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now