The Second Lieutenants of WW1

[PhilB]

It has been suggested, and seems likely, that the % casualty rate was highest among 2/Lts over any other rank. There`s something about that that doesn`t seem right and proper to me. Surely it can`t make good military sense to treat your junior commissioned ranks as if they were expendable? It was soon decided that senior officers needed to be kept out of harm`s way, while junior officers were put in the front row. Did it have to be that way? Phil B

[Coldstreamer]

Hello

who was normally over the top first ? If it was the 2nd Lts then not suprising they got killed/wounded.

I ask this because the Coldstream Guards lost only 34 corporals out of 495 cpls and l/cpls - did the cpls stand at the back encouraging the men on ?

Or was (full) Cpl a rare rank in the Coldstream Gds ?

Ian

[Terry_Reeves]

They were Platoon Commanders and led from the front. Proportionately, subaltern officers were always likely to have a high casualty rate. In this respect WW1 is little different from any other major war.

Terry Reeves

[Guest]

Or was (full) Cpl a rare rank in the Coldstream Gds ?

Check also Lance Sergeants

[PhilB]

Yes, folks, but the point is - is that (militarily speaking) a wise way to use subalterns? Is it not rather like destroying your seed corn? Phil B

[Guest]

Phil,

If the subalterns do not lead, then who should? If you were some terrified private, how would you feel if your officer was allowed to keep his head down while you had to raise your's above the parapet?

[Terry_Reeves]

...but that's not the point. Junior officers are there to lead in the front line, otherwise there would be no need for for them. How would they then gain real battle experience? To take that logic to the extreme there would be no need for any rank, just in case they became casualties.

Terry Reeves

[PhilB]

Is it too simplistic, then, to think that the highest casualty rate should ideally be among the most expendable - and that`s surely not your junior officers? Phil B

[gporta]

Apart from the risks inherent in leading ahead of the men, I think that even when they advanced alongside with the other ranks, their conspicuously different uniform made them sitting ducks for enemy snipers.

I've read that, occasionally, some Great War junior officers would wear OR's uniform with pips, and I wonder if, had this been the rule, maybe the casualties would have been lower?

Gloria

[PhilB]

Put it this way - if you were the CO, would you send all or most of your subalterns over the top? Or would say, 1 in 4 make more sense? If all or most of the platoon sergeants are going, why duplicate platoon command? Phil B

[truthergw]

Is it too simplistic, then, to think that the highest casualty rate should ideally be among the most expendable - and that`s surely not your junior officers? Phil B

I think that part of what is being revealed here is the notion that a certain class of people were born leaders; that ordinary men from the lower classes required leading by a class who were born and bred to lead. The men expected a leader to be provided to lead and the high command would not have expected them to advance without one. This explains the initial reluctance to recruit officers from working class men. The notion also manifested itself in the snobbery in the mess encountered by officers promoted from the ranks. Middle class boys educated at Public School and University were imbued with a sense of superiority which went hand in hand with a sense of duty. They were superior to the men but had a duty to look after them and lead them. I hasten to add that I am trying to describe an ethos which I do not necessarily share.

[PhilB]

I think there`s a lot in what you say t. Phil B

[Terry_Reeves]

...and then how do you replace the senior NCO's? Why have a rank structure at all?

Terry Reeves

[truthergw]

...and then how do you replace the senior NCO's? Why have a rank structure at all?

Terry Reeves

I think there were two rank structures. O.Rs who could hope to attain to WO1 status and commisioned officers who's ultimate rank would be decided by a lot more than ability. Occasionally, an NCO would manage to bridge the gap. The war disrupted this setup but strenuous efforts were made to return to it after the war.

[KONDOA]

In reality it differs little from the modern day management/employment structure except for the lack of live ammunition. Those that have the education, drive, ability and experience will find themselves in a position of authority.

There is little to do with class except that the more educated would naturally find themselves in better positions. I certainly would not have wanted my GF in charge, the war would still be going on!!

Many of the lads that formed the army were only just literate and numerate, so how do you manage an army on that basis combined with no experience or authority.

Class jealosy is a modern perception, in GF's time it was an excepted and efficient relationship.

Roop

Edited 10 December , 2005 by KONDOA

[truthergw]

In reality it differs little from the modern day management/employment structure except for the lack of live ammunition. Those that have the education, drive, ability and experience will find themselves in a position of authority.

There is little to do with class except that the more educated would naturally find themselves in better positions. I certainly would not have wanted my GF in charge, the war would still be going on!!

Many of the lads that formed the army were only just literate and numerate, so how do you manage an army on that basis combined with no experience or authority.

Class jealosy is a modern perception, in GF's time it was an excepted and efficient relationship.

Roop

I do not envy you your place of employment, seems a bit stressful to me. What if a class were denied the access to education ? The rejection of the then current class structure is signalled by the formation of the Labour Party and the Independent Labour Party in Britain with socialist protests across Europe culminating in the Russian Revolution. I think that this demonstrates a fair level of what you describe as class jealousy.

[KONDOA]

Tom,

In Britain the main movement towards a Labour party occurred post war, and with reason. By this time perceptions had changed and the returning troops were given a raw deal given they had the promise of a "Land fit for Heroes".

In any work environment there are categories of management and supervision , just as the army had. You perhaps feel I work in a repressive situation, I dont. But the structure is still there except filled by the right folks for the right job. That is the similarity that exist between then and now.

I am not aware that any class was denied education. Admitedly richer families could buy a better education as happens today. Universal schooling came into existence in the 1850's ish and thus most people had some education, insufficient in my view to run an army.

Roop

Edited 11 December , 2005 by KONDOA

[truthergw]

Tom,

In Britain the main movement towards a Labour party occurred post war, and with reason. By this time perceptions had changed and the returning troops were given a raw deal given they had the promise of a "Land fit for Heroes".

In any work environment there are categories of management and supervision , just as the army had. You perhaps feel I work in a repressive situation, I dont. But the structure is still there except filled by the right folks for the right job. That is the similarity that exist between then and now.

I am not aware that any class was denied education. Admitedly richer families could buy a better education as happens today. Universal schooling came into existence in the 1850's ish and thus most people had some education, insufficient in my view to run an army.

Personally I run my squad along army lines.

Roop

Keir Hardie was elected to the House of Commons as an independant Labour candidate in 1892. One of the points I was trying to make was that while the NCOs were promoted on ability, the Commissioned Officers' promotion depended on factors other than pure ability. This is unlike your organisation where every supervisor is in exactly the right job to suit his/her ability. Working class children were subjected to a de facto denial of education because poor wages required them to leave school as soon as possible and make a contribution to the family income. In the years prior to the Great War, my father left school at 14 having worked part-time for two years before this. In theory he could have stayed at school until he had attained enough qualifications to go on to university, there was no law against it. In fact, he was the eldest of six children. His father( conscripted 1916) was a carter.

[Steven Broomfield]

Couple of points - harking back a way on the thread, it became increasingly common for officers to wear "Tommie's Jackets" and "plus fours", rather than the more obvious officers' uniform, but casualties were still high, because it is, as has been said, the job of an officer to lead, direct and therefore make himself obvious.

Secondly, don't be so sure about illiteracy in the 1914-18 army. To begin, the New Armies deliberatley targetted the educated classes - the Pals Battalions were frequently designed to exclude the riff raff; as for the territorials, well we all know about the battalions who recruited only on a selected basis and who charged a membership fee. The lower classes, too, at that time were far from undecuated: socialism was 'rife' (I can't think of an alternative...sorry) and part of it's fundamental thesis was educating the working classes. Night schools joined day schools as routes to education and self-advancement, so don't assume the men joing up were dolts.

Maybe the Australian official history is apt: Vol 6 hasn excellent description of the men of the time: promotion from OR to commissioned rank was the norm, and as Bean says, this year's sergeant was next year's lieutenant. Lok at the number of MM's and DCM' on the chests of British officers by that stage and you will see that promotion in the british Army, too, was very much by merit - at least at the end of the war.

So, my answer to the questioner would be that it may appear silly to 'kill off' your junior leaders, but for all sorts of reasons, I can't see how (in the context of trench warfare) woul could do it differenty.

[Steve Bramley]

'In any work environment there are categories of management and supervision , just as the army had. You perhaps feel I work in a repressive situation, I dont. But the structure is still there except filled by the right folks for the right job. That is the similarity that exist between then and now.'

Wow, Roop,

I don't live too far from you, any chance of a job at your place please...or are you self employed?

S.

Edited 11 December , 2005 by Steve Bramley

[AGWR]

Extract from NOTES FROM FUTURE OPERATIONS issued on 21st July 1916 by Brig-Gen AC Daly commanding 6th Inf. Bde;

"The very large number of Officer casualties which occur is apt to seriously prejudice success. It is without doubt that many of these casualties are avoidable. Battalions should go into action with the smallest number of officers - 3 a company should suffice to start with - the remaining Officers and a proportion of NCOs to be held in reserve.

Officer must NOt take UNNECESSARY risks. It is a very glorious thing to die for one's country, but much more useful to live for it, and it is the duty of every officer, whilst playing his part to the utmost, to avoid becoming a casualty.

The British soldier thoroughly appreciates the fact that his Officers are prepared to be killed first and it is not, at this stage of the war, desirable for an officer to go out of his way to give further proof of it.

Certain occasions, of course, arise when the officers must sacrifice themselves but, at other times, they should endeavour to control and handle their men for as long as possible without doing anything foolhardy.

The men are well aware of their officers' courage and depend on them.

Early casualties in officers mean more casualties in other ranks as 'sheep without a shepherd' "

Regards,

AGWR

[PhilB]

3 officers per company sounds reasonable to me. That means 12 per battalion, presumably. On 1/7/16, 2 Berks had 27 officer casualties, 10 W Yorks 22, 1 Newf 26 & 16 Midd 32 for example, so possibly that day was a watershed in subaltern casualties? Phil B

[truthergw]

Couple of points - harking back a way on the thread, it became increasingly common for officers to wear "Tommie's Jackets" and "plus fours", rather than the more obvious officers' uniform, but casualties were still high, because it is, as has been said, the job of an officer to lead, direct and therefore make himself obvious.

Secondly, don't be so sure about illiteracy in the 1914-18 army. To begin, the New Armies deliberatley targetted the educated classes - the Pals Battalions were frequently designed to exclude the riff raff; as for the territorials, well we all know about the battalions who recruited only on a selected basis and who charged a membership fee. The lower classes, too, at that time were far from undecuated: socialism was 'rife' (I can't think of an alternative...sorry) and part of it's fundamental thesis was educating the working classes. Night schools joined day schools as routes to education and self-advancement, so don't assume the men joing up were dolts.

Maybe the Australian official history is apt: Vol 6 hasn excellent description of the men of the time: promotion from OR to commissioned rank was the norm, and as Bean says, this year's sergeant was next year's lieutenant. Lok at the number of MM's and DCM' on the chests of British officers by that stage and you will see that promotion in the british Army, too, was very much by merit - at least at the end of the war.

So, my answer to the questioner would be that it may appear silly to 'kill off' your junior leaders, but for all sorts of reasons, I can't see how (in the context of trench warfare) woul could do it differenty.

The Australian forces were famous( infamous?) for their informality and the closer relationship between OR and Officer. This was a trait they shared with the American forces. The average British officer was appalled at the informality which they thought would lead to a lack of discipline. By the end of the war, the army in the field had been forced to change by casualties. Men were promoted from the ranks because there were not enough Public School and University men available. There was little change in attitude at the higher levels, most of whom were survivors from before the war. Follow regimental histories of the Post War and early twenties period and see the strenuous efforts to revert to the prewar status quo. The average working class recruit was not illiterate, an industrial nation requires its labourers to have a modicum of education. They were not, however, educated with a view to going on to university. The public school boys were. You did not have to have a rule saying that working class could not be officers, all you had to do was recruit from the universities.

This would do the trick nicely. Any working class boy who defied the odds to become a senior officer could be displayed as a shining example to all the others of what could be accomplished by hard work and application.

" Wullie " Robertson springs to mind.

[Clive Maier]

... Many of the lads that formed the army were only just literate and numerate, ...

I doubt this. The Great War is not ancient history. Those who fought it are only one generation removed for many of us. My father left school at 14. I left at 16; not such a vast difference.

Forster’s education act of 1870 effectively put a primary school in every community. That was 44 years before the war started. It had been in place for 25 to 30 years when most of the combatants started school. Education to the age of ten was compulsory from 1880 and free from 1891. In 1899, the leaving age was raised to 12. In 1902, Balfour’s education act provided for secondary schools and by 1907 a scholarship scheme gave the children of the poor at least an outside chance of secondary education. There was also a strong Victorian self-help tradition among working people. The Mechanics Institutes movement started in the 1820s and public libraries in the 1850s. The Workers Educational Association dates from 1903. For the Great War generation, elementary education emphasised the fundamentals of reading, writing, spelling and arithmetic. Anyone researching in local newspapers will be struck by the simple but articulate style of letters and accounts from rankers. In spelling, grammar and handwriting, most compare well enough with anything you might see today.

[gporta]

Bob Lembke started an interesting thread not long ago: it dealt with command within the German army and from it, I gather that the German policies were in that sense quite different from those in the British army, as it is evident that a man (regardless of his education and class origins) could be appointed to lead other soldiers as far as his superiors considered that he was suited for the job.

Gloria