PhilB Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 Can we surmise anything about an officer by noting what job he was given? Would a CO give a particular set of jobs to officers he didn`t rate highly? Transport, MGs, Signals etc - were some thought more highly of than others or were they all of the same status? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doogal Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 Can we surmise anything about an officer by noting what job he was given? Would a CO give a particular set of jobs to officers he didn`t rate highly? Transport, MGs, Signals etc - were some thought more highly of than others or were they all of the same status? Phil B probably, but it also brings to mind comments I've read that indicate that unwanted/useless/unpopular servicemen often found themselves attached to TMB's - I have no proof of this, just on forum snippets I've read here and there. regards doogal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Godden Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 I believe it was also rotated amongst the subalterns. They were considered as duff jobs so nobody ever really wanted to do them. Althought, I suspect what you suggest may also have been the case, in that an officer not quite up to par would have been told off to such a duty. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 Can we surmise anything about an officer by noting what job he was given? Would a CO give a particular set of jobs to officers he didn`t rate highly? Transport, MGs, Signals etc - were some thought more highly of than others or were they all of the same status? Phil B Might be hard to pin this down to any real extent. A lot would depend on what the CO considered a duff job. A CO might think that a hard job required his best officer while another might see it as the officers' equivalent of fatigues and award it to the guy who upset him. The one thing I can say from experience is that expertise was never high up the list of desirable attributes at any rank when giving people jobs. Apart, that is, from barbers. They always seemed to end up cutting hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 Transport was normally given to a fairly experienced officer;not a job to give to a duffer as you relied on the section for your resupply of food, water, rations and ammo. Furthermore the transport men were also old timers and needed either a light touch or a large kick to keep in line Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 No CO in his right mind would give specialist jobs to the least able officers: best place for them is with the platoons under the eye of a Captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Coulson Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 Machine Gun and Signalling officers were normally sent on a course of instruction before taking up their duties, not jobs that were handed out randomly. Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 9 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 9 February , 2006 But the CO would have to choose which man to send on the courses, as he would for the TMBs. Are we saying, then, that it was a mark of esteem to be picked for any specialist post? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papineau Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 No CO in his right mind would give specialist jobs to the least able officers: best place for them is with the platoons under the eye of a Captain. I would agree. Where does this idea that TMB personnel were duff come from? The skill and ability needed to be a member of this unit mean that only high grade personnel were used - especially amongst the officers. Brigade level TMBs were highly efficient units, which provided a vital role on the battlefield. Such units cannot operate with poor personnel, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 9 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 9 February , 2006 I think the idea of duff TMB officers comes from the assumption (how true, I don`t know) that a CO, asked to give up a subaltern for TMs, is going to give up the most expendable. Unless the TMs were able to specify which one to give up - which seems unlikely? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 9 February , 2006 Share Posted 9 February , 2006 I had not heard that Trench mortars were seen as a place for "block-heads"; given the importance of their role in providing intimate fire support to a unit/brigade I would have though that the opposite should have been the case. They could be a battle winning weapon - 750 rounds in 15 minutes was the vital element which enable High Wood to be taken on 15th Sep 1916. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 10 February , 2006 Share Posted 10 February , 2006 I think we need to look at the specialist platoons within a Battalion and recognise the importance they all have within the Battalion plan. The Signals, Machine Gun, Transport, trench mortar etc were all normally given to experienced Platoon Commanders-granted 2 weeks in those days was termed experienced! I don't think a CO would give idiots key appointments like this maybe he would look closely at abilities and charactarists of his young officers the TM Platoon might need a hot headed officer where as signals and transport needed strategic planners and administrators not neccesary Platoon Commander skills (Platoon Sgt Carry on!) If a duffer was required for a key role in the trenches he would be made silver member, or head of recreation at the R&R venue. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 10 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 10 February , 2006 --> QUOTE(Rob B @ Feb 10 2006, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If a duffer was required for a key role in the trenches he would be made silver member, or head of recreation at the R&R venue. Rob But if a CO couldn`t get rid of a duckegg, where is he likely to have put him - as platoon commander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 10 February , 2006 Share Posted 10 February , 2006 Richard Holmes in 'Tommy' makes the point that trench-mortar companies were 'often composed of men a sergeant-major was happiest to lose'. This seems plausible to me, but I would not imagine that duff officers were posted to these units for the reasons cited above. Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 10 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 10 February , 2006 I would not imagine that duff officers were posted to these units for the reasons cited above. Regards, AGWR What do you think the reasons might have been? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 10 February , 2006 Share Posted 10 February , 2006 I would say keep him as a Platoon Commander give him a very good Platoon Sgt and keep him closely supervised certainly don't give him a specialised platoon. If all else fails put him on a one man standing patrol forward of the trenchline shortly before the Battalion withdraws it always works! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 10 February , 2006 Share Posted 10 February , 2006 What do you think the reasons might have been? Phil B Basically, I was referring to the posts of LB and others earlier in the thread. Specialist roles would require extremely able officers. After a few months in France, the CO of the 17 th Middlesex was less than impressed with a couple of his officers. He didn't offload them into specialist units. He arranged for them to be sent home! Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 10 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 10 February , 2006 After a few months in France, the CO of the 17 th Middlesex was less than impressed with a couple of his officers. He didn't offload them into specialist units. He arranged for them to be sent home! Regards, AGWR One wonders what happened to the duffers sent home as useless! Recruiting? Training? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 10 February , 2006 Share Posted 10 February , 2006 The other option was a posting to a staff headquarters somewhere in one of the Colonies where the flak wasn't flying or yes Home service in recruitment, training or looking after brass salvage. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin astill Posted 10 February , 2006 Share Posted 10 February , 2006 Whilst looking at these responses had the Johnston (then CO 10/Cheshires) Diary open at the entry for 3 May 1917: "Had to take Meneer to be seen by the Brigadier in the evening - an unpleasant interview but he is undoubtedly not fit to be an officer." I wonder what happened to him! Edwin Astill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 10 February , 2006 Share Posted 10 February , 2006 A Standing patrol in no mans land, or more likely a rail ticket back to the Regimental Depot pending posting! Not the end of a good war! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.29d4195f801e5a5004f52840449366a7.jpg)
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