GUARDS

[Greg Bloomfield]

Although considered an elite in 1914, how did thier operational record compare with the line regiments during the initial stages of the war. Then, with the onset of trench warfare and the influx of the volunteers and conscripts, were they still considered a cut above or was this perceved elitism diluted to a degree where thier units were seen as just another infantry battalion?

Surely they weren't as good as the Mighty Norfolks!

Greg

[lionboxer]

Although considered an elite in 1914, how did thier operational record compare with the line regiments during the initial stages of the war. Then, with the onset of trench warfare and the influx of the volunteers and conscripts, were they still considered a cut above or was this perceved elitism diluted to a degree where thier units were seen as just another infantry battalion?

Surely they weren't as good as the Mighty Norfolks!

Greg

Was ANY regiment as good as the Norfolks?!!! (That should stir things up)

Lionboxer

[Owen D]

My old mate Horace Calvert (4GG & 2GG) said,

"People made out we were supermen but we were just ordinary blokes."

I'd say a well run, disciplined unit of Line Infantry would be as good as any Guards unit.

[truthergw]

Although considered an elite in 1914, how did thier operational record compare with the line regiments during the initial stages of the war. Then, with the onset of trench warfare and the influx of the volunteers and conscripts, were they still considered a cut above or was this perceved elitism diluted to a degree where thier units were seen as just another infantry battalion?

Surely they weren't as good as the Mighty Norfolks!

Greg

Guardsmen would of course be convinced that their unit was the best, as did every other soldier. I think that the elitism here is not the normal pride in one's regiment. This was a class thing and was rife among the officers. There was a perceived ' pecking order' from Household Cavalry through the other cavalry units then the Guards and through the infantry. This partly reflects the OOB. An officer in the Guards would have very high expenses and would require a substantial private income to maintain himself. Snobbery and jobbing would also play a part in the granting of commissions. That said, certain aristocratic families had strong connections with other regiments, usually their local units. The Bowes-Lyons ( The late Queen Mother's family) of Forfarshire, as it then was, served in the Black Watch.

[BeppoSapone]

Guardsmen would of course be convinced that their unit was the best, as did every other soldier. I think that the elitism here is not the normal pride in one's regiment. This was a class thing and was rife among the officers. There was a perceived ' pecking order' from Household Cavalry through the other cavalry units then the Guards and through the infantry.

I believe that I have read in "The Recollections of Rifleman Bowlby" that the Guards were able to return soldiers to a depot if they were felt not to be 'up to' front line service. If this was the case in Italy in 1944 I wonder if it also holds true for WW1?

The point being that the Rifles, and Line Infantry, had to 'make do' with anyone who was sent to them. If the Guards did have the luxury of rejecting 'sad sack' soldiers it might explain why they were thought of as being 'crack' troops. However, were they anything special in reality?

[Jerrymurland]

were they still considered a cut above or was this perceved elitism diluted to a degree

There were without doubt some units, regiments and even divisions whose performance in battle was better than others. The 51st Highland Division being an example. It was certainly the case that Australian and New Zealand forces were regarded as 'storm troopers' and often these divisions were used to push through where others had failed before them. Pozieres being a classic example of Australian determinism - if there is such a term. However there a plenty of examples of units who under attack rose to the occasion and fought like tigers in the face of overwhelming odds - the German counter attack in 1918 produced many examples of this - some units fighting to the last man. So in a roundabout way I suppose I am suggesting that every unit had the potential to to be a cut above the others and given the right circumstances, often were.

Jerry

[BeppoSapone]

Jerry

It is all spin.

When you speak of the 51st Highland Division in WW2 you are probably thinking of the 9th Scottish Division which was re-named when the "genuine" 51st Highland Division was captured at of St Valéry-en-Caux in 1940.

As for "elan" - men and formations only have so much. I believe that 7th Armoured Division did not have the "push" that was expected of it in Normandy and so on.

[Jerrymurland]

Confess to being confused here......I was referring to the Great War and the 51st Highland Divison's role during 1914-1918. As for some units not having the push that others have or had, this is often down to leadership, confidence and training.

Jerry

[BeppoSapone]

Confess to being confused here......I was referring to the Great War and the 51st Highland Divison's role during 1914-1918. As for some units not having the push that others have or had, this is often down to leadership, confidence and training.

Jerry

Sorry Jerry. I had not realised we were speaking solely of WW1 in this thread.

Re: some units not having "the push" I think that you can add "experience" to your equation. Once you have seen enough Shermans "brew up" you are more aware of what an 88 can do.

[Jerrymurland]

Yes I agree, experience is a factor, although I recall my first time under fire in the Radfan and we had no previous experience, we relied on training, good platoon and company leadership and the fact that the red beret was bullet proof - or that's what they told us anyway!!

Jerry

[Greg Bloomfield]

Sorry to correct you Jerry but I think you're a tad confused, possibly too many heavy landings. The red beret (God bless all who wear/wore one), is only proof against a slow ricochet.

As everybody knows, it's the green beret that's bullet proof.

Greg

[Derek Robertson]

Read any account of the Falklands War and you'll find few ringing endorsements of the Guards being an elite force.

And I haven't read many Great War accounts which give the Guards superhuman qualities.

[Jerrymurland]

And I always was led to believe the Green Beret was worn by girl guides ..........................

Jerry

[PhilB]

That said, certain aristocratic families had strong connections with other regiments, usually their local units. The Bowes-Lyons ( The late Queen Mother's family) of Forfarshire, as it then was, served in the Black Watch.

To be more accurate, they had strong connections with the officer side of the regiment. I doubt that their strong connection would have seen them serving as ORs in the family regiment. The affinity would soon have shifted elsewhere! Phil B

PS Cornwell says that the Grenadier Guards took their title from the Imperial Guard Grenadiers they defeated at Waterloo, but then suggests it wasn`t actually that regiment but the Chasseurs du Garde that they defeated! So their title should really be Chasseur Guards!

[Greg Bloomfield]

Ouch Jerry!! Can someone send a saucer of milk to Coventry please.

So would it be fair to say that the Guards were more of a social elite than a military one? Also, could some of this elitist myth come from the fact that drill was such an important part of military training in those days and they placed rather more of an emphasis on this than most and were therefore deemed better than the average because of it? They were the public face of the army outside Royal residences while nobody saw the 'other' army fighting around the globe and gaining actual soldiering experience.

Is this fair comment?

Greg

[edwin astill]

Quote form the diary of Alexander Johnston (Worcsestershire Regt.):

"We marched through Ypres and Vlamertinghe to Westoutre, what a march! one got some idea of how exhausted the men were, one saw men of all regiments all over the place "done to the world", never a formed body properly together anywhere until I came on some 80 men of the Coldstreams, splendid fellows, what a fine example! and they had a harder time than anybody - truly there are no infantry like the British Foot Guards…

Edwin Astill

[truthergw]

To be more accurate, they had strong connections with the officer side of the regiment. I doubt that their strong connection would have seen them serving as ORs in the family regiment. The affinity would soon have shifted elsewhere! Phil B

PS Cornwell says that the Grenadier Guards took their title from the Imperial Guard Grenadiers they defeated at Waterloo, but then suggests it wasn`t actually that regiment but the Chasseurs du Garde that they defeated! So their title should really be Chasseur Guards!

Phil, You are right of course. Most of the families I was referring to would have served as officers. That is sometimes due to the fact that, historically, one of their ancestors founded the regiment.It was not unknown for younger members of the minor aristocracy to enlist into the ranks but most of them were fairly quickly selected for officer training. Their public school education would have encouraged that anyway.

[De Petrowski Alexander]

To be more accurate, they had strong connections with the officer side of the regiment. I doubt that their strong connection would have seen them serving as ORs in the family regiment. The affinity would soon have shifted elsewhere! Phil B

PS Cornwell says that the Grenadier Guards took their title from the Imperial Guard Grenadiers they defeated at Waterloo, but then suggests it wasn`t actually that regiment but the Chasseurs du Garde that they defeated! So their title should really be Chasseur Guards!

I must admit to the fact that Grenadier Guards sounds better than Chasseur Guards, the word Grenadier as spoken in English sounds exactly the same as in my own Dutch, but when spoken in French it has a entirely different sound. Chasseurs was probably deemed a too French sounding word to be copied by the Guards.

[squirrel]

The French regiment in question were Chasseurs de la Garde.

[Desmond7]

I climbed Tumbledown and no-one was shooting at me. I take Mr. Robertson to task .. tsk tsk etc.

Taking the heights of Tumbledown is vastly underestimated .. I'll give the SG's big credit for that performance against very determined opposition.

On WW1 front - someone said earlier about units 'fighting to the last man in March 1918' .... sorry ... never happened. War diary/official history versions of March 21 1918 and reality are not even in the same historical universe.

Personally I reckon 1st and 2nd R Ir Rifles were as handy in a scrap as any Guards mob. He said .. parochially!

[Guest tafski]

[.

Taking the heights of Tumbledown is vastly underestimated .. I'll give the SG's big credit for that performance against very determined opposition.

cheers fer that des

bruce ex jock guards

out before the falks started

[Coldstreamer]

Hello

depends on what you mean by crack

The CG had 20 000 men join them during the war. Does that make them a good choice to join? One would need to know how many didnt get accepted. I do know that very few seemed to leave for another regiment or did those that leave do so becuase of wounds or particular skills - I feel the later. Stands to reason a miner is better being a miner than a "soldier"

I believe that the CG featured quite highly in the ratio of gallanty medal winners awared per man during the war

But Im going to be biased in favour of saying yes they where elite - how could I not. Wont mention the 769 men taken prisoner of war

Ian

[Greg Bloomfield]

Hi Ian

Wondered when you might join this thread. Of the 20000 who passed through the CG, what percentage of them would have volunteered for that particular regiment and how many would have simply been put there?

And getting back to the original question, how did their performance compare with the Line regiments, say, from Mons to the Marne?

This isn't a 'Knock the Guards' thread but I'm genuinely curious as to the comparitive performances.

Greg

[ianw]

I seem to recall a fair number of contemporary references to the cleanliness and efficiency of Guards units in the bad conditions of the Western Front.

As for judging a units performance by the number of awards, it was a point of pride among some elite units to turn down offers of decorations, maintaining that they had only done what they were paid to do. They looked down their noses at gongs coming up with the rations and left them for the amateurs.

Might they have also been spared from some attacks and undignified labouring by dint of their seniority?

[Muerrisch]

We are, of course, into generalisations. I will stick to the Great War. The Guards reservists were three and nine years men, so their reservists, though younger, were less thoroughly 'old soldiers' compared with the line. The Guards had no other reserve, unlike the line. So the Guards had an earlier and greater need than most, and had an early pick.

Secondly, they were taller than the line: which gives one an edge as long as the trench is deep enough.

Thirdly, the discipline was of the iron variety ..... see Kipling's 2-part History of the Irish Guards, or consider this:

At age 18 he attested as Private 16167 with 2nd Grenadier Guards on 2 November 1912, by then a carpenter and joiner residing in St George's parish, London and 5 feet 9 inches tall, weight 119 lbs, 36 ½ inch chest, sallow complexion, brown eyes and light brown hair. His initial engagement was for three years with the colours and nine on the reserve. Clarence Jones clearly meant to make a success of his new career, and passed the 3rd class army education certificate 24 January 1913, and the second 7 March 1913. In September he extended his colours service to seven years, at which date, 9 September, he was appointed paid Lance Corporal. He went as a Lance Corporal to France with his battalion on 12 August 1914 and was promoted to Corporal on 7 September. He was slightly wounded near Bethune on Boxing Day, 26 December 1914 but remained at duty. He was made Lance Sergeant 12 April and acting Sergeant on 19 July 1915, but fell from grace in 1916 when he appears to have got above himself as the saying goes, after a Mention in Despatches came through in the New Year Honours, 1 January 1916. His regimental conduct sheet shows that he was given a severe reprimand for neglect of duty for, as platoon sergeant, not supervising working parties and being in a dugout contrary to orders; on 2 April 1916 severe reprimand for improper conduct as an NCO in writing a letter containing insubordinate expressions; 14 April reduced to the ranks for six military crimes:

· having a fire in his dugout about 3.30PM contrary to orders

· hesitating to obey an order by his platoon sergeant

· 30 minutes late in falling in with his working party

· quitting work and dismissing a working party without leave

· having a fire at 1.30AM showing smoke and light

· making an insubordinate remark to his platoon sergeant.

The Brigadier commanding his Guards brigade confirmed the sentence. Clarence appears to have been moved immediately to 4GG and promoted Lance Corporal 20 May 1916. He was wounded in the left arm on 25 September but remained at duty. He was awarded a Military Medal in the LG of 10 October and around this time applied for a commission. He commanding officer wrote that No! he would not accept Jones in 4GG as an officer as it would be unfair to NCOs senior to him. He added that Jones was a first class man who would be OK for an officer after a short period of training. Clarence Jones was sent home on 23 June 1917, ending a long period on the Western Front. By now, his father has risen through RSM to Lieutenant, and was later to become a Captain.

Commissioned on 29 August 1917, he was sent to 2nd RWF some time before 2 January 1918. On 13 March 1918 TWTIK recalls:

'.. a party of fully 20 Germans attacked two of D companys posts. Clarence Jones was on duty. He got very excited, as usual, but he did the right thing took charge of the Lewis gun. The attackers bolted, except for one man who ... was collared by Jones... and ... the numbers of Jones's slain grew with each telling .. one day chaff about the slain warmed to abuse, followed by a scrap between Jones and another subaltern during which the side was knocked out of the hut, and the scrap was continued among the debris to the amazement of D company's braves'.

Of another occasion TWTIK says that Jones did extraordinarily well, his fearlessness was an inspiration to everyone. TWTIK sees him in his last action on 1 September 1918. 'FLC was close to me. He said 'Here's my chance, I'm after that VC'. With a shout to his men he was off, making for a machine gun straight to his front. He got 20 yards, and went down shot through the head'.

He gained the Military Cross, gazetted, after his death, on LG 15 October 1918:

'For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty during a raid, when he led the second wave of his company to the objective. Finding that the first wave was being held up, he led a party round the flank and bombed the enemy out, thus enabling the advance to continue. He then bombed dugouts and caused the enemy many casualties. Finally, he searched the ground for wounded, and was one of the last to leave the vicinity'.

FLC Jones wrote more than a few Wills, all on his file. He gave his next of kin as his father, and mentioned his fiancée, Miss VA Webb. As far as Army Accounts were concerned this authentic war hero died virtually penniless. He is buried in Sailly Saillisel British cemetery.

Only one example but demonstrates the discipline exerted.

We can only generalise, but the death tolls of the Guards Division say more than I can of their hard and costly war.