GUARDS

[Coldstreamer]

Hello

well the CG had a Pioneer Btn - the 4th (for those who didnt know)

The Regiment did get spared the Somme in July but the fighting in September was still a terrible time

Ian

[Neil Mackenzie]

I am sure I read somewhere that the Germans did rate the Guards very highly - even above the ANZACS - but of course I cannot remember the reference.

Neil

[Coldstreamer]

Hello

The Guards didnt have any territorial soldiers so where all (or had been before the war started) full time soldiers for a profession at some point - now that would mean they would have received more training so one would expect to be better shots and quicker at loading etc. Prcatice makes perfect

Now this doesnt mean the TA where or are worse soldiers - dont want to offend any one so thought Id add that

Ian

[Greg Bloomfield]

But surely the same could be said of any of the County regiments in 14-early 15. They all had to be made up to strength with reservists and according to some accounts the BEF couldn't have gone to war without them. Although they did have a TF backup those troops did not reinforce their respective regular battalions.

Greg

[BeppoSapone]

I am sure I read somewhere that the Germans did rate the Guards very highly - even above the ANZACS - but of course I cannot remember the reference.

Neil

"Brigade of Guards Quarterly"?

[Muerrisch]

Hello

The Guards didnt have any territorial soldiers so where all (or had been before the war started) full time soldiers for a profession at some point - now that would mean they would have received more training so one would expect to be better shots and quicker at loading etc. Prcatice makes perfect

Now this doesnt mean the TA where or are worse soldiers - dont want to offend any one so thought Id add that

Ian

With respect, that is to misunderstand the role of the TF, which was never ever designed to reinforce the Guards or the line, but to defend the Homeland. I accept that the TF was pressed into service early in the war, but always as formed and notionally volunteer bodies.

The Reserve for the Guards and Line comprised the Regular Reserve [itself in three separate categories], all soldiers who were retained on half pay for use as drafts. The Line had, in addition, the Special Reserve. The Guards were NOT better trained than the line: far from it, as they were three year men unless they signed on for more. The line was comprised of seven year men, who had, perforce, gone through the annual training cycle, after their initial training, at least five times. Why the reserve for the Guards was not better organised, I know not.

[PhilB]

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

I wonder about this one, G. IIRC, the strongest men tended not to be the tallest. I can see disadvantages to being tall but what do you reckon the advantages were? Phil B

[Muerrisch]

Intimidation!

Oh, and seeing sport from the terraces.

And all your vital bits are more separated from your other vital bits.

[PhilB]

Which do you reckon the German sniper or machine gunner would prefer - the Guardsman or the Bantam?

[Muerrisch]

a Guardsman in a Bantam's trench!

[yellow]

Why were the Guards the best British infantry regiments:

1. Many of the officers graduated in the top of their class. All the best officers joined the Guards. Perhaps later on in the war it was a regiment for rich families with connections but if you couldnt cut the mustard as a guards officer they would send you to another unit.

2. Guards officers were generally the best educated officers of the British Army. High intelligence doesnt make you a good leader but it sure helps to create plans and act quickly and come up with a solution in difficult circumstances.

3. Six Footers. The majority of Guardsmen were over 6 foot tall. Theres nothing more intimidating than having a small army of 6 footers with bayonets fixed charging upon your position. There is a 'fear' factor.

4. Much higher discipline than most other infantry regiments. Unlike TA men whos training certainly had a lot to be desired the Guards as they do today were subject to high discipline........they developed a mind set that could not be broken under pressure. They would not break and run. When I spoke to a TA veteran of WW1 he stated that the Guards kept the bull up in the trenches whilst his Battalion was walking around like tramps.

I agree that the Guards were the BEST units fielded in 1914.........they cut the Germans to ribbons the majority having experience fighting in South Africa. As the war progressed the regiment were diluted with replacements but that strict discipline was still there that resides with the Guards even today.

My friend from Newark was a Coldstream Guardsman in the first Gulf War.......he is now a member of the Logistics Corps TA............he tells me there is no comparison between the two..............the logistics corps being like spending a weekend at Butlins in comparison to the Coldstreams.

Steve.

[Muerrisch]

Why were the Guards the best British infantry regiments:

1. Many of the officers graduated in the top of their class. All the best officers joined the Guards. Perhaps later on in the war it was a regiment for rich families with connections but if you couldnt cut the mustard as a guards officer they would send you to another unit.

2. Guards officers were generally the best educated officers of the British Army. High intelligence doesnt make you a good leader but it sure helps to create plans and act quickly and come up with a solution in difficult circumstances.

3. Six Footers. The majority of Guardsmen were over 6 foot tall. Theres nothing more intimidating than having a small army of 6 footers with bayonets fixed charging upon your position. There is a 'fear' factor.

4. Much higher discipline than most other infantry regiments. Unlike TA men whos training certainly had a lot to be desired the Guards as they do today were subject to high discipline........they developed a mind set that could not be broken under pressure. They would not break and run. When I spoke to a TA veteran of WW1 he stated that the Guards kept the bull up in the trenches whilst his Battalion was walking around like tramps.

I agree that the Guards were the BEST units fielded in 1914.........they cut the Germans to ribbons the majority having experience fighting in South Africa. As the war progressed the regiment were diluted with replacements but that strict discipline was still there that resides with the Guards even today.

My friend from Newark was a Coldstream Guardsman in the first Gulf War.......he is now a member of the Logistics Corps TA............he tells me there is no comparison between the two..............the logistics corps being like spending a weekend at Butlins in comparison to the Coldstreams.

Steve.

Sorry, I must query some of these confident statements

1. any evidence?

2. any evidence?

3. Other than King's Company, simply not true ..... see the recruiting criteria for height for Guards over previous ten years or so.

4. The comparison with TA is scarcely valid. A more meaningful comparison would be with a crack line regiment [alhough truth to tell, battalions varied withing regiments, obviously]

5. Guards experience in SA would be limited to men who had served 15 years or so ..... these would mostly be NCOs. Even the normal Guards enlistment of 3 [colours] and 9 [reserve] years would not bring back SA war men.

I am, as ever, willing to be converted and educated by hard evidence.

[yellow]

Very confident statements indeed, because I am going to be incredibly arrogant and say I'm right about this because all you had to do was mention 'The Guards' back in the 70's to ANY British WW1 infantry veteran and they would tell you how they were held in such INCREDIBLE high regard by everyone. If you can get in touch with any living veterans today who served in the infantry just ask them.......and please come back here and post the reply.......it would save me a lot of time!

Yes I am sounding like a smug git!!!!!

In regards to the officers my facts are based upon researching the individual officers and examining the papers at the TNA, very often in the correspondence files previous education is stated and from there we are able to contact their previous educational establishments. Many cases reveal education at Eaton and the top universities such as Oxford or Cambridge. There are also many bios of the officers in the regimental histories detailing education........intelligence are not areas in which these officers lacked in. There are also many bios featured in The Times making reference to officers killed and their previous education.

The 6 Foot criteria may not of been written but it was preferred. The photos which I have collected over the years from books and post "cards suggest tall men. Even men of the Guards Machine Guns were tall! So your evidence there is the photographic records.

A better comparison would be a crack regiment, and who would you suggest? The South Wales Borderers or the Lincolns? Please I dont think that point is even worth conversation........yet again sorry for being arrogant about it. Yes its is shame so many veterans are gone but if veterans were around to question they would also suggest this as a lubricious point of conversation. Your right about the TA or Territorial force........there is no comparison at all!

You will find that many of the 1914 Guardsmen did have prior service in South Africa. Evidence based upon cross referencing the South Africa medal roll with the medal index cards. You say the Guards would not qualify for service in SA and WW1, well I have taken note of the medal groups (QSA and 14 Star combo) not just to the Guards but other regiments too and evidence does not suggest your statement is correct. Promotion in the guards was extremely difficult and the Guards NCO's were well chosen men? To become even a sergeant was something of a small miracle.......and really nothing new in any other unit!

What I have written above is in my opinion patronising......I know you have been to the TNA on many occassions and viewed the Coldstream records...........my evidence is based on first hand evidence and accounts recorded by the veterans. Written records which were on the most part completed by Regimental Clerks doesnt hold the answer to every question concerning the First War.

What you need to do is get a bit of Kipling into you.........and I`m not talking about the cakes!

Steve.

P.S. I have a question for you...........

"5. Guards experience in SA would be limited to men who had served 15 years or so ..... these would mostly be NCOs. Even the normal Guards enlistment of 3 [colours] and 9 [reserve] years would not bring back SA war men."

From what year did the Guerilla War in South Africa begin and end and also for a bonus point how many mentions do the Guards get in the book "After Pretoria" for taking part in that war?

[Blackblue]

Questions such as whether a particular regiment/battalion was better than another are very difficult to give a definitive answer to, and are relative to a wide variety of factors. Every unit fought under different conditions/circumstances, and none were side by side in every battle. To successfully compare regiments and say one was better is extremely difficult.

Every researcher is always going to push the barrow of his/her own pet regiment. Do people who make such confident statements as Steve base their conclusions on an impartial examination of the facts, or do they have some emotional link to that regiment? Steve....I think what Grumpy is trying to point out is that it is difficult to reach the conclusions you have without some explanation as to how.

1. How were you able to tell that many Guards officers graduated top of their class, and that all the best officers joined the Guards? Do you have any evidence of this, such as nominal rolls with results?

2. Many officers in many regiments had 'good' educations. That they seem to have been largely well educated does not mean that Guards officers were the best...most of the British officer class were drawn from private schooling. Many of the best Australian, Canadian and New Zealand officers of the Great War were stockmen and the like, and started the war as private soldiers. Education at Eton does not = intelligence, or make you a good officer. It is just as easy to say that going to Eton makes someone a donkey. Have you conducted a comparitive assessment of education with other regiments? Or has the conclusion been largely on the fact that many Guards officers you have researched seem to have attended some poncy private school?

3. Largely being over six foot doesn't count for jack. Certainly there may be some instances where you can reach further with a bayonet...but this won't help you when facing barbed wire, enemy dug in to Stage 3, with interlocking Maxims and indirect fire support. The effect of being six foot tall in the Great War would have been largely neglible I would say. Is there any evidence of the enemy saying they were scared of the Guards because they were tall? How can you tell the men in the photo's you have seen were all over six foot?

4. Having high discipline I cannot argue with. This certainly makes a better unit....however spit and polish does not equate to good performance in battle. There were many instances in which all variety of units did not 'break and run'. To come to a logical conclusion here there needs to be a comparison of relative performance. Have you done a comparitive assessment of the Guards to other regiments? Have you found any incidence where the Guards stayed and fought where others broke and ran?

5. Whilst in 1914 many of the Guards had pre-war service I think it would be unlikely there was a greater percentage than other regular army regiments/battalions....unless most of the soldiers were 33 years and older age bracket! Would have made for rather sluggish PT sessions.

And to compare the Guards of the regular army, a large part of whose job is spit and polish and public display, to a bunch of of blokes and gals who drive trucks on the weekend? C'mon get serious....what did your friend expect? Of course there is no comparison in discipline. As Grumpy points out....comparing the Guards to a Royal Logistics TA formation is like comparing a triycle to a double decker bus. Two different reasons for being existence, and two very different roles.

Lets remember the Guards only had regular formations. The regular battalions of most regiments I have read about were also well regarded. The Guards had no TF or Service battalions to dilute the level of training across an entire regiment. If you want to compare Guards to the remainder of the army perhaps you should be comparing say the Coldstream Guards to the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Lancashire Fusiliers for example. I would suggest they would stand up very well.

Anyway Steve....I applaud you for sticking up for what is obviously your pet unit. I have no argument that the Guards were very well regarded in the BEF. But what you have posted here so far is not 'evidence' that the Guards were the best.

Rgds

Tim

[Muerrisch]

I refer to Yellow's post 36 and 38 above, my 37, and blackblue's 39.

I am glad of blackblue's support, and totally unconvinced by Yellow's attempts at answers to my criticisms of his case.

No one disputes that the Guards had a fine record, indeed that is beyond dispute. However, the points you make, and the supposed evidence, is so flimsy as to be inadmissable except as anecdotal, and I remain unpersuaded.

I shall be content if third parties reading this thread in a year's time are similarly dubious of the claims.

[Terry]

Pals will recall that not long ago on the forum someone sent in the German intelligence divisional evaluations for the BEF. The divisions ranked as "outstanding" were: Guards,7,9,29,33,51,56,and 63 British Divisions; all four Canadian divisions; 1,2 Australian, and the New Zealand Division. Not sure just when during the war this was done, although the 4th Canadian Division didn't see action until late in the batle of the Somme (Oct.-Nov.,1916) so it is obviously after that.

[Greg Bloomfield]

Blackblue and Grumpy

With you all the way on this although I could never have reasoned it as articulately as Blackblue. Having been around the military for thirty years I have often wondered how and where certain formations acquired their 'elitist' tag and since getting more of an interest in the Great War through a research project I've wondered how the supposed cream of the day performed when compared to the 'also rans'. Nothing I've read or come across up to now has convinced me that they were anything more than a very good regiment.

My first experience of a Guards battalion (forget which one) was in South Amagh in the eighties when I was shocked to see them parading, as a company, in bearskins rehearsing for a parade later that year in London. That showed me where their emphasis lay.

[Coldstreamer]

Hello grumpy

You are right, i can not say anything to distinguish the TA and TF as neither had relevence to the Cold Gds in the war

More training doesnt mean better..

And a guardsman in a bantams trench would be a funny sight..unless your a german sniper!

Ian

With respect, that is to misunderstand the role of the TF, which was never ever designed to reinforce the Guards or the line, but to defend the Homeland. I accept that the TF was pressed into service early in the war, but always as formed and notionally volunteer bodies.

The Reserve for the Guards and Line comprised the Regular Reserve [itself in three separate categories], all soldiers who were retained on half pay for use as drafts. The Line had, in addition, the Special Reserve. The Guards were NOT better trained than the line: far from it, as they were three year men unless they signed on for more. The line was comprised of seven year men, who had, perforce, gone through the annual training cycle, after their initial training, at least five times. Why the reserve for the Guards was not better organised, I know not.

[yellow]

Everyone keeps on bringing up the word "evidence", but may I ask where is yours to prove I am not correct in my statements? The evidence you have presented is no more circumstantial than my own.

My evidence is based on what the veterans who were there have told me. Who am I to question men who were 'actually there'. I dont believe I am arrogant, I just have a strong belief in the truth of the words of the veterans who have no reason to bend the truth. If you are so crazy about your third party evidence then please present the evidence which proves the guards are not the elite..........I can say for sure that you will find none. No doubt there are actions where by the Guards failed to capture an objective and another regiment succeeded it is a little rich to say as many regimental histories do, that the part played by the Guards was not even significant.

In every regimental history every regiment is portrayed as a hold fast unit who would never break and run. The reality is quite the contrary and it was the Guards who REALLY DID hold fast and capture their objectives and it is for this reason they earned the respect as the elite regiments of the British Army. Those men who were really there knew the true nature of the Guards and it is for this reason that I feel ashamed that anyone would question this. What great British military mind in history has ever suggested the Guards were were not high achievers?

"More training doesnt mean better"...........ha ha ha........this thread is clearly a wind up isnt it? You chaps are really good jokers you actually had me thinking you were serious. If you are serious I would suggest you pick up the book by Richard Holmes concerning The Tommy. Unless of course you think he knows nothing about the Great war.

Steve.

P.S. The size of WW1 Guardsman can be measured proportionally to the standard sized equipment they would carry e.g a rifle..............simple really.

[truthergw]

Everyone keeps on bringing up the word "evidence", but may I ask where is yours to prove I am not correct in my statements? The evidence you have presented is no more circumstantial than my own.

.........................

This really is a very strange post. The whole point of this Forum is to discuss various aspects of the Great War. If a point is being presented as a fact, then it would be normal to provide the evidence for its truth. If the evidence is anecdotal, then it is still evidence but old soldiers do occasionaly gild the lily. I didn't just interview them, I am old enough to have worked alongside them and drink in their social clubs. If a point is being made as a matter of opinion then it should ideally be presented as such. We are each entitled to our opinions and we are all entitled to express them here on the forum as long as the rules are observed. Some opinions we will accept as having more weight than others.

If I met an ex-serviceman who did not think that his own regiment was the best, I should think that either he had had a very unfortunate experience or he was extremely cynical. If one regiment were better than another, there would be no point in having any others. Soldiers would all be recruited into that one regiment and trained to do the same things.

Whether you lot would have been any good in the Black Watch is another question.

[Blackblue]

Pals will recall that not long ago on the forum someone sent in the German intelligence divisional evaluations for the BEF. The divisions ranked as "outstanding" were: Guards,7,9,29,33,51,56,and 63 British Divisions; all four Canadian divisions; 1,2 Australian, and the New Zealand Division. Not sure just when during the war this was done, although the 4th Canadian Division didn't see action until late in the batle of the Somme (Oct.-Nov.,1916) so it is obviously after that.

Now this is evidence. But certainly not that the Guards were the 'best'. There are 14 other divisions here, and who knows how many regiments.

Rgds

Tim D

[lionboxer]

Not first world war but which regiment won the most VC's in the second world war? Certainly not an "elite" Guards regiment.

Lionboxer

[Blackblue]

Everyone keeps on bringing up the word "evidence", but may I ask where is yours to prove I am not correct in my statements? The evidence you have presented is no more circumstantial than my own.

My evidence is based on what the veterans who were there have told me. Who am I to question men who were 'actually there'. I dont believe I am arrogant, I just have a strong belief in the truth of the words of the veterans who have no reason to bend the truth. If you are so crazy about your third party evidence then please present the evidence which proves the guards are not the elite..........I can say for sure that you will find none. No doubt there are actions where by the Guards failed to capture an objective and another regiment succeeded it is a little rich to say as many regimental histories do, that the part played by the Guards was not even significant.

In every regimental history every regiment is portrayed as a hold fast unit who would never break and run. The reality is quite the contrary and it was the Guards who REALLY DID hold fast and capture their objectives and it is for this reason they earned the respect as the elite regiments of the British Army. Those men who were really there knew the true nature of the Guards and it is for this reason that I feel ashamed that anyone would question this. What great British military mind in history has ever suggested the Guards were were not high achievers?

"More training doesnt mean better"...........ha ha ha........this thread is clearly a wind up isnt it? You chaps are really good jokers you actually had me thinking you were serious. If you are serious I would suggest you pick up the book by Richard Holmes concerning The Tommy. Unless of course you think he knows nothing about the Great war.

Steve.

P.S. The size of WW1 Guardsman can be measured proportionally to the standard sized equipment they would carry e.g a rifle..............simple really.

Steve,

Your missing the whole point mate....and it is clear that you have some emotional connection to the Guards and this clouding impartial judgement. You have made a statement that the Guards were the 'best'. Everyone who questions this statement has asked you for some evidence of this. When considering accepted academic research methodologies, the manner in which you have reached your conclusions would never be accepted as appropriate/able to prove/support this statement.

No-one has denied that the Guards were largely well regarded...this is a truism, which has been recorded in published history. I have NOT seen anyone here say that the Guards were NOT well regarded. I have also NOT seen anyway say that the level of training does not matter....but the 'type' of training certainly does.

To say the Guards, or any other regiment, were the best is impossible. When did the Guards 'hold fast' and 'capture their objectives' more so than any other regiment? How many other formations and regiments did you ask these 'veterans' about? Did you ask them about the Black Watch, the Lancashire Fusiliers, the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, the Royal Irish Regiment? How many men did you interview? What proportion of all veterans was this? How many served with the Guards? How many said that the Guards were better than any other regiment?

It's funny you know....every Australian veteran I ever asked told me the Australians were the best! Maybe they haven't heard of the Guards out here?

Rgds

Tim

[Blackblue]

Not first world war but which regiment won the most VC's in the second world war? Certainly not an "elite" Guards regiment.

Lionboxer

WW1...certainly not the Guards either.

Rgds

Tim

[Dave_59]

To Yellow...

1. Many of the officers graduated in the top of their class. All the best officers joined the Guards. Perhaps later on in the war it was a regiment for rich families with connections but if you couldnt cut the mustard as a guards officer they would send you to another unit.

Really? I thought it was the beginning of the war that the officers were mainly aristocrats etc.

Read fifteen rounds a minute...look at the officers and their social positions. One's ability as a soldier didnt always influence the regiment they joined, read The Guardsmen Chapter 2 by Simon Ball for evidence of men gaining a commission in the Gds because of their social standing.

The reality is quite the contrary and it was the Guards who REALLY DID hold fast and capture their objectives and it is for this reason they earned the respect as the elite regiments of the British Army

The Guards failed to reach the objectives or were 'defeated' on several occasions, sometimes because of problems in other parts of the line or their own failings. Other regiments were equally able to hold the line.

To everyone

Was it only the GG that had to fire fifteen rounds a minute or was it an army standard?

Does anyone know if any man was commissioned from the ranks into the Guards (particularly the Grenadier Guards) during WW1?

Dave