GUARDS

[Owen D]

Dave . 15 rpm was the minimum standard expected of an Infantryman.

Lots of men took pride in getting 20+ rpm.

Buy a copy of Ponsonby's book.Lists all the WO and OR s who agained Commisions. Mainly in Line Regiments but the odd Senior WO recieved Commisions after several years service.

eg. SM 2705 GH Wall MC 3GG to Capt and Qrmr.,

SM 4947 E Ludlow MC 2GG

S Clerk 5749 F Martin Regtl Staff to Acting capt.

SM 5225 H Wood DCM Actg Qrmr.

These men stayed with the Regiment. Another Commissioned into the Welsh Guards, another to Guards MGs.

Ex Warrant and NCO and Men appointed to Commisions since commencement of hostilities. Rank now held according to March1919 Army list.

Lt/Col. 4

Maj 10

Capt 24

Lt 14

2/Lt 18

Hon Lt

&Qrmr 9

NCOs & men discharged to take up Temporary Commissions with New Army. Rank now held according to March 1919 Army List.

Capt 30

Lt 64

2/Lt 199

I've tried tiding this up but my edits aren't being saved. Sorry for the messy layout. I had tried.

[Muerrisch]

Advice to Yellow: 'when in a hole, stop digging'.

You want an argument, we want a debate.

The essence of a debate is reason. If you say and believe something is so, that is your privilege.

But the rest of us cannot engage in that unless you can go further than saying it is so, by adducing some facts, which we could then either agree with, or disagree with and supporting that disagreement with facts and references.

[yellow]

Grumpy your posts are no longer constructive......why even bother to post........I am putting my case forward.......you are not. If you are not happy with my evidence go away and do the research and come back with conclusions that contradict my statements. Frankly the one comment you made concerning the South Africa war was false...........and even Richard Holmes agrees with me that many of the 1914 BEF men were SA veterans.

Because of the high standard expected of Guardsmen all gallantry was hard won. Events which in other regiments earned an award went un recognised in the guards. Expectations on these men were great. From analysing the citations of the DCM for the Guards there are those awards that are 'pats on the back' like all regiments but the citations do suggest this very high standard

Ok so you want the facts to support that statement. The coldstreams were only awarded 2 VC's during WW2. It was the King himself who upgraded an award of the DCM to a VC.

The first two VC's were won by the Royal Fusiliers..........but may I ask what relevance that holds to this conversation? If you do want to talk about WW2 we can do because that it where the Guards regiments excelled even further into an armoured role and fought off some of the finest German units. That war is where the gap between line regiments and the guards grew even greater.

The Guards have always been a seperate force.....and recognised as an elite force by every British General that has ever fought a war to date.

To those poeple who commented on the usefulness of the height of Guardsmen in a WW1 trench system.......

When a Battalion of Infantry engages in the capture of a front line position they would often carry pick axes with them.........I`m not talking about entrenching tools..........full sized tools. Upon capturing the position not only would they reinforce the position but the most important undertaking would be to create a firing step to enable the position to be defended. The firing step had to be completed with in at least half an hour of capturing the position because this is when the counter attack would most likely occur. Now the advantage of having tall men would be that if a counter attack occurred before the firing step was completed the attacking force could be repelled as tall Guardsmen could actually stand and fire over the trench with out the aid of a firing step. That is where your Bantams would be in serious trouble.

So perhaps later on in the war when trenches were dug a lot deeper not even a seven footer could fire over the top in places such as the Hindemburg Line. But in being critical of my own comments I have thrown your sniper idea out of the window too.

The Guards may have been defeated on several occasions but so was the elite Prussian Guard! There is no unit that had not been defeated so thats not really a valid point.

Was it only the GG that had to fire fifteen rounds a minute or was it an army standard?.............From my own research I know that the 1st Battalion the Lincolnshire Regiment could do this. Richard Holmes in his books and television series declares that most of the 1914 BEF could achieve this. Having said being able to fire quickly doesnt make you a good infantryman but it helps  Do you think the 1914 BEF could of achieved this with out any training?

The veterans which I have spoken too were on the most part members the North Midland Brigade. Who experienced the ability of GUards first hand at the fighting at the Hohenzollern Redoubt. If you cannot believe the stories of men who were actually there who can you believe? Someone who tells you over the net that they are wrong...........please, dont make me laugh.

This will be my last post here.

Steve.

[yellow]

Actually this will be my last post......because I want you all to see this.

This particular book was published in 1915.......Our Regiments and their Glorious Records. Read the first line of the opening paragaph and remember. Funny.........such a confident statement considering this is a book recording the war history of the entire British Army.

If that statement is incorrect then why at the time were there no complaints? The answer is so simple because everyone knew it to be true so they never questioned it.

Steve.

[Muerrisch]

Why were the Guards the best British infantry regiments:

1. Many of the officers graduated in the top of their class.

2. Guards officers were generally the best educated officers of the British Army.

3. Six Footers. The majority of Guardsmen were over 6 foot tall.

4. Much higher discipline than most other infantry regiments.

5. the majority having experience fighting in South Africa.

Steve.

To which I reply:

1. what makes you say that?

2. ditto.

3. Not true

4. possibly, but needs to be demonstrated.

5. Unlikely. The burden of proof is on you.

Grumpy your posts are no longer constructive

to which I reply: Yes, I know that. If you come up with unsubstantiated statements, it is up to you to back them with facts.

This particular book was published in 1915.......Our Regiments and their Glorious Records. Read the first line of the opening paragaph and remember. Funny.........such a confident statement considering this is a book recording the war history of the entire British Army.

If that statement is incorrect then why at the time were there no complaints?

To which I reply: how on earth can you know that nobody refuted he statement, this is just surmise.

And why do I bother? Somebody might accept what you say about the Guards as true!

Now, whereas you have had two final postings, I shall have just one. This one.

[Dave_59]

The only member of my family that was killed in the Great war was in the Grenadier Guards, so the GG is my 'pet regiment'. However i dont mind saying that other regiments were capable of matching their stanards. The extract that you have provided above supports the view that the Guards were the most memorable of units (owing to their presence in London) any perhaps for their marching abilities, not necessarily their fighting capabilities

At the end of the day a mans ability to fight is based on his training. Many of the units of the New Army that fought at the Somme had equal or more training than the Guards. The problem faced by these men was a lack of experienced men to carry them along.

One advantage the Guards had was their relatively small size (in battalions). Replaceents joined veteran soldiers, rather than, as with other regiments, joining a completely new battalion with ver few experienced men.

I firmly believe that many regiments achived the standards of the guards.

Dave

Ps...the hole is getting quite deep now

[yellow]

Ha ha........I`m back to respond to the comments above.

I have a question............

Why was it during 1910 - 1912 that the Senior NCO's of the Guards drilled and instructed the permanent staff instructors of the Territorial Battalions? If other regimental NCOs were equally fit to do the job then why didnt they......that is after all the point your making?

Let us just for the record remind ourselves who the permanent staff instructor were........they were men of the regular battalions of the line regiments holding the rank of an NCO. So why is it Guards NCO's were instructing other regimental NCO's?

Please by all means Grumpy post an educational response to my question.

Steve.

[Owen D]

As a Guards "fan" I'm going to chip in a bit more.

Feel free to browse the 1st Wilts War Diary.(A damn fine Line Regt.)

Their NCOs were often having lectures and drill from visiting Guards NCOs.

For example

1st Wiltshire Wednesday 9th August 1916 France, Bus-les-Artois

Four hundred men left camp at 5.25a.m. for fatigue, between MESNIL and ENGLEBELMER. The remainder of the Battn trained. The L/Cpls were drilled by a drill instructor from the Guards. The Commanding Officer and other officers left in camp attended an exhibition in bombing attacks at DHQ.

[yellow]

Many thanks.........I honestly didnt know anything about the Wilts.

But do you have idea why it was for the Guards NCO's to give the instruction?

For a bunch of old 'square bashers' why would they be instructing during war time? For a unit who were many times beaten where is the logic is passing down those failing leadership qualities and training methods which according to you resulted in defeats?

Perhaps when this question is answered we will be closer to discovering the truth.

Please feel free to comment :-)

Steve.

[Blackblue]

Ha ha........I`m back to respond to the comments above.

I have a question............

Why was it during 1910 - 1912 that the Senior NCO's of the Guards drilled and instructed the permanent staff instructors of the Territorial Battalions? If other regimental NCOs were equally fit to do the job then why didnt they......that is after all the point your making?

Let us just for the record remind ourselves who the permanent staff instructor were........they were men of the regular battalions of the line regiments holding the rank of an NCO. So why is it Guards NCO's were instructing other regimental NCO's?

Please by all means Grumpy post an educational response to my question.

Steve.

Perhaps because the job of many Guards units was drill.....it doesn't mean they were the best in action!

[yellow]

Perhaps because the job of many Guards units was drill.....it doesn't mean they were the best in action!

If there is no merit in drill for troops.........then why drill in the first place?

Ok if your best guess is Drill then that is fine.............you are severly underestimating the Permanent Staff Instructor was himself a regular army senior NCO. One would assume he might actually know something from the time he spent in the regular battalions drilling his own men who were regular soldiers.

I believe there is a little bit more to it than just drill........I believe that instruction covered combat training and tactics too and that the Guards NCO's knew more about this collectively than any other NCO's from other regiments. Why send the Guards to instruct the Wilts ...........could this also have something to do with the fact that the Guards had more combat experience?

Steve.

[Blackblue]

Steve,

I think what everyone is saying is that you are jumping to these conclusions by using your own misguided interpretation of the facts. You still haven't answered any of the questions I have asked, but continue to make sweeping generalizations with little basis. The Guards have a higher profile than other infantry units largely because of their continued use in ceremonial duties.....not prowess in battle.

What events that received awards in other units went unawarded in the Guards? Do you have any examples? You have provided no comparitive evidence whatseover that the Guards were the 'best'. Have you considered that the Guards did not receive more gallantry awards because they did not actually deserve more than other formations? What you have said here is akin to saying that the 3rd Maltese Camel Battalion did not win any VCs because the standard of gallantry was so high!!! I don't think I have ever seen any DCMs that were not of a relatively 'high standard'. They didn't hand them out in Weetbix boxes. What comparisons have you made and how can you come to the conclusion that Guards awards were harder won than other units? Were you there? Did Guards fight side by side with men from other units and do the same thing, in the same actions, in the same circumstances...and miss out on awards?

Lots of other regiments fought off the finest German units during WW2. Many regiments in WW2 were just as good...and to say the 'gap grew' is laughable. Didn't they cop a hiding in Market Garden? Do you have any evidence of this apart from these rantings? How can you successfully compare infantry to armoured units?

As far as digging in....yes infantry often carry picks and shovels....and when they are able I am certain they consolidated the position. But extra-ordinary height is a distinct disadvantage....larger targets are invariably easier to hit. If you are taller/bigger you have to dig a deeper hole and it takes longer! Where did you learn that a 'firing step' had to be created within half an hour of taking a trench system? This is news to me. How many times did the Guards take a trench system where their height was a distinct advantage in replelling a counter attack? Where is your evidence of this? Counter attacks rarely come from the direct line of the enemies retreat.

Any you finally admit that your marvellous so called eyewitness 'evidence' comes from one formation of men and from one day of battle at Hohenzollern Redbout? Pretty poor evidence I am afraid mate....and I would suggest not acceptable, even to the slowest schoolboy, as proof the Guards were the 'best'.

Rgds

Tim

[Blackblue]

If there is no merit in drill for troops.........then why drill in the first place?

Ok if your best guess is Drill then that is fine.............you are severly underestimating the Permanent Staff Instructor was himself a regular army senior NCO. One would assume he might actually know something from the time he spent in the regular battalions drilling his own men who were regular soldiers.

I believe there is a little bit more to it than just drill........I believe that instruction covered combat training and tactics too and that the Guards NCO's knew more about this collectively than any other NCO's from other regiments. Why send the Guards to instruct the Wilts ...........could this also have something to do with the fact that the Guards had more combat experience?

Steve.

A part of initial military training is drill because it teaches soldiers to react instinctively to commands. You were the one speaking about drill....if you want to teach someone drill you send someone who does it for a living. Yes I suppose he would know something....drill....makes sense to me!

How in the Lords name can you say that the Guards NCOs know more than others? How can you say that the Guards had more combat experience? As Grumpy would say.......evidence please!!!

[Dave_59]

In response to Blackblue's last two posts.....hallelujah

dave

[yellow]

Ok if you know it was just drill where is your evidence and how many Grandsons of permanent staff instructors from the British Army have you ever known?

Your statement regarding drill my friend is the assumption not my own.

The experience was derived from the South Africa War and fighting the Guerilla War which as a dedicated study of Australian History you should know all about. After all who hasnt heard of the Breaker Morrant in Australia? Is clear that you not at all interested......you are just here for an arguement because the story of Guerilla War is well known in your land.........and simple fact such as the time frame and units involved would not elude a dedicated historian.

The reason why none of the people are not putting the Guards forward is because they know the points I am making are clearly falling upon deaf ears.

I take my leave.

Steve.

[Greg Bloomfield]

Please do.

Greg

[Blackblue]

Ok if you know it was just drill where is your evidence and how many Grandsons of permanent staff instructors from the British Army have you ever known?

Your statement regarding drill my friend is the assumption not my own.

The experience was derived from the South Africa War and fighting the Guerilla War which as a dedicated study of Australian History you should know all about. After all who hasnt heard of the Breaker Morrant in Australia? Is clear that you not at all interested......you are just here for an arguement because the story of Guerilla War is well known in your land.........and simple fact such as the time frame and units involved would not elude a dedicated historian.

The reason why none of the people are not putting the Guards forward is because they know the points I am making are clearly falling upon deaf ears.

I take my leave.

Steve.

Steve,

You were the one talking about drill. I was merely attempting to explain why the Guards might be used for teaching drill. The Guards are reknowned for drill because of their continued use in ceremonial duties!! Not because they were the most experienced in battle.

How many grandsons of permanent staff instructors of the British Army have I know? Well one now I suppose! I salute your loyalty mate...I am sure he was a very good soldier and a brave man...but this still does not make the Guards 'better' than every other regiment. I am sure he told you that the Guards were the best...but my grandad used to swear that the Lancashire Fusiliers were the best....and my great uncle that the Australians were the best. You are not basing your arguments on fact...you are basing them on emotional attachment.

Yes I have studied the South African War. Again....lots of other British regulars (and other units) fought there, and gained experience there, too. The Guards were not much help when the Boers were making fools of all British and Commonwealth forces in 1899 and 1900!! Look at the actions at Belmont, Graspan, Modder River and Diamond Hill for a start. I am afraid the Guards copped as big a hiding (if not bigger) as every other regiment. What has the Boer War got to do with the Guards being 'better' than everyone else? They showed just as great an inability to adapt to Boer tactics as every other unit. Frontal infantry assaults against dug in opponents, possessing clear fields of fire and both direct and indirect fire support, generally does not go too well.

The resistance that you have encountered here has nothing to do with the Guards having an excellent reputation in battle, training and otherwise....I am sure everyone would agree that in the Great War the Guards Division certainly did have a good reputation. What people have an issue with are your statements that the Guards are 'better' than any other formation and your flawed explanations of why ('because they were taller'....c'mon!). What we have been trying to point out is that this statement is impossible to prove. And you have produced no evidence to suggest otherwise.

To answer Greg's original post. Were the Guards 'crack'?...Yes they were. But were they the most 'crack' and better than everyone else?...Unlikely....and impossible to prove.

Rgds

Tim D

[Blackblue]

Good post Owen and a very interesting point,

Did you utilise the accepted dates of these battles or did you hone in specifically on 4GG use in particular assaults etc. during these battles? Again...no argument from me that the Guards Division was well regarded, considered amongst the elite and used as a spearhead in battles.

But I wonder how many casualties a random battalion (either Regular, TF or New Army) would have sustained in comparison? I would suggest that there would probably be a similar percentage of casualties sustained over the accepted dates of a major battle (particularly in units often used in the major battles)....compared to quieter periods holding the line. Makes sense that all units suffered more casualties when a big battle was on! All you need to is look at the casualties sufferred by some of the New Army battalions on 1 July 16.

I would love to use SDGW to investigate this myself, however the one I have is not Y2K compliant so I can no longer search dates.

Rgds

Tim

[Owen D]

Blackblue

Yes I used the dates the 4GG were in action and a few days after with chaps who died of wounds.

As you see I did that 14 years ago as best I could but it gets the point over.

I agree with you about Guards teaching drill to 1 Wilts. No one needed to tell them how to fight. A Battalion that had been at Mons 1914!

I imagine their Drill wasn't quite so good and maybe an Officer at Brigade or Divisional level had a Guards connection and wangled it to get the experts in to train the junior NCOs. Only a thought.

[PhilB]

Do I take it then that, statistically, the Guards Division did less normal trench holding between battles than did the "ordinary" line divisions? Phil B

[edwin astill]

Wow, this topic looks like running.

Back in Feb. I posted a note in the equipement/medals section pointing to the ratio between casualties sustained and VCs won - extract below

The ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ Regiments were:

HAC – 1 VC per 420 casualties

Hertfordshire – 1 : 450

Leinster – 1 : 495

Coldstream G - 1 : 551

Irish G – 1 : 563

Scots G – 1 : 568

Grenadier G – 1 : 669

Essex – 1 : 8860

E Kent – 1 : 6000

Wiltshire – 1 : 5200

Somerset LI – 1 : 4760

Shropshire LI – 1 : 4710

Clearly the Guards are high up - and there may be a number of explanations as to why this is so, but it seems to point to high standards as well as 'luck' that bravery was also recognised (many other potential recipients were 'unlucky' in not having witnesses etc.

Also I call to mind an extract in 'Goodbye to All That' (book not to hand). Graves is instructing some Canadians objecting to drill. Graves says something like "there are people here good at drill but with no guts, and people with guts who are no good at drill. But for some reason the best people are those with guts who are good at drill".

Sounds like the Guards fit the bill - but that is not to say they were the only ones.

Edwin Astill

[truthergw]

Wow, this topic looks like running.

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

Back in Feb. I posted a note in the equipement/medals section pointing to the ratio between casualties sustained and VCs won - extract below

The ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ Regiments were:

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

Clearly the Guards are high up -

Edwin Astill

Hi Edwin, I am interested, in a purely amateur way, in statistical analysis and its applications in the Great War. You seem to be implying some sort of relationship between casualties suffered and VCs awarded. Have you any suggestions as to what that relationship might be? Are the casualties the usual, killed, wounded and missing?

I think I can see a mechanism where your statistics might be skewed. If an action had a high proportion of officers killed, that would reduce the number of potential witnesses. This in turn would reduce the number of VCs awarded.

[Owen D]

Do I take it then that, statistically, the Guards Division did less normal trench holding between battles than did the "ordinary" line divisions? Phil B

Without doing an actual count of "trench days" and "out of the line days" it hard to say for definate .

[edwin astill]

Hi Edwin, I am interested, in a purely amateur way, in statistical analysis and its applications in the Great War. You seem to be implying some sort of relationship between casualties suffered and VCs awarded. Have you any suggestions as to what that relationship might be? Are the casualties the usual, killed, wounded and missing?

I think I can see a mechanism where your statistics might be skewed. If an action had a high proportion of officers killed, that would reduce the number of potential witnesses. This in turn would reduce the number of VCs awarded.

Any attempt to gain a statistically valid statement relating to a Regiment's 'worth' by using VC or other gallantry awards is likely to be difficult. Some Regiments had large numbers of men during the war - dozens of battalions, some much fewer. Therefore a simple count of VCs is not the answer. Some might have had a larger proportion of men in quiet sectors or in non-combat roles. Again, a problem. I looked at casualties as a proxy for action or proximity to the front line. By noting that some manifestly good Regiments, such as the Wiltshires, earned only one VC for around 5000 casualties, whereas the Guards and others got one for 5 to 600 casualties seemed odd.

As I noted in an earlier posting, the Guards earned the high regard of Alexander Johnston (Worcestershire Regt) who was no mean fire-eater himself. My own view is that the Guards were very good by any standard, but so were others. More interesting is the factors that contributed to them and others being 'good', and how battalions who were good seemed to be able to maintain their standards even when they were decimated and had their ranks filled with bods from all over the place. There seemed to be some sort of 'Regimental Spirit' that survived even the worst.

Edwin Astill

[PhilB]

Whilst nobody would suggest that casualties per VC won is a direct measure of a unit`s worth, it is an interesting pointer since casualties would be roughly proportional to the extent of action seen. Except for the things that might skew the figures. I note that the units with high VC ratio are largely high class and would have influential officers. The low ratio units are not. One hesitates to bring class into this (but not for long!) but you recall Congreve`s son getting a posthumous VC? Now, I don`t doubt he was a very brave man, but the award seemed to me to be political. I now wonder to what extent politics apply to the above figures. Was it easier for influential regimental officers to attract VCs to their units? Were generals more likely to approve VC awards to units whose officers he knew? Phil B