Machine Gun Corps - Standing Orders

[Ray Tomlinson]

Promised these a while back but couldn't put my hands on them to re-scan.

I think that they speak for themselves. Can anyone work out where the 41st Battalion were on 28/6/1918?

[marina]

Pretty stark.

Marina

[Staffsyeoman]

Rather 'backs to the wall' stuff... I'm going to have to dig - as I think 41 Division were pulled out of the line around April 18 until the final advance - so this kind of order would not presumably have been necessary. My notes are elsewhere, but 41 Bn could have been 'lent' to another formation.. Will advise!

[delta]

I have seen a similar set of orders, said to have been found in a pillbox in the Salient held (to the death) by Australians

[Borden Battery]

This is preciously the reason the "Emma Gees" from the BEF, CEF, AIF and ANZACS were called the "Suicide Squad". There are many documented examples of these orders being strictly adhered to by both the Allies and their opponents.

Borden Battery

[Rob B]

Well no doubt about those orders!

[Devils Own]

Interesting. I hate it when people beat about the bush and sit on the fence. Why couldn't he just say what he really thought? What a nance.

Steve

[Greg Bloomfield]

Those orders,verbatim, have also been atributed to an Australian, Lt F Bethune, 1 Section, 3rd Australian Machine Gun Company issued on 13 March 1918. Although before the German offensive, they apparently knew one was in the offing. The unit was holding the line near Hill 60, Zillebeke, a location called "Spoil Bank".

Bethune was supposed to have survived the war and died in Tasmania.

Go to www.webmatters.net/belgium/ww1_lys

No idea as to the authenticity of the claim.

Greg

[AndyHollinger]

The more I look at this ... the more I think we may be "being had" ... would a commander actually write this down ... it would seem to be something you might say to guys ... but to write it down seems to be a command gafaw ...

[Ray Tomlinson]

Perhaps I ougt to explain the background to the copy of the orders I posted.

They are not simply typed but have been duplicated - remember the old "ronio" or "banda" machines which required a typed stencil? I've seen earlier versions in wooden cases which worked in a similar way to screen printing.

I remember my grandfather having the orders back in the 1950's. He worked all his life - before and after WW1 - as a hatter and would not have had the wherewithall to produce them himself. When I first had them, as you will see from the scan, they were folded - just as a soldier might do with them when he recieved them in the line.

For all I know, we may be "being had" but, if so, the deception must be over half a century old. I'm sure someone out there will be able to verify the signature.

Didn't mention this 'cos only just thought to look - the paper has a watermark - S and O (either side of a crown) below which is the word ABSORBENT.

[roy litchfield]

I think SO stood for Stationery Office before it became HMSO.

Roy

[Ray Tomlinson]

The previous orders attributed to Bethune may be found in the Australian Official War History at -

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/6/chapters/05.pdf

[Bob Doneley]

These orders were, indeed, given by Lt Bethune, AIF. He held his position with minimal casualties. His 'Order of the Day' somehow became public knowledge, and was widely quoted in AIF and BEF Routine Orders 'as an example'.

Bob

[SiegeGunner]

Re the watermark and "Absorbent" - is the paper blotting paper ? I just about remember stencil duplicators, but don't recall having to use a special grade of paper with them. Clearly the original wasn't typed on absorbent paper, as the signature would have 'bled'. Do we have a paper expert on the Forum ?

[Terry_Reeves]

Out of interest I checked the Battalion war diary today and there was nothing going on that day that warranted such an order, nor is there a copy of it in the diary.

Arthur Wigram Tate was born in 1888. His father was Henry Tate junior, a sugar refiner and part of the Tate and Lyle sugar business. Lt Col Tate was commissioned into the Black Watch and served in S Africa 1909-1910

He was gassed during th Passchendaele offensive and was sent home to recover , returning to the Western Front in February 1918. The tone of the standing order does not fit in with that of his operational orders in the war diary. It looks like it will have to remain a mystery for a while longer.

Terry Reeves

[snavek]

Re the watermark and "Absorbent" - is the paper blotting paper ? I just about remember stencil duplicators, but don't recall having to use a special grade of paper with them. Clearly the original wasn't typed on absorbent paper, as the signature would have 'bled'. Do we have a paper expert on the Forum ?

As ex-HMSO could I (tongue in cheek) suggest SO got it right. Having read the primary purpose the papers secondary purpose (or no.2's) quickly came in to play.

Keith

[SiegeGunner]

ie. Bumf

I've forgotten how those early duplicators exactly worked. Could you use one to duplicate an existing paper doc, or did the text have to be typed directly on to a stencil sheet ? As the 'orders' apparently don't fit the war diary, I'm wondering whether they might have been made up as a joke, after the war, perhaps for distribution at a reunion. Does anyone have another, undoubtedly authentic, doc signed by Tate, to check whether the signature is genuine ?

[Ray Tomlinson]

Terry - If you have access to it, I would be very interested to know what the war diary says for that date and 6/1/19 particularly where they were on that date.

Keith - its definitely not blotting paper - too thin - I thought that came in large sheets this is clearly foolscap - thought they were into "John Wayne" paper in those days?

Seige Gunner - The later duplicators worked by wrapping a stencil round a large drum and churning away until the relevant number of copies were produced. I remember seeing an early version in an auction some years ago where the stencil was fixed beneath a silk screen and the ink squeegeed through - rather basic but simple in concept. The orders may have been produced after the war but my grandfather was just an ordinary working bloke from the north of England and I can't imagine him attending a reunion. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an opinion on the signature.

Thanks again for your interest & comments

Ray

[Piscator]

I seem to recall that we had machines like these on board some of the early ships I served on, I may be getting befuddled in my dotage but were'nt they called Gestetner machines, may be wrong, memories not what it was

Len

[greg873]

I seem to recall that we had machines like these on board some of the early ships I served on, I may be getting befuddled in my dotage but were'nt they called Gestetner machines, may be wrong, memories not what it was

Len

You should find a picture of one of these machines, and a bit of history, on this link:

http://www.ferrylane.org.uk/gestetner.html

They were fearsome machines and you frequently got covered in very viscous ink - it was murder trying to do the football club minutes and reports on the sly during the lunch break at work. They needed a special stencil, you could not copy an original document - to do that you had to resort to what we knew as a photostat, ie effectively a photo of the document which had to be printed on photographic paper and which rapidly faded if left in the light. Thank heavens for Xerox and scanners!

John G

[Ray Tomlinson]

The one on that link looks a bit complicated - perhaps too much so for the front line.

The one I recall was simply a wooden box with a hinged bottom, so you could get sheets of paper in and out and a silk screen arrangement to hold the stencil which you squeegeed the ink through.

I imagined these being the predecessor of the gestetner machines but the above link seems to indicate that they have been around for a long time - perhaps the one I saw was a simpler, portable, version meant for short runs.

[bcerha]

Only thing that I can add to the debate is that the Staff Duties or SD used (ie the way the document is laid out, headings, paragraph numbering, signature block etc) looks to be correct, even if it is a ruse.

As regards the use of the Gestetner machine I clearly remember our battery clerk producing daily orders this way as late as 1987 when we got the first rudimentary word processors in service.

David