Runners

[DCLI]

Excuse my ignorance but did runners have a special armband or some other means of identification? If one was sent back with a verbal message, how did he avoid being shot as a deserter?

[Guest]

Runners were usually treated as part of the signals set-up and wore a blue & white arm band.

it does seem a little imperfect as a method of identification.

[Grovetown]

Runners were usually treated as part of the signals set-up and wore a blue & white arm band.

it does seem a little imperfect as a method of identification.

Blue & White brassards were for signallers - check out the Brassards thread in Uniforms. Very comprehensive, and illustrated.

(Battalion) runners wore a 1 1/2" red brassard on the lower left sleeve. Here's an example.

Best wishes,

Grovetown.

[DCLI]

Thanks for that - I always wondered, now I know.

[Muerrisch]

Runners were usually treated as part of the signals set-up and wore a blue & white arm band.

it does seem a little imperfect as a method of identification.

Not in the British service.

In any case, a runner RAN WITH A MESSAGE, USUALLY WRITTEN, or was going FORWARD and thus unlikely to be seen as a deserter!

[DCLI]

Not in the British service.

In any case, a runner RAN WITH A MESSAGE, USUALLY WRITTEN, or was going FORWARD and thus unlikely to be seen as a deserter!

I am sure RUNNING was not always possible and USUALLY WRITTEN implies that sometimes it wasn't.

I thought runners went in both directions.

[Muerrisch]

I am sure RUNNING was not always possible and USUALLY WRITTEN implies that sometimes it wasn't.

I thought runners went in both directions.

Clearly runners went in both directions, and clearly ran if they could. You miss my point however: a runner going forward would be unlikely to be suspected of sloping off, and runner going to the rear with written message signed by officer was in the clear, therefore only those [rare case] with a verbal message going to the rear were suspicionable if without armband. Many errands were to a flank, to liaise with neighbouring formations: again, a runner would hardly be a suspect.

[DCLI]

Clearly runners went in both directions, and clearly ran if they could. You miss my point however: a runner going forward would be unlikely to be suspected of sloping off, and runner going to the rear with written message signed by officer was in the clear, therefore only those [rare case] with a verbal message going to the rear were suspicionable if without armband. Many errands were to a flank, to liaise with neighbouring formations: again, a runner would hardly be a suspect.

I am not trying to be awkward, just sorting it out in my own head. If they had a recognisable means of indentification thenthat is fine. And it seems from various answers on this thread that they did. But inthe heat of batle and after some runners might have been killed/got lost, perhaps an 'ordinary' soldier was called upon to act as a runner, and had no armband and a verbal message, then he was facing double trouble, enemy and MPs.

Thanks for all replies.