Eight Company structure? I'm still stuck...

[Ron Clifton]

There was particular acrimony between the old 43rd and 52nd regiments of Foot after 1881. One old soldier of the 52nd is reputed to have said "I strop my razor 52 times, and when I get to 43 I spit."

There is an interesting survival of non-standard company designations today in the companies which preserve the traditions of the second battalions of the Guards regiments, now in "suspended animation". They are Nijmegen Company GG, 7 Company CG and F Company SG.

Ron

[nigelcave]

What is interesting in the Burgoyne Diaries is the take on the restructuring. He comments that, if I follow his reasoning correctly, the change had yet to lead to a change in how the role of a company commander had changed. He felt that - and again I am paraphrasing - a company commander should have rather more operational input. It is an interesting area for exploration - ie what was/should have been the practical implications of the change in the structure of a battalion?

Aurel: the good thing about the Burgoyne Diaries is that he uses real names (although his spelling was not always very precise); thus he refers to the death of Rifleman Burn (sic - it should have been Burns); but he was one of the new "Kitchener" volunteers, and so will not suit your needs (and no reference to his company in the CWGC database, alas). The other good thing about them is that it would appear from internal evidence the last time he did anything with them in terms of an edit was August 1915. I must say that the first time I read them I was a bit put off by his fairly brutal approach. Now I am not so sure and think I can understand where he is coming from. Now I am of the opinion that it is the most important account in print of the reconstruction of the BEF post the 1914 campaign - it has the merit of no particular action of any significance in the great scheme of things, so it is really the story of trench life and rebuilding for five months or so, from mid December 1914 to early May 1915. It is truly fascinating.

[Aurel Sercu]

Nigel,

"Truly fascinating" indeed. My man died in June 1915. And that First attack on Bellewaarde was horrible. But reading what he had gone through in the 6 months before that ... True, no particular action of any significance, but it brought things so much closer. I know the area of Westouter, Loker, Kemmel, Wijtschate, Dikkebus quite well of course (only a couple of miles from here), but I want to stand where trench H1 and H2 etc were, and where the Gordons (14 Dec. 1914) must have been lying in no man's land for more than 2 years, etc.. And I know already : it will look so peaceful now ...

Aurel

[Guest]

The data from the 11 regular Battalions of the 29th Div in 1915 illustrates how wide-spread the use of 'legacy' Company identifiers was. The War Diaries have dozens of examples in each battalion that provides compelling evidence that seven Battalions nominally used A,B,C,D * and four used W,X,Y,Z. Despite this the CWGC data for fatal casualties at Gallipoli shows that nine of the eleven Battalions have men recorded as belonging to E, F, G or H Companies.

* Three subsequently changed to W,X, Y, Z in early 1915 between embarkation and landing at Gallipoli (RF, RMF and RDF,

The 1st Bn Royal Munster Fusiliers embarkation roll dated 16th March 1915 clearly shows A B C D Coys yet the accounts of the landings from the SS River Clyde on 25th April 1915, just 40 days later has very detailed records showing W, X, Y Z Coys.

The 1st Bn Royal Dublin Fusiliers started with A, B, C, D Coys and after being temporarily amalgamated with the 1st Bn Royal Munster Fus to form the 'Dubsters' (due to casualties). The merger only lasted a few weeks, but subsequently the 1st Bn RDF stayed with W, X,Y, Z. Both the 1st Bn RMF and 1st Bn RDF have fatal casualties nominally from E, F, G and H Coys. In these two battalions men are recorded as being with:

A,B,C, D, E, F, G, H, W, X, Y, Z Companies

Elsewhere at Gallipoli

New Armies:In the 10th (Irish) Div, 11th (Northern) Division and the 13th (Western) Div (39 Battalions including Pioneers)

35 Battalions used A,B, C, D 90% of the sample

3 Battalions used W, X, Y, Z (8th Bn Northumberland Fus, 9th Bn Lancashire Fus and 8th Bn Duke of Wellington's (West Riding) Regt)

1 Battalion used S, P, Q, R (11th Manchesters)

Territorial Army: 42nd East Lancs Div, 52nd Lowland Div, 53rd Welsh Div, 54th East Anglian Div (48 Battalions)

47 Battalions used A, B, C, D 98% of the sample

1 Battalion used W, X, Y Z 2% of the sample 1/5th Bedfords

The only other exception in the TF was the 1/5th Royal Scots (W, X, Y, Z) which was the lone TF battalion in the otherwise Regular 29th Div. Not included in the 48 battalions above (TF formations)

In summary from these samples of 199 battalions (including the BEFs shown earlier)

174 Battalions used A, B, C, D ................................. 87% (this does not include three Regular Battalions that changed to W, X, Y, Z)

8 Battalions used W, X, Y, Z ....................................4%

17 Battalions used some other form of identifier ........9%

This is not an exhaustive study by any stretch of the imagination (there were over 1,750 Battalions in the Army at the peak, so at best a 10% sample). I suspect that the dominance of ABCD in the three New Army Divisions was rooted in the fact they were all K1. A study of K2 might flush out alternative identifiers. It would be interesting to look at 2nd Line TF as well to see if they attempted to differentiate themselves from the 1st Line.MG

[Ron Clifton]

The dominance of A B C D probably owed much, if not all, to the fact that Infantry Training 1914 (Four-company organisation) specified it as the rule. There were exceptions, especially the Guards, but the K1 (and K2 and K3) battalions had never had eight companies so using A B C and D was simply obeying the "new" rule.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

#62 refers.

ABCD ordered Oct 1913.

Any departure was unauthorised.

[David_Underdown]

is there any evidence that an alternative naming/numbering scheme is more common when there are multiple battalions of the same regiment in the same brigade (in itself more likely in Kitchener formations, and some TF)?

[Guest]

is there any evidence that an alternative naming/numbering scheme is more common when there are multiple battalions of the same regiment in the same brigade (in itself more likely in Kitchener formations, and some TF)?

Gallipoli had a number of TF and New Army battalions from the same Regiment brigaded

Territorial Force

Essex Inf Bde (4 Battalions) - all used the same

Lancs Fus Bde(4 Battalions) - ditto

Manchesters (4 Battalions) - ditto

E Lancs (2 Battalions)- ditto

Norfolks (2 Battalions) ditto

RWF (3 Battalions)ditto

KOSB (2 Battalions) ditto

HLI (3 Battalions) ditto

RSF (2 Battalions) ditto

R Scots (2 Battalions) ditto

Chshires (2 Battalions) ditto

Welsh Regt (2 Battalions) ditto

New Army (K1) - all pairs of Battalions from the same Regt in the same Brigade

RMF all used the same

RDF all used the same

R Innis Fus all used the same

R Irish Fus all used the same

[David_Underdown]

Thanks, I had wondered if one fo the reasons that alternative schemes were adopted was to reduce confusion if messages were slightly garbled, so an order for A company, 5th Blankshires ended up with A company, 6th Blankshires instead, but certainly doesn't seem tobe borne out in the Gallipoli data.

[Ron Clifton]

I have often wondered if W, X, Y and Z may have been adopted because B and D could easily be confused over the telephone.

Ron

[Guest]

I have often wondered if W, X, Y and Z may have been adopted because B and D could easily be confused over the telephone.

Ron

I am not sure when the British Military started using the phonetic alphabet. A quick trawl of the www provides no clear answer other than the fact the RN used an early form in the Great War. The Navy were ahead of the Military on some aspects (e.g. 24 hr clock was called Navy Time at one stage). I am not convinced that the phonetic alphabet was used when the ABCD Coy was laid down, so it is a point of interest. MG

Edited: typos

[Guest]

Thanks, I had wondered if one fo the reasons that alternative schemes were adopted was to reduce confusion if messages were slightly garbled, so an order for A company, 5th Blankshires ended up with A company, 6th Blankshires instead, but certainly doesn't seem tobe borne out in the Gallipoli data.

I had always imagined that the Service Battalions would have been labelled sequentially viz

K1 Battalion ABCD

K2 Battalion EFGH

etc....

.... but is seems not. Apart from the ABCD and WXYX four-letter strings, I have not seen any examples (yet) of other consecutive four-letter sequences being used. I have little doubt among the 1,761 Battalions that operated during the Great War there will be some. MG

Edit. The rather imaginative use of SPQR by the 11th Bn Manchesters with their civic pride might have been improved on as SPQM

[Guest]

#62 refers.

ABCD ordered Oct 1913.

Any departure was unauthorised.

A Thought: The Pals Battalions were raised privately, and until transferred to the War Office, were not subjected to the strict AOs or ACIs. Is this a possible source for anomalies? MG

[nigelcave]

I mentioned this earlier and perhaps I should start a different thread, but (as Burgoyne made a comment on it) what was the practical effect of the change from eight to four company battalions? It must have been considerable, I would have thought, and presumably the War Office did some thinking on the matter before they changed the structure of a battalion.

[Derek Black]

I mentioned this earlier and perhaps I should start a different thread, but (as Burgoyne made a comment on it) what was the practical effect of the change from eight to four company battalions? It must have been considerable, I would have thought, and presumably the War Office did some thinking on the matter before they changed the structure of a battalion.

You'd have thought so.

My Btn of interest, the 5th Black Watch had the 8 Btn structure before they went to France.

What they were doing on the home defense front in Dundee from August til late October 1914 was all given using the 8 Coy structure.

However it seems this changed the moment they went abroad. No mention though is made of the companies being numbered or lettered until nearly a month after landing and numbers are used (1-4), although casualties are still given their A-H company in CWGC entires up to summer 1915.

Derek.

[Guest]

This is the entry in Major John Wylie's (1/6th Black Watch) personal diary. The entry regarding changes to the Company system appears to be written around the 1st of January 1915, 5 months before they went to France. It seems the Companies at this time are 1, 2, 3 & 4, but these seem to have been known as A, B, C, & D thereafter.

" G & H to No 1 Coy Wylie; CSM Lynn; CQMS McIntosh. C & E to No 2 Coy Alexander. CSM Buchan?; CQMS Guthrie. B & D to No 3 Coy Pullar; CSM West; CQMS Baird. F & A to No 4 Coy Young. CSM McKenzie. CQMS Smith. CSM Food (in trenches only) Ammo, letters ????. QMS Billeting, food. 16 dr & Buglers. 1 Pipe Major. 5 Pipers. "

Mike

[FROGSMILE]

I mentioned this earlier and perhaps I should start a different thread, but (as Burgoyne made a comment on it) what was the practical effect of the change from eight to four company battalions? It must have been considerable, I would have thought, and presumably the War Office did some thinking on the matter before they changed the structure of a battalion.

The restructuring had been agitated for by some young officers since 1897. It was perceived as creating greater flexibility and, above all an in-built economy of scale that allowed some redundancy in the event of NCOs and officers on career courses or leave, which presumably applied also to the effects of casualties.

[Guest]

One thing to consider is that the change to four Companies happened for the Home based battalions in 1913 while the overseas battalions remained on the eight Company structure. The largest difference was the number of men in each battalion; while the Overseas battalions were fully manned (to varying levels depending on their station) the Home based battalions were well short of their peacetime establishments and could not function on an eight Company basis due to lack of manpower.

On the eve of the Great War the average number in each of the 74 Home-based Line Infantry battalions was 646 of which a decent proportion were recruits. On average they each required 424 Reservists to mobilise. At the extremes the 2nd Bn South Staffs had only 521 Other Ranks on 31st July 1914. Some battalions took in over 700 Army Reservists to make War Establishment due to the need to weed out the under-aged and unfits.

Most of the Reservists would never have operated in a four Company structure prior to mobilisation. One Battalion went to war with a third of men who were '3 and 9' meaning they had been civilians for at least 8 years and missed all of the important restructuring and changes in training and equipment in the inter-war years. Given 60% of the BEF in Aug 1914 were Army Reservists it would be fair to say more than half of the infantrymen who went to War in August 1914 and all of the subsequent reinforcements had minimal experience of an eight Company structure with all its inherent changes in command and control.

Roughly speaking the 104 regular battalions of the BEF that were present on the Western Front at the end of First Ypres had turned over 200% of manpower (1914 Star rolls typically push the 1,800 mark). If only 40% of the first cohorts were serving regulars, this implies that only 20% of all infantrymen who served in F&F in 1914 had any practical experience of the four-Company structure pre-war and 8 in ever 10 of these were casualties by the end of 1914. Put another way, even for the Regulars, it was fairly new for 80% of them. If we add the Overseas based battalions of the 27th, 28th and 29th Divs (36 Battalions) the number decreases further as they only made the transition post declaration. When the 23 TF Battalions serving in France and Flanders in 1914 are added, it is easy to see the challenges even in a more streamlined structure for the 163 battalions on active service at the end of 1914. MG

[bootneck]

Just to muddy the waters 1st Bn ESR used A, B, C & D in the war diary up to April 1915 and then changed to 1, 2, 3 & 4 during May. They subsequently reverted to A to D at the end of the war.

Bootneck

[RussT]

Just for interest - extract from the WD of the 2/4th Bn York & Lancaster Rgt:

[Ron Clifton]

That suggests that when second line TF battalions were formed, the companies were lettered sequentially with those of the first line, omitting"I". First line battalions would still have had eight companies, A to H, at that time.

It was would be dangerous to assume that all the 200+ second line battalions followed the same rule, but it would be interesting to know if any others did, besides 2/4 York and Lancs.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

I am not sure when the British Military started using the phonetic alphabet. A quick trawl of the www provides no clear answer other than the fact the RN used an early form in the Great War. The Navy were ahead of the Military on some aspects (e.g. 24 hr clock was called Navy Time at one stage). I am not convinced that the phonetic alphabetwas used when the ABCD Coy was laid down, so it is a point of interest. MG

A limited phonetic alphabet was at least as old as Signalling Regs 1904: T A B M S P V will be called ...... to distinguish them ...........

[RussT]

That suggests that when second line TF battalions were formed, the companies were lettered sequentially with those of the first line, omitting"I". First line battalions would still have had eight companies, A to H, at that time.

It was would be dangerous to assume that all the 200+ second line battalions followed the same rule, but it would be interesting to know if any others did, besides 2/4 York and Lancs.

Ron

Here are the 2/5th and 2/6th Bns Notts and Derby resp:

[Ron Clifton]

I am not sure when the British Military started using the phonetic alphabet. A quick trawl of the www provides no clear answer other than the fact the RN used an early form in the Great War. The Navy were ahead of the Military on some aspects (e.g. 24 hr clock was called Navy Time at one stage). I am not convinced that the phonetic alphabetwas used when the ABCD Coy was laid down, so it is a point of interest. MG

A limited phonetic alphabet was at least as old as Signalling Regs 1904: T A B M S P V will be called ...... to distinguish them ...........

Toc H, Emma Gee, Ack Emma and Pip Emma, O Pip are examples which spring to mind which are of Great War vintage, but these were originally used by signals personnel who communicated regularly by voice telephone or radio. I am not sure whether ordinary regimental officers would be accustomed to use them on the telephone, and of course comparatively few such officers would have access to radio sets.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Ron, the 1904 manual makes it clear that these phonetics were for routine use when transcribing/ passing morse messages .......... regardless of the means whether flag, lamp, heliograph etc, there was always to be a team of at least two at the receive end, one reading and saying, one writing on the message pad.

Every battalion had a signalling officer, trained at a central school to a very high standard. There was in addition at least one assistant instructor, often more. Units were to have "spare" signals-qualified staff to replace casualties. These men were among the best educated and most reliable.

Given the substantial establishment of signallers to be maintained, and the rotation of these duties within a unit, I would suggest that the phonetics would be widely known throughout regular infantry and cavalry.