KONDOA Posted 13 July , 2007 Share Posted 13 July , 2007 I stand corrected LB, I assumed (bad thing) that the driver was not a rank whereas a gunner is a rank even if they never touch a gun, which most didnt. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSMMo Posted 13 July , 2007 Share Posted 13 July , 2007 As I read the source data I have found, many of the "drivers" were ASC men at the start of the war. They were a part of the battery, but were ASC - no gunner connection at all. Apparently (I wish I could be more definitive for you, but I have to draw some conclusions from what I have read as I don't have access to source documents regarding these organizations - darn the luck!) later in the war, some consolidation occurred as you can see from the attached extract from the War Diary of the Bute Mountain Battery, 4th Highland Mountain Brigade, RGA (TF), serving at the time (19 August 1916) in the mountains of Salonika. ASC men were gone, RAMC men had been consolidated into the batteries as Gunners (assigned as aidmen) early on in the war and the number of Gunners as Drivers is higher than the number of Gunners. This communication reflected a change to their establishment which is why it was published in the WD. I hope this helps, but fear it may just cause more confusion. At any rate, I, too, have seen many RGA, RFA and RHA men designated as Drivers om medals and on memorials. Mike Morrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 13 July , 2007 Share Posted 13 July , 2007 Nice contribution. Was the battery mule transport or limbered? Must make a big difference. Someone out there has RHA RGA RFA establishments I expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkhill Blue Posted 13 July , 2007 Share Posted 13 July , 2007 According to its war diary, 'L' Battery RHA embarked for France with five officers and 200 NCOs and men. Between 150 and 200 is a fairly typical figure for the number of men on the 1914 Star medal rolls where they have been drawn up for single RHA batteries. The 1914 Star medal roll for 7th Brigade RHA (which contains the names of the men of 'H' and 'I' Batteries, together with the Brigade's huge Ammunition Column) has 850 men listed of whom 339 are Gunners and 347 are Drivers. The numbers may be slewed slightly as 3rd and 7th Brigades RHA each took a much larger ammunition column with them to France than was typical later in the war, but if we assume some sort of proportionality in these figures then a typical RHA battery at full strength would consist 200 men of which about 80 Gunners and 80 Drivers. Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildaremark Posted 13 July , 2007 Share Posted 13 July , 2007 In the early 1920s an Irish army battery had the following:- 1 farrier, 2 shoeing smiths, 2 saddlers, 5 signallers, 2 Trumpeters, 3 cooks, 2 clerks, 4 sergeants, 40 gunners and 29 drivers. Each battery had 4 18 pounder guns. Each battery would have more than 60 horses - that's a lot of watering, feeding and mucking out and polishing of leather. So irrespective of whether you were a driver or a gunner, each battery member would have had his share of horses to mind. The Royasl Artillery was of course very much the same. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSMMo Posted 14 July , 2007 Share Posted 14 July , 2007 Nice contribution. Was the battery mule transport or limbered? Must make a big difference. Someone out there has RHA RGA RFA establishments I expect. The batteries had no limbers as the cannons were broken down and loaded on the backs of (first) Highland Ponies, and (later) mules. The mules also carried the ammunition pannier style - mobility! Some correspondence leads me to believe that there were waggons in the ammunition column, but I haven't seen proof of that yet. I would love to see the establishments which, of course, changed during the war. Mike Morrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjustice Posted 14 July , 2007 Share Posted 14 July , 2007 In the early 1920s an Irish army battery had the following:- 1 farrier, 2 shoeing smiths, 2 saddlers, 5 signallers, 2 Trumpeters, 3 cooks, 2 clerks, 4 sergeants, 40 gunners and 29 drivers. Each battery had 4 18 pounder guns. The Royasl Artillery was of course very much the same. Mark Farrier Sergeant 135736 R. Sussex D/23 Bde. RFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterspotter Posted 20 April , 2012 Share Posted 20 April , 2012 Could anyone please explain: Where did the bombardiers and gunners sit when the battery was on the march. Drivers sat on the horses 3 men - and all on the same side(?) Which side, right or left? Did that matter? Who sat on the gun limbers? 2 on each carriage? Or could it be more? Others I presume sat on the ammo limber? Who would ride alongside on single horses? Sgt ? Corporal? Were there men left over without a seat and did they march or follow on with supply carts? I Sorry if this is old-hat. I have read a few back posts about this but opinions seem to vary and I'm not clear if there was a definitive position established. For example in this photo there is clearly a single rider in front of the left hand gun team and he seems to have a single chevron. Would that make him a bombardier? It would be much appreciated if someone could take a minute to jot down their thoughts for me. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarquebec Posted 20 April , 2012 Share Posted 20 April , 2012 Before joining the RFA as a gunner my grandfather was a draper's assistant whose only experience of horses was listening to stories told by his father who served with 7Hussars. I well remember my grandfather's graphic description of learning to ride in RFA. Apparently training involved riding bare back with no reins on a cinder track. So at least in his experience gunners also rode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 21 April , 2012 Share Posted 21 April , 2012 Could anyone please explain: Where did the bombardiers and gunners sit when the battery was on the march. Drivers sat on the horses 3 men - and all on the same side(?) Which side, right or left? Did that matter? Who sat on the gun limbers? 2 on each carriage? Or could it be more? Others I presume sat on the ammo limber? Who would ride alongside on single horses? Sgt ? Corporal? Were there men left over without a seat and did they march or follow on with supply carts? I Sorry if this is old-hat. I have read a few back posts about this but opinions seem to vary and I'm not clear if there was a definitive position established. For example in this photo there is clearly a single rider in front of the left hand gun team and he seems to have a single chevron. Would that make him a bombardier? It would be much appreciated if someone could take a minute to jot down their thoughts for me. Mick Hello Mick A gun detachment consisted of six gunners, one of whom (the No.1) was a serjeant and rode a horse on the left of the lead horses of the gun team. Of the other five, two sat on the gun limber, two on the limber of one of the ammunition wagons which accompanied the gun, and the other three on the wagon itself. Spare gunners, intended to bring the ammo up to the gun position, rode on the limber and wagon of the second wagon with each gun. A corporal rode alongside the lead horses of one of the wagons and he was the substitute ("coverer") for the No.1 in case he became a casualty. All drivers with batteries and ammunition columns were RFA personnel, not ASC (except for a couple of ASC drivers for the supply and baggage wagons). Drivers in gun teams and ammo wagon teams always rode on the near (left) side horse of each pair. The harness and saddlery was designed accordingly. Both bombardiers and acting bombardiers wore a single chevron. In the case you mention, he was probably a full bombardier, standing in for the serjeant. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reese williams Posted 22 April , 2012 Share Posted 22 April , 2012 I'm using American terminology here, so there might be slight variations for British teams, but the pairs of horses were specific to their position in the team. From front to back they are the lead, swing and wheel horses. Their training was specific to their positions as the swing team had to be taught not to get tangled in the traces during turns. The wheel horses are usually the heavier, stronger pair in the team as it falls to them to get the cannon/limber moving. Drivers would be set to a pair and would stay at that position, although I'm sure they would have been capable of assuming the duties of the other drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 22 April , 2012 Share Posted 22 April , 2012 Hello Reese The only difference in nomenclature is that, in British service, the horses were leaders, centres and wheelers. The wheelers were certainly the strongest pair as they were, in effect, the brakes, and I am pretty sure that all horses in a team were trained to specific roles. However, there were also spare horses with each battery, some of which might be needed in different roles so, as with the men, a certain amount of cross-role training would have been necessary. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E Wilcock Posted 30 March , 2014 Share Posted 30 March , 2014 Two fingers between the noseband & nose, one finger between browband & brow. The throat lash so adjusted to prevent the head collar slipping over the horses head .Unchanged today - tho I often think my fingers are slimmer than a Driver's. However, I am not sure it is correct that Gunners did not have and ride on horses. In the Territorial Force Brigades of the Royal Field Artillery, one finds men who enrolled as gunners in August 1914. There was a team of six Gunners to a 15 pounder gun, one of whom was an NCO. The gunners were trained and expected to take over each other's roles, in case of necessity. The diary I have suggests that gunners had horses allocated to them - and from time to time when not at the guns participated in horse-line work, fatigues etc. On my Brigade and Battery lists, anyone who was not a Gunner, or a specialists such as a shoeing smith, and not an NCO, seems to have the title Driver, just like the list posted above. Once at the front, guns tended to be static in gun pits and the drivers then worked with the horses in ammunition teams. The team at each gun seems to have been rotated (sometimes after the Somme battle, to a team from another Brigade) and it looks as if the team that was not with the guns was responsible for horse care, grooming and harness cleaning at the wagon lines. Or was it that there was more than one team to each gun. One team rode on the limber etc, but the other team was mounted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulH Posted 27 October , 2014 Share Posted 27 October , 2014 On my father's birth certificate dated 13 October 1914, my grandfather's occupation is shown as Private, Royal Field Artillery, 14th Battery, No 11144 (Leaman). On his medal record card he is shown as a driver. Does anyone no what Leaman was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyH Posted 27 October , 2014 Share Posted 27 October , 2014 Lead Artillery Man or Leading Man, Just a random guess, could be very wrong. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 27 October , 2014 Share Posted 27 October , 2014 On my father's birth certificate dated 13 October 1914, my grandfather's occupation is shown as Private, Royal Field Artillery, 14th Battery, No 11144 (Leaman). On his medal record card he is shown as a driver. Does anyone no what Leaman was? In the RFA, men below NCOs were ranked as either Gunners or Drivers. Their rank was equivalent to Private but that title was not used. I can't help with Leaman, I'm afraid, though MikeyH's explanation seems as plausible as any. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 27 October , 2014 Share Posted 27 October , 2014 It is highly probable that the word in brackets was his employment in civil life. Could the "L" be a "S"? Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulH Posted 27 October , 2014 Share Posted 27 October , 2014 Many thanks for you suggestions. I see if I can find out what his civilian occupation was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now