37 replies to this topic

[Suddery]

Grumpy

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question so definitively. In broad terms I think my pre-conceptions were correct but lacked the precision you have so necessarily provided.

A great help.

Regards

Suddery

[wulsten]

Im still confused here, ive added photographs as requested, the one with crossed swords was early 1915, the one with the Grenade insignia was during 1916 back in Blighty with Malaria, both insignia were worn at the same time.
Does this indicate Rank Sergeant with qulifications of instructor in PTI & Bombing ???

7th OX & Bucks Pte 9/9/14,
posted Pte 26/9/14
appointed La/Cpl 5/10/15,
promoted Cpl 15/11/14,
promoted Sgt 11/8/15,
appointed acting CSM 3/10/16, this appears to be whilst serving CSM was admitted to hospital Salonica as he reverts to Sergt 30/11/16 when CSM returns from hospital.  
Depot 27/1/17 prior to Cadet candidate training 3rd Cadet School Bristol,
discharged commission West Riding Regt 25/9/17,
does this help the CSM appointment would have been i presume in the field hence would not relate to the photographs which show the details of rank insignia whilst a Sgt in 1915 & 1916

As for the colour of the flames i would be presumed as blue, however as the colour appears as tan is this due to fading ??

Attached Files

•  Picture 011.jpg   26.05K   1 downloads
•  Picture 010.jpg   25.68K   1 downloads

[GRUMPY]

Does this indicate Rank Sergeant YES with qulifications of instructor in PTI YES & Bombing EITHER INSTRUCTOR or APPOINTMENT, and ONLY BOMBING IF YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE BLUE

[wulsten]

Grumpy, thanks for the clarification, the Grenade does not appear to have any colour on the badge except for khaki and tan colouring to the flames, Geoff

[Graham Stewart]

GRUMPY, on 15 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Does this indicate Rank Sergeant YES with qulifications of instructor in PTI YES & Bombing EITHER INSTRUCTOR or APPOINTMENT, and ONLY BOMBING IF YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE BLUE

So would I be correct in saying that unless at Base 'Instructing' - then he would just be a sergeant LTMB or Bombing Section within those environs, along with all of those other ranks(private up to rank of Sgt) qualified to wear that badge.

As to the badge flame I thought it had a faded blue hue, but it could be the colouring on my computer - however one colour in sepia which often appears very light in sepia photo's is light blue, whereas red always appears naturally dark or as Joe suggests is it the rare "red ball and white flame''??? Seems strange that the grenade should be of the 'plain' worsted pattern as often seen worn by the Engineer Sgt's, whereas the infantry took great pride in their distinguishing coloured grenades

[GRUMPY]

Graham, Establishments do not include a Bombing Sergeant in the battalion per se, but I find it hard to imagine that a sergeant qualified as bomber would not get called the "Bomb Sergeant", and act as deputy to the Bombing Officer.

You are of course correct about the rendering of light blue and of scarlet, as has been discussed here before.

We shall probably never know about our man.

[wulsten]

Graham, i have tried looking at the badge again im not sure if its faded or not, but it does appear to be just Tan in colour with Khaki edges to the flames, though as you stated light blue no doubt over time could fade quite significantly, though the badge has been in a small cardboard box with his shoulder titles from no doubt the great war period as everything was placed away after he sadly died of wounds in Oct 1918 whilst attached to the RAF as an air observer, Geoff

[Graham Stewart]

GRUMPY, on 16 August 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Graham, Establishments do not include a Bombing Sergeant in the battalion per se, but I find it hard to imagine that a sergeant qualified as bomber would not get called the "Bomb Sergeant", and act as deputy to the Bombing Officer.

Ah-ha caught out - AO 402/1915 - War Establishments - Amendments
The number of personnel trained as grenadiers in an infantry battalion is one officer, two sergeants and eight rank and file per battalion, and in addition one NCO and eight men per platoon. In the case of the cavalry and yeomanry regiments, one NCO and four privates per troop will be so trained. War Establishments, Parts I, VII, VIII and IX, and those issued seperately for cavalry and yeomanry regiments should be amended accordingly.

followed by
AO 403/1915 - Badges for Regimental and Battalion Grenadiers
A badge of a grenade has been approved for regimental and battalion grenadiers, strength as laid down in WE's Part's I, VII, VIII and IX, and those issued seperately for cavalry and yeomanry regiments. The badge is in worsted embroidery and will be worn on the right sleeve of the service dress jacket, the top of the flame one inch below the shoulder seam.

Now no colour regarding the flame is mentioned so could the badge illustrated actually be, one of the first pattern issued???

[GRUMPY]

Graham, thank you for putting your hand on that amendment.

However, I rest my case on Per se, my previous post.

Its a bit more than semantics: a sergeant or two trained as grenadier/ bomber is NOT the same as an established post for a Bomb Sergeant, which latter would either call for an extra SNCO, or for one to be taken out of the companies. And the very fact that there were two of them militates against "a Bomb Sergeant".

Whereas the 403/15 does not mention colour, the RACD ledger does indeed.

Either way, we shall never know now!

[Graham Stewart]

Followed in 1916 by;-
A.C.I. 1410 - Badges for Bombers
1. With reference to A.O.'s 402 & 403 of 1915 and ACI 407 of 1916, the badge approved for Regimental and Battalion Bombers, will be worn by all Officer Instructors and NCO Instructors employed at Command or Army Bombing School, but only for the duration of such employment.

2. This badge is not to be worn by any Officer or other rank, even though trained as a bomber, of a Reserve Unit. The units for which this badge is authorized are given in AO 403/1915.

Not trying to cause controversy - but under a Command & Control situation they would be known by all and sundry as the "Bombing" Platoon/Section and as such for such reasons you'd be told to go and see the "Bombing Officer" or "Bombing Sgt", as this was their 'trade'.

[GRUMPY]

We are absolutely not going to fall out over this one [but the day may yet dawn!] and the readership has received a thorough education.

Readership: REJOICE!

[wulsten]

Graham/Grumpy, im a happy bunny, its called positive debate, it's great to have two people who dont just brush an enquiry to one side but actively seek and solve a little mystery to enhance everone's knowledge, my thanks again, forum at its best, Geoff

[Lancashire Fusilier]

wulsten, on 16 August 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

Graham/Grumpy, im a happy bunny, its called positive debate, it's great to have two people who dont just brush an enquiry to one side but actively seek and solve a little mystery to enhance everone's knowledge, my thanks again, forum at its best, Geoff

Geoff,
Yes, that is the strength of this Forum, and whilst there is still lots to learn, there are lots of members with excellent knowledge and a willingness to share that knowledge.
I have learned a lot just from this thread.
Many thanks,
LF