Territorial Force/New Army Battery COs

[Hoplophile]

As late as February 1916, the Adjutant General was a staunch advocate of four-gun batteries for field artillery units. By the summer of that year, he had reversed his position and was recommending the conversion of all four-gun field batteries into six-gun units.

In his article on the evolution of field artillery in the Expeditionary Force, A.F. Brooke ascribed this change of heart to a desire to economise on "senior officers of the Royal Field Artillery." As the only officer billets that would be saved by converting three four-piece batteries into two six-piece batteries would be those of commanding officer and second-in-command, there must have been a perceived shortage of qualified majors, captains and senior lieutenants.

Has anyone here come across any sign of widespread or high-level dissatisfaction with a significant number of New Army or Territorial Force battery commanders? I ask this because I can find no other explanation for the return to the six-piece battery except the need to weed out battery commanders (and seconds-in-command) that were not up to the very demanding job of managing a battery in combat.

[rflory]

Hoplophile: Your message seems to imply that there were sufficient qualified battery commanders and battery captains to man all of the new army and first and second line TF artillery batteries being formed. I am not convinced that was the case. I think that the reason that the Adutant General changed his mind was that there were not sufficient, senior Captains and Majors to adequately fill all the Battery Commander and Battery Captain slots that were required by the New Army Divisions and the first and second line TA units and therefore six-gun batteries allowed for more guns with less BCs and BKs. Regards. Dick Flory