Rank of Sergeant

[Rvictor]

Trying to understand detail of rank concerning sergeants in WW1 ... CSM, Sgt, L/Sgt ... how do all of these work in terms of rank, and how many "Sergeants" were in a Platoon & a Company?

[ss002d6252]

This gives a basic overview of the strength of a battalion and the different roles - it did change over time though

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/definitions-of-units/what-was-a-battalion-of-infantry/

 

Craig

[FROGSMILE]

5 hours ago, Rvictor said:

Trying to understand detail of rank concerning sergeants in WW1 ... CSM, Sgt, L/Sgt ... how do all of these work in terms of rank, and how many "Sergeants" were in a Platoon & a Company?

 

Each infantry company usually comprised as follows:

 

1.  a Company Sergeant Major (CSM) - the senior among 'enlisted men', that were known in the British Army as 'other ranks' i.e. below commissioned officer - in civilian parlance a foreman).

2.  a Company Quartermaster Sergeant (CQMS) - second to the CSM above and responsible for the resupplies necessary to live and fight.

3.  Four Sergeants (Sgt), one per platoon (second to the platoon commander, an officer, and responsible for discipline, generally overseeing the men's routine and acting as an intermediary with the officer - in civilian parlance a charge hand).  Each platoon comprised four sections.

4.  Corporals (Cpl), one per section of 10 or 8 men depending on the prevailing strength of the company.

5.  Lance Corporals (LCpl), one per section as above, and generally acting as the deputy of the Cpl.  The LCpl was in effect like a Trusty or probationer and was appointed to his position rather than promoted. This meant his position of authority was tenuous and could as easily be taken away as it was awarded.

6.  Some of those from 3. and 4. above might also have the term Lance in front of their title, which meant that they were 'stepping up' from their normal rank that was one down.

 

Caveat:  The above only outlines things in the most basic way and there were various factors that nuanced things, e.g. in 1914 the CSM and CQMS were appointed to their positions from the same rank of Colour Sergeant, but after 1915 things were formalised so that the CSM became a Warrant Officer of a new, second class, and the CQMS became a rank in its own right.  Over the course of the war battalions in the front line were reduced in strength and there were sometimes fewer sub-units as a result.  Other parts of the Army than the infantry did not always use the same terms for a particular position, e.g. in the artillery the term Bombardier was used instead of Lance Corporal and in the engineers, and ordnance corps the term Second Corporal was used for the same level.  All of these were substantive ranks (pensionable and with a seniority date), unlike the appointment of Lance Corporal. These support corps were also often configured in units of a different size to the infantry.  Each infantry battalion was afforded a very few Lance Corporal and Lance Sergeant positions that could actually be paid for the authority that they held, providing that they were actually filling the vacancy, rather than acting as a supernumerary, of a man in the rank above them.  These were in the gift of the commanding officer and strictly controlled.  The same arrangement applied to other parts of the Army regardless of the NCO titles used. 

 

I hope that helps....

Edited 12 March , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Terry_Reeves]

'e.g. in the artillery the term Bombardier was used instead of Lance Corporal and in the engineers, and ordnance corps the term Second Corporal was used for the same level.'"

 

Don't want to be pernickerty Frogsmile but the appointment of L/Cpl and the rank of 2 Cpl in the RE were quite different although, confusingly,  they both wore a single chevron.

 

TR

[FROGSMILE]

8 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

'e.g. in the artillery the term Bombardier was used instead of Lance Corporal and in the engineers, and ordnance corps the term Second Corporal was used for the same level.'"

 

Don't want to be pernickerty Frogsmile but the appointment of L/Cpl and the rank of 2 Cpl in the RE were quite different although, confusingly,  they both wore a single chevron.

 

TR

 

Read the rest of it Terry..... "All of these were substantive ranks (pensionable and with a seniority date), unlike the appointment of Lance Corporal".

 

N.B.  In effect the RA, RE and AOC had an extra level of substantive ranks, but also had the lower, generally unpaid, and non-substantive 'appointment' beneath.  I felt that would confuse the OP and so didn't even attempt to explain it.  These too all had one stripe.

Edited 12 March , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Terry_Reeves]

10 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

Read the rest of it Terry..... "All of these were substantive ranks (pensionable and with a seniority date), unlike the appointment of Lance Corporal".

 

N.B.  In effect the RA, RE and AOC had an extra level of substantive ranks, but also had the lower, generally unpaid, and non-substantive 'appointment' beneath.  I felt that would confuse the OP and so didn't even attempt to explain it.  These too all had one stripe.

Thanks Frogsmile, but I felt it important to highlight the difference for the CRE in particular as it causes confusion.

 

TR

 

[FROGSMILE]

1 minute ago, Terry_Reeves said:

Thanks Frogsmile, but I felt it important to highlight the difference for the CRE in particular as it causes confusion.

 

TR

 

 

The poor guy is trying to understand the basics Terry....I made a judgement call.  Feel free to take the time to explain all the ins and outs yourself....

[Terry_Reeves]

I did understand that Frogsmile, but in a few years time when this subject come up again then there will be a record.. I'm sure you will understand.

 

TR 

 

[FROGSMILE]

26 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

I did understand that Frogsmile, but in a few years time when this subject come up again then there will be a record.. I'm sure you will understand.

 

TR 

 

 

No, I don't understand Terry, I think you should go into the proper detail and explain it all for the OP.  As you say, then it will form a record.

[Terry_Reeves]

I don't need to Frogsmile, after all the post was about the rank of sergeant or am I wrong in this matter?

 

 

 

TR

Edited 12 March , 2020 by Terry_Reeves

[Ron Clifton]

Small corrections to Frogsmile's post number 3:

 

These figures are from 1914 War Establishments, so there may have been some changes during the war (especially in the 1917 reorganisation).

 

1. A company had eight sergeants, two per platoon (the senior being the platoon sergeant) and ten corporals (generally the section commanders). Therefore, some sections would be commanded by lance-corporals.

 

2. There were also about ten sergeants with battalion HQ fulfilling specialist roles e.g. sergeant-cook, sergeant-drummer etc.

 

Ron

[FROGSMILE]

Look guys I am familiar with the establishment tables, they set the expenditure and equipment needed for units, but they don’t reflect what happened on the ground.  I worked with both establishment tables at staff headquarters level and also within the units themselves at a time when the Army and infantry units in particular were very similar to how they were during WW1, although reduced in strength at sub unit and platoon level.  
 

Extra sergeants and corporals, especially early in the war were employed elsewhere than where it said in the establishment table. Things like canteens, messes, formation HQ support units, and training schools, all had to be staffed and that was done with the extra men on unit establishments, until such time as Labour Corps Employment Companies and other equivalents for training schools were created.  There were also men of the battalion reserve that was left out of the line later in the war to form local reserves in the event of unit decimation, not to mention specialists like bombers and trench mortar men that were not envisaged by the 1914 establishment tables.  Platoons had one platoon sergeant and sections one commander, to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.

 
A platoon commander only needed one platoon sergeant and the same for section commanders.  Examine the written accounts of units and scrutinise photographs of sections and platoons and you will not see all these extra NCOs, they were superfluous, but there we’re always jobs for them elsewhere (known as ‘HQ Details’) that were not formally reflected in the establishment tables. There were also always men away sick and on training courses, and the extra personnel were intended as a margin to enable all these things to happen without denuding the bayonet strength of units.
 

The original poster wanted a simple outline that he could understand of how the sergeants within a company were configured and that’s what I explained, together with the more junior NCOs that underpinned them and enabled the overall company structure to function.  He did not ask for academic minutiae, or splitting of hairs about the different roles of a multifarious range of men with different functions wearing one stripe.  I notice that no one else attempted to explain what the original poster sought, but there’s no shortage of academics pitching in to carp about whether every possible caveat that existed has been mentioned.

Edited 12 March , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Rvictor]

Thanks guys ... gives me a good understanding of the basics of it, and the nuances  :-) 

what significance should I put on "Sergeant Major" .. and "Colour Sergeant" as opposed to simply "Sergeant"

 

... and is it always necessary to go through Private (in the case of my grandfather) Pioneer, through Corporal to Sergeant .. and would it be unusual to make that progression in 15 months? ... your comparisons to civy street, foreman etc, might be relevant, as I think he was a foreman on council employment prior to volunteering.

[FROGSMILE]

12 hours ago, Rvictor said:

Thanks guys ... gives me a good understanding of the basics of it, and the nuances  :-) 

what significance should I put on "Sergeant Major" .. and "Colour Sergeant" as opposed to simply "Sergeant"

 

... and is it always necessary to go through Private (in the case of my grandfather) Pioneer, through Corporal to Sergeant .. and would it be unusual to make that progression in 15 months? ... your comparisons to civy street, foreman etc, might be relevant, as I think he was a foreman on council employment prior to volunteering.

In general a man might spend a long time as a sergeant before becoming a colour sergeant.  However, before 1881 especially, it was critical for the colour sergeant to be highly numerate and literate if he was to be effective.  This was because he was responsible for administering pay within his company and also copying out in fair hand the orders of his officer (company commander).  This meant that a man who received a good parish education could rise quickly.  A good example is colour sergeant Bourne of Rorkes Drift fame, who having joined in his late teens rose to colour sergeant by the age of 21 because he was bright and educated.  At that time there was only one sergeant major in a battalion as the most senior man, and that remained the case until 1913, when four of the eight colour sergeants were appointed as company sergeant majors, with the other four made company quartermaster sergeants, thus creating a similar structure at the top of a company as was at the top of a battalion.  The artillery had been the first to adopt this structure, then the cavalry and service corps, and finally the infantry.  It remains so today.

Edited 13 March , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

On 12/03/2020 at 20:25, FROGSMILE said:

Yes, it was invariably the case that a man must ascend the ranks, Private, Lance Corporal and so on. If larger jumps were essential through extreme circumstances then a man might take ‘acting rank’ temporarily, such as a sole surviving sergeant being ‘acting sergeant major’, perhaps because of casualties.  In high intensity conflict like WW1 (and WW2) promotion could be rapid, so yes it’s not impossible for a man to be promoted one or two ranks in 15-months.

Edited 14 March , 2020 by FROGSMILE