Company structure

[gunnerwalker]

I’m wondering if someone can tell me if there was an official layout of company structure in British infantry battalions - and if so, what that might be? I thought I had a fairly firm understanding yet I’ve seen plenty of conflicting pieces of information.

In his book, Frank Richards describes that a pre-war battalion consisted of eight companies, each of which comprised of four sections. When he was recalled the new structure had become four companies to a battalion, four platoons to each company, and four sections to each platoon* - what I understood to be the case, with the companies named A through D.

Just off the top of my head I can think of one contemporary account where an officer describes his company’s attack in 1916 and refers to two subalterns leading 7 and 8 Platoons. I also have one postcard where the man says he is of 9 Platoon.

I understand some regiments have their individual traditions which may cause variation, but what is considered to be the general standard? 

 

EDIT - *this is what the LLT also says.

Edited 31 October , 2023 by gunnerwalker

[Moonraker]

This doesn't exactly answer your question but ...

In November, the First Canadian Contingent on Salisbury Plain was re-organized with the aim of transforming it more into the size and shape of a British division. There were several changes of mind, with battalions converting from having eight companies each to four and back again, the argument for four being that they were easier for a battalion commander to control than eight dispersed across a battlefield. The sequence went something like this, though there are variations in different accounts:

20-22 October: Each battalion's eight companies merge into four. This formation was used for Lord Roberts' inspection on the 24th. The 15th Battalion's diary for 3 November refers to it being manoeuvred that day for the first time in four-company formation.

6 November: The Army Council decided that overseas contingents should have an eight-company formation.

17 November: The Contingent started to revert to this. The 15th Battalion's diary for the 19th refers to orders being received to revert to eight-company formation, something its officers regretted, as they had become proficient in the new drill. On 23 November the 14th Battalion's diary optimistically noted that all battalions were 'definitely organised on 4 (sic) company and platoon basis', the compiler perhaps being understandably confused about the number of companies.

10 December:  General Alderson, the (British) CO of the Contingent, was told that the Army Council had decided on a four-company formation.

14 December: The Army Council reversed this decision.

15 January: The 3rd Infantry Brigade diary notes orders to revert to a four-company formation, the Contingent as a whole starting to do so the next day.

In the end, most battalions lost 11 or so officers each, leading to a surplus that caused General Alderson considerable concern, as some officers and NCOs who were mostly surplus to requirements had already been transferred to Britain's New Armies.

[FROGSMILE]

On 31/10/2023 at 00:29, gunnerwalker said:

I’m wondering if someone can tell me if there was an official layout of company structure in British infantry battalions - and if so, what that might be? I thought I had a fairly firm understanding yet I’ve seen plenty of conflicting pieces of information.

In his book, Frank Richards describes that a pre-war battalion consisted of eight companies, each of which comprised of four sections. When he was recalled the new structure had become four companies to a battalion, four platoons to each company, and four sections to each platoon* - what I understood to be the case, with the companies named A through D.

Just off the top of my head I can think of one contemporary account where an officer describes his company’s attack in 1916 and refers to two subalterns leading 7 and 8 Platoons. I also have one postcard where the man says he is of 9 Platoon.

I understand some regiments have their individual traditions which may cause variation, but what is considered to be the general standard? 

 

EDIT - *this is what the LLT also says.

The normal structure after 1913 for regular battalions (1915 for TF**) was:

A Company - 1 , 2, 3, and 4 platoon. Sections A to D.

B Company - 5, 6, 7, and 8 platoon. Sections ditto.

C Company - 9, 10, 11 and 12 platoon. Sections ditto.

D Company - 13, 14, 15, and 16 platoon. Sections ditto.

Caveat.  Some battalions favoured W, X, Y and Z Companies, but the remainder of the breakdown was the same as above.  Some others numbered their companies 1, 2, 3, 4.  Again the remaining breakdown stayed extant, e.g. No 1 Company, 1 Platoon, D Section.  Sometimes Roman numerals were used to designate platoons, i.e. XX Platoon instead of 20 Platoon.

**those TF battalions first to arrive in France, in several instances arrived with 8-companies, and converted to the new structure in theatre.  Others changed structure at home, but on the cusp of embarkation, and the later battalions also converted at home, but with enough time to settle into the new structure before embarking.

There was no fixed way to merge companies but the most common seems to have been A with E, B with F, C with G and D with H, but there were apparently other combinations depending upon local circumstances and the decision of the commanding officer.

A key part of the arrangement is that it most affected both the officer and SNCO hierarchies within the companies.  Two captains found themselves in a single company, so the senior, or one selected by the CO became the commander (some, but not all were later promoted to major) and the other second-in-command.  Of the two colour sergeants the senior, or one selected became company sergeant major (not an unheard of post in the wider army, but new to the line infantry as a whole), and the more junior man fulfilled a new infantry role as company-quarter-master-sergeant looking after the logistics.

The intent was to mirror image in the HQ at company level what had worked well for a great many decades at battalion level.  The artillery had been the first to follow this sub-unit arrangement in the decade after the Crimea if I recall correctly (BSM and BQMS), followed by the cavalry in the 1890s (SSM and SQMS).  Thus it was not unfamiliar to the combatant arms as a whole.

 I hope that helps, but please ask if there’s anything unclear.

Edited 25 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Robin Garrett]

I see in Appendix III that each company had 8 sergeants. Four were, I assume, platoon sergeants. Were there 2 sergeants per platoon?

[gunnerwalker]

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

The normal structure after 1913 for regular battalions (1915 for TF**) was:

A Company - 1 , 2, 3, and 4 platoon. Sections A to D.

B Company - 5, 6, 7, and 8 platoon. Sections ditto.

C Company - 9, 10, 11 and 12 platoon. Sections ditto.

D Company - 13, 14, 15, and 16 platoon. Sections ditto.

Caveat.  Some battalions favoured W, X, Y and Z Companies, but the remainder of the breakdown was the same as above.  Some others numbered their companies 1, 2, 3, 4.  Again the remaining breakdown stayed extant, e.g. No 1 Company, 1 Platoon, D Section.  Sometimes Roman numerals were used to designate platoons, i.e. XX Platoon instead of 20 Platoon.

So they were numbered sequentially through the battalion! Many thanks FROGSMILE, this has cleared it up at the source mentioning 7 and 8 Platoons was from the officer commanding B Coy. in his battalion and my 9 Platoon postcard says C Coy. 

I had thought the platoons were 1 through 4 for each company.

 

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

A key part of the arrangement is that it most affected both the officer and SNCO hierarchies witting the companies.  Two captains found themselves in a single company so the senior or one selected by the CO became the commander (some, but not all were later promoted to major) and the other second-in-command.  Of the two colour sergeants the senior or one selected became company sergeant major (not an unheard of post but new to the line infantry as a whole), and the more junior man fulfilled a new role as company-quarter-master-sergeant.

All very clear thank you, but I have a couple of questions.

In an ideal world, would this new leadership structure have been maintained or was the new dispersion of personnel a measure to cope with the surplus of manpower at the point of initial re-organisation? For example, if the captain who was second-in-command of a company was killed or wounded severely enough to remove him from theatre, was this seen as a gaping whole in the company structure and necessary to be filled as soon as possible due to the increased company size? Or was it seen as manageable given companies had been used to having only a single captain previously?

 

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

Secondly, I understand when going overseas the bandsmen acted as stretcher bearers. The LLT mentions that at some point (1917 off the top of my head) the number of stretcher bearers in a battalion doubled to 32. Where would the additional men have come from? Were they moved across from other roles in the battalion or did the RAMC supply them?

[gunnerwalker]

6 hours ago, Moonraker said:

This doesn't exactly answer your question but ...

In November, the First Canadian Contingent on Salisbury Plain was re-organized with the aim of transforming it more into the size and shape of a British division. There were several changes of mind, with battalions converting from having eight companies each to four and back again, the argument for four being that they were easier for a battalion commander to control than eight dispersed across a battlefield. The sequence went something like this, though there are variations in different accounts:

20-22 October: Each battalion's eight companies merge into four. This formation was used for Lord Roberts' inspection on the 24th. The 15th Battalion's diary for 3 November refers to it being manoeuvred that day for the first time in four-company formation.

6 November: The Army Council decided that overseas contingents should have an eight-company formation.

17 November: The Contingent started to revert to this. The 15th Battalion's diary for the 19th refers to orders being received to revert to eight-company formation, something its officers regretted, as they had become proficient in the new drill. On 23 November the 14th Battalion's diary optimistically noted that all battalions were 'definitely organised on 4 (sic) company and platoon basis', the compiler perhaps being understandably confused about the number of companies.

10 December:  General Alderson, the (British) CO of the Contingent, was told that the Army Council had decided on a four-company formation.

14 December: The Army Council reversed this decision.

15 January: The 3rd Infantry Brigade diary notes orders to revert to a four-company formation, the Contingent as a whole starting to do so the next day.

In the end, most battalions lost 11 or so officers each, leading to a surplus that caused General Alderson considerable concern, as some officers and NCOs who were mostly surplus to requirements had already been transferred to Britain's New Armies.

Interesting, and how very odd. Why all the back and forth? You'd think if the companies had got to grips with the new structure they'd leave it at that. Also the Canadian units would be a lot more compatible with British forces and therefore you'd think it would be easier when combining in operations.

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, Robin Garrett said:

I see in Appendix III that each company had 8 sergeants. Four were, I assume, platoon sergeants. Were there 2 sergeants per platoon?

I don’t think there were 2 sergeants per platoon.  Just 4 matching the number of platoon commanders.  I do recall something about these extra sergeants being discussed in the forum years ago, but I cannot recall the details.  I think that @Ron Clifton might recall the details, but it was probably over a decade ago now.

Edited 31 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, gunnerwalker said:

Interesting, and how very odd. Why all the back and forth? You'd think if the companies had got to grips with the new structure they'd leave it at that. Also the Canadian units would be a lot more compatible with British forces and therefore you'd think it would be easier when combining in operations.

In the British Army and thus the War Office there were those who passionately disliked the new 4-company organisation, which had been argued about since the late 1890s.  You can read the debate in archived military periodicals.  Predictably perhaps, albeit with a few exceptions, younger officers were for the change whereas older officers tended to be agin it. 

Edited 31 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

On 31/10/2023 at 18:18, gunnerwalker said:

So they were numbered sequentially through the battalion! Many thanks FROGSMILE, this has cleared it up at the source mentioning 7 and 8 Platoons was from the officer commanding B Coy. in his battalion and my 9 Platoon postcard says C Coy. 

I had thought the platoons were 1 through 4 for each company.

 

All very clear thank you, but I have a couple of questions.

In an ideal world, would this new leadership structure have been maintained or was the new dispersion of personnel a measure to cope with the surplus of manpower at the point of initial re-organisation? For example, if the captain who was second-in-command of a company was killed or wounded severely enough to remove him from theatre, was this seen as a gaping whole in the company structure and necessary to be filled as soon as possible due to the increased company size? Or was it seen as manageable given companies had been used to having only a single captain previously?

 

Secondly, I understand when going overseas the bandsmen acted as stretcher bearers. The LLT mentions that at some point (1917 off the top of my head) the number of stretcher bearers in a battalion doubled to 32. Where would the additional men have come from? Were they moved across from other roles in the battalion or did the RAMC supply them?

Yes, the platoons were deliberately numbered sequentially so that each would have its own unique identity with all the benefits for esprit-de-corps that that entailed.  Significantly it was the first level of command with its own officer.  Most infantry officers will remember the numbered identity of their first command.

Broadly speaking the old British Treasury principle that any organisational change should be cost neutral was applied and so the two staffs simply merged.  The new companies were bigger (twice the size) and so intended to be more robust.  They could take casualties without losing much of their combat capability in comparison with the old, much smaller companies.  If the 2i/c captain became a casualty the usual reaction was to move up the senior and most experienced platoon commander (subaltern) to take his place, with the platoon sergeant stepping up to command the platoon.

The band acting as stretcher bearers supporting the RMO and regimental aid post (RAP) was not for the first time shown to be inadequate, but the industrialised scale of warfare emphasised the faulty preconceived ideas.  Apparently some of the bandsmen were in many cases insufficiently physically robust to meet the demands of carrying loaded stretchers that in theory were supposed to be carried by 4-men, whereas in reality most had just 2.  I can’t recall the precise date, but it was probably before the Somme in 1916 that establishment changes were necessary to increase the number of stretcher bearers, as well as to select them specifically for their task, rather than to blow a brass horn.  At the same time it was realised that high quality bandsmen could be of more use to the war effort playing music at home in order to support recruiting and raise morale via public concerts.  I cannot remember whether the extra stretcher bearers came from elsewhere in the establishment, or via direct increases to the battalion strength (i.e. an establishment increase).  Certainly the battalion order of battle (ORBAT) and establishment necessary to underpin it had changed substantially by 1918 when compared with that for 1914.

Edited 25 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[gunnerwalker]

28 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes, the platoons were deliberately numbered sequentially so that each would have its own unique identity with all the benefits for esprit-de-corps that that entailed.  Significantly it was the first level of command with its own officer.  Most infantry officers will remember the numbered identity of their first command.

Broadly speaking the old British Treasury principle that any organisational change should be cost neutral was applied and so the two staffs simply merged.  The new companies were bigger (twice the size) and so intended to be more robust.  They could take casualties without losing much of their combat capability in comparison with the old, much smaller companies.  If the 2i/c captain became a casualty the usual reaction was to move up the senior and most experienced platoon commander to take his place, with the platoon sergeant stepping up to command the platoon.

The band acting as stretcher bearers supporting the RMO and regimental aid post (RAP) was not for the first time shown to be inadequate, but the industrialised scale of warfare emphasised the faulty preconceived ideas.  Apparently some of the bandsmen were in many cases insufficiently physically robust to meet the demands of carrying loaded stretchers that in theory were supposed to be carried by 4-men, whereas in reality most had just 2.  I can’t recall the precise date, but it was probably before the Somme in 1916 that establishment changes were necessary to increase the number of stretcher bearers, as well as to select them specifically for their task, rather than to blow a brass horn.  At the same time it was realised that high quality bandsmen could be of more use to the war effort playing music at home in order to support recruiting and raise morale via public concerts.  I cannot recall whether the extra stretcher bearers came from elsewhere in the establishment, or via direct increases.  The battalion ORBAT and establishment to support it had changed substantially by 1918 when compared with that for 1914.

Thank you for the very detailed explanation.

[FROGSMILE]

13 hours ago, gunnerwalker said:

Thank you for the very detailed explanation.

I’m glad to help.  It is an interesting exercise to compare the Infantry battalion establishment for 1914 with that for 1918. 

[FROGSMILE]

17 hours ago, Robin Garrett said:

I see in Appendix III that each company had 8 sergeants. Four were, I assume, platoon sergeants. Were there 2 sergeants per platoon?

I’ve found the details I was looking for from old notes I took years ago.  Four of the sergeants are second-in-command of a platoon, as previously described, which leaves four junior sergeants, or lance sergeants filling their vacancy and ten corporals for employment as section commanders.

As there are sixteen sections, two of the sections in each company would have been commanded by ‘paid lance-corporals’ as acting corporals backfilling those moved up as lance sergeants.

Overall the NCO establishment allows for the flexibility necessary when casualties (not just battle casualties, but manning churn too) might lead to various acting and lance ranks fulfilling positions above their substantive status**.

**also for a section sergeant to move up and replace the platoon sergeant should he become a casualty.

Edited 1 November , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

What about the Lance corporals? How many of them are there in the company?

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Captain Chip said:

What about the Lance corporals? How many of them are there in the company?

There was no established number of unpaid lance corporals, the more common type, and the number appointed (it was not a rank at that time) was a matter for the officer commanding the company, probably in accordance with a policy agreed with his battalion commander (lieutenant colonel).  It was a flexible arrangement (from original inception) to allow for casualties.  The only formal limit was the small number of lance corporals that could be paid, which as explained was in the gift of the battalion commander**.  In general there were usually enough lance corporals appointed to provide a deputy (aka 2i/c) for each section commander, plus those ‘paid’, who would backfill the corporals raised to lance sergeant. 

**this was a funding allowance to top up the pay from private.  As you can see from the establishment table it wasn’t an establishment matter, as lance corporals aren’t even mentioned, as they are not a rank.  The intention of all ‘lance’ appointments was twofold, to act as polyfilla to fill gaps, and to give the opportunity to test men out who show promise, and aid in the process of selecting the best men to become NCOs.

NB.  The lance corporal appointment did not become a paid rank until the early 1960s (so around 160 years since inception) and, at the same time, the appointment of lance sergeant was abolished (except in the Foot Guards - where the meaning and status of the position changed).  In essence the new, salaried nature of professional soldiery, was felt inappropriate to include unpaid positions of responsibility, not least because of the intent to provide a modern pension scheme.

Edited 26 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

Ah ok. Thanks!

 

[FROGSMILE]

20 minutes ago, Captain Chip said:

Ah ok. Thanks!

 

Glad to help, I know it must seem arcane now, but it was a well tried and trusted system that injected a much needed degree of flexibility, and had been in existence since the Napoleonic Wars.  It was designed for the constant manpower churn of war.  Let me know if there’s anything else that you don’t understand and I’ll endeavour to explain.

Edited 25 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

Actually in Other Great War Chat, I think it is. I am questioning how a 1914 German Company would be organized.

27 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Glad to help, I know it must seem arcane now, but it was a well tried and trusted system that injected a much needed degree of flexibility, and had been in existence since the Napoleonic Wars.  It was designed for the constant manpower churn of war.  Let me know if there’s anything else that you don’t understand and I’ll endeavour to explain.

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

52 minutes ago, Captain Chip said:

Actually in Other Great War Chat, I think it is. I am questioning how a 1914 German Company would be organized.

 

 

I can’t help you with the German organisation but forum pals such as @charlie2 and @GreyC will probably be able to advise in that thread.

[Captain Chip]

Ok thanks.

 

[Captain Chip]

Ok, I got one. How many 1st Lieutenants or 2nd Lieutenants would be in the company? In the American Civil War, it was specific that we had 1x First Lieutenant and 1x Second Lieutenant. So what would the case be with a company that is supposed to have 4 lieutenants?

[FROGSMILE]

Just now, Captain Chip said:

Ok, I got one. How many 1st Lieutenants or 2nd Lieutenants would be in the company? In the American Civil War, it was specific that we had 1x First Lieutenant and 1x Second Lieutenant. So what would the case be with a company that is supposed to have 4 lieutenants?

They could be either, there was no fixed ratio.  The British Army commonly used the generic term subaltern (lieutenant) in a way that the US do/did not.  The position of platoon command was fulfilled by a subaltern, who might be junior (second lieutenant - previously ensign), or senior (lieutenant - the term 1st lieutenant not used in Britain).  This injected flexibility in the battalion and it was up to the lieutenant colonel commanding in conjunction with his adjutant (principal staff officer) to determine the distribution of subalterns throughout the battalion, in order to achieve the best possible balance.

[Captain Chip]

Seems like the Lieutenant Colonel made up the ratio with certain ranks like Lieutenants and Lance Corporals. Would he also take charge of like who should be promoted when casualties were inflicted on the battalion?

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

8 minutes ago, Captain Chip said:

Seems like the Lieutenant Colonel made up the ratio with certain ranks like Lieutenants and Lance Corporals. Would he also take charge of like who should be promoted when casualties were inflicted on the battalion?

 

 

Yes that’s correct.

His decision would be the final arbiter yes, but he usually listened to the view of the company commander concerned, as the latter would have seen the individual concerned at close quarters, over a period of time, and during a variety of activities. 

Edited 26 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

Huh... ok. Way more different than the American army.

 

[FROGSMILE]

50 minutes ago, Captain Chip said:

Huh... ok. Way more different than the American army.

 

Maybe so, but a system that worked well, in that it provided the commanding officer with a significant degree of operational flexibility and adaptability.  In general, the British Army commanding officers of those times had a power of command that gave them the internal status almost of a demigod.  He was left to get on with it by higher formation and, providing he produced results, his unit’s command and husbandry was not interfered with by his superiors.  However, if he failed operationally, or was in any way found to be coming up short, his removal from command would often be ruthless and peremptory.  

Edited 26 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE