Territorial/Service Battalions

[Jim Gordon]

Did a Service Battalion of the New Army take precedence over a Territorial Army Battalion in the military hierarchy of 1914 - 1918 ?

Regards

Jim Gordon

[Muerrisch]

Strictly, precedence was by number, and in the case of RWF, 1 and 2 were regular, 3 was Special Reserve, 4,5,6,7 were TF. This was reflected in the formalised seniority of officers of 'equal' rank, and NCOs of 'equal' rank, regardless of date of promotion, whereby regular Lt [eg] was senior to any SR Lt, who in turn was senior to TF. During the war, these rules became outmoded and were formally rescinded.

To the Service battalions, 8,9 etc. I really do not know! However, as a 'duration' man was deemed to be a regular under a different contract, you could make a case for ALL service battalions to be senior to all SR and TF. And I expect they thought they were.

Good question.

[robwilliams]

Jim,

Service Bn officers and men were looked upon as part of the regular army and so had precedence over TF men, not very popular with the TF!

Rob

[Jim Gordon]

LB/Rob

Thank you both for your replies. I don't suppose the TA were enthralled by the position but at the Front where the ironware was flying I expect such matters faded into insignificance.

It brings to mind the old crack:- It is difficult when you are up to your buttocks in crocodiles to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

Regards

Jim Gordon

[robwilliams]

Jim,

It actually did cause some resentment. See Henry Ogle's book 'diaries and sketches'. He felt that his division, 48th, suffered because it was TF and only got line-holding duties. He felt that this probably occurred because the officers were grammar school, rather than public school.

Rob

[Ste]

He felt that this probably occurred because the officers were grammar school, rather than public school.

There could be some truth to that. The original officers of Kitchener's Army, inadequate in number though they were, were Regulars, and therefore largely public school types. As I understand it, the Army tried to maintain this distinction when recruiting temporary officers thereafter.

Therefore the Territorials found itself officered by men of lesser social rank than both the Regulars and Kitchener's mob.

S

[Jim Gordon]

Rob/Ste

I think we all three agree that a certain animosity, almost hostility, existed between Regular/Service and Territorial Units. What I was tryining to point out, probably inadequately, was that this ethos was mainly confined to the Officer class (or was it ?) and at the "coal-face" it was not much of a consideration.

Does anyone know of the success of an action being compromised by this prejudice either at low or high command level ?

As regards the 48th. Division, in view of it's fine record, I find it odd that the GCO did not consider it good enough. I think having such a "fire-brand" in command would lead to certain discomfort among those he commanded.

Regards

Jim Gordon

[Jim Gordon]

Rob/Ste

Sorry for the following typo in previous posting :-

For "certain discomfort" read "a certain discomfort"

Regards

Jim Gordon

[Jim Gordon]

As an extension to the above posting can anyone answer the following queries:

1) What was the highest rank in the Infantry reached by a Territorial Officer excluding those Regulars posted to TA Units ?

2) Ditto for New Army or Service Officers ?

3) Were Corps troops, e.g. A.S.C., Medical, Artillery etc. , assigned to Territorial Divisions, members of the TA ?

Regards

Jim Gordon

[Muerrisch]

was this ethos  mainly confined to the Officer class  and at the "coal-face" it was not much of a consideration.

Certainly was widespread in 2RWF, a regular battalion. All TF looked down on except the best, eg 5 SR, Reith's battalion. 2RWF even wired their flanks if flanked by TF! Old Comrades association membership barred to 'hostilities only' other ranks, never mind SR or TF. Pte. Frank Richards scathing of most TF units.

Highest rank in 2RWF reached by an outsider was Major R Adamson, ex RWF TF.