The Guards and Kitchener's Army

[ubervamp]

Originally Posted by Wmr-RHB

I assume they hadn't much to say on this subject

Henk

My point exactly!

So someone in the War Office, at some point must have "agreed" not to dub the Guards new battalions as "service" battalions. I'll probably never find out for sure, but am very interested to know how that came about, whether it was even discussed, and what argumentation was used to omit this title. Or, more correctly, what constitutes a "service" battalion, and how did the Guards battalions differ from this so as to NOT have to use this title for their war raised battalions.

Colin

[Hussar100]

Originally Posted by ubervamp

Glyn

This was exactly my thought when I started the thread.
I can't see any other diferentiation other than the Guards strict standards.
It seems it it only the lack of the word "service" in the title of these battalions that might be seen as setting them apart. It seems a bit arbitrary, though.
If the Devonshires had called their battalions "duty battalions" would they not be considered service battalions?

When is a service battalion not a service battalion? Answer: when it's a Guards battalion

I think it's a question of exigencies, as well as snobbery. Why didn't the Guards go for 20 battalions per regiment? Why did they choose elitism as the way forward rather than the practicalities of fighting for King and Country, or did their supporters on the IGS, the Army Board and in the upper echelons of influence believe that was the way forward?

Bear in mind the Guards weren't the only outfit not to expand much beyond pre-war establishment. The cavalry, whilst expanded, didn't get 2nd battalions, and (if I'm not wrong) many yeomanry outfits didn't either. Ok you can argue it was largely an infantry war if you ignore the Middle East - but then again you can't ignore the Middle East and out there cavalry and yeomanry were the boys, although that didn't stop some yeomanry units having to wear the broken spur.

I wonder do any unit histories give a further explanation? Has anybody got Kipling's History of the Irish Guards? That's supposedly the best regimental history ever written.

It's a great discussion and if I have time tomorrow, and no-one else has, I intend to raise the subject on the 14-18 site.

[High Wood]

Originally Posted by Hussar100

None of this shows they didn't raise service battalions though. Their establishment was three battalions on paper, although some regiments had less. Whether or not some used their service battalions as pioneers or public duties battalions or if they had the title "service" or not they were still service battalions and were raised from Kitchener volunteers.

Gentlemen, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck; in all likelihood it's a duck.

Duck or no duck, the volunteers that Kitchener called to arms were intended for his 'New Army' of a million men. Using the existing regimental structure, service battalions were added to the compliment of existing line regiments for equipping and training. These service battalions served in brigades made up of four Service battalions and these brigades served in New Army Divisions made up of three Service battalion Brigades and the necessary support arms.

The extra Guards battalions only served in the Guards Divisions unless deliberately moved out to stiffen other Divisions for short periods. Generally though it was regular army line regiment battalions that were used to stiffen New Army divisions.

Incidentally, being called a duck is not always accurate. A Bombay duck is duck in name only.

[High Wood]

Originally Posted by Hussar100

I wonder do any unit histories give a further explanation? Has anybody got Kipling's History of the Irish Guards? That's supposedly the best regimental history ever written.
.

I have a copy of Kipling's history of the Irish Guards and will look it up. I also have Dudley Ward's history of the Welsh Guards and Petre, Ewart and Lowther's, The Scots Guards in the Great War to refer to.

[Hussar100]

Originally Posted by High Wood

Duck or no duck, the volunteers that Kitchener called to arms were intended for his 'New Army' of a million men. Using the existing regimental structure, service battalions were added to the compliment of existing line regiments for equipping and training. These service battalions served in brigades made up of four Service battalions and these brigades served in New Army Divisions made up of three Service battalion Brigades and the necessary support arms.

The extra Guards battalions only served in the Guards Divisions unless deliberately moved out to stiffen other Divisions for short periods. Generally though it was regular army line regiment battalions that were used to stiffen New Army divisions.

Incidentally, being called a duck is not always accurate. A Bombay duck is duck in name only.

Always remember: in the army everything follows a set pattern of rules - except when it doesn't.

[High Wood]

There were certainly rules but the fact remains that none of the extra Guard's battalions that were formed in 1914 were ever officially designated 'service' battalions.

[Hussar100]

Originally Posted by High Wood

There were certainly rules but the fact remains that none of the extra Guard's battalions that were formed in 1914 were ever officially designated 'service' battalions.

A rose by any other name? The Guards called them "Reserve" battalions.