British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum

Recent Books by Forum Members

   

Go Back   British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum > British Military Insignia > Cavalry, Yeomanry, Tank/RAC Badges

 Other Pages: Galleries, Links etc.
Glossary  Books by Forum Members     Canadian Pre 1914    CEF    CEF Badge Inscriptions   Canadian post 1920     Canadian post 1953     British Cavalry Badges     Makers' Marks    Pipers' Badges  Canadian Cloth Titles  Books  SEARCH
 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 31-08-14, 07:11 AM
Frank Kelley's Avatar
Frank Kelley Frank Kelley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,562
Default

Hello Rob,
Hope all is well with you, no need for any apologies, I just fail to understand why it was possible to wear the word corps on the head, but, not on the shoulder!
Kind regards Frank
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-09-14, 07:59 AM
Postwarden's Avatar
Postwarden Postwarden is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Garden of England
Posts: 3,224
Default

Back in 2006 I wrote the article below for The Formation Sign the journal of the Military Herladry Society explainin some of the history of the unofficial shoulder titles such as the Recce example on the thread and how Winston Churchill fought, successfully to get an official issue of something equally colourful.

Jon
ACTION THIS DAY.

Has anyone else ever wondered what caused the War Office, between October 1942 and June 1943 to have such a change of heart over cloth shoulder titles on battledress? By ACI 2316 of 31st October 1942 all units were told in no uncertain terms that the War Office would no longer put up with dress irregularities such as cloth shoulder titles. They were to be taken down immediately and no further requests to wear them would be considered. Yet, less than eight months later in ACI 905 of 12th June 1943, they were introduced for the entire army. What caused such a major about turn to take place? As with many wartime events, the responsibility can be laid at the feet of that most charismatic of leaders, Winston Churchill. And this is how it happened....

In late 1942 The Prime Minister inspected the Kent-based 53rd Welsh Division, later destined to take part in the liberation of North West Europe. The Divisional history records that he was “received at Bearsted station by a Guard of Honour of the 2nd Bn The Monmouthshire Regiment, later inspecting the 4th Bn The Welch Regiment and visiting other units.” The following day, Churchill sent a note to The Secretary of State for War, Sir James Grigg :

I was shocked to hear yesterday ...that an Army Council Instruction had been issued ...ordering the immediate removal of all regimental shoulder badges. ...There is no doubt that it will be extremely unpopular and...destroy the regimental esprit de corps upon which all armies...are founded...Who is responsible for this? I fear it is the Adjutant General...I hope you will give directions to cancel the instruction before great harm is done.

This was an opening salvo in a hard-fought battle between the PM and The War Office that was to last four months. The ACI had stated quite clearly that the only authorised regimental designations [shoulder titles] were those for the Household Cavalry, the Foot Guards and the recently included “Airborne” and APTC titles. It went on to say that “This decision is final...all unauthorised articles ...including regimental designations [must] cease to be worn within one month of the date of this ACI.” [31st October 1942]

The first reply to the PM came from Sir Ronald Adam, the maligned Adjutant- General and a former Gunner : “Every unit in the British Army is gradually putting up unauthorised titles...on their battledress. The Board of Trade watch this very carefully and it is unfair to the civilian population to make these signs...if materials were plentiful we should be quite prepared to allow it..”

Sir James Grigg’s reply took a different approach. Whilst admitting that the ACI was “peremptory” he argued that this matter had been considered several times. The decision should be supported “After all it will be very difficult for the Army Council to explain away a recission of an order which states : “This decision is final and no further applications will be submitted.”

Churchill would have none of this. He demanded figures to support the argument about supplies of cloth from The President of The Board of Trade. The President’s defence was less than robust. He had not made any representation that use of materials for shoulder titles was a drain on civilian resources (although they were, as all materials for regimentally purchased titles would come from these as units purchased them privately), but an officer in his Department had expressed the opinion that it might be so if they were authorised for the whole Army. However, if they were authorised for the whole army, then the matter would pass to the Ministry of Supply (MoS) as the agent for government manufacture!

Naturally the MoS was drawn into the discussion. They reiterated that titles purchased through private channels and paid for by Regiments from PRI funds, were a drain on civilian supplies. If titles were now to be extended to the whole Army, they could only be printed. There were insufficient trade resources in the whole UK to supply them embroidered. Even so, some 20,400,000 flashes would be required, which would consume 85,000 yards of cotton cloth and take about six months to manufacture.

The War Office now came back with a further, but slightly different defence. They had assumed that embroidered titles (like those of the Guards) would be required. To supply these would consume 50,000 yards of cloth - but take four years to complete! An added note pointed out that if flashes became an official issue “the civilian market would be indirectly affected...[and] this policy would be very undesirable.”

The Prime Minister replied somewhat testily on 11th December 1942 to the Secretary of State for War : “I have several times made plain that I do not approve of measures which tend to weaken the pride of officers and soldiers in their regiments...[it is] indispensable to invest all combatant units with a clear sense of individual characteristics and distinction. The above applies particularly to the units serving in the Home Army, who are not in contact with the enemy...The argument about expense and the time...is based on wrong and needlessly extravagant assumptions. Accordingly I have reached the conclusion that the wearing of badges, etc, should be resumed from January 1, 1943...An issue of printed badges should be made with utmost speed...in the first instance limited to personnel of combatant units in the United Kingdom, beginning...with the divisions of the Home Army.

He also rebuffed the suggestion that the War Office could not be seen to change its mind and drew in powerful support for shoulder titles : “I do not consider there is any valid force in this. The War Office frequently make mistakes which entail alterations of policy. I may add that I have already ascertained that it would be agreeable to His Majesty The King as Head of the Army if the troops could be permitted to resume their badges.”

Sir James Grigg was not to be browbeaten : “The real issue in this matter is not whether the troops should be allowed to wear a shoulder flash...The issue is one of discipline...whether decisions of the Army Council are to be reversed as a result of informal representations to [you as] the Minister of Defence...you have been advised by the Secretary of State, the CIGS and the C-in-C Home Forces that the right course...is to let the existing orders stand.”

The PM’s three page reply included many requests for the history of this sorry mess, as well as an enquiry as to “why the Guards are to be especially favoured in this matter?”. It ended however with the pointed remark, “I can quite see that the difficulty is one into which you have got yourself by making the enforcement of the wrong principle a matter of prestige, and I should be willing to allow a longer interval to elapse before the general mounting of badges is authorised.”

Still Sir James Grigg did not flinch. Answering in detail all of Churchill’s points he concluded : “However much the regimental spirit would gain by the all round issue of regimental designations...I feel sure that the Army as a whole would lose by our having to withdraw an order in the face of disobedience.”

It was now December 1942 : the discussion had been moving backwards and forwards for over two months, during which time the Prime Minister had been dealing with the after-effects of the breakout from El Alamein and the Torch landings in North Africa.

There was a short break over the Christmas period, but battle resumed on 28th December when Churchill replied to Sir James Grigg : “In view of the fact that successive C-in-C’s had countenanced the practice for so long a period, you have no right to question the discipline of the troops or to use such a word about them as “disobedience”. The strongly worded ACI of October 1942 ought not to have been settled by the military members alone...Parliamentary ministers should have been consulted. I must express the opinion that Artillery Officers [the Adjutant-General] are not particularly qualified to judge the feelings of the Regiments of the Line...For this reason the post of Adjutant-General should be filled wherever possible by an Infantry officer...The badges...have now been all stripped off and I agree that an interval should elapse before they are restored. But I wish them to be restored at an early date. The standard flashes [slip-on titles]...are certainly as unattractive as possible...An effort should be made to produce a more attractive pattern for all standard badges and surely, except for Rifle Regiments, red is preferable...I hope you will therefore present me with a scheme showing how and when effect can be given to the very strong opinion which I hold.”

Sir James Grigg could resist no longer. On 6th February 1943 he submitted his scheme to The Prime Minister, building on many of the PM’s ideas. The new universal designations were for economy reasons to be printed and issued to the whole army “in different colours according to the arm of the Service.” These were to be compulsory for all ranks of the Army at home below the rank of Colonel with the exception of those who were already authorised to wear embroidered titles. Units who had been wearing unauthorised titles were not to be allowed to resume them but must wear the new style. Highland Regiments were to be allowed to wear tartan in place of the title. Once authorised there would be a four month delay before they could be issued. Tantalisingly the file says that “I am enclosing a folder...containing samples of unauthorised designations showing the dates when these were taken in to use.” Sadly this was returned to the War Office and has not so far surfaced.

It took the Prime Minister until 13th March before accepting the scheme : “orders should be given at once so that they may be issued at the earliest possible moment...combatant infantry units should be given preference.” The draft ACI was eventually published as 905 of 12th June 1943, laying down the colours and wording for the printed titles.

And that is the story of the origins of the now sought-after printed titles. Anyone interested in reading the full correspondence can find it in two PRO files : CAB120/227 and PREM3/54/7.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-09-14, 08:22 AM
Robthereiver's Avatar
Robthereiver Robthereiver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kelley View Post
Hello Rob,
Hope all is well with you, no need for any apologies, I just fail to understand why it was possible to wear the word corps on the head, but, not on the shoulder!
Kind regards Frank
Hello Frank

I've corrected my last post as I got it wrong, the corrections I think go some way in explaining your query.

The reference I've used is 'Only the Enemy in Front (every other beggar behind.....) The Recce Corps At War 1949-1946 by Richard Doherty.

Interestingly, there is a Photo in the book of Monty decorating a 15 Recce Sgt. with a DCM in December 1944. The Sgt. is wearing a Black RAC Beret but all his insignia is Recce Corps, and the Shoulder Title is 'RECONNAISSANCE CORPS'.

I have no idea how the Shoulder Title with just 'RECONNAISSANCE' exactly fits in to all this, I had thought that it would have been post 1943 if anything, which I think would have made some sense.

Anyway having made a bit of a lash of this, I hope I've redeemed myself a little. It would help if I could remember exactly what books I do actually have

Cheers
Rob
__________________


The older I get ................the better I was !

Last edited by Robthereiver; 01-09-14 at 08:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21-04-17, 06:16 PM
rac1944 rac1944 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 156
Default

A little extra for an old thread. One of the Recce histories provides a little background and timing info on this topic (and is one of the best histories for uniform details.) Welsh Spearhead (53 Recce) states that on 20 November 1942 the regiment was visited by Churchill and General Paget. The regiment raised the loss of their shoulder titles with Churchill and he promised they would get their shoulder titles back. The history records that it was only back in July 1942 that they had received their issue of 'Reconnaissance Corps' titles but had to hand them in in September 1942 as a result of ACI 1681 - the dates Mike mentions. The battle Jon describes between Churchill and the WO had the result and in early 1943 (unfortunately the history is not more specific) the new 'Reconnaissance' shoulder titles were issued. Whether other Recce regiments received 'Reconnaissance Corps' titles earlier than July I haven't yet found out.

With regard to the corps in a corps topic, unlike the Royal Tank Corps, the Recce Corps did remain as a corps when it transferred to the RAC under Army Order 227 of 31 December 1943. The ACI related to this was 920 of 28 June 1944 in which the official designation was listed as 'Reconnaissance Corps, Royal Armoured Corps', abbreviated to 'Recce Corps, RAC'.

As a curious aside, GHQ Liaison Regiment became so titled as a result of the creation of the Reconnaissance Corps. It had been retitled No 1 GHQ Reconnaissance Unit when the Mission returned from France after Dunkirk. To avoid confusion when the Recce Corps was created in January 1941, No 1 GHQ Reconnaissance Unit was retitled to GHQ Liaison Regiment.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 25-04-17, 02:09 PM
magpie's Avatar
magpie magpie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,026
Default

While this thread is still going has anyone an opinion on this, it's been taken off something but is in near new condition otherwise.
Thanks, Andy
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DSC_4520.jpg (111.0 KB, 31 views)
File Type: jpg DSC_4521.jpg (108.5 KB, 13 views)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 25-04-17, 05:33 PM
JerryBB's Avatar
JerryBB JerryBB is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wales
Posts: 5,027
Default

I quite like it, the fabric it is printed on seems correct, my only concern is it seems a little bit blurred.
__________________
Regards,

Jerry
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 26-04-17, 07:51 PM
Frank Kelley's Avatar
Frank Kelley Frank Kelley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,562
Default

Very useful, many thanks for the clarification.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rac1944 View Post
A little extra for an old thread. One of the Recce histories provides a little background and timing info on this topic (and is one of the best histories for uniform details.) Welsh Spearhead (53 Recce) states that on 20 November 1942 the regiment was visited by Churchill and General Paget. The regiment raised the loss of their shoulder titles with Churchill and he promised they would get their shoulder titles back. The history records that it was only back in July 1942 that they had received their issue of 'Reconnaissance Corps' titles but had to hand them in in September 1942 as a result of ACI 1681 - the dates Mike mentions. The battle Jon describes between Churchill and the WO had the result and in early 1943 (unfortunately the history is not more specific) the new 'Reconnaissance' shoulder titles were issued. Whether other Recce regiments received 'Reconnaissance Corps' titles earlier than July I haven't yet found out.

With regard to the corps in a corps topic, unlike the Royal Tank Corps, the Recce Corps did remain as a corps when it transferred to the RAC under Army Order 227 of 31 December 1943. The ACI related to this was 920 of 28 June 1944 in which the official designation was listed as 'Reconnaissance Corps, Royal Armoured Corps', abbreviated to 'Recce Corps, RAC'.

As a curious aside, GHQ Liaison Regiment became so titled as a result of the creation of the Reconnaissance Corps. It had been retitled No 1 GHQ Reconnaissance Unit when the Mission returned from France after Dunkirk. To avoid confusion when the Recce Corps was created in January 1941, No 1 GHQ Reconnaissance Unit was retitled to GHQ Liaison Regiment.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

mhs link

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.