Armourer NCO uniforms

[grumpy]

The regiment with which I am most familiar, RWF, always had their attached armourer NCO in his Corps uniform, rather than badged and dressed as RWF with his hammer and tongs badge to distinguish him.

How widespread was this, please?

And are there any orders on the subject?

[Alan O]

Not sure I get the question. WWhich period is this? In recent years would be the norm for an attached arm to wear his own Corps uniform and not the RWF's. He might wear a couple of items of regtl dress (RWF beret and hackle) in working dress but not the whole lot especially in parade dress.

[REMEVMBEA1]

Originally Posted by grumpy

The regiment with which I am most familiar, RWF, always had their attached armourer NCO in his Corps uniform, rather than badged and dressed as RWF with his hammer and tongs badge to distinguish him.

How widespread was this, please?

And are there any orders on the subject?

REME was formed in 1942 when all RAOC and RASC maintenance duties were transferred to the new corps in what was known as Phase 1 later all unit tradesmen were badged REME in Phase 2.
In phase 2 armourers ,but not arms storemen , were badged REME and on attaining a 2nd Class trade qualification were entitled to wear the Hammer and Tongs as craftsman , L Cpl and Cpl , REME Sgt tradesman did not wear a trade badge but on attaining Artificer rank , S/Sgt and above , would once again wear the H and T.

[grumpy]

Sorry, I was immersed in the 19th century and warped across!

My interest here is primarily in full dress and frock, pre 1914.

Some Armourers attd cavalry seem to have worn cavalry uniform with added Corps badges, whereas those attached infantry clung to their Corps, so that, in group photos, the Arm. Sgt stands out as having no scarlet sash and often a different headdress.

Sorry again.

[grey_green_acorn]

Originally Posted by grumpy

Sorry, I was immersed in the 19th century and warped across!

My interest here is primarily in full dress and frock, pre 1914.

Some Armourers attd cavalry seem to have worn cavalry uniform with added Corps badges, whereas those attached infantry clung to their Corps, so that, in group photos, the Arm. Sgt stands out as having no scarlet sash and often a different headdress.

Sorry again.

Have you seen this one?
http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...ictureid=80100

Or this one?
http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...ictureid=80081

Tim

[REMEVMBEA1]

Originally Posted by grumpy

Sorry, I was immersed in the 19th century and warped across!

My interest here is primarily in full dress and frock, pre 1914.

Some Armourers attd cavalry seem to have worn cavalry uniform with added Corps badges, whereas those attached infantry clung to their Corps, so that, in group photos, the Arm. Sgt stands out as having no scarlet sash and often a different headdress.

Sorry again.

Surely prior to the formation of REME most unit tradesmen would wear the uniform of their regiment as they were members of that unit not attached. The wearing of red sashes by sergeants is a subject in it's own right.

[grumpy]

Thank you both .............

The armourer[s] of infantry and cavalry were, until 1914 at least, not members of the unit to which they were attached from the "Corps" of Armourers [I use this form of words because the nature and title of the Armourers' organisation changed with time.

And yes, the scarlet sash is indeed a subject in its own right, and its wearing certainly spilled over from the infantry [and indeed in the infantry has been known to be worn by Lance-Sergeants doing duty as sergeants].

[Mike_2817]

The 'Corps of Armourers' was formed in 1858 and placed under the control of the 'Ordnance Stores Corps' in 1881 before being absorbed into the 'Army Ordnance Corps' in 1896 as the Armourers Branch, which along with the Armaments, Engineering and Workshop Branchs formed the backbone of REME in 1942

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.co...RDNANCE/05.htm

[grumpy]

Thank you .............. I have been looking at my infantry "WO and Sgts" group photos in full dress and KD ........... the armourer appears in all [so far] in his Corps uniform.
I would, in fact, be surprised if not, and would welcome examples of "not"!

[Old Smelly]

Not sure if this is relevant, a group of WOs and Sgts from Lothian & Border Horse Yeomanry, 79th Armoured Div, cJune 45, Germany. Mostly LBHY but with some corps, RAOC and Sigs wear GS caps, REME wear the black beret, MQMS Clarke in the front row, wears the H&T badge below his rank, the WO next to him also wears the RTR 'tank' badge, as do some of the others with all the other regimental distinctions
Lee

[Peter]

Mike,

Can you please advise the authorities for

The 'Corps of Armourers' was ….. placed under the control of the 'Ordnance Stores Corps' in 1881

as Forbes, Gale, Kennett & Tatman, Kipling & King, Spiers, and Steer all say the Corps of Armourer Sergeants was absorbed into the AOC in 1896* ‘directly’, that is, not through any aegis of the OSC.

I note on your site you say “administrative control”. I’m unsure whether this is a reference to the officers remaining in the Army Ordnance Department until amalgamation with the AOC to form the ROAC in 1918 or a reference to the OSC and / or its antecedents.

While I find the OSC’s antecedents complex and confusing, the 1858 Royal Warrant provided:

“The Corps of Armourer Serjeants shall be attached to the Royal Small Arms Repairing Factory at Millbank. (Preamble)

“ … until required for service in a regiment, battalion, or corps of the regular army, or a regiment of embodied militia, shall be employed under the orders of the superintendent of the royal small arms factory”. (Regulation: 3d(sic))

It seems this arrangement continued at least until 1893 (admittedly, with an administrative change in 1887).

1883: “The headquarters of the Corps of Armourers is at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Birmingham” (Buxton).

1887: “When inspection and manufacture were separated, the armourers came under the Chief Inspector of Small Army (Forbes, pp 156 & 157).

1893: “The corps of armourers is under the command of the chief inspector of small arms at Enfield Lock factory”. (Goodenough & Dalton)

(* While the essential point remains, for the record: Steer gives the date of formation as 1894; and Gale, Kipling & King and Spiers as 1895).

References:
Buxton, JWF, The Elements of Military Administration, 1883, p 153
Forbes, A, A History of the Army Ordnance Services, Volume II, 1929, pp 50 & 51
Gale, FR, Armourers, Notes and Queries, Volume CXLVIII, June 27, 1925, p 465
Goodenough, WH, & Dalton, JC, The Army Book for the British Empire, 1893, p 290
Kennett, BB & Tatman, JA, Craftsmen of the Army, 1970, p 4
Kipling, AL, & King, HL, Head-Dress Badges of the British Army, Vol 1, 1972, p 254
Spiers, EM, The Late Victorian Army 1868 – 1902, 1992, p 82
Steer, F, To The Warrior His Arms. The Story of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Barnsley, 2005, p 10

[Mike_2817]

The 'Corps of Armourers' remained a seperate Corps till 1896, it was only the everyday administration which was provided by the OSC 'in the field' as part of the Cardwell reforms. I will however doublecheck my sources.

[Peter]

Thanks Mike.

I took 1881 as a clue to Callwell but have never found anything to that effect.

Assuming it to be the case, I'd appreciate all the authorities you can provide.

..... and it would also be a clue in answering the other question implicit in Grumpy's OP:

What uniform ..... and helmet / cap badge ..... did members of the Corps of Armourers wear when not attached to a Regiment ie at their Depot ?

[Peter]

Given the inability to edit out evidence of my stupidity, I'll do the next best thing and recognise it:

"clue to Callwell" should read "clue to Cardwell"!!!!

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

The 'Corps of Armourers' remained a seperate Corps till 1896, it was only the everyday administration which was provided by the OSC 'in the field' as part of the Cardwell reforms. I will however doublecheck my sources.

I have great respect for your site Mike and have often referred to it over a number of years now for one matter or another. Like Peter and Grumpy, I have struggled to make sense of the sometimes conflicting references concerning the organisation and administration of the Corps of Armourer Sergeants, and the effects upon its dress up until 1896. We feel that the answer is out there somewhere, probably in the National Archives, but it clearly needs some painstaking and discriminating research through available archives before it will be possible get an accurate and, above all, definitively coherent answer. Any help that you can give with this will be sincerely appreciated by a number of us (not to mention the REME and RLC museums, who have not responded conscientiously to numerous enquiries and requests for accurate references).