Armourer NCO uniforms

[Mike_2817]

It is a puzzle I have looked at over the years, but I an sorry to say one of many, and I have not the time to take a shovel to Kew to dig in the archives, it seems that the REME museum is as bad as the RLC at not solving it.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

It is a puzzle I have looked at over the years, but I an sorry to say one of many, and I have not the time to take a shovel to Kew to dig in the archives, it seems that the REME museum is as bad as the RLC at not solving it.

Well you could go down in history as the man who solved it Mike, and I cannot think of anyone else more suited to the task. I have lost much respect for the two museums as a result of this. Not so much because they have failed to give a coherent answer but because they bluff and bluster and pretend they are 'looking into it', but then do not respond further and seem to show little interest and yet it is their history! One would think that people who opt to work in the museum would have an interest but they singularly fail to give that impression. It is immensely frustrating.

Notwithstanding the above thank you for your great site, it reflects a great deal of hard work on your part and is a very useful historical resource.

[Peter]

Mike,

I've seen two other references to the the C of A being under administrative control of the OSC. Unfortunately, like yours, they were unsourced (which is why I first wrote to you in 2011).

I'm currently looking at Service Statements of a number of C of A which have occasional specific OSC related entries.

I'll post something in a few days.

Toby,

I can't miss an opportunity to also say how useless I found RLC

[Mike_2817]

Probably the same as I have seen, My web site started as an Aide-Memoir not a book of which a copy is held by the RLC Museum and it is at times quoted as the authority which it is not, it is simply a collection of notes & illustrations to support my hobby of badge collecting, and collected from many other un-confirmed sources as is a lot of research. The earlier pages are also I beleave in the REME Library, but not donated by myself! so over the years one persons ramblings become fact!

It all starts with the Abolition of the Board of Ordnance in 1855

As I am sure you are aware the Ordnance Stores Branch (OSB) were themselves under the control of the ASC until 1881 and the formation of the Ordnance Stores Corps (OSC) with both being Other Ranks only! and here lies the background of the CofA which did not get absorbed until 1896 and the renaming to Army Ordnance Corps (AOC)

It was a time of great flux.

It would seem that the CofA was also under the under administrative control of the ASC as were the Ordnance Companies (but still a seperate orginisation) until 1881 and the Cardwell reforms.

One other possibility is they were adminstered by the RA

But the problem is proving it.

Inspectors of Ordnance Machinery & Ordnance Artificers transfered to the AOC in 1896 from the RA becoming the Armour & Artificers branch of the AOC along with the CofA

Ordnance of course meaning Artillery as well as Supply!

[Peter]

One other possibility is they were adminstered by the RA

Interesting you should say that. For one of the AS I’ve looked at, the designation of the signatory approving a Posting for Duty in 1861 is “RA, Asst Supt Small Arms”

For another who Attested in 1877 (for the C of A), the Approving Field Officer was a Lieut Col, RA. And the designation of the signatory approving a Posting for Duty in 1878 was “Major, RA, Com of C of A”

Continuing the RA interest:

…… Ordnance Artificers transfered to the AOC in 1896 from the RA

I’m sure you know this, but to remove any confusion for others, it was the Armament Artificers who were absorbed into the AOC in 1896.

In 1893, the Corps of Ordnance Artificers was dissolved and its personnel redesignated as Armament Artificers in the Royal Artillery.

The C of OA (often incorrectly confused with the Corps of Armourer Sergeants) were established in 1882.

Notwithstanding they were engaged solely on artillery work, they wore the Ordnance Store Corps uniform.

The AAs wore the RA uniform.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Peter

Mike,



Toby,

I can't miss an opportunity to also say how useless I found RLC

Yes Peter, I agree. We have discussed this on VWF also, where I post as 'Frogsmile'. I should have mentioned this so I am sorry for any confusion.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

Probably the same as I have seen, My web site started as an Aide-Memoir not a book of which a copy is held by the RLC Museum and it is at times quoted as the authority which it is not, it is simply a collection of notes & illustrations to support my hobby of badge collecting, and collected from many other un-confirmed sources as is a lot of research. The earlier pages are also I beleave in the REME Library, but not donated by myself! so over the years one persons ramblings become fact!

It all starts with the Abolition of the Board of Ordnance in 1855

As I am sure you are aware the Ordnance Stores Branch (OSB) were themselves under the control of the ASC until 1881 and the formation of the Ordnance Stores Corps (OSC) with both being Other Ranks only! and here lies the background of the CofA which did not get absorbed until 1896 and the renaming to Army Ordnance Corps (AOC)

It was a time of great flux.

It would seem that the CofA was also under the under administrative control of the ASC as were the Ordnance Companies (but still a seperate orginisation) until 1881 and the Cardwell reforms.

One other possibility is they were adminstered by the RA

But the problem is proving it.

Inspectors of Ordnance Machinery & Ordnance Artificers transfered to the AOC in 1896 from the RA becoming the Armour & Artificers branch of the AOC along with the CofA

Ordnance of course meaning Artillery as well as Supply!

Mike I can only urge and encourage you (with my greatest respect) to dig and delve in the archives until a clear answer can be obtained. Peter has done quite a bit of legwork too, but he is in Australia. It will be great for everyone, not least the REME and RLC museums, if you can visit Kew and get the answers (I say this whilst realising that I know nothing of your commitments and responsibilities and hope you can forgive an earnestness born of frustration).

I personally think that the answer lies at Kew, waiting to be unravelled. I have no vested interest and you might well ask why cannot I visit Kew and do what I am urging you to do. The answer is I am very far away but also, more importantly, do not have the knowledge base that you have built up over the years since creating your site. I feel that your eyes would be far better at 'sorting the wheat from the chaff' than mine. It is a matter of horses for courses perhaps.

Perhaps those at the museums think - what does it matter what the organisation of the CofA was. If so then they singularly fail to understand what those who follow our hobby know - that without knowing the overarching chain of authority for the Corps then we cannot possibly ascertain dress and insignia between 1855 and 1896.

Best wishes,

Toby

[Mike_2817]

I live in North Yorkshire and not planing to visit London again till November when I have a few days for research, and my aims are busy as it is, but I have e-mailed a few fellow Ordnance collectors/friends for information, one of whom reseached the background for Frank Steers RAOC History.

Only a cap badge exists specific to the CofA and I have pictures of 2 variations (sadly I own neither) the example with the red backing has been in the same family since the 1890's and its owner retired as a WO1 Armourer Sargeant Major AOC

I have a picture of one being worn on a plain Forage Cap, I will try and dig it out

No Buttons exsist or Helmet Plate

It is probable that the Hammer & Sickle (EL2A) was worn since Armourers & Artificers did in the Board of Ordnance since 1802

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

I live in North Yorkshire and not planing to visit London again till November when I have a few days for research, and my aims are busy as it is, but I have e-mailed a few fellow Ordnance collectors/friends for information, one of whom reseached the background for Frank Steers RAOC History.

Only a cap badge exists specific to the CofA and I have pictures of 2 variations (sadly I own neither) the example with the red backing has been in the same family since the 1890's and its owner retired as a WO1 Artificer Sargeant Major AOC

I have a picture of one being worn on a plain Forage Cap, I will try and dig it out

No Buttons exsist or Helmet Plate

It is probable that the Hammer & Sickle (EL2A) was worn since Armourers & Artificers did in the Board of Ordnance since 1802

It will be great if your friend can help Mike and the more people that put their shoulder to the wheel in solving this conundrum the better.

Thank you for the images of the cap badge, I enclose a scanned photo of an Armourer Sergeant 1st Class (before 1881 a 3rd Class (Battalion Staff) Sergeant) of the CofA wearing that badge (albeit a staff cap version in bullion wire) at his wedding in 1890. Interestingly he is wearing a staff sergeants patrol jacket (a common practice it would seem - see also image of an AOC Armourer circa 1907) and is also wearing a scarlet infantry sash, which I would speculate indicates that he is attached to an infantry battalion (see practice regarding badges of rank below).

I have recently reviewed what little is stated about the Corps of Armourers in Otley L Perry's excellent little book published in 1886 - "Rank Badges & Dates in Her Majesty's Army & Navy". This comprehensive little tome is an extract of both contemporary Queen's Regulations (for the Army and the Navy) and the Royal Pay Warrant, the two most important official manuals when considering the Army's organisation, both then and now. It is not impossible that Perry made mistakes in the transcription, but if so I think they are few and far between. The key point in relation to this thread is that he makes it clear that this little corps is still independent in terms of existence, in 1886, five full years after the Cardwell Reforms were announced, albeit that the decisions taken in any case took some time to come fully into effect. Nevertheless, there is no mention of administrative control, or any kind of relationship with either, the Ordnance Store Corps, or the Royal Artillery, let alone the Corps of Ordnance Artificers (page 55 of his book refers, where the CofA takes precedence after the latter but before the Military Foot and Mounted Police, respectively).

Another particularly useful aspect that Perry makes clear is the rank titles, precedence and badges of rank within the Corps of Armourers, which I reproduce below. Interestingly, one key aspect is that with all their rank titles (below Warrant Officer - introduced in 1881) the word 'armourer' takes precedence over the actual rank, i.e. sergeant and corporal (just as 'Artificer' does today apropos of ASM and AQMS).

1. Sergeant Major (Warrant Officer) - Badge of Rank: A QVR Crown.

2. Staff Armourer Sergeant - Badge of Rank: 4 Chevrons point up on lower right arm surmounted by a crossed hammer and pincers.

3. Armourer Sergeant 1st Class - Badge of Rank: 3 Chevrons point down on upper right arm surmounted by a crossed hammer and pincers and QVR Crown.

4. Armourer Sergeant - Badge of Rank: 3 Chevrons point down on upper right arm surmounted by a crossed hammer and pincers.

5. Armourer Corporal - Badge of Rank: 2 Chevrons point down on upper right arm surmounted by a crossed hammer and pincers.

N.B.

a. It is interesting that at this period there was an Armourer Corporal grade and I can only speculate that as the armourer with a cavalry regiment or infantry battalion was always a (Battalion Staff) Sergeant then perhaps Corporal was the rank held whilst under training, although that is not made clear by Perry. We know that later on armourers passed out of training as junior (Battalion Staff) Sergeants.

b. Armourers attached to an artillery brigade wore a gun as well as crossed hammer and pincers which bears out that in 1886 the practice was to wear regimental uniform (i.e. RA) of the unit to which the armourer was attached.

c. Armourers attached to the Household Cavalry utilised the word Corporal in lieu of Sergeant and wore an extra crown to their badges of rank as per Household Cavalry practice, which again indicates that in 1886 the practice was to wear regimental uniform (in this case HC) of the unit to which the armourer was attached.

[Mike_2817]

Re Cap,

Probably why there are 2 variations - Brass for Forage Cap & Silver & Gilt for Staff Cap with Bullion?

Corps of Armourers (later Ordnance Armourers) serviced & repaired small arms, machine guns, swords etc, An Ordnance Artificer dealt with larger calibre artillery pieces.

Above badges of rank are the same as for RA Artificers, and I suggest that a plain patrol blues was the normal walking out dress for CofA

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

Re Cap,

Probably why there are 2 variations - Brass for Forage Cap & Silver & Gilt for Staff Cap with Bullion?

Corps of Armourers (later Ordnance Armourers) serviced & repaired small arms, machine guns, swords etc, An Ordnance Artificer dealt with larger calibre artillery pieces.

Above badges of rank are the same as for RA Artificers, and I suggest that a plain patrol blues was the normal walking out dress for CofA

Yes, I agree with your first two comments except that Perry says that RA Artificers also wore the gun (he explains the badges of rank for all arms of the Army in a comprehensive table).

However, the walking out dress for the Army until after the 2nd Anglo/Boer War was Full Dress tunic and that was universal. After the war financial pressures and the gradual issue of the 02 Patt SD led to the scarlet Home Service Frock often (but not always) being utilised in lieu of the more costly tunic and I do not think that the CofA would have been any different. Furthermore, the blue patrol jacket shown was worn by Regimental/Battalion Staff only and so would not have been permitted for an Armourer Corporal.

I enclose another image from 1907, but this time in full dress.

It is for the period before 1896 that we need more information.

[Mike_2817]

Last picture was published in the RLC edition of Regimental Magazine.

Was thinking more of Senior Ranks wearing the Patrol Jacket as I have never seen a pictor of any wearing Scarlet? Just a part of the puzzle.

Just to muddy the water in most units the Junior Ranks will probably have been Regimental Armourers not badged CofA at all, and CoA Corporals employed at the factories in training.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

Last picture was published in the RLC edition of Regimental Magazine.

Was thinking more of Senior Ranks wearing the Patrol Jacket as I have never seen a pictor of any wearing Scarlet? Just a part of the puzzle.

Just to muddy the water in most units the Junior Ranks will probably have been Regimental Armourers not badged CofA at all, and CoA Corporals employed at the factories in training.

Yes the photo is well known, but serves to show the badge of rank and appointment rather well and also the AOC full dress worn after 1896. Unfortunately it is the uniform details worn before 1896 that we seek, and that increasing evidence seems to indicate was the dress of the regiment to which the armourer was attached.

Only 'Battalion Staff' wore the undress Patrol Jacket, who as you will recall were the specialists at battalion level, only one of whom was the Armourer Sergeant. The post was rank ranged and each man would start as a Third Class Staff Sergeant (modern grade - a plain sergeant), then after a period become Second Class Staff Sergeant (modern Staff Sergeant) and finally after a further period a First Class Staff Sergeant (modern grade AQMS). Only a few posts were at Sergeant Major grade, presumably at Formation level. In walking-out-dress it was universal for Full Dress to be worn until after the Boer War.

With the greatest of respect Mike I disagree that any of the regimental armourers were not CofA once that Corps was formed in 1858 (although they were indeed directly regimentally employed before that). All the 'regimental' (cavalry) 'brigade' (artillery) and 'battalion' (infantry) armourers were sergeants on the regimental/battalion staff and, any corporals can only have been under instruction in the factories, as you have suggested. Later on the system was changed so that there were no corporals at all, although I am unsure when that change took place. There is an interesting parliamentary question referring to their ranks in Hansard shortly after they were absorbed by the AOC.

Before 1896 there is increasing evidence that the armourers wore the full dress of whatever unit they were attached to, albeit most definitely with their own cap badge and badges of rank and appointment. This makes sense to me, as the attention afforded to uniformity was greater then than is the case now and it is easy to imagine how both the Colonel and Sergeant Major of battalion would not wish their Armourer Sergeant (AS) to stand out like a sore thumb when the battalion was drawn up in scarlet ranks for review order. The battalion surgeons (later RMOs) too wore regimental dress at that time. It must have taken some getting used to when the whole issue was forced onto the agenda after the formation on the AOC in 1896 and it is clear that thereafter the AS wore their own Corp's dress.

[Mike_2817]

I think you misunderstood my reference to 'Regimental Armourer' I meant the looking after of weapons at Company & Battalion levels, not the inspection & repair of them.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

I think you misunderstood my reference to 'Regimental Armourer' I meant the looking after of weapons at Company & Battalion levels, not the inspection & repair of them.

No Mike, I did understand what you meant. I am ex line infantry, SASC, RPC and RLC and understand the subtle differences concerned. I suspect that the CofA Sergeant was assisted by a company arms-storeman when necessary, but as you know the latter is a very different post, albeit that he might have picked up some skills from the sergeant along the way.

Best wishes,

TP