Discussion in 'U.K. Forces General' started by Chimp, Nov 25, 2017.
Have been sent this picture, taken around WW1 time. Can anyone name the regiment.
I'm not very knowledgeable about military uniforms, Chimp, but the uniform isn't unlike my grandad pictured in my avatar. Some of the men are wearing spurs, and the badge 'could' be RFA but it is too blurry to see.
I think they are an artillery regiment because of the bandolier. Take a look at
Thanks Ann. It also says that 'Many Regiments wear lanyards A loop of knotted string round the shoulder the Artillery wear a white lanyard.' Most of the men in the picture seem to have white lanyards.
Also it says 'If his boots are visible and he has an oval of leather covering his laces he is wearing spurs.'
I'm pretty certain that cap badge is Royal Artillery (having worn one for a few years!).
There's a good picture of a Royal Horse Artillery unit here>
Thank you Flook.
It's interesting that the officers' do not have their badges of rank on their cuffs.
I think this tends to indicate that the photo was taken post 1917/1918 or even post war.
And those seated are wearing breeches/jodhpurs suggesting they are riders/drivers.
What is the difference between Royal Field Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery.
The RHA was responsible for 'light' artillery guns and was more mobile than the RFA which was responsible for larger guns and howitzers. Both used horses to move their guns.
The Royal Garrison Artillery was responsible for the very powerful 'large' guns and howitzers which usually operated some way behind the front line.
Sorry, I posted only half my question above, and can't remember now how I intended to finish. Early start to the day - too early!
Thank you, Flook - that's very useful.
RGA didn't tend to wear boots and breeches, so we can discount that regiment from Chimp's picture.
Just a comment - I love these military photos. I have quite a few in my album and have no idea who they are. Isn't it a shame that there wasn't someone at the front holding a sigh up letting us know who they were [just like our old school photos].
Enemy snipers had a nasty attitude towards anyone on our side wearing badges, they were priority targets, of course our snipers wouldn't be nasty like that would they.
Perhaps those officers and other rankers didn't want to make themselves too obvious.
Edit: Just enlarged that photo and I see that in fact the Warrant (non commissioned) Officers are wearing their rank on their sleeves so that knocks my theory out.
'Warrant',..not quite the same 'thing' though as an 'Officer' were they? Still of the common herd but with priveleges.
No, your theory is quite right Derek. It was only commissioned officers who started putting rank badges on their epaulettes and apparently this was because their cuff badges were so easily identified by snipers. It was frowned upon at first as it was against dress regulations but these officers weren't stupid!
There are horses in the background.
...and also note that the lads in the front have trumpets and not bugles. Very much a cavalry thing.
Good heavens, so there are. I was so busy looking at the uniforms I didn't spot them.
They look quite thickset, the sort of breed that would pull heavy artillery.
To me, it does not look like a professional picture - some legs are crossed (in different directions)some arms folded and some on knees. The guy on the far left is half missing. There looks like mug on the floor next to the trumpeter on
Not that this helps to identify the regiment but does makes it a more 'human' photograph (especially the chap on the end of the bench who looks like he has been squashed in).
It just goes to show something 'cause I never saw them either
It just goes to show that sometimes there are " hidden clues" in photographs and that the main subject is not always the place to look for answers.
Separate names with a comma.