Military Medal Award

[ShaunJ]

Does locally enlisted mean he was enlisted to a regiment that was based where he lived near to? Sorry for my ignorance.

Yes - not a regiment per se but a locally raised Brigade. 184 Brigade RFA was raised by the Thames Ironworks Company.

https://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/fartillery.php?pid=9777

[BrianClaydon]

Does locally enlisted mean he was enlisted to a regiment that was based where he lived near to? Sorry for my ignorance.

Yes - not a regiment per se but a locally raised Brigade. 184 Brigade RFA was raised by the Thames Ironworks Company.

https://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/fartillery.php?pid=9777

Thanks as always ShaunJ!

[Andy J2022]

Just to add a little background to Shaun's reply. Field Artillery brigades at this time were regimental or battalion in size, ie they consisted of (usually) three Batterys and were commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel. The term brigade was used by the Royal Artillery in this way until 1938 when it adopted the word regiment, and thereafter only used the word brigade in its more conventional sense of several regiments brought together to conduct operations under a single commander eg the Anti-aircraft brigades.

In fact if you read the 184 Artillery Brigade war diary for 1916, you will see that the assets of 184 and 186 bdes were mixed up into two and then three groups, each commanded by a Lt Col. This was because some of the Batteries in the two brigades had different guns, and so were suited to different roles.

[BrianClaydon]

Just to add a little background to Shaun's reply. Field Artillery brigades at this time were regimental or battalion in size, ie they consisted of (usually) three Batterys and were commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel. The term brigade was used by the Royal Artillery in this way until 1938 when it adopted the word regiment, and thereafter only used the word brigade in its more conventional sense of several regiments brought together to conduct operations under a single commander eg the Anti-aircraft brigades.

In fact if you read the 184 Artillery Brigade war diary for 1916, you will see that the assets of 184 and 186 bdes were mixed up into two and then three groups, each commanded by a Lt Col. This was because some of the Batteries in the two brigades had different guns, and so were suited to different roles.

Thank you Andy J2022,

that does make it clearer. I must admit that I do stumble over military terminology. My brain tends to conflate many of the names and terms. The war diary you refer to, is that available at the National Archive?

B

[Andy J2022]

The war diary you refer to, is that available at the National Archive?

B

Yes if you see my earlier reply on the previous page I've left a link. You just need to set up a free account with TNA. If you prefer not to get an account you can pay £3.50 and download the diary that way.

[BrianClaydon]

The 184 Bde War diary for 1916 is available from TNA (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C73541820) and confirms the artillery support for the Boar's Head operation. However there is absolutely no mention of any action / activity concerning B Bty which would have led to an MM being awarded. The battery were nowhere near the enemy and so we are left none the wiser about how it came to be awarded.

Sorry Andy J2022!

I missed you earlier reply. Thank you very much for this. Will have a good look. Could it be that his battery were being used as stretcher bearers for those engaged? Or is that not likely at all?

B

[Andy J2022]

If you mean stretcher bearers for another unit, for instance one in the front trenches, then I think this is unlikely. There were labour battalions which acted as pools of manpower for tasks like that. The batteries would be sited some distance back, perhaps a kilometer or more from the forward edge of the battle area and so would not be in a good position to assist other units.
However the battery itself may have detailed off certain members to act as stretcher bearers as the need arose, but the primary job of all members was manning the guns and bringing forward the ammunition. There were separate parties known as the ammunition column within the 184 Bde structure for the latter purpose. The main threat the men in the battery faced was what is known as counter battery fire, that is being shelled by the enemy artillery. If the enemy were able to spot the location of the guns they could bring down a barrage which would seriously impair the ability of our guns to keep up the rate of fire. Although the guns were usually sited in gun pits the gunners had far less protection from shell splinters than the infantry in their trenches.  The sort of scenario I could imagine for how Frederick Claydon might have earned his MM was that he continued to do his job, such as loading or firing the gun while under attack by the enemy artillery, thus showing great bravery. However the war diary does not refer to enemy fire on any of the batteries, which I would have expected to be mentioned¹, since one would have expected there to be damage or destruction of the some of the guns which were far more valuable² than the men operating them.

1.  On 10 September the war diary does record an artillery attack on the ammunition column's (horse-drawn) wagons, noting that there were no casualties.

2.  By which I mean by the standards of the time, not today's sensibilities.

[Andy J2022]

I'm not sure what guns B Bty had. It would have been either the 4.5inch Howitzer or tthe 18 pounder . See images below

[BrianClaydon]

If you mean stretchers bearers for another unit, for instance one in the front trenches, then I think this is unlikely. There were labour battalions which acted as pools of manpower for tasks like that. The batteries would be sited some distance back, perhaps a kilometer or more from the forward edge of the battle area and so would not be in a good position to assist other units.
However the battery itself may have detailed off certain members to act as stretcher bearers as the need arose, but the primary job of all members was manning the guns and bringing forward the ammunition. There were separate parties known as the ammunition column within the 184 Bde structure for the latter purpose. The main threat the men in the battery faced was what is known as counter battery fire, that is being shelled by the enemy artillery. If the enemy were able to spot the location of the guns they could bring down a barrage which would seriously impair the ability of our guns to keep up the rate of fire. Although the guns were sited in gun pits the gunners had far less protection from shell splinters than the infantry in their trenches.  The sort of scenario I could imagine for how Frederick Claydon might have earned his MM was that he continued to do his job, such as loading or firing the gun while under attack by the enemy artillery, thus showing great bravery. However the war diary does not refer to enemy fire on any of the batteries, which I would have expected to be mentioned¹, since one would have expected there to be damage or destruction of the some of the guns which were far more valuable² than the men operating them.

1.  On 10 September the war diary does record an artillery attack on the ammunition column's (horse-drawn) wagons, noting that there were no casualties.

2.  By which I mean by the standards of the time, not today's sensibilities.

Thank you for explaining the situation in the field and the likeliest reason he earned his MM. You have made it easier to visualise. Thanks also for the great pics.