Struck Off
-
by
paratsoukli
In a month-end report, how should I tag officers noted as 'struck off' with no reason given; I've only seen it before when an officer moves to another unit.
Posted
-
by
HeatherC
moderator
Transfer to other unit is the best way to tag this. That's usually what it means. Struck off refers to being removed from the nominal roll of the Unit.
Posted
-
by
paratsoukli
Now tagging the next month, I think the adj is using 'struck off' when officers go on leave. Two officers were 'struck off' at the end of one month and were noted as arrivals 3 weeks later!
Posted
-
by
HeatherC
moderator
That would be odd indeed. Struck off usually implies that the Unit now has a vacancy on their establishment so they can take someone else on. That's obviously not the case when someone is merely on leave. One thing you do realise with this project though is that despite the "standard format" of the war diary, Units do things differently! I guess you'll have to keep going and see how it goes at the end of the next month...
Posted
-
by
paratsoukli
Judging by my father's experiences, even the RHQ was not an ideal place to keep an accurate diary! The end of the next month revealed some of those 'struck off' as still with the unit and record of awards showed some holding acting rank several above their substantive. A t/Brigadier General turned out to be substantive captain.
Posted
-
by
makfai
I am not sure what the actual regs were at that time but it could be that there was an arrangement whereby officers on leave for over a certain amount of time would be SOS of their actual unit and placed on the strength somewhere else (e.g 'reserve') which would allow for their positions in their units to be filled by acting ranks or temporary transfers.
As I say, I cannot get my hands on a copy of the regs so I cannot say for sure but somewhere there would have been a system for posting people to something (we called it 'reserve') which would allow the 'front-line' units to keep up their actual strength while people were on leave/sick/training etc for more than a short period. Three weeks would be an undesirably lengthy period of time for a front-line unit to be down by two officers and they would want to fill those key posts even if it was only with someone acting.
I think 😃
Posted
-
by
HeatherC
moderator
in response to paratsoukli's comment.
The acting / substantive issue is not at all unusual. To hold substantive rank requires an officer to be qualified to do so in a number of potential ways - age, time served, courses passed, etc. Especially in wartime it was very common to find Temp Lt Col, Acting Major but actually only substantive Lt or Capt. Even in the "modern" army I once knew a Squadron where the OC (Maj) was a substantive Captain and the 2IC (Capt) a substantive Lt. Both too young for sub rank!
As for using "struck off" to describe a temporary absence on leave, I'm still not convinced. This thread from the Great War forum provides an interesting explanation on its origin http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=94541
I'm beginning to think the Adjt concerned was simply using the term for his own convenience to describe men who were temporarily not with the Unit.
Posted
-
by
makfai
Heather: when someone was unavailable through injury or sickness they would be SOS to permit replacements to come in. Do you know to where they were officially transferred? I ask this because I think the same applied to absences of a certain duration on leave/training.
There are more examples here http://www.huntscycles.co.uk/C L 7 4th (Extra Reserve) Battalion Bedfordshire Regiment.htm
Going back to the original example a 3 week leave period could well indicate a trip to England and in the above example these types of leave led to the officerS being SOS.
Posted
-
by
HeatherC
moderator
You're absolutely right about sick/ill/wounded being struck off if they got far enough down the casualty chain and were not likely to return quickly and I assume they would be taken on the strength of some sort of holding establishment at the hospital? (hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will come along to comment on this one!)
Similarly on longer duration courses men would be attached to the establishment of the training school while away. I have come across many examples of this in the diaries I am tagging "temporarily attached (or posted) to XXX School".
I have also seen at least one "long leave" (it was for 6 months) in one diary where an officer was indeed struck off the strength, but I'd not have expected this for a two or three week period of leave as it would create a big admin burden.
Posted
-
by
paratsoukli
In response to HeatherC
Yeah! Been there, done that!Posted
-
by
makfai
in response to HeatherC's comment.
The timeframes for when people would be SOS of their parent unit for sick/training/leave etc would of course have been laid down in the Regs (like AWOL converting to desertion after 30 days) but I don't have a copy of the admin Regs.
I would have thought that a frontline battalion would not want to keep 2 officers on strength while they were on leave for three weeks because the Bn could not make anyone up to act in their place unless they are SOS.
Posted