WWIIReenacting.co.uk Forums

I am trying to confirm that a group photograph I have seen is that of a Home Guard rather than an Army unit. The indications of age range etc. point to its being of the HG in which case it will probably represent the factory unit of the Nuffield Spitfire factory at Castle Bromwich.

Could I please prevail on the knowledge and generosity of expert forum members to advise me whether the uniform and insignia (to the extent that they can be seen) confirm my impression. In particular some of the men appear to be wearing light-coloured lanyards. Were these ever part of a Home Guard's uniform?

I attach a reasonably high definition scan of a corner of this group and should greatly appreciate any opinions.

Chris

Chris

Quite a difficult one to ascertain.

Looking at the front rank of the picture above they appear to be wearing the leather HG gaiters and although insignia is not really visible. There is enough on the officers right shoulder to speculate it being a HG group based upon the type of patch and shoulder title albeit not readable.

None of them appear to be wearing belts which is a shame because that is one of the surefast ways of recognising HG personal. ie by the pattern and style of belt.

Gut instinct on this one is that yes. They HG.

As to landyards. To my knowledge some HG units did wear landyards however i'd need back up on this aspect as i'm not 100%.

Tim, Sallywag, Matt what are you're thoughts on this ones chaps?

Some kind of RA affiliation?

The chap in the centre of the front row looks like he might be wearing leather gaiters but others look like they might be webbing (right-most guy's gaiter is creased which can happen with webbing but not easily with leather).

Lanyards were worn by HGs but there's no hard & fast rule, it was almost a case of units wore it because they felt like it. The colour of the lanyard can vary as well.

The variety in the type of stripes being worn is odd as there appear to be three completely different styles of stripe in the front row.

To be honest I'm not sure there's enough info to say one way or the other.

If you could scan the complete photo in as high a resolution as possible, PM me & I'll send you my e-mail address, e-mail it to me & I'll have a good look at it & see if I can spot anything else.

Tim.

Mmmm. looked long and hard, seems like enough SNCO's to represent a Battalion (4 x Sergeant), the 'white' lanyard was issued to H.G. coastal gunners who could also wear the Royal Artilliery recognition patch of blue and red, can't see this, also could be the R.A. badge (AA H.G. could not wear any of these) not sure there's much demand for coastal gunners in Castle Bromwich though, the age's look H.G. but can be deceiving.
To be honest i don't have a B. clue!!. (anything else i can help you with, lol).

Thanks very much, everyone, for contributions to date.

I don't have the original in my possession, Tim, but I do have a reasonable scan of the whole group image which probably provides most of what is in the original. This appears to fall within the file size restrictions for this forum and so I'll post it below.

One of the men on the photograph (the father of its owner) worked at the Spitfire factory and was definitely in the works Home Guard unit. (He also at some stage had an involvement with the Royal Engineers/T.A. but I don't know the timing of this nor whether it is relevant).

I shall be very grateful for further thoughts and opinions.

Chris

hmmm ... that 'may' pheasibly explain the 37 patt gaiters as pointed out by Tim and white landyards then.

An intruiging picture indeed. Has the owner intimated to which HG unit his father belonged as may go someway in gleaning more information for research.

Chris,

The photo's owner has suggested that her father was in the "52nd Battalion Royal Warwick Regiment attached to the Nuffield Spitfire factory at Castle Bromwich" but I haven't checked back with her on this to find out where the information came from. Nor am I sure whether there was ever a battalion of that number.

Chris

Yes I think they may be Home Guard. For all the above reasons and also the fact that some of the chaps who have thir BD done up to the collar are trying to hide civilian white or light coloured shirts.
The lanyard could represent AA troops of course, which the HG were given to man! There was a 52 Royal Warwicks, from what I can gather they were either TA pre war or a Home Service Battalion.
Possibly the proliferation of "civvy" specs is another clue?
The chap 2nd from right on bottom row looks like he has the red AA badge with the bow and arrow on it to me.
Nice photo!
ttfn
Matt Gibbs

Definatly some leather gaiters there and some Civvie shirts poking up from those BD's and the chap second in from the right on the bottom row looks like he has the HG Unit and Number Patches.... But at the same time it looks completely different....

I'll go away now

I would say it is a home guard group with some leather gaiters insight,but to me the hair on some of the chaps is a lot to long for army!!

No, I am with you on that one Comrade!

Also bottom right, second man in I think actually has a AA command patch...

Just a thought on this. Some have shoulder flashes, some have patches, some have FS cap badges, in fact there is a good mixture of badge types there from the painted ones to brass.

Also there is a mixture of 37 and 40 pattern BD. Interestingly enough, one or two of them would be old enough to ave served in the Great War.

How about they had just taken delivery of their uniforms and not all had the opportunity to get the needle and thread out? It would certainly account for the mix and match shirts!

Updated information: The gentleman we have been talking about was definitely in the TA in 1937 and there exists a series of dated photographs of him at an RE training camp in Weymouth building a pontoon. The Battalion reference comes from a TV programme many years ago which said something like "Nuffield, built to make planes, had its own battalion of Home Guard - the 52nd Royal Warwickshire".

Nevertheless, I don't think there can be any possibility that this is a pre-war or pre-HG photograph, can there? The HG suggestions, despite the anomalies, seem too strong. Is there any aspect of the kit which suggests a particular phase of the war? Could it be late, with an AA element?

Does the existence of a 52nd Battn., Royal Warwicks mean that in some way the Nuffield HG might have been formed from members of that TA unit and then become the 52nd Warwickshire (Birmingham) Battalion HG? The 52nd doesn't seem to have appeared in the 1941 List which suggests it might have been a later formation. Perhaps AA?

Tartan Smudger's suggestion is an interesting one - could these blokes have been photographed as a TA group, recently re-formed into a HG unit, just at the moment when HG uniforms were being issued to them all? Which then leads to the problem - it would be heck of a coincidence if such a large TA contingent happened also all to be employed building Spitfires; in which case, not a dedicated factory group after all but the 52nd as a whole...but then, did the 52nd exist in 1940?

Sorry, questions, questions - I thought this was all going to be simple to start with!!

Chris

Chris
I don't know for sure the continuity of the 52nd from its beginnings in WW1. These are sometimes a bit sketchy, I have done the same research up in Durham, and some people will say, oh no, there wasn't an XXnd Batt in WW2, and then you look at things like Young Soldier units, Home Guard, late 1937-38 Civil defence battalions etc and including TA its not easy!
One thing I thought of is that attached to a large factory such as you describe, this kind of secret work might have meant the number of the unit was not widely publicised.
ttfn
Matt Gibbs

Some works units were formed around pre-war TA units - for example, our very own Chatham Dockyard Btn. was exactly that...

As for nailing it down to a particular time, BD suggests "later" rather than sooner, as does insignia and if I am correct on the AA command patch then maybe I would punt for 1943?