Talk:Nottinghamshire Royal Horse Artillery

Military history: British / European / World War I B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Merged[edit]

This article includes information merged from

Hamish59 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from "Talk:1st Nottinghamshire Battery Royal Horse Artillery"[edit]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that 2/1st Nottinghamshire Battery Royal Horse Artillery be merged into 1st Nottinghamshire Battery Royal Horse Artillery. I will wait a week, and if no one objects I will get on with it. Hamish59 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose this as they were two entirely separate units serving on different fronts. Although the second line Territorial units were originally intended to provide replacements to the first line units it didn't always work out this way, and after the 1/1st Notts had gone off to Suez the 2/1st were later sent to Mesopotamia, being converted to a foot battery in the process. I realise many Wiki pages on WW1 TF units have the first and second line formations in the same article, but there's enough info here to treat them, and keep them, as separate entities. Yorkist (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are poor - almost devoid of in-line citations, number of inaccuracies, etc. I have rewritten Nottinghamshire RHA from scratch - see User:Hamish59/scratchpad - but rather than simply replacing the existing articles, I would like to save what is worth saving. As a first step, I would like to merge the articles, then radically improve the result. Hamish59 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That sounded a bit harsh, not my intention. Hamish59 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being bold, but I tried to fix the numerous errors in these articles and gave up out of frustration. Hamish59 (talk)

Merged from "Talk:2/1st Nottinghamshire Battery Royal Horse Artillery"[edit]

Guns used[edit]

Hello, I'm contacting you because you appear to have a major interest in this article. It currently states they were initially equipped with the BLC 15-pounder gun. My sources about the BLC and QF 15-pounders indicate that TF RHA units got the QF gun (The German "Ehrhardt") while TF RFA units got the BLC 15-pounder (BLC = Breech Loading Converted, they were converted from old BL 15-pounders). I don't have info on individual units, so there may have been exceptions. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, the Official History of Divisions states all the batteries of 2/2nd Mounted Division had the 15 pounder. There was a lack of equipment in the division, and it seems the BLC 15pdr was more available than the 13pdr QF which they should have had. Their big brothers, the 1/1st Notts were properly equipped with the QF, but it's possible the 2/1st were only ever a horse artillery battery on paper, as they were converted to field artillery as soon as they landed in a war zone. That said, I recall reading in an Osprey book a Field battery actually had slightly more horses than a Horse battery, so I'm not sure what exactly the difference was between horse and foot other than the divisions they were attached to. Regards, Simon. Yorkist (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you are aware that there were two distinct "15 pounders" : the BLC and QF... The QF 13 pounder was a different beast again, which was limited to regular RHA units as it was supposed to be "state of the art". The two types of 15-pounders were totally obsolete and hence allocated to Territorials, who were not expected to serve overseas. RHA units were assigned to cavalry divisions, were expected to move much quicker than RFA units which were attached to relatively slow-moving infantry divisions, and the guns and equipment were optimised accordingly : all the accompanying crew with an RHA battery rode horses, hence there were no seats on the gun carriages... most of the crew of an RFA battery rode on the gun or limber, hence there were seats on the gun carriage. Hence there were seats on a BLC 15 pounder carriage, while there weren't on a QF 15 pounder carriage. Most of the historians are pretty sloppy when they refer to guns, and very few bothered to mention which "15 pounder" they are referring to. There were only 108 QF 15-pounders, so I suppose some Territorial RHA units may have got the BLC gun, as it could have met cavalry movement requirements at a pinch. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Battle of Divisions describes the weapons of 2/2nd Mounted as '15-pounder B.L.C. guns' so I think it's pretty clear which are meant. The article on those states they were a conversion of an older model specifically for use by TF units, and as the second-line units were created at very short notice it seems likely there wouldn't have been QF guns available to equip entire new batteries. I've stated in the 1/1st Notts article that they had the 13 pdr QF, having been in existence since 1908. I'll have to check that source now, as it may be they had the 15 pdr QF instead. There's a photo of A Batt HAC on the 1/1st Notts page- I thought those were QF 13s, do you think they're QF 15s? Simon. Yorkist (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]