Genealogy Chat

bob, Me too :-0

Roy :-D

When I joined the army my chest was bigger than my waist. Now it is the other way round. Bob.

I doubt that woman in the land army or Royal Army Nursing Corps would have been taught map reading in those days and as for the Royal Engineers it would not have been a priority to teach map reading to very soldier back then,

The best thing about the army is the ability of instructors to teach anyone of any ability male or female to be the best they can be regardless of man or woman logic and understanding

Roy

Mum was in the Land Army and then the QARANC and Dad was in the Royal Engineers.

I could follow a map better than either of them.

Agree with Reggie. Although I haven't been in the forces there was the remnant of that type of training when I was young as all older men had all been in WW2.

I have spent virtually all my career planning journeys,together with instructions and giving directions. Quite recently I bought a book on local walks and my friend and I have managed to get lost on everyone we have tried so far. This book is written by a man but it doesn't say which planet he has come from. Can't decide whether an outsider would say that was a man's take on instruction or a woman's understanding of what a man was trying to say. -lol-jl

Understanding military terms (or anything else, come to that) is nothing to do with gender - it's about mental awareness.

My maternal grandfather was 5' 8" on his enlistment form, with an expanded chest girth of 37"



My brother was just over 6' in his prime ............ and it was always said that he had inherited his height from our grandfather

I remember grandfather as a tall strapping man in his 60s and 70s, when I was a child.


I was 5' 8½" in my 20s and I could look him in the eye :-D



obviously memory is a bit off!




sylvia

Because of the cultural baggage we cart around, I'ld expect a man to do better than a woman, initially.
Men are more likely to have had at least a passing interest in the military.
But a man would have to be in his 70s to have done National Service, so most men's knowledge wouldn't be much more than superficial.
Either sex could easily become quite proficient in reading sevice files.
(By WW2, they were probably typed up by WAACs to some extent anyway).


OK - there's a Canadian slant to this but:

List of Abbreviations Used in Military Service Files
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/genealogy/022-909.011-e.html


When WW1 manpower started getting low, the Canadian Govt relaxed the height requirement (which was 5' 3" I think) and had special "bantam" battalions of small guys.

Come on ladies,

nothing to do with being a man/woman thing :-P

I have had the same thing on threads when i have posted and been ignored in the same way from both male and female,

I just learned to not add any more info to the thread, Their loss not mine :-P

Roy :-D <3

BUT GLITTER ITS A MAN THING

Oh dear did I upset a man early this afternoon as the thread has gone about WW1 service and 1911 census.. Waste of my time posting a possible entry on 1911 if he was not going to bother acknowledging it.

;-)

WW1 and my gt uncle was 6ft 2 and a half inches, and my gt gt grandfather joining the Guards in 1879 was 6' 3 &1/2 :-D

I tried that using that response too Porkie Pie!
She was having none of it!

When i was a child my great grandfather looked well over 6ft as do all adults when viewed by a child

His real height was 5ft 5in and my real height was at that time just over 3ft

Roy

There is a reason for asking the question..
A few months ago, I sent docs to another user. The man was her g grandfather. All info matched. Correct parents address ect.
The user was convinced that this was someone else, and it based purely on his height. The man enlisted at the age of 20yrs and measured 5ft 3in.

I gave the same response as above re diet evolution ect

She said that her own father has a clear memory of him and describes him as a strapping man who was well over 6ft?

I don't think logic has anything to do with it. Someone who has served in the forces (male or female) has a better understanding of military terms than the average person (male or female).

As for the height of individuals in 1914-1918, it was much less than the average height today.

The statement; A woman's logic is always better, irrespective of the subject

is NOT correct

Every other soldier seems to be between 5ft1in and 5ft 5in. Chest fully expanded is around 36in.
Does anyone know why this is?

This is in part due to poor diet and part due to evolution we are taller now
And that's from a MAN

Roy

A womans logic is always better, irrespective of the subject.

As this is about Military records, I have a question re WW1 soldiers.

Were ALL of them of them vertically challenged or did the forces use another unit of measurement other than imperial to gague height?

I have had a long running book going with a friend, we are trying to find the tallest WW1 enlistee in our families.

So far. she wins with a rellie who was 5ft 8in
Every other soldier seems to be between 5ft1in and 5ft 5in. Chest fully expanded is around 36in.
Does anyone know why this is?

No, most men today have never served in the forces,

previous service gives an advantage to both male and female other that their should be no difference

Roy

Given a set of facts, either might be as good as the other, but in my experience women tend to think 'outside the box' more often and think...'..........but it might be worth looking at..( whatever) ...if they at first didn't find what they need.

Either could be as good as the other. It comes down to individuals really.

Gwyn