Gap in RFA numbering - why

[Chris_Baker]

Looking for service records of men numbered around 144500, I found

> no deaths between 144414 and 144605

> no service records (on Ancestry) between 144500 and 144665

> very few medal index cards in range 144400 to 144500

Seems to me that there might be a gap, as though numbers around this area were not issued. Any ideas why? The men numbered just above 144500 were conscripts, mobilised in late July 1916.

[kevinrowlinson]

I would have to say that it would seem more likely that they were nearly immediately transferred to another regiment. Records that are quickly searchable are someone like Rueben Joseph Gee, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=1 , RFA 144519, or the one where they do put his RFA number , all be it in the wrong order, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...;resultcount=14 . Makes searching interesting. It would take some time to find others.

Kevin

[David Porter]

> very few medal index cards in range 144400 to 144500

Seems to me that there might be a gap, as though numbers around this area were not issued.

Were those numbers issued to Artillery trainees who then went to either RGA, RFA or RHA?

I have found a load more MICs in that range for RGA, but as you say, quite sparse for RFA.

[kevinrowlinson]

144468 Beedie, Joseph Clarke, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=1 .

144476 Baker, Jack, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...;resultcount=16 .

144515 Chalkley, Harry, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=6

One would have to say that there is a sort of pattern here.

Kevin