Ken Lees Posted 4 February , 2009 Share Posted 4 February , 2009 I am working my way through the Medal Index Cards for all men of the 9th King's Liverpool Regt. who have 4-digit TF numbers on their MIC. This way I am able to add to my database the date they went to France if they have an entitlement to the 1914-15 Star. I now have the names of over 800 of the battalion's original strength on their departure for France in March, 1915 and a siginificant proportion of the various reinforcement drafts throughout 1915. Now the dilemma - would it be safe to assume that any man with his 4-digit TF number on his MIC, but no Star entitlement, had entered the 'theatre of war' between 1st January, 1916 and the date of the issue of the 6-digit numbers (March, 1917)? Or am I making too big an assumption here? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 4 February , 2009 Share Posted 4 February , 2009 Ken, For safety I would assume 1st January 1916 to 1st January 1917. The TF renumbering officially started on 1/1/17 although local variations exist. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 4 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 4 February , 2009 Thanks Roop. I will make a note on the relevant record that this is an assumption rather than a corroborated fact. I also have to bear in mind that sometimes a second MIC will contain the Star qualification and with Ancestry's indexing foibles I could easily miss that card. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 4 February , 2009 Share Posted 4 February , 2009 Ken I have been making that assumption also, but in cases where descendants of soldiers have asked me, I have always said that the date, or rather range of dates, was just a deduction. In the case of the 6th N.F. the numbering pattern itself, compared with service or pensions documents of soldiers with numbers near to the number in question, are a help in narrowing down the possible date of going overseas - or at least cutting out dates that are not possible because of order of enlistment. Like the 9th Kings website, by the way. It is very clear and well laid out. Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 4 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 4 February , 2009 Thanks Kate. I will include a note to show that it is a deduction based on the facts that are available. and thank you for the kind comments about the website, which is due to be updated any day! KEn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 Before I had Access and as a check for Excel, I had made handwritten listings to help with anomalies and weeding out duplicates. Although there are still many difficulties it has given me confidence to see the methodical patterns in the numbering & renumbering, which have emerged even taking into account the casualties before renumbering. Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 - And this curious alphabetical pattern So I think we can be confident enough to try to make some deductions, so long as they are presented as deductions. Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 After the 9th Kings were engaged at Aubers Ridge & Loos in 1915 when did the first group of reinforcements arrive? In the case of the 6th NF, although they had suffered many casualties in 2nd Ypres in April 1915 it was October before the War Diary mentioned a draft of 35 reinforcements and the main drafts came just before the end of the year so it is possible to use these regimental numbers to help in deductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 On the question of regimental numbers in the BEF I have before mentioned the same - what happens if they are not part of that force? Northumberland Fusiliers #81230 Royal Irish Rifles #51288 They were Canadians and they buggered up the British system. Sorry, but they were my grandfathers and they did not know any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 Kate Those are very interesting deductions. Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 5 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2009 After the 9th Kings were engaged at Aubers Ridge & Loos in 1915 when did the first group of reinforcements arrive? I have made a preliminary study of this subject based on my, as yet incomplete, checking of the MICs and 15 Star Rolls and found that large drafts left England, sometimes to be sent to the battalion within days, but others were drip fed into the Battalion. For example, 40+ men left England on 7th June, 1915 and 75 reached the battalion on the 11th. 159+ men left England on 7th August, 1915. On the 20th, 40 are shown in the battalion War Diary as arriving from the 2/9th in England with the rest apparently serving in the 3rd Entrenching Battalion until posted to the 9th as follows: 30 on the 3rd Sept., 20 on the 17th Sept., 60 on the 29th Sept., and 30 on the 30th Sept. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 5 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2009 Kate, I have made similar deductions and found some alphabetical sequences in my sorted lists, too. As you can see from the second image (hopefully) the alphabetical ones appear to have been transferred from the same unit and I assume a list of those to be transferred was drawn up alphabetically, forwarded to the King's Regt who then issued the new numbers sequentially going down the supplied list. Interestingly, in this example they were all Manchester Regt. men and all had a 5-digit number previously. What this says about their terms of enlistment (TF or otherwise) I cannot yet say. I hope that finding the records of one or more of these men on Ancestry or at the NA will provide some clues. Ken . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 Ken I have tried to match the 14/15 date first arrived overseas, with the War Diary statements of arrivals of drafts of soldiers and found it quite confusing. Obviously there is a lapse of a day or so, even if they go straight to the Battalion. I have thought that longer gaps may have been accounted for by a time of training in France, although the original Battalion did not get any training time in France. The 6th N.F. arrived in France on 20/04/1915. I have managed to find 962 of the original overseas contingent for my database, so far. They went into their first day of action at St Julien and there were almost 500 casualties. Obviously, some of the casualties were treated near to the action and may have returned quite quickly and some returned as time went on. Although I have started to look at it, I have not yet researched the return/nonreturn of casualties to the battalion but it will be very useful information. In October, 14/15 Medal Rolls & Index cards show 117 men of the Battalion arrived overseas for the first time. 32 on 2nd October, 69 on the 30th October & 4 on the 31st October & 12 officers. October is also the first month when drafts of replacements are mentioned in the War Diary. The War Diary shows the arrival of 35 men on 2nd October, but says that they are sick & wounded from St Julien returning to the Battalion. These men would not have been among the 117 with a first arrival date in France of October, because they should have been among the original 20th April contingent. Then the War Diary mentions a draft of 45 men on the 11th October, and 37 on the 17th October. These may have included the 32 which I have traced whose first date of arrival is 2nd October. On 7th November 111 other ranks arrived. presumably these are the soldiers who disembarked on the 30th & 31st October plus some others and I have not yet traced them all. I don't really think my database is complete enough to do this analysis in a meaningful way yet but already it is possible to compile some interesting reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 Richard I remember and see from your profile that one of your grandfathers was in the 26th N.F. The 26th were not renumbered within their battalion in 1917 and so he didn't mess up the numbering system in any way and was perfectly wonderful as you know. kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 And then there's this run of men numbered also alphabetically, who were originally Notts & Derbys. They were then given a Northumberland Fusiliers 5 figure number, then a 6th Northumberland Fusiliers 4 figure number, and then a 6th Northumberland Fusiliers 6 figure number. Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temporary Viking Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 I used this web site to try and find out when my grandfather enlisted.... http://armyservicenumbers.blogspot.com/ ............ reading your post I never realised that there could be so much ambiguity in four simple numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 8 February , 2009 Share Posted 8 February , 2009 Sorry Temporary Viking. I expect it's the way I tell it What I was trying to say was that, I have been surprised by the consistency of the patterns emerging in the particular battalion which I am studying (a territorial battalion), as more documents and rolls become available & cross checking becomes possible. So I was trying to give a little support for Ken to make an estimate of the time a man arrived overseas, based on his number, information of 1914/15 Star and the fact that the Territorial Battalions were renumbered at the beginning of 1917. For example the website, to which you have linked, uses known dates of enlistment from service docs & medal rolls related to regimental numbers, so that it is posssible to deduce/estimate a possible enlistment date from a regimental number. A very useful site. This would not be so meaningful, if consecutive numbers had been allocated in blocks, which were then given to different recruitment centres. Or, if numbers had been automatically re-issued when a soldier had been discharged (as I was once told). And if the battalion was not territorial and so was not renumbered. Although we can't be absolutely sure of accuracy, we can be more confident if the numbering system & procedure adheres to the relevant ACI and follows a pattern as clear as the examples shown above. Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purley Posted 8 February , 2009 Share Posted 8 February , 2009 Kate, I have made similar deductions and found some alphabetical sequences in my sorted lists, too. As you can see from the second image (hopefully) the alphabetical ones appear to have been transferred from the same unit and I assume a list of those to be transferred was drawn up alphabetically, forwarded to the King's Regt who then issued the new numbers sequentially going down the supplied list. Interestingly, in this example they were all Manchester Regt. men and all had a 5-digit number previously. What this says about their terms of enlistment (TF or otherwise) I cannot yet say. I hope that finding the records of one or more of these men on Ancestry or at the NA will provide some clues. . What this tells you is that a batch of men with regular numbers were transferred from other Manchester Battalions to the Territorials before the 1917 renumbering and given a block of Territorial numbers in the original (1908) series before being given 1917 numbers. In the Royal Berks they jumped to start at 20001 for the purpose of renumbering men from other Royal Berks Battalions and used the original 1908 series to renumber men transferred from other Regiments and often these were listed alphabetically before being allocated their Territorial numbers. The 1917 numbers were generally allocated in strict order of the 1908 numbers missing out those who were no longer on the books in August 1916. So you can often get gaps in the 1917 numbers left for men who were already dead or transferred before the 1917 numbers came into use. regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 8 February , 2009 Share Posted 8 February , 2009 And then there's this run of men numbered also alphabetically, who were originally Notts & Derbys. Kate I think that those men were from the Notts and Derby Training Reserve Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 8 February , 2009 Share Posted 8 February , 2009 Mike Thanks for that info about the Notts & Derbys. The 421 *** nos above are also shown as Northumberland Fusiliers and I have not shown the Notts & Derbys numbers on that old listing although they are in my database. I have just quickly checked and have found that those men have 5 figure Notts & Derbys numbers e.g Flint 19230, 42158, 6/7805, 267266 Gribby F. 19377, etc etc. Homes J.W. 16004 & (I have a note that he is 11th Notts & Derbys) Gamble 31654 Goulding 32118 John, I think your explanation of being given a 4 figure number in the 1908 series, if arriving before 1917 in a Territorial Battalion, followed by renumbering in the 1917 6 figure series, is shown in the alphabetical listing which is in post 15, but it seems, in that case, that the alphabetical listing happened in the number before the old Territorial 1908. At last! Some people who don't mind talking about numbers and whose eyes, if I could see them, might not have glazed over Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 8 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 8 February , 2009 What this tells you is that a batch of men with regular numbers were transferred from other Manchester Battalions to the Territorials before the 1917 renumbering and given a block of Territorial numbers in the original (1908) series before being given 1917 numbers. In the Royal Berks they jumped to start at 20001 for the purpose of renumbering men from other Royal Berks Battalions and used the original 1908 series to renumber men transferred from other Regiments and often these were listed alphabetically before being allocated their Territorial numbers. The 1917 numbers were generally allocated in strict order of the 1908 numbers missing out those who were no longer on the books in August 1916. So you can often get gaps in the 1917 numbers left for men who were already dead or transferred before the 1917 numbers came into use. John, Thanks for the explanation. Can I just ask you to clarify a few points? "a batch of men with regular numbers..." - these are then, presumably, men enlisted as regular or service (duration of war) men and not territorials. "transferred from other Manchester Battalions to the Territorials before the 1917 renumbering and given a block of Territorial numbers in the original (1908) series before being given 1917 numbers." - I only have a 5-digit Manchester Regt. number for these men which can't be TF numbers (can they?). The 5-digit numbers I have always associated with Regular or Kitchener's men. Are you saying that they would have transferred into Manchester TF battalions before being transferred to the King's Liverpool Regt. TF battalion? The 1917 numbers were generally allocated in strict order of the 1908 numbers missing out those who were no longer on the books in August 1916. So you can often get gaps in the 1917 numbers left for men who were already dead or transferred before the 1917 numbers came into use. - I agree with the issue in strict order of 1908 number and that men no longer serving in the battalion would have been skipped, but why would there be gaps? If a man was no longer alive, had been discharged or had been transferred elsewhere he simply wouldn't have been given a 6-digit number. That number would therefore be allocated to the next man. Each 6-digit number would have been issued consecutively, as I understand it, so if a man had been given the number 331888 (in a block beginning 330001) then every number from 330001 to 331887 must already have been issued to a man who had a lower 4-digit TF number than 331888. Kate, like you, I find family and friends begin to leave when I try to discuss the fascinations of the TF numbering system at home! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purley Posted 8 February , 2009 Share Posted 8 February , 2009 Ken - to try and answer your questions Thanks for the explanation. Can I just ask you to clarify a few points? "a batch of men with regular numbers..." - these are then, presumably, men enlisted as regular or service (duration of war) men and not territorials. ****These are not Territorials - could be Regulars, Kitcheners, Derbys, Conscripts or Reservists although most likely Kitcheners "transferred from other Manchester Battalions to the Territorials before the 1917 renumbering and given a block of Territorial numbers in the original (1908) series before being given 1917 numbers." - I only have a 5-digit Manchester Regt. number for these men which can't be TF numbers (can they?). The 5-digit numbers I have always associated with Regular or Kitchener's men. Are you saying that they would have transferred into Manchester TF battalions before being transferred to the King's Liverpool Regt. TF battalion? ****Not necessarily - after January 1916 there was no distinction between the terms of service. They were just soldiers in the army regardless of the terms on which they enlisted and could be transferred between Territorial units or between Territorial and Regular or service units. It was just that the territorials had their own numbering system and it was not until after about March 1917 that they retained their numbers within their regiment when changing battalion whether these were regular or territorial 1917 numbers. The six figure numbers were used for all sorts of other purposes beside renumbering territorials. Also after about March 1917 all men would have received a regular number on enlistment whether serving in a Territorial or a regular/service battalion. The 1917 numbers were generally allocated in strict order of the 1908 numbers missing out those who were no longer on the books in August 1916. So you can often get gaps in the 1917 numbers left for men who were already dead or transferred before the 1917 numbers came into use. - I agree with the issue in strict order of 1908 number and that men no longer serving in the battalion would have been skipped, but why would there be gaps? If a man was no longer alive, had been discharged or had been transferred elsewhere he simply wouldn't have been given a 6-digit number. That number would therefore be allocated to the next man. Each 6-digit number would have been issued consecutively, as I understand it, so if a man had been given the number 331888 (in a block beginning 330001) then every number from 330001 to 331887 must already have been issued to a man who had a lower 4-digit TF number than 331888. ****The lists were compiled around August 1916 from those who were on the books of the TF at that time - a few were missed out and tagged on the end when they were discovered (eg POWs thought dead) a number of those allocated 1917 TF numbers either died or were transferred before taking up their newly allocated number and while there is almost certainly a name to be associated with each 1917 number some of them are very hard to find **** as with all bureaucratic systems there will always be exceptions and anomalies so while you can get a pretty good idea of their original TF number from the sequence of their 1917 number it doesn't always work. regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 8 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 8 February , 2009 Thanks John, That confirms some of the thoughts I had on the subject and explains a few things I hadn't considered. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 9 February , 2009 Share Posted 9 February , 2009 The 421 *** nos above are also shown as Northumberland Fusiliers and I have not shown the Notts & Derbys numbers on that old listing although they are in my database. I have just quickly checked and have found that those men have 5 figure Notts & Derbys numbers e.g Flint 19230, 42158, 6/7805, 267266 Gribby F. 19377, etc etc. Homes J.W. 16004 & (I have a note that he is 11th Notts & Derbys) Gamble 31654 Goulding 32118 Kate, I was under the impression that the N & D men had the 6/**** numbers. The numbers you have given above appear in fact to be Kitchener Army recruits into the N & D Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyford Posted 9 February , 2009 Share Posted 9 February , 2009 Mike It would have been better if I had shown the regimental numbers in headed data columns and with the regiments, but I just happened to have those scans, which I had made earlier from a handwritten check list. On the 6th N.F. database I have 5 separate fields for different regimental numbers (and also ranks) and sources for the numbers, but again these fields are not labelled 1st, 2nd, 3rd number but "other regimental number" because sometimes it is not easy to tell the order, except for the 4 figure, 6 figure Territorial patterns. People say that the order on the MICs is correct but I have not always found this to be the case, related as they are to medal entitlement. Also, lots of the transfers into the 6th N.F. are Notts & Derbys. I would say it is one of the most frequent "other regiment" Someone told me that this is because of the Administrative district. Ken. Sorry this has drifted away from the 1916/17 enlistment date start of the thread. kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now