Tinhat47 Posted 3 April , 2009 Posted 3 April , 2009 What would the service number prefix "NAC" refer to?
Tinhat47 Posted 4 April , 2009 Author Posted 4 April , 2009 Hmmm ... it appears that this prefix was never deciphered in the definitive ASC prefix thread here on the site. I ran a search in the London Gazette on some ASC men with this prefix, hoping that like men with other prefixes, it would give what unit within the ASC they were part of, perhaps giving a clue to was NAC may stand for. Looks like a dead end there too ... I got MORE abbreviations. For instance, Beagley, NAC/126454,Sjt. (A./S.M.) C. H. Hanwell, NAC/144566, Pte. (A./6'./B.M.) H.T. Willett, NAC/144561, Pte. (A./S./'S.M.) F. J. Any idea what those stand for either?
nhclark Posted 4 April , 2009 Posted 4 April , 2009 Matt, The first bloke was Claude Hingstone(?) BEAGLEY. His original number was A/126454. Under that number, rank Serjeant, he received his 1915 Star. Initially served 2b - Balkans. He then became Acting Warrant Officer Class 1 with the number NAC/126454. He was released from the service in Egypt. The second was Henry Thomas HANWELL. Original number, rank Private, N.A.C./144566. Also became Acting Warrant Officer, Class 1. Kept the same number. Initially served 2b - Balkans. The third was Frederick J. WILLETT. His rank was Private for his entitlement to the 1915 Star. He also became Acting Warrant Officer, Class 1. Kept the same number throughout. Initially served 3 - Egypt. There is no reference to the prefix "NAC" in Mike Young's book on the ASC. A quick check on www.ancestry.co.uk shows a total of 409 men with the "NAC" prefix. Various ranks, some with prior service in other units, some not. Some have reference to the word "Emblems", some do not. Having done all that, I looked for some service records. Both Claude Hingstone(?) BEAGLEY and Henry Thomas HANWELL are on ancestry. Both were in the "Canteen Section." There's reference to this section on page 86 of Mike Young's book. Starting out as the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, it became Expeditionary Force Canteens and was amalgamated with the Army Service Corps on 7th July 1915 and designated "Expeditionary Force Canteens Section ASC." The section operated canteens in France and the Middle East. I then started going through the people listed as having an "NAC" prefix, until I obtained a hit in the service records. He was John Joseph Andre. Lo and behold he was a special enlistment into the "Army Service Corps (Expeditionary Force Canteen Section). (Edit) But that doesn't appear to be quite the whole story. Andre's service record shows that he reenlisted on 4th July 1919 after servicng in the ASC since 1915. His record states "Reenlisted into the NACB for period not exceeding two years at NACB rates of pay." I believe that this was the "Navy and Army Canteen Board" and that this is a possible explanation of the prefix "NAC." If the prefix applied before the formation of the Board, then "Navy and Army Canteen" still applies. Surely it would be rather more than coincidence for all the men I have investigated with the "NAC" prefix to be with the canteen section if that's not what "NAC" signified? This is what Wikepedia has to say about the NACB: 'Prior to 1914, each unit ran its own canteen, mostly contracted out to private firms. In Victorian times they had a reputation for being expensive, corrupt, unpleasant, and selling inferior goods. In 1894, three Army officers founded the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, which improved the situation immensely. It bought canteen goods in bulk and sold them on to the regimental canteens. During the First World War the Expeditionary Force Canteens were created for service overseas, run by uniformed members of the Army Service Corps and absorbing the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society. On 1 January 1917 the Army Canteen Committee was created to take over canteens at home, later becoming the Navy and Army Canteen Board. In 1919 this also took over the Expeditionary Force Canteens. On 1 January 1921 the Navy and Army Canteen Board formed the nucleus of the NAAFI.' The NACB has had a run on the GWF previously. (End of edit) Noel
Tinhat47 Posted 4 April , 2009 Author Posted 4 April , 2009 Wow Noel, that was some incredible detective work! I never would have thought "Navy & Army Canteens"! The WFA Web site says roughly only 5,000 troops worked in these canteens across the world, which explains why there are so few "NAC" prefixes out there. My particular man was Percy Stockbridge, formerly of the Buffs, who was assigned to the ASC as no. NAC/461193. It's interesting that the NAC men seem to have long service numbers. One Cpl. William Tacon had the unwieldly number of NAC/46124015!
nhclark Posted 4 April , 2009 Posted 4 April , 2009 Matt, I've just had a little look at the pension papers of the John Joseph Andre whom I mentioned above. They quite clearly say that he was in the "NACB Section." In civilian life he was a "licensed victualler." Another page says "caterer." I rather suspect that many (possibly all) of the NAC men were involved in the catering/food industry in civilian life. Andre worked as a "canteen manager" in "Egypt and Palestine Jan 1916 to April 1919." After he reenlisted in the NACB he was sent to France. I also looked at the service record of a William George Margetts, another NAC man. In civilian life he was a "Stores Manager." His service record shows that he enlisted in the EEF in Alexandria, Egypt on 16th January 1917, agreeing to serve only in the "Expeditionary Force Canteen Section." He initially received the number "Canteen E 308427" but this was later changed to NAC/308427. In his record is the statement "Transferred to the Navy and Army Canteen Board Section of the Army Service Corps" with the date 23rd September 1917. Anyway, I'm fairly satisfied that the prefix "NAC" means "Navy and Army Canteen." Noel
Tinhat47 Posted 4 April , 2009 Author Posted 4 April , 2009 Hmmm ... does it seem to you that more NAC men seem to have been stationed in Egypt, Greece and the Balkans rather than the Western Front, or is that just me?
nhclark Posted 5 April , 2009 Posted 5 April , 2009 Matt, I don't know that we have sufficient information to make that assumption. It would be necessary, I think, to look at a jmore representative sample of the service records, and that is a major investigative task in its own right! I'm not sure that the ancestry search engine picks up all the men with NAC numbers - what I did was just do a search with "nac" in the regimental number field, leaving all the other fields blank, and it comes up with 409 names. If it does pick up all the NAC numbers then what we might have is that there were a mere 409 men with NAC prefixes, and that they were the "management team" of the canteens. The labour might have come from other men, not permanently in canteens, from local labour, and from the QMAAC. I wonder whether there is a history of the NAAFI that might help? By the way, Cpl. William H. Tacon's number was NAC/461240. The "15" that you have added at the end actually is the "15" belonging to "15 Star", the award of the 1914-15 Star. Noel
Tinhat47 Posted 5 April , 2009 Author Posted 5 April , 2009 I did an "NAC/" search on the National Archives and came up with 421 men.
CGM Posted 5 April , 2009 Posted 5 April , 2009 Hello Matt, I wonder, did your NAC search bring up the name Harry Denning? (This is a huge shot in the dark on my part.) CGM
Tinhat47 Posted 5 April , 2009 Author Posted 5 April , 2009 Unfortunately not, CGM. I only have see two men with the name Harry Denning ... one in the Welsh Regiment and the other in the RGA.
nhclark Posted 5 April , 2009 Posted 5 April , 2009 The discrepancy between the ancestry and TNA databases is interesting. However, ancestry does say that there is one update to go before its database is complete. Whatever the case, the number of "NAC men" was very small indeed. It would be interesting to do a project on these men (but I'm not about to start it!). Noel
CGM Posted 5 April , 2009 Posted 5 April , 2009 Thank you for looking Matt. I must start a thread for him. Time to see if a family mystery can be sorted out, I think. CGM
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