Naval experts, mathematicians, and/or codebreakers

[Guest Pete Wood]

I believe that the Naval records office sent blocks of names to the memorial plaque factories. But after years of research, I still can’t work out a logical method of why the factory assigned a certain number (stamped into each plaque) for an individual (or maybe a ship/unit).

I am hoping that there are maths experts, naval experts, and/or codebreakers who can solve the riddle. I have chosen to present the navy plaques to the forum, as less of these were made – and many of the casualties were lost on the same day, from the same ship (or submarine etc). So hopefully, this will make the problem, easier to solve.

You will notice that many of these men have memorial plaques with the same ‘batch number.’ What is the common link to unlock the ‘code’ of the Naval memorial plaques. Is it alphabetical, military number, unit, area/date of death etc etc??

By the way, I don’t know the answer. It’s not a trick question. All theories/guesses happily acknowledged/discussed. All of these plaques were made at Woolwich Arsenal.

So here are some examples of names of men who were killed in action, while serving onboard various ships. I’ve put them in ‘batch order’; the numbers are those stamped into their memorial plaques.

Stringer 50 (Submarine D3) K14251 DIED15.3.18

Wevill 50 (Vanguard) DIED 9.7.17

Griffiths 66 (Natal) Bristol 2.1353. DIED 30.12.15

Hancock 66 (Vanguard) M12079 DIED 9.7.17

Hill 66 (Black Prince) RN 346870 DIED 31.5.16

Lloyd 66 (Victory) M.11903 DIED 29.3.15

Lufkin 67 (Queen Mary) 288174 31.5.16

Grimaldi 73 (Defence) J28994 DIED 31.5.16

Carpenter 74 (Vanguard) 227303 DIED9.7.17

Sturgess 74 (Black Prince) 201975 DIED 31.5.16

Bailey 76 (Indefatigable) J7331 DIED 31.5.16

Burton 76 (Indefatigable) DIED 31.5.16

Ridgers 80 (Submarine E30) J8085 DIED 22.11.16

Reeves 81 (Submarine E30) J2360 DIED 22.11.16

Staples 88 (Indefatigable) RMA1140S DIED 31.5.16

Fryatt 84 (Vanguard) 231193 DIED 9.7.17

Spence 96 (Vanguard) DIED 9.7.17

I should add that I don't believe that the batch numbers were used just once. So if, for example, the HMS Lollipop was sunk in 1919, I think the number 66 might have been used again. I hope this makes sense.....

Edited 27 April , 2004 by Racing Teapots

[Myrtle]

RT

Do you have the additional information on these men e.g. military number, date of death etc ?

[gem22]

RT

It might prove easier to solve the puzzle if you passed on the details for a single ship or unit. If you reduce the number of variables it sometimes helps to establish a pattern. You might try picking a ship that was sunk and for which no plaques had been issued previously.

Sometimes too much information can be a bad thing.

Garth

[Guest Pete Wood]

Garth, I agree.

I only wish I had loads from one unit to give you. What I have tried to show you above are ships that (mostly) sank on one day - or have the same 'batch number'.

But as you can see from the Indefatigable and Vanguard, there are different numbers. I can't work out why....

[Myrtle]

RT

Thanks for including extra details.

As there appears to be 8 months between the first two dates of death but they are both batch 50 it looks as if the stamps/moulds were used in rotation until they needed to be replaced. Just wondering - were the batch numbers part of the mould or were they stamped on afterwards ?

[gem22]

RT

This is very much a shot in the dark but do you know how many people were employed in the manufacture of these plaques? I'm wondering if they might be a type of quality control stamp i.e this plaque was manufactured/ finished by worker number ??

I dare say someone will shoot that down but if you don't ask!!!!

Garth

[Guest Pete Wood]

The batch numbers were cast. Why do you ask...??

The 'batch numbers' appear time and time again, but there doesn't appear to be a logical/consistent period of time between usage.

[Guest Pete Wood]

do you know how many people were employed in the manufacture of these plaques? I'm wondering if they might be a type of quality control stamp i.e this plaque was manufactured/ finished by worker number ??

Numbers unknown. Acton obviously had less workers than Woolwich, as WA managed to make significantly more plaques in a given period. It's a fair theory, which I've thought of and haven't completely dismissed. But it brings me back to the point of how would you allocate sailor X,Y, and Z to worker 24....??

What I'm trying to say is, let's assume that worker 24 makes all the letter 'B's for HMS indefatigable. Why would you want to cast the plaques with that number....?

My point is that the records office have to send all their casualties to the factory. The war is still going, in some parts of the world, so it's an ongoing situation. The factory needs a method of recording which plaque has been made (and possibly, using your theory Garth, who has made it). In addition, the records office needs some sort of confirmation that the plaque has been made.

Now remember that every plaque was then packaged, and the envelope has the production number on it (up to 6 numbers as around 1,000,000 plaques were made), which is assumed to be the running total (made so far).

[Myrtle]

The batch numbers were cast. Why do you ask...??

The 'batch numbers' appear time and time again, but there doesn't appear to be a logical/consistent period of time between usage.

I was thinking that if the batch number is part of the mould and not stamped on afterwards, then the way in which the moulds were stored may have dictated which batch number the individual soldier's plaque would receive. This may mean that the moulds were rotated and therefore there was no logical progression in the system of numbering.

The lack of logical/consistant periods of time betqween usage would then be down to weekends, how many workers away from work, how many plaques with faults etc. etc.

[Guest Pete Wood]

It's possible, of course. But your theory suggests that the 'process' was, shall we say, haphazard in its numbering. However, Woolwich was careful to ensure that all women's plaques were made with number 11. Also around 99 per cent of the Naval plaques had a narrow H.

This seems, to me, to suggest some kind of order.....??

[PhilB]

I`m afraid we`re going to have to wait for the book, RT! There are too many imponderables at present. How many moulds would be in use at one time? How many plaques were cast in one teeming? How many moulds did one worker handle, or did all workers use them at random? Bear in mind that the moulds would presumably have to cool after use and be cleaned up before the next name could be added. Incidentally, as part of the mould must have been changed each time there`s a name change, do you ever see a join between the two parts of the mould reflected in the cast plaque? If the answer is "no" then perhaps the main mould was iron and the name part was a sand type material into which they could press the letters. Phil B

[gem22]

But it brings me back to the point of how would you allocate sailor X,Y, and Z to worker 24....??

This may mean that the moulds were rotated and therefore there was no logical progression in the system of numbering.

Assuming of course that an allocation system existed. What if?? Each worker has his/her own mould. Worker A ( who could be number 55) comes to work and takes the first name on a list. Worker B ( who is number 10) takes the second name on the list. And so on down the line. Some workers work faster than others. Some go sick or take more loo breaks. Perhaps they were paid by piece work terms, the more you do the more you get, a little bit fanciful I know but!!!

It may be that the organised system that you want to see just didn't exist. Random chance dictated the number appearing on the plaque. And just as likely this is a load of old cobblers and someone will prove me wrong: again.

Garth

[PhilB]

It seems likely that the putting in of the names would be a separate job to the casting, in which case the person putting in the name would decide the plaque order, not the caster. My scenario is that the caster casts the plaque and returns the mould to the namer (along with the other casters` moulds) and the namer takes the next name off the list supplied and puts it into the next mould on the pile. Hence the casters get the names (and moulds) at random. How does that sound Garth? Phil B

[Guest Pete Wood]

The name and plaque are cast as one - at the same time.

[gem22]

Phil B

I suspect you are saying much the same thing but from a slightly different view point. And yes I would agree it is a possible scenario. Either way the allocation is random. Of course workers may have more than one mould, each with the same (batch/worker i.d) number in it.

Garth

[PhilB]

Yes, RT, the plaque would, of course, be cast as one, but the mould could be in 2 parts - the permanent part and the temporary (name) part, and the 2 parts need not have been of the same material. Sound reasonable? Phil B

[Myrtle]

This seems, to me, to suggest some kind of order.....??

Yes the order could be in the pattern numbering not in the casting.

Do you have any interior photographs of Acton which show equipment that was used and/or methods of storage ?

[Bob H]

One possibility is that each mould had a different number so that if on final inspection a fault was discovered, the mould responsible could be identified and remedial work done to the mould before more plaques were cast.

If this is the method used then each time a batch is poured each one will have a different number.

Do the plaques for women differ in any way from the standard ones, which could explain why 11 is always used for them?

Bob

[Clive Maier]

Pete,

In your first post you mentioned that the number is stamped into each plaque. In your third post, you say the numbers were cast.

Could you confirm whether the numbers are raised (standing proud) on the plaque or sunken (incised)? And are they on the face or the back?

As you can tell from this, I still can't find my Uncle Oscar's plaque. I was so terrified of losing it that I put it in an ultra safe place - and promptly forget where. It's here somewhere ....

[Guest Pete Wood]

Clive, you're too clever for me. Well spotted.

The numbers were both stamped and then cast.

I was hoping to avoid this, but here goes:

Moulds were used to make a plaster pattern of the plaque. The 'batch number' was now punched into the plaster pattern.

The plaster pattern was now pressed into sand, and removed. This leaves an impression of the pattern - a void - into which the bronze is poured.

[gem22]

Moulds were used to make a plaster pattern of the plaque. The 'batch number' was now punched into the plaster pattern.

The plaster pattern was now pressed into sand, and removed. This leaves an impression of the pattern - a void - into which the bronze is poured.

Pete

You've lost me. If the batch number was punched into the plaster how was it retained when you removed the plaster from the sand? Surely the sand would have to fill the holes in the plaster but would then be removed when you lifted the plaster out. Or am I missing something?

Garth

[Guest Pete Wood]

It's not builder's sand. Casting sand is bound with oil and doesn't crumble.

Of course, it takes care/skill when placing and removing the pattern - or the detail will become blurred.

While carrying out research I visited a foundry and put my hand into casting sand, and it is fine enough to show up my fingerprints. I then watched as lead was poured into the indentation. When I examined the casting, I could even see the scar on the base of one of my fingers.

[Tom Morgan]

I'm probably confused here, too, but here goes.

The plaster pattern must have been an exact plaster version of a finished plaque, right? If a number was stamped into it, then the finished plaque would have the number as though stamped or incised. Didn't the number stand proud of the surface of the plaque? Or does it just look that way in photos?

Tom

[Guest Pete Wood]

It just looks that way in the photos. The number looks as if it was stamped (afterwards) into the bronze plaque. In other words, the numbers are below the plaque's surface - and NOT proud.

I am absolutely certain that the plaster pattern was stamped - and so the numbers are, in fact, cast.

[Guest Pete Wood]

I should also add that, if by chance some eejit out there is thinking of reproducing plaques - don't bother.

If you take a pattern from a pattern (like another plaque, for example), you lose definition. Also bronze shrinks!! So we'll soon be able to tell if someone is knocking out fakes