Battalion Number Query

[stephenh]

Excuse my ignorance. Something that has always puzzled me is, for example a man I am researching now was in the 1/8 Cheshire Reg. Does this mean he was in no. 1 platoon of the 8th Battalion??

Stephen

[John_Hartley]

Stephen

Bit of a problem here.

The designation 1/8 would normally mean that it was the 8th battalion and that it was the first line battalion (there might then have been the second line designated as 2/8). The mother site will tell you more about the makeup of territorial battalions.

Howver, the Cheshires did not have a 1/8 Battalion at all. The 8th Battalion was a service battalion (i.e formed as part of the new Army). If you again go to the mother site and click on "units of the army" and then find the Cheshires under infantry, it'll give you all the detail.

By the way, was your man a fatality? If so, let me know his name and I'll look him up in the roll of honour just to confirm Battalion

[stephenh]

John

Thanks for that pointer, my mistake it should read to the warwicks. I'm going straight to the mother site now.

Thanks

Stephen

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

Excuse my ignorance. Something that has always puzzled me is, for example a man I am researching now was in the 1/8 Cheshire Reg. Does this mean he was in no. 1 platoon of the 8th Battalion??

Stephen

This thread was answered a few weeks ago in "Battalion Designations" query,if you search for that post a full list of Territorial & other Battalions is given as an example! Cheers

[Julian Dawson]

I always thought that the 1/8 designation meant first batallion of the 8th regiment. It certainly worked that way for the Gurkha regiments. But maybe this is different. I don't claim to be any expert!

[Ken Lees]

I always thought that the 1/8 designation meant first batallion of the 8th regiment. It certainly worked that way for the Gurkha regiments. But maybe this is different. I don't claim to be any expert!

Julian,

That isn't the way it worked with the British Army. As was mentioned by HarryBettsMCDCM the recent thread "Battalion Designations, What do they mean?" answered the same question.

Regards,

Ken

[Julian Dawson]

But the Gurkhas were and are part of the British Army surely? So why the difference?

[Ken Lees]

I don't know anything at all about the Ghurkas, but in this case, they are different. British regiments are named, not numbered (although they were numbered and these numbers are sometimes referred to). So, the number, in the Great War period, always referred to the Battalion and not the Regiment.

Ken

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

I always thought that the 1/8 designation meant first batallion of the 8th regiment. It certainly worked that way for the Gurkha regiments. But maybe this is different. I don't claim to be any expert!

With Territorial UK regiment Battalions It in effect means the 1st Battalion of the X Battalion,thus you could & did have:

1/1st}

2/1st}Territorial Regiments with NO Regular "Parent"

3/1st}

1/2nd}

2/2nd}

1/4th

2/4th

3/6th,etc;

[CROONAERT]

But the Gurkhas were and are part of the British Army surely? So why the difference?

Technically, no. They were part of the Indian Army. Although under British command, they were as seperate as ,say, the the Australian or South African armies.

Dave.

[Julian Dawson]

Well, I guess that would be correct during the Great War. But since 1947 and partition the Gurkhas themselves were partioned and were divided between the British and Indian army. So, there are British army Gurkhas. But now I guess we are getting hopelessly off topic. *Wonders off looking for a Gurkha forum*