Army Service Numbers

[basiloxford]

Hello everyone,

I'm sure someone on here can answer me this question,

if a man had a service number that was issued before the First World War, did he defiantly serve before the war, or was old numbers reused.

I'm researching a Corp George Kibble, 1st Bn Gloster Regiment, with a service number of 8865.

According the marvelous Army Service Numbers on-line blog hosted by Paul Nixon, 8865 was issued sometime in late 1908.

Does this mean that George had enlisted in 1908, and may have been a reservist, who was recalled in 1914.

He certainly wasn't in the army in 1911, as i've found him on that years census working as a farm labourer.

As a general rule, were reservists recalled using their original service number??

Barry.

[Muerrisch]

Re-use was forbidden.

Some regiments had parallel numbering for regulars, for TF, and for Special Reserve.

A recalled reservist retained his number.

There may be exceptions but they are as rare as rocking horse by-product.

[River97]

I'm as sure as the above mentioned horse by-product that the service numbers were not reused. Once issued, and it carries on to this day, they were only allocated to one person.

Now, in saying that, it did become apparent that some transcription errors, or issuing errors did occur and some soldiers were issued with the same service number, but was not done intentionally.

Cheers Andy.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Btw in 1914 there were not Army wide Service Numbers: each battalion, let alone each regiment, could issue the same number.

[judy7007]

I'm as sure as the above mentioned horse by-product that the service numbers were not reused. Once issued, and it carries on to this day, they were only allocated to one person.

Now, in saying that, it did become apparent that some transcription errors, or issuing errors did occur and some soldiers were issued with the same service number, but was not done intentionally.

Cheers Andy.

Hi Andy

I wondered about this, having recently come across two Australians - READ, Frederick James, Service Number 1166, born Unley SA and enlisted at Morphettville SA, and READ, Alexander James, Service Number 1166, born at Maitland NSW and enlisted at Rosehill NSW. I looked through both of their records online to try to unravel the mystery but couldn't see obvious explanation.

cheers

Judy

[basiloxford]

Thanks for the replies folks,

It seems that my man must have seen service previous to the Great War,

Many Thanks,

Barry.

[Graham Stewart]

Send a PM to GWF member Promenade, who did an extensive database on the Glosters and he should be able to give you the battalion he enlisted into.

One problem we've discovered with numbering is that despite an Army Council Instruction in 1915 to overcome duplication with the introduction of battalion pre-fix numbers for Territorials enlistments etc, a lot of units seemingly didn't introduce it into the necessary paperwork, leaving researchers scratching their heads sorting out their duplicate numbers.

[MBrockway]

Btw in 1914 there were not Army wide Service Numbers: each battalion, let alone each regiment, could issue the same number.

... and for a worked example of three Rifle Brigade regulars all with the same Service Number & serving at the same time, see my Post here: Duplicated RB regular battalions SN

(Data courtesy of Andy )

The KRRC and RB definitely duplicated SNs across the four regular battalions and possibly also the Depot.

Cheers,

Mark

[MBrockway]

A recalled reservist retained his number.

David,

Usually the case, but in the KRRC and RB service numbering schema there is a dedicated range (the low A/xxxx below A/2xxxxx) for recalled Reservists whose SN had been re-allocated. The same range was also used for Reservists who had left the Reserve as time expired and then re-enlisted and whose original SN had been re-allocated.

I'm afraid I have no worked example to hand for either of these.

As you say though, generally they tried to keep the man's original number - I guess it saved a lot of re-numbering of paperwork and equipment!

Cheers,

Mark

[Muerrisch]

I hope [trust] that Paul Nixon will excuse a longish quote from his blog, as follows:

This post will look at army service numbers issued to men joining the four regular battalions of the Rifle Brigade. The regiment was unaffected by the 1881 Cardwell Reforms and thus continued with the numbering sequence it had been using up until that point.

Note however, as David Langley points out, that the King's Royal Rifle Corps was also "unaffected" by the 1881 Cardwell Reforms and yet it started numbering from 1 in 1881. As David suggests, the Rifle Brigade's refusal to toe the line would appear to be down to either arrogance or ignorance - unless of course, somebody else knows better.

Service records for the following Rifle Brigade numbers survive in the WO 363 (Burnt Documents) and WO 364 (Pensions) series at the National Archives in Kew, London. These records can also be viewed on-line via Ancestry.co.uk which is currently offering a FREE 14 day trial.

5037 joined on 19th November 1881

5185 joined on 7th January 1882

5539 joined on 10th April 1883

6764 joined on 30th June 1884

7779 joined on 23rd October 1885

7978 joined on 18th January 1886

8831 joined on 12th March 1887

9549 joined on 10th March 1888

9919 joined on 12th January 1889

With the numbering sequence fast approaching the 9,999 limit, application would have been made to commence a new number series. Approval was duly given and number 1 in the new series was issued in February 1889.

Also see my post on Queen's and King's Regulations regarding numbering in the British Army.

520 joined on 21st February 1890

1291 joined on 25th June 1891

2155 joined on 7th March 1892

2660 joined on 16th March 1893

3148 joined on 2nd March 1894

3629 joined on 8th March 1895

4475 joined on 6th March 1896

4839 joined on 11th January 1897

5478 joined on 21st January 1898

6571 joined on 28th March 1899

7297 joined on 1st January 1900

8475 joined on 25th June 1901

8989 joined on 7th April 1902

9565 joined on 6th January 1903

With its numbering sequence again approaching the 9,999 limit, application was again made to commence a new number series. Approval was duly given and number 1 in the new series was issued, probably in late December 1903 (number 9996 was issued to 18-year-old Albert Edward Garrett when he joined up on the 28th December 1903).

27 joined on 7th January 1904

658 joined on 4th January 1905

1472 joined on 20th January 1906

1831 joined on 1st January 1907

2459 joined on 7th November 1907

2607 joined on 16th January 1908

3340 joined on 16th January 1909

3586 joined on 4th January 1910

4186 joined on 21st March 1911

4413 joined on 2nd January 1912

4960 joined on 14th January 1913

5363 joined on 4th February 1914

By 24th July 1914, the Rifle Brigade was up to 5568 and when Britain went to war with Germany two weeks later, the regiment maintained this number series for men who still wished to enlist as career soldiers for regular terms of enlistment. Those men joining service battalions were given numbers from different number series (and often different number prefixes depending either on their status or the battalion in question).

Technically, some numbers are perhaps not to be regarded as re-issues, but issues from a new series. This embarrasment was caused by speed of use of numbers versus length of Terms of Engagement: a 4-battalion regiment could easily gobble up 800 numbers per annum, which will encroach on 9999 around the 12-year mark, which was the minumum shelf-life of a number throughout most of the period.

And yes, there is a fair amount of rocking-horse by-product to be found around 'Rifles' numbers!

[Ron Clifton]

I'm as sure as the above mentioned horse by-product that the service numbers were not reused. Once issued, and it carries on to this day, they were only allocated to one person.

Hello Andy

The system "which carries on to this day" in the British Army was only introduced in 1920, largely as a result of the duplicate numbers which had turned up in the Great War. Thereafter there was a single sequence for the whole Army with blocks assigned to each regiment or corps, and numbers would never be re-issued. A prisoner of war could therefore be identified solely by his number, without the need to disclose his unit to the enemy.

Prior to that, each infantry regiment had started numbering its men serially in about 1860. They started at 1, went up to 9,999 and then re-started at 1. Presumably they checked that a number was not held by a man still serving in the regiment (or in its reserves) before re-issuing it.

By 1914 some, but not all, infantry regiments were on thir second time round.

Corps other than infantry had similar arrangements but their numbers re-cycled after a higher number - 19,999 or even 49,999. It is, I think, most unlikely that a number current in the ASC in 1908 would have been vacated and re-issued before 1918.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Ron, not quite to this day!

I quote from the Langley & Stewart booklet:

With the introduction of Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) for all three services, Army numbers, as opposed to Service numbers, are no more. We understand that the last Army numbers were issued in 2006/7, somewhere in the region of 253xxxxx (other than exceptions like the Polish Resettlement Corps and the Non Combatant Corps).

JPA officially went 'live' on the 1st April 07 and all records on or after that date were created on it. Also from this date all new numbers started from 30000000. Numbers are generated automatically as part of the recruitment and attestation process. Any ‘re-hires’ retained their previous service number, with a postscript ‘-2’.

From 1st April 07 any officers commissioned from the ranks have retained their 8 digit soldier service number, rather than as hitherto being issued a 5 digit officer service number. All officer cadets commissioning from Sandhurst will retain their 8 digit number and not be issued a new 5 digit Officer number.

[David B]

How did the artillery use their numbers then. Grandfather had a five figure number on original enlistment, on enlistment in the special reserve got a new

four figure number and in 1917 had 275000 added to his four figure number.

David