Consecutive service numbers

[QMan9193]

I have been collecting RAMC BWM/ VM pairs and trios for a while and have obtained 2342 and 2343 pairs to a Pte and Cpl RAMC, plus Pte 2135 pair and Pte 2137 trio.

Just a question, is there a possiblity they would they stood in line in the recruitment office together or on the parade ground? Or were srvice numbers issued as and when required?

[18th Battalion]

Two of my Great Uncle's joined up together in Canada and have consecutive service numbers, so I guess it is a possiblity that your RAMC men were standing one behind the other in the line?

[Ken Lees]

Whilst it is possible, it is by no means certain. That is because many men in the RAMC would have been issued with those two numbers. Each RAMC unit (generally) used the same numbers, each unit beginning at 1 and consecutively numbering on from there. If the two men in this case enlisted into the same RAMC unit there is a good chance that were in the same queue, but otherwise not.

Hope that helps.

[Liz in Eastbourne]

I don't know about the RAMC but guess that provided they enlisted in the same place they may have been together. That's just from my study so far of 21/KRRC, the Yeoman Rifles - others will have much wider experience. This battalion's numbers were issued later when they were all together at Helmsley but did bear a relationship to when they enlisted, as is shown by the date distribution of about 150 riflemen's records looked at so far.

For example I have noted these numbers for riflemen with consecutive numbers who did not enlist at the same place:

C/12015 J R Park enlisted at Darlington, Co Durham - date not known.

C/12016 F Arnold enlisted, date and place unknown, but he lived just south-east of York so probably there.

C/12017 H Bamber enlisted at Malton, North Riding Yorks on 25th Sept 1915

But I am assuming the brothers Dean C/12895 and C/12897, were together when they enlisted at Wakefield on the same date, 13 Dec 1915, and wonder if a third brother whose record I haven't found stood between them.

Liz

[QMan9193]

Thanks for the prompt replies.

I can hope the men may have known each other, by face if nothing else!

[Guest]

I have 3 men who almost certainly joined the 1/6th Black Watch on the same day, with consecutive numbers. Also, 2 of my Wife's Great Uncles have consecutive numbers in the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders.

What are the names of the men? There are a few RAMC men with these numbers. Service Records survive on Ancestry for these men

RAMC 2342

Charles Victor Copsey

Highfield Down Rd, Portishead Nr Bristol

William Jackson Moffat MIC has him as 93884

22 Arthur St, Leith

RAMC 2343

Frank Dyer

Starcross Devon

Leonard John Hart

Tovil Kent

If it's any of these men, perhaps the records would give a clue?

Cheers Mike

[Jim Strawbridge]

I have been collecting RAMC BWM/ VM pairs and trios for a while and have obtained 2342 and 2343 pairs to a Pte and Cpl RAMC, plus Pte 2135 pair and Pte 2137 trio.

Just a question, is there a possiblity they would they stood in line in the recruitment office together or on the parade ground? Or were srvice numbers issued as and when required?

I have to say that it is unlikely that they were in the same recruiting line. Longer odds than 1 in 10 I am guessing. As has been previously mentioned each unit within the corps would have had service numbers commencing from one. To prove the point here are some medals from my collection where there are three or more with the same service number and that is just from my collection.

26 - W.J. Saunders, E. Price, G.W. Garner, J.W. Ripley

42 - H.A. Kirby, L.W. Robinson, H. Clayburn

69 - G. Cumper, E. Hind, F.J. Simpson

81 - C.W. Addyman, W.D. Moffat, T.M. Gordon

120 - R. Waller, R. Turner, G.E. Hainsworth.

123 - G.E. Callard, J.H. Hellewell, G.H. Fisher

226 - J. Tannahill, L.C. Mills, F. Long

642 - E.F. Eldred, F.A. Perry, T.A. Sadler

782 - A. Stacey, A.T. Radford, R. Nye, W. Stewart

Unfortunately I do not know how many individual units there were in the RAMC to know how many soldiers would have had the same service number, which, of course, would be the same for consecutive numbers.

[auchonvillerssomme]

There were at least 19 men in the RAMC with the number 2342 and at least 12 with the number 2343. Over 30 men had the number 1.

[QMan9193]

Looks like there was little chance of the soldiers knowing each other. Interesting stuff!

[QMan9193]

I have the following sets with close numbers:

2342 PTE HARRIS J BWM/VM

2343 CPL HEWLETT MW BWM/VM

2116 PTE PICKARD RT BWM/VM

2135 PTE BAKER HT BWM/VM

2137 PTE MITCHELL WC 15 TRIO

2169 PTE MERCER CP BWM/VM

2175 PTE WILLIAMS W BWM/VM

[KevinBattle]

Just to throw a stone into the pond....

Men with similar Service Numbers in the same Battalion or unit are likely to have known each other, if not necessarily joining up together as "pals" from the same street, town etc, but during training they are likely to have been in close proximity, and many from the same training units would then be allocated en bloc to the regiment/battalions that needed men the most.

Like most things in this world, there is nothing absolutely certain, but if there is nothing to contradict, is there any harm in assuming that adjacent Service numbers would have known each other?

[David B]

I have two rels who had consecutive numbers in the 6th London's, neither of them made it through the war but I bet they both joined up together.

David

[auchonvillerssomme]

Like most things in this world, there is nothing absolutely certain, but if there is nothing to contradict, is there any harm in assuming that adjacent Service numbers would have known each other?

Thats always a thought, I have researched 2 men of the same Regiment both subsequently commissioned but living 50 miles apart and the research seperated by 10 years, both had numbers very close and I was wondering the same thing, did they know each other and I think that yes they probably did cross paths.

[Ken Lees]

Like most things in this world, there is nothing absolutely certain, but if there is nothing to contradict, is there any harm in assuming that adjacent Service numbers would have known each other?

In the case of a unit like a battalion, then it is certainly possible that they knew each other, and therefore there is no harm in assuming that they had at least spent some time together, however brief. But, this does not apply to a huge corps like the RAMC as mentioned by the original poster. In this case, whilst there is no 'harm' in making the assumption it is highly likely to be an incorrect assumption.

[Muerrisch]

If a soldiers was SR or TF, and had belonged to Militia or VF respectively pre-1908, and IF their new unit 1908 started a new series of numbers at 1, then the issue of consecutive numbers might be either by previous seniority [sergeant major bags number 1] or alphabetically, or random.

Numbers were never meant to make life easy for us!

[auchonvillerssomme]

Your right there, even looking at the modern system, evidently I couldn't have joined the army until at least 4 months after I joined.

24579861 to 24587118 Until March 1981

24587119 to 24753060 Until December 1985

My number was 24598*** and my join date was December 1980, this will (hopefully) confuse researchers in the future.

[Muerrisch]

Your right there, even looking at the modern system, evidently I couldn't have joined the army until at least 4 months after I joined.

24579861 to 24587118 Until March 1981

24587119 to 24753060 Until December 1985

My number was 24598*** and my join date was December 1980, this will (hopefully) confuse researchers in the future.

from my "NUMBERS" 4th edition:

Yet another numbering scheme (in fact, an extension of the then- current series) was launched c. 1943, consequent on the formation of the General Service Corps (by Royal Warrant, Special Army Order of 18th February 1942) to act as an initial training corps for all Arms. All soldiers were to be issued a number from a common pool in sequence of joining. In fact the scheme was quickly doomed as a universal source of numbers because an amendment (unfortunately the date cannot be ascertained from the copy in the National Archive) to KR 1940 allocated blocks to new corps: to Pioneer Corps, Lowland Regiment and Highland Regiment between 13000001 and 14005000, then more General Service Corps from 14200001 to 15000000. The use of the General Service Corps as a pool for all entrants had clearly been abandoned at this early stage. Local enlistments in India were given the next batch, then another new corps, REME, was allocated 16000000 to 16100000. Further blocks were assigned over the years as follows:

BAOR local enlistments 17000001 to 17000300

Middle East Land Forces local enlistments 17000501 to 17001000

27 overseas locations enlistments in blocks 18000001 to 18265000

General Service Corps [a further batch] 19000001 to 19200000

SAS Regiment from 20000001.

Above 20000001, numbers were allocated in modest sized blocks of several hundred each, either to corps, or Brigades, or to Records Offices, thus reverting in some degree to the 1920 scheme. The various induction centres, Sutton Coldfield being one, thus had allocations within the overall scheme, so that a strict time sequence was not maintained. Number 21000000 was reached by August 1947. After 22804000 (c. 1950) the numbers issued to line infantry soldiers all appear to be allocated via Records Offices, Reception Centres and the like, thus again abandoning unit blocks and reverting to ‘date-blocks’, whereby a block of numbers was released each year for use as required. The Household Division, as ever, was treated differently.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Thanks for that Mr Grumpy I can now relax and know I will be able to claim my pension with no argument.

[Nulli Secundus]

The closest numbers I had were two Coldstreamers.

J.E. Smethurst - 14610

R.J. Hall - 14618

The funny thing is they resided in my collection for around a year before I realised how close they were. It wasn't until I was writing up my collection and actually saw it written down in my own hand writing that I realsied!

Not sure if Guards/ Infantry units were different from the RAMC but I always assumed these men joined at the same time or certainly on the same day?

[QMan9193]

We can but dream!

[Tunsilk]

On the war memorial I am researching I have 17 men killed from the RFA with numbers between 760008 and 760748.Three more 755*** and four 770***. Looking at other numbers in between I find a large number of men who served from the same village. They had their own Artillery Drill hall. Two of the 760***s were killed on the same day and are buried in adjacent graves in La Clytte Military Cemetery.

I have two miners in RE who have consecutive numbers who enlisted in London.Both were killed and enlisted 300 miles from home.

Also I have three killed out four consecutive numbers in SLI 7th battalion.

David

[petey]

hi just a stab in the dark....as youve been collecting r.a.m.c. medals,,,,a trio set for richard henry williams , pte 53192 ? worth asking, all the best .

[59165]

01-Aug18Pte 20035 Johnson, F2/BordersDesertionVincennes New Com Cem (Paris)NE Corner

01-Aug18Pte 20037 McClair, H2/BordersDesertionVincennes New Com Cem (Paris)NE Corner

From the WFA site.

There are several SAD cases where close numbering tied into desertion.

Must have been in the same queue.