Numbering of men serving in TF Battalions

[Ken Lees]

Having still not got my head fully around the topic I thought I would see if the combined wisdom of the forum could enlighten me on the subject of numbering within the Territorial Force.

I know that each Territorial battalion (sticking with infantry here) used its own numbering system beginning in 1908 and that subsequently (early 1917) the 6-digit numbering system was introduced to avoid the complications within regiments of the same number being used in each of the TF battalions (as well as others).

My question is how, and on what basis, were numbers issued from the introduction of the Derby, or Group, Scheme?

I believe that if a man attested into a TF battalion from the beginning of the war (on form E501) he would attest, have a medical examination and receive his service number all within a day or two. That number would be consecutive with earlier enlistments. I accept that administrative issues like having more than one recruiting office may have meant that blocks of numbers were issued to the OIC of each recruiting office, but that would have only thrown the date sequence out by a few days here and there.

Under the Derby Scheme, men could no longer elect to join any particular regiment or branch of the service such as the Territorial Force. So, they attested and were placed on the Army Reserve Class B and sent home to await call-up. From the Service Papers I have examined, they were subsequently called up (mobilised) and a few days later they were posted to their unit - in the case of my study, to a 3rd line TF battalion. I assume that their service number must have been issued at the time of their posting, as there does not seem to be any different number block allocated to Derby Scheme men as opposed to direct TF enlistments during the same period.

Leaping ahead chronologically to early 1917, a man still serving in the battalion, whether a Derby Scheme man or a Territorial enlistment would have been issued with a 6-digit number from the block allocated to this battalion. These numbers were allocated on the basis of the pre-1917 number, meaning that the lowest pre-1917 number would be allocated the lowest available 6-digit number, the next lowest pre-1917 number with the next available 6-digit number and so on. This makes it possible to estimate the date of enlistment of men in a TF unit in many cases.

But, there are some men who appear in the records of TF units with 5-digit numbers and it is these that cause me some confusion.

Example 1:

A Derby Scheme enlistment, serves with a 4-digit number that fits the sequence based on his date of mobilisation is posted (prior to the issue of the 6-digit numbers) to a regular battalion of his regiment. Was that the reason for his later records showing him with a 5-digit number?

The illustration below shows the original 4-digit numbers in the right hand column and subsequent number (if any) in the left column. This confirms the relationship between the 4-digit and 6-digit series. The highlighted number is the man being discussed in this example.

Example 2:

This seems to be showing a pattern and I may be starting to answer my own question!

Another Derby Scheme attestation, attesting 07/12/15 and to posted to the Army Reserve the same day. Mobilised 03/04/16 he was posted to the third line of the battalion 05/04/16. He was posted to France in August of 1916 and whilst at the Base Depot was posted to a regular battalion of the regiment and renumbered 52310.

So, from the two examples above, if a man was serving under a Derby Scheme attestation in a TF battalion, on being posted to a regular battalion he would be issued with a regular number as he was serving under the General Service conditions of service, not those of a Territorial Force soldier.

So far, so good.

Example 3:

A man enlisted under the Derby Scheme into an infantry regiment. He was mobilised in March, 1917 and posted to France with his regiment in June of the same year. Whilst at the Infantry Base Depot he was transferred to a TF battalion of a different regiment and allocated a new 5-digit number. Which block did that number come from? Was it a regimental number from the Regular's series? Was it from the same series that had been issued to the New Army enlistments? It certainly wasn't a number in the TF block.

There were quite a number of transfers from the same regiment, at the same time, into the same TF battalion of another infantry regiment. All of the transferees had 5-digit numbers in their original regiment and were given new 5-digit numbers upon their transfer. The new numbers were allocated according to the surname of the soldier (alphabetically).

Example 4: A Conscript

This man was conscripted in February, 1917, posted to a 2nd line TF battalion and given a 4-digit number (presumably from the TF Battalion's series). In September, 1917 having been posted to a New Army battalion of his regiment in France he was transferred to a TF Battalion of another regiment (along with many others from his draft) and was given a 5-digit number in his new regiment. Why wasn't he given a TF number from the 6-digit block allocated to his new battalion? Was it because the TF numbers were for men serving under TF attestations only, and not to men serving in TF battalions?

Apologies for the rambling nature of this post, but if anyone could confirm my thoughts, challenge my assumptions or add anything to me feeble knowledge I would appreciate any comments.

Ken

[seaforths]

Oh you are brave! I have tried for some time to get my head around service numbers mainly because I have so many relatives to research = so many numbers.

I did find on the LLT that it would be reasonable to assume that when the service numbers changed in a battalion then they would all be given the number of the battalion they were currently with and if they were moved to another battalion after the 1917 changes had taken place they would keep their original number on moving. But as well as reserves from TF there were also Training Reserves and I don't know if it is possible but could someone from Training Reserve end up in a TF instead of a Service Bn? Also what of other Corps that could have transferred that I haven't looked at (ASC etc.)

I think that men were being sent with 5 figure numbers from The Training Reserves: http://www.1914-1918.net/training_reserve.htm

I hope this helps and doesn't hinder - I read your post (it isn't an easy subject to write on with clarity - so bravo you) my head temporarily addled - I'm going for a lie down!

[purley]

The five digit territorial numbers issued to men of the Royal Berks started at 20001 and were used for Royal Berks regulars who were transferred to one of the Territorial battalions before 1917. They seem to have been transferred in batches with 202xx moving 21/10/16, 203xx on 27/10/16 and 206xx on 20/12/16 the highest value for xx I have found is 20638. It would seem some earlier transfers 200xx and 201xx were of older men transferred to help with training but what the later batches did I just don't know although quite a few got a 20xxxx number later. There were lots of men (regulars) who transferred from other regiments to the 4th R Berks but they were all allocated numbers in the 1908 4-digit series.

[Ken Lees]

Thank you, Purley. I will compare your observations to my notes and see if there are any similarities.

Ken

[David Porter]

This is how I view it:

TF Attestation - renumbered with six figures in 1917 or gained a new six figure number on transfer to another TF unit afterwards

Regular Attestation - if transferred to TF before renumbering cut off date(s), renumbered with six figures in 1917 but not afterwards

All other cases would utilise various regular series as dictated by the many record offices.

However I expect people can find anomalies. Purley's example shows a TF record office adopting a regular style series for a short period, which I guess was to indicate regular transfers only.

[Hywyn]

My experience of 5 digit TF numbers in 6th Bn RWF all beginning 2xxxx is that they are Supernumerary Coys (guarding local installations etc) *** most of whom later became Royal Defence Force men. They were initially given a number from the 6th Bn sequence and then transferred to the Supernumerary Coys and given the 5 digit number. I think, but haven't 'proved' that the other TF Bns in RWF had the same arrangements. It has been touched upon before on the Forum giving me the impression it was the same in other Regiments.

Hywyn

***

see

http://www.1914-1918.net/reserve.htm

scroll to National Reserve, TF

[purley]

David

It was not just when men with TF attestation were transferred to another TF unit - it applied to all battalions as far as the Royal Berks were concerned - they used 219xxx for men transferred in the Salonika theatre and 220xxx for men transferred on the western front for men who came to the R Berks from another regiment. There were lots of other 2yyxxx series developed for all sorts of reasons - eg men who had been missing when the original renumbering list was drawn up in August 1916 and those who died before being renumbered as well as returning pows etc etc. I would be interested to know if any other regiments used such series - was it perhaps an aberration of the Warwick Record Office who looked after renumbering for Southern Command (ie Berks, Wilts, Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, Oxon, Bucks, warwick and Worcester.

[David Porter]

It was not just when men with TF attestation were transferred to another TF unit - it applied to all battalions as far as the Royal Berks were concerned

I think I understand what you are saying. The block allocated to the 4th Bn was 200001 - 225000 and those numbers would be retained on a posting to a regular Royal Berks battalion. What Warwick Record Office were doing was exploiting a loophole which others may have followed. Transfers from another regiment would have been initially to the 4th Bn followed quickly by a posting to the regular battalion. The men may never have served in the 4th Bn but they should all have been on TF attestations.

See http://www.1914-1918.net/TF_renumbering_infantry.htm

[Graham Stewart]

ACI 1499 of 31st July 1916. This may answer some of your question - numbers were issued in 'blocks' from the Officer i/c Records to the Base Officer i/c Records.

[Graham Stewart]

If I'm correct at this time, numbers, were still being issued from the unit and not from a centralised Command office. Even with this system confusion reigned, as it always does when trying to unravel what the Army Council are trying to say.

[Ken Lees]

Thanks for this update Graham.

[Graham Stewart]

After the publication of ACI 2414 further ACI's were produced. ACI 442 of the 12th March 1917.

[Graham Stewart]

ACI 522 of March 1917

ACI 698 of the 28th April 1917

[Graham Stewart]

Ken - are you aware there was also a 'system' in which it was determined who went where, with both the Derby(Group) and M.S.A.? It was regularly published in ACI's but is quite large in content.

[Tyneside Chinaman]

Hi,

I am afraid that some of your examples of four figure numbers being transferred into six figure numbers do not hold true, certainly in the case of the DLI, men transferred in from other regiments and renumbered in the four figure 7... series and were posted to 9/DLI are to be found with very early 325... series allotted to 9/DLI, which should have been allotted to early TF men.

As always in each individual; case the actual medal roll sheet should be consulted as for every rule there will be a amn who went somewhere different.

regards

John

[Tyneside Chinaman]

This is part of a reply to a previous post on a similar subject

"he was the 681st man (in order of enlistment date) still with the battalion in early 1917 however his pre 1917 number was 7303 which would indicate that he was enlisted sometime around June1916."

That is far to simplistic an answer. you need to look at Medal Roll Book WO329 1627 this lists the men numbered from 301139 through to 326187. You will find that drafts were arriving in 9/DLI from 8/NF, 12/NF 1/DLI 14/DLI and other units, these men were all renumbered in the 9/7.... sequence and then in 1917 renumbered in the 32.... sequence. It also shows that men numbered 9/....were serving with the other TF Battalions some returned to 9/DLI some did not but were still renumbered in the 9/DLI Sequence. For example 9/7325 was posted to 20/DLI renumbered 325696 and was killed in May 1918, But a closer look reveals his very badly burnt docs survive he was originally with a Reserve Bn DLI most likely 5th and numbered 5246 when he was posted to 9/DLI on 16/11/16 and renumbered 9/7325. By March 1917 he was on his way back to England sick and I would suggest that the new six figure number had not caught up with him at that stage. By June he was back in France with 20/DLI.

Another example is Corporal John Cobb 8091 11/Royal Fusiliers posted to 12/DLI as 9/7339 renumbered as 325709 still with 12/DLI no evidence of any service with 9/DLI.

To quote my good friend Graham Stewart who has said it many times on this forum, "You must look at the medal roll sheet for each soldier and not assume they all followed the same path".

[Ken Lees]

Ken - are you aware there was also a 'system' in which it was determined who went where, with both the Derby(Group) and M.S.A.? It was regularly published in ACI's but is quite large in content.

Graham,

I wasn't aware of this system. Is there anywhere I can read anything about it?

I am afraid that some of your examples of four figure numbers being transferred into six figure numbers do not hold true, certainly in the case of the DLI, men transferred in from other regiments and renumbered in the four figure 7... series and were posted to 9/DLI are to be found with very early 325... series allotted to 9/DLI, which should have been allotted to early TF men.

As always in each individual; case the actual medal roll sheet should be consulted as for every rule there will be a man who went somewhere different.

Thanks for your input, John. Could you clarify whose examples you mean in the first line of your post?

Ken

[Tyneside Chinaman]

It was a post in this thread where several theories are puit forward.

Private Robert Richardson - 9th Bt Durham Light Infantry

Started by Janice13

I think it is dangerous to assume men numbered close to each other followed the same path.

regards

John

[Ken Lees]

Thanks John. It's a good point that can apply to many similar subjects - for every rule there will be an exception.