Allocation of Regimental Service Numbers

[Graham Stewart]

All very interesting.

Here's an anomaly:

I have a database of 1,752 men who served in the Derbyshire Yeomanry. Of these men I have 869 men with 4-digit numbers AND the 5-digit numbers, however the sequence of number order in the 4-digit numbered men does not translate smoothly to the 5-digit numbers.

The 5-digit numbers have two sequences...one starting with 75000 and the other starting with 76900 and they appear to be rather mixed up among the men when listed by their original 4-digit number. Having studied the data it seems very clear that on renumbering, men in the 1/1st Derbyshire Yeomanry were given a number from the 75000 sequence, all of them in order corresponding with their number order of the old 4-digit series. The men on the 2/1st and 3/1st were given numbers from the 76900 series, again in perfect sequence. The only way I managed to spot the underlying driver is that I managed to get (and annotate) the men who had the 1914-15 Star from the medal roll. There are just a small handful of men who were clearly 1/1st in 1914-1915 (served overseas, MIC evidence, medal roll evidence) who ended up in the 2/1st or 3/1st by mid 1917 and subsequently received a 'late' 5-digit number.

The main point here is that pre renumbering sequence and post renumbering sequence overall had a low 'regimental' correlation but a high 'battalion' correlation' on the date of the renumbering. Something to watch out for.

MG

Your five digit numbers are possibly 'Corps' numbers and it's something that I noticed among numbers issued to the Northumberland Hussars, although I have to confess the Yeomanry isn't something I follow.

Some original members of the N.H., with four figure numbers (and for reasons beyond me, but I suspect 'transfer'), are also found with five figure numbers which relate to the 'Corps of Hussars'. These appear to be numbers issued directly from a centralised Depot to all those serving with 'Regular' Hussar units from an, as yet, unknown date. I say 'Hussar units', because this five figure number block appears to be scattered throughout the Hussar family.

Now considering that some Yeomanry units were affiliated to Dragoon & Lancer units, would it not be at all possible that on transfer to their affiliated Regular units that they too, would recieve five figure 'Corps of Dragoons/Lancers' numbers, which give your Database an odd appearance???

[Guest]

Graham - the Yeomanry all had 4-figure numbers prior to the universal change in 1917...when they all were given 5-figure (or 6-figure) numbers from the Corps of Hussars, Dragoons or Lancers depending on their designated affiliation. This I have always understood - apologies if I was not clear. It is well documented. Within the Corps of Dragoons (the Derbyshire Yeomanry was designated as a Dragoon regiment) each Yeomanry Dragoon Regiment was given a large block of numbers when the new numbering system started.

Edit: When searching for Yeomen in the MICs, one sees 4-figure numbers, 5-figure (or 6-figure) numbers or MICs with both. A man serving prior to 1917 will have a 4-figure number,. If he continued to serve after the renumbering he will also have a 5-figure (or 6-figure) number. Clearly those with only a 4-figure number didn't make it past 1917 with that unit... and those with only a 5-figure (or 6- figure)number joined after the renumbering. Having said that, I still have nearly 1,000 men with two numbers.

My point was, rather than take every Derbyshire Yeoman (in order of their original 4-figure numbers) and give them a 5-figure Corps of Dragoons number in sequence, what actually happened is that the numbers were allocated in separate blocks to 1/1st DY, 2/1st DY and 3/1st DY, so an early (low 4-figure) 1/1st DY man who was serving in the 2/1st DY in 1917 ended up with a high 5-figure Corps of Dragoons number simply because he was no longer with the 1/1st DY...perhaps an example will illustrate..

In the small sample below 1537 LCpl George Parkin was given a 5-digit number in 1917 that was out of sequence with the others. Parkin was an original and appears on the 1915 Star Medal Roll with a disembarkation date for Egypt in September 1915 (first reinforcements), meaning he was in the 1/1st Derbyshire Yeomanry in 1915. When the number change happened, his new 5-figre number seems out of sequence. I believe he must have been with the 2/1st or 3/1st in 1917 when the number change happened. and Bryan, Chamberlain, Moran, Hands, Udall and Woodward were all still with the 1/1st DY. All had the 1914-15 Star meaning they wre serving with the 1/1st DY in 1915 in Egypt or Gallipoli or both. (presumably Gadsby and Brassington didn't make it to 1917 in the DY given their lack of 1917 5-figure number).

It is the only explanation I can think of. MG

1917 pre '17 Rank Surname, Initials/forename

No. No.

75089 1534 Pte Bryan John

75090 1535 Sgt Chamberlain William

........... 1536 Pte Gadsby William

76830 1537 LCpl Parkin George

75092 1538 Pte Moran Stephen

........... 1539 Pte Brassington Norman

........... 1540 blank

........... 1541 blank

75093 1542 LCpl Hands Cyril R

75094 1543 Pte Udall Walter H

75095 1544 Pte Woodward Percy

[Graham Stewart]

A lot clearer now, but I can't understand why the Yeomanry number change didn't appear as an ACI? I have all of the number changes for the Infantry, Artillery and Engineers announced in late 1916 and yet have nothing on the Yeomanry.

[Guest]

From Page 49 of "Regulations of the Territorial Force and for County Associations 1912"

5. Numbering.

146.* The NCOs and men of the Territorial Force will be numbered by units and each man when posted or transferred to a unit will receive a number in that unit. The series of numbers will run from 1 to 9,999; when the latter number is reached a fresh series will be commenced.

In all documents relating to a man his regimental number will precede his name. This number will not be changed so long as he remains in the unit. If he transferred, deserts, is discharged or dies the number will not be given to any other man. Instructions as to the issue of numbers to men who join the Special reserve , Category (b ) are given in Appendix XX

Interestingly, Appendix XX "Numbering of Men of Territorial Force Army Service Corps and Royal Army Medical Corps who join the Special Reserve (Category b )reveals;

4. In the event of a man becoming non-effective for any cause after joining Category b of the Special Reserve, his number will be allotted to the man enlisted in his place to maintain the establishment of that Category.

It would appear that there was at least one scenario whereby numbers could be re-used in the Special Reserve.

MG

[Muerrisch]

"Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs", as they say in these parts!

The re-use of numbers was forbidden in every QVR KR QR I have ever seen, so that is a turn up.

Never say never, when it comes to the army.

And, in case anyone starts to believe that all TF units started numbering from 0001 in 1908, forget it! Far too many units continued the previous VF series, and others had different mini-series for the sub-counties of that association. The only generalisation we can make is that we can not make a generalisation. Its a b*gger. The Militia/ SR change is equally mucky.

[Guest]

"Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs", as they say in these parts!

And, in case anyone starts to believe that all TF units started numbering from 0001 in 1908, forget it! Far too many units continued the previous VF series, and others had different mini-series for the sub-counties of that association. The only generalisation we can make is that we can not make a generalisation. Its a b*gger. The Militia/ SR change is equally mucky.

Grumpy, if you are at the foot of the stairs, that puts most of us in the basement.... to be fair I think you can say there was a general rule that numbers can not be reused. I would imagine that most researchers who have attacked the nominal rolls of any unit will likely have seen dozens of oddities including apparent duplication of numbers. In most cases I have come across, it seems clerical error is the main problem as the MICs were complied from the medal rolls and transcription errors were all too common.

Ref the Yeomanry numbering not starting in 1908, I would agree and have some evidence to support this. The earliest numbered man I can find records for is the Derbyshire Yeomanry TF is 81 SSM Samuel Sims. His pension records show he joined in March 1900 for five years and extended each year for one year from 1905 to 1908. There is a document dated 1905 showing him as number 81 and his documents showing him joining the Derbyshire Yeomanry in 1908 also show him as 81, which provides some small evidence that the Imperial Yeomanry numbers were taken up in the Territorial Force numbering - at least in this case.

The next earliest numbered man who I can find Pension or service records for is 327 SQMS William Robert Pearson who enlisted on 29th Aug 1910. Clearly he joined after the formation of the TF in 1908 and his number is 246 numbers after Sims' number (81). Given the establishment of a Yeomanry Regiment when Sims joined was 596 men (later dropping to 476) in theory in 1900 there were at least 596 numbered men of which Sims was 81 and implicitly the number 327 was taken.

Given Sims kept his Imperial Yeomanry number when transferring into the TF in 1908, it would seem a distinct possibility that (some? all?) Imperial Yeomanry men were allowed to keep their original numbers in 1908 and recruits subsequent to the formation of the TF were allotted other numbers. In the case of Pearson, his number 327 must have previously been taken by an Imperial Yeoman prior to 1908 and was perhaps vacant. That is my speculation and I know it is dangerous to extrapolate from just one or two data-points, but there is at least documentary evidence that Sim's pre and post 1908 number were the same.

MG

P.S I also have a 301 Robert Foster who joined in 1899 but there is no document dated earlier than 1914 sadly.

[Muerrisch]

Whist accepting that clerical error was the cause of some duplication, almost all "pairs" and "triplets" in my RWF database are where a regular soldier served with a special reservist and/or a TF man/men ................. in 1914 in particular all the series were congruent, that is, six sets of numbers all of four digits.

Early in the war an edict was pushed out for series to be prefixed with, for example, 3/ for a SR man, 4/ for a 4thTF man, 5/ for the fifth battalion, 6/ and 7/ etc.

Some series obeyed, many did not.

Of course not.

[Graham Stewart]

From Page 49 of "Regulations of the Territorial Force and for County Associations 1912"

Interestingly, Appendix XX "Numbering of Men of Territorial Force Army Service Corps and Royal Army Medical Corps who join the Special Reserve (Category b )reveals;

4. In the event of a man becoming non-effective for any cause after joining Category b of the Special Reserve, his number will be allotted to the man enlisted in his place to maintain the establishment of that Category.

It would appear that there was at least one scenario whereby numbers could be re-used in the Special Reserve.

MG

And it is the only scenario in which numbers were re-issued and it was specifically for these two Corps and 'no others'.

In general numbering follows every Regulation, Order or Instruction issued and while we know that in general the Special Reserve and some T.F. units carried on with their old numbering system - while the vast majority in the T.F. did not - they began with a new system beginning at '1'.

To-date and with nearly 100,000 on a single regimental database, I can count the number of number re-issues on one hand, and in the cases I that have, there is usually a logical explanation within the Rolls etc. One in particular which springs to mind was because the original recipient after joining was arrested, convicted and imprisoned by the Civil Powers. As such the number was re-issued, the Depot deciding that the previous owner had enlisted 'frauduently'.

[Graham Stewart]

The Special Reserve - 4. The class of man required to supplement the Regular Army on mobilisation therefore falls under two categories;-

(a) ;- Those who must undergo a course of training as soldiers and recieve instruction in technical methods which cannot be acquired in civil life, such as men required for Infantry, Artillery and for Siege and Railway Companies of the Royal Engineers.

;- Those who duties in the Service are cognate to their occupations as civilians and who consequently need little instruction as soldiers, such as men of certain branches of the Royal Engineers, the Army Service Corps, the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Army Railway Corps and the Army Post Office Corps

[Guest]

Graham, David

I received your very excellent "Regimental and Army Numbers of the British Line Infantry Soldier from AD 1800 to 2008" . A fascinating piece of research. Very impressive. Having now read it I can safely say it is far more complex than I had previously understood. It is a great read. I found the part on the transfer of Militiamen to the SR particularly interesting as some of the original documents I have collected show interesting stats on this process.

If anyone is interested in the thematic of numbering, I would strongly recommend the book. MG

[Graham Stewart]

Graham, David

I received your very excellent "Regimental and Army Numbers of the British Line Infantry Soldier from AD 1800 to 2008" . A fascinating piece of research. Very impressive. Having now read it I can safely say it is far more complex than I had previously understood. It is a great read. I found the part on the transfer of Militiamen to the SR particularly interesting as some of the original documents I have collected show interesting stats on this process.

If anyone is interested in the thematic of numbering, I would strongly recommend the book. MG

Mark - thank you for your extremely kind remarks regarding the Booklet, David and I put together. I don't think David would mind if I spoke on his behalf and said that with such feedback we feel it was well worth the effort that we put into that small, but very useful work and I'm pleased that you've enjoyed it. As you'll be well aware the Forum often gets queries regarding numbering, but it would take a month of Sundays to try and explain to all enquirers exactly how the system worked.

Once again many thanks - greatly appreciated.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you Graham and Mark.

Graham and I have a massive collection of regulations, orders and instructions which complement each other, and we are both knowledgeable about one regiment in depth, the NF and the RWF. This gave us very detailed "zoom-in" information.

I should perhaps explain that, with Graham working overseas most of the time, we decided our work should appear in two formats.

1. The Bulletin of the Military History Society [in five serialised parts] - for which we blagged the Lummis Cup for best article of the year, and

2. A private print run with me as publisher and using a local small printer. In all, I had about 200 knocked off. I just wanted to cover my costs and expenses.

This is NOT a hard sell, as I have only a handful left, and I don't intend to have more, but now refer potential customers to the MHS back numbers.

And don't forget Paul Nixon's amazing data base/ blog for our period, either.

[PPCLI]

Mark - thank you.....

Thank you Graham and Mark.

Martin, they are very good on numbers, just a bit of work needed on names

I have a copy of the above publication and can recommend getting one of the few remaining copies.

Cheers,

Stuart

[Guest]

Gents the elusive ACI for the re numbering of the Yeomanry appears on this article in the LLT... http://www.1914-1918.net/TF_renumbering_yeomanry.htm

ACI 381 dated 3rd April 1917

MG

[johnmelling1979]

Hello everyone,

I am wondering about service numbers, date of entry etc for my Great Uncle Thomas B Melling KIA Aveluy Wood... no known grave

Also it seems his service number was previously used ... see below... It seems a very quick re-allocation of a number?

Name Rank Service Number Date of Death Age Regiment / Service Service Country Grave /
Memorial Reference Cemetery / Memorial Name Docs. MELLING, THOMAS BENEDICT Private 54808 05/04/1918 7 th Batt Royal Fusiliers United Kingdom Bay 3. ARRAS MEMORIAL SHEPHERD, FRANK Private 54808 23/03/1918 21 Machine Gun Corps (Infantry) United Kingdom Bay 10. ARRAS MEMORIAL

Cheers

John

[tullybrone]

Hi John,

Regiments issued their own sequential service numbers so it is not unusual to see soldiers from

different regiments with the same service number. Service numbers also changed if a soldier was transferred to another regiment.

About 1919/20 non transferable Army Service numbers were introduced which stayed with a soldier throughout his/her service in which ever regiment he/she served.

Regards

Steve Y

[kenf48]

I am wondering about service numbers, date of entry etc for my Great Uncle Thomas B Melling KIA Aveluy Wood... no known grave

If you are seeking information about this man it might be better to start a new thread.

SDGW shows he was formerly 6802 21st Royal Fusiliers. His medal index card shows the prefix PS which confirms he initially served in the 21st (Service) Battalion (4th Public Schools). The Battalion went to France in November 1915 and he did not go with the main body.

The Battalion was disbanded shortly afterwards see LLT http://www.1914-1918.net/royalfus.htm

Sadly aged 14 in 1911 he is listed in the census as an 'art student' perhaps another talent unrealised and lost. The age for overseas service was 19 but not always honoured. I'd suggest he was posted into the 7th Bn when it arrived in France in July and he was allocated a new number i.e. GS(for General Service)/54808 when he transferred.

Ken

[Muerrisch]

If you are seeking information about this man it might be better to start a new thread.

SDGW shows he was formerly 6802 21st Royal Fusiliers. His medal index card shows the prefix PS which confirms he initially served in the 21st (Service) Battalion (4th Public Schools). The Battalion went to France in November 1915 and he did not go with the main body.

The Battalion was disbanded shortly afterwards see LLT http://www.1914-1918.net/royalfus.htm

Sadly aged 14 in 1911 he is listed in the census as an 'art student' perhaps another talent unrealised and lost. The age for overseas service was 19 but not always honoured. I'd suggest he was posted into the 7th Bn when it arrived in France in July and he was allocated a new number i.e. GS(for General Service)/54808 when he transferred.

Ken

The age for OVERSEAS service was 20 yrs [eg India etc]

The age for ACTIVE SERVICE was 19 yrs, lowered late in war by 6 months, but boys mustered as drummers, buglers or trumpeters [not pipers] could go at any age with the consent of the CO and the RMO.

[kenf48]

My apologies for yet another calumny, still reassuring to see captain pedant is on patrol.

Ken

[Guest]

My apologies for yet another calumny, still reassuring to see captain pedant is on patrol.

Ken

Don't worry. Even the battalions were confused on mobilisation. The War Office sent a message within days of mobilisation stating that men aged 19-20 could only go on active service if they had shot Table A....and of course even a 20 year old could only go if he was 'fully trained and effective'.

MG

[Muerrisch]

My apologies for yet another calumny, still reassuring to see captain pedant is on patrol.

Ken

I posted in the interests of accuracy ............ it is up to others to decide if that is pedantry of course.

Regarding calumny, that is directed at a person or persons. I expect you were trying to write "inaccuracy".

[johnmelling1979]

Cheers the for the replies...

I already have a THREAD for him and have been slowly putting together info for him,

And today am trying to map the 7 royal fusiliers positions during the 5 April 1918 battle.. on a map.

With help from the War Diaries and etc....

The good news is that some one else had already done a small map of the northern end of the wood with some regiment postion and movements on.

I am trying to add to it

cheers

john

[cms]

One of the soldiers I am researching had the number "02".

The information that I have is that he was in the Somerset Light Infantry attached to the 2nd Hampshire Regt and drowned in the River Dvina in June 1919.

Would that have been a new number for that attachment ?

Really interested.

[Jim Strawbridge]

Very strange. He was also 50901 Private Frederick V. Chapman, Somerset Light Infantry.

[cms]

Thank you Jim. So both numbers should be recorded.

I hope you are still green. I used to like your programme.