Jim Hastings Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Hi All, Have a query I hope some one on the Forum may be able to help me with or point me in the right direction in order to find the answer please: I am looking into a Regular solider of the 2nd Sussex who has two Army Numbers. He is L/7922 Cpl E J Brown DCM MM Croix De Guerre. On his MIC he also has the number L/12178. He has another MIC just with the number L/7922 and in the War Diary the entry for his MM award also has him down as L/7922 as does his DCM citation in the LG From Paul Nixon's site I have determined that he joined the Royal Sussex in late 1904, and I believe L/12178 is a late 1916/early 1917 number (TBC), so why the change of number??? Re-enlistment after Time Served? But if so would he not just have kept L/7922? From my research so far he served in 2nd Sussex for the entire war, but he may have been 1st or 2nd Sussex before it ... Any ideas anyone? Many thanks Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidswarbrick Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 My understanding is that all overseas serving soldiers were re-numbered in 1916, having two numbers for the same man is relatively common and doesn't [usually] denote re-enlistment. Dave Swarbrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 25 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Thank you David, but I thought it was the TF that were re-numbered during the war, not the Regular or Service Bns? And why his DCM issued (for a deed in Nov 1918) in his first number? Puzzling ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 From Paul Nixon's site I have determined that he joined the Royal Sussex in late 1904, and I believe L/12178 is a late 1916/early 1917 number (TBC), so why the change of number??? Re-enlistment after Time Served? But if so would he not just have kept L/7922? Long shot, but if he was a discharged time expired regular then, unless he re-enlisted as a regular he would be conscripted and then , not being subject to the continuation of regular service, would he not then be numbered as a new enlistment. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 25 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 25 October , 2013 That's the only thing I could come up with too Craig, sadly no Service Docs survive for him, only MICs and DCM citation (so far in my research), but strange that his new number was not used for his DCM ... Maybe one (another one!!) I won't get to the bottom of ... I have sent off for "Regimental and Army Numbers of the British Line Infantry Soldier from AD. 1800 to 2008" By Grumpy & Graham Stewart and that may have something in it Thanks Craig Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin spof Posted 25 October , 2013 Admin Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Jim Following on from Craig's post, perhaps he was caught up by the MSA, got a new number but Records soon/eventually realised it was the same man? Glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 25 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Now that is a good one Glen, thanks for raising it, that sounds a very, very feasible chain of events. But what would be the chance of him ending up back in his old Bn? Bit of a head - scratcher this one ... And with the name Brown not an easy man to try and trace on pre-service census's either, even knowing he was from Fulham Oh well, if it was that easy it wouldn't be proper researching lol Thanks again Glen All the best, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 My understanding is that all overseas serving soldiers were re-numbered in 1916, having two numbers for the same man is relatively common and doesn't [usually] denote re-enlistment. Dave Swarbrick I'm afraid that I have to inform you that this is totally incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Long shot, but if he was a discharged time expired regular then, unless he re-enlisted as a regular he would be conscripted and then , not being subject to the continuation of regular service, would he not then be numbered as a new enlistment. Craig A possibility - but another consideration could be an MIC error or a person of the same name. Using the N.A. MIC's, I've come across some howlers for the N.F. and this includes incorrect numbering. A look in the R.Sussex Medal Roll's should help put you right. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the low number of men actually enlisting into the Royal Sussex if L/12178 is a 1916 number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Perhaps the biggest surprise is the low number of men actually enlisting into the Royal Sussex if L/12178 is a 1916 number. A good point - did all their numbers use an 'L' prefix or did they have more than one numbering system running ? Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 25 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Looking at Paul Nixon's site (link below for Royal Sussex), Craig, the Sussex were quite organised in their numbering system by all accounts, L numbers for Regulars, be they pre-war or those that enlisted on Regular terms during the war, and G numbers for those that enlisted for war duration only, plus S/GS numbers for Reservists/SR. So there could be (not sure of there were) a L/12178 and a G/12178 in 2nd Sussex!! Paul has not gone beyond September 1916 with his numbering, so I am only 'guesstimating' a late 1916/early 1917 number (I found a similar numbered L man who was KIA early 1916). I have just gone through the 2nd Sussex WD a bit further and Brown was listed as 7922 when it mentions the award of his DCM in the December 1918 entries. So maybe an error on the MIC as you suggest Graham. I'll have a look at the Sussex medal rolls as you suggest Graham, looking forward to getting your book. Thanks to all, Jim http://armyservicenumbers.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/royal-sussex-regiment-service.html http://armyservicenumbers.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/royal-sussex-regiment-1st-2nd.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 I don't believe there's any mistake on the MIC. This man was a pre-war regular (enlisted May 1904*) and was still numbered L/7922 when his DCM was awarded for an action on 4th November 1918 (Gazetted 18th February 1919 & Citation 10th January 1920). He was renumbered (for whatever reason) after November 1918 and before March 1919**, re-enlistment as a regular after a month or two out of the service perhaps? * Royal Sussex Regiment #7911 was issued 2nd May 1904 & #7926 was issued 25th May 1904. ** Royal Sussex Regiment number L/11960 was issued 5th March 1919 and L/12214 was issued 10th March 1919. Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 25 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Really? That is brilliant Steve, thank you! I have only just finished going through the 2nd Sx WD and found 7922 Cpl EJ Brown being awarded the Belgian Decoration Militaire in Jan 1919 but a Feb 1919 entry does state how well re-enlistment is going. Brown must have been one of them. Just rechecked as had found a L/21177 killed in 1917 with 2nd Sussex, which is why I thought it a wartime number, but just ascertained that he was a G/21177, a misquoting on SDGW All makes sense now Steve, thank you Just for future info, where did you get your info regarding the issue dates of numbers from? Thanks again Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 25 October , 2013 Share Posted 25 October , 2013 Jim Service Number details came from records available on Ancestry and FindMyPast sites, just needed to search for similar number ranges. Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootneck Posted 26 October , 2013 Share Posted 26 October , 2013 From work I did on the East Surrey Regiment in the period 1919 -1921 some time ago many men who re-enlisted in the regular battalions of the regiment during 1919 were renumbered during the year starting around L/12090. The data is incomplete as I was concentrating on men from the 1st battalion who were discharged by the end of 1921; however, it indicates that the two regular battalions were streamlining or rationalising their numbers and when army numbers were introduced in 1920 the 1919 sequence was used and the lowest number in my sample from 1919 was 4775, that of the RSM who enlisted in 1894 and the highest was 14398, a 19 year old, who re-enlisted in February 1919 but had previously served with the 3rd Bn, East Surrey Regiment. Bootneck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 26 October , 2013 Share Posted 26 October , 2013 I don't believe there's any mistake on the MIC. This man was a pre-war regular (enlisted May 1904*) and was still numbered L/7922 when his DCM was awarded for an action on 4th November 1918 (Gazetted 18th February 1919 & Citation 10th January 1920). He was renumbered (for whatever reason) after November 1918 and before March 1919**, re-enlistment as a regular after a month or two out of the service perhaps? * Royal Sussex Regiment #7911 was issued 2nd May 1904 & #7926 was issued 25th May 1904. ** Royal Sussex Regiment number L/11960 was issued 5th March 1919 and L/12214 was issued 10th March 1919. Regards Steve I'm curious as to why they would renumber their regulars in 1919? It wasn't done in the Northumberlands and it's surviving regulars continued using their 1914 numbers which were in the main four figure. New 1918/19 enlistments were obviously given high five figure numbers, but the new numbering system was just around the corner(1920) and the Royal Sussex were given the block 6390001-6446000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 26 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 26 October , 2013 I received Grumpy and your book today, Graham, and was thinking exactly the same thing. But then it is the Army ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 26 October , 2013 Share Posted 26 October , 2013 I'm curious as to why they would renumber their regulars in 1919? It wasn't done in the Northumberlands and it's surviving regulars continued using their 1914 numbers which were in the main four figure. New 1918/19 enlistments were obviously given high five figure numbers, but the new numbering system was just around the corner(1920) and the Royal Sussex were given the block 6390001-6446000.Who knows? There must have been a reason for the number change but without his service record (or comparable records) we are guessing. I'm confident we have a good handle on the timeframe for his two Royal Sussex Regiment numbers but we don't know what happened in the intervening period of three or so months to necessitate the change of number. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 27 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 27 October , 2013 Steve, Graham, Craig, Bootneck, thanks to you all for your help with this matter, it is greatly appreciated All the very best, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootneck Posted 28 October , 2013 Share Posted 28 October , 2013 Having looked at the battalion part II orders for the 1st Battalion, the East Surrey Regiment, for 1919, I see that they start to re-number men in dribs & drabs from the end of April 1919 and the main spate of re-numbering occurs during August. Here’s an example from the East Surrey Regiment recruitment registers held at the Surrey History Centre. 9953 Harry Condon originally enlisted in the regiment on 17 August 1909 and served for 8 years 356 days. He landed with the 1st battalion in France on 16 August 1914 and was entitled to the 1914 Star, British War & Victory medals and appears to have been wounded or hospitalised at some time in 1914. He re-enlisted on 29 January 1919 for 4 years (under A. O. 4 of 1919) and subsequently re-engaged to complete 12 years on 29 January 1921 before being discharged on 6 February 1931. Harry’s was first given the ‘new’ regimental number of L/13006 in 1919 and the army number 6133309 in 1920. He appears to have been attached to the regimental depot during the war and served in North Russia with the 1st battalion in 1919. regards Bootneck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 28 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 28 October , 2013 Hi Bootneck, This is great evidence of how things progressed number wise from the Armistice through 1919 to 1920, it must have been a time of great flux Army-wide. On the side, are 1st East Surrey's your main point of interest? Reason I ask is my wife's great grandfather was 1st East Surreys and we believe was wounded in November 1914 with them Thanks again, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 28 October , 2013 Share Posted 28 October , 2013 Courtesy of Ron Clifton on another thread....."Here is an extract from "General Annual [sic] Report on the British Army, 1914-1920. (They published six years' details in onego, because of the war.)All calling up under the Military Service Acts was suspended at midday on 11 November 1918, and from that date until 15 January 1919 posting was confined to men who had previously been called up and reported themselves. The Ministry of National Service subsequently to 11 Nov 1918 only recruited and handed over to the Military Authorities men between 18 and 25 years of age who presented themselves voluntarily for enlistment and who were willing to be attested for the full period of 12 years' Army Service to fill vacancies existing in the Regular Establishment. The number of recruits so enlisted during the period 11 Nov 1918 to 15 Jan 1919 was 1,139.Re-enlistment of serving soldiersMeanwhile, the necessity for refilling at an early date the depleted ranks of the old Regular Army in order to provide overseas garrisons and reserves at home having become evident, an Army Order was published on 10 December 1918 authorizing the re-enlistment of serving soldiers for periods of, approximately, two, three or four years. Bounties of £20, £40 and £50 respectively were given, in addition to any pension, bounties or gratuities due on account of war or other services, to men re-enlisting for these periods. This Army Order, which became Army Order 4 of 1919, was subsequently further extended by Army Orders 124 and 125 of 1919, of which the former slightly modified the conditions and of which the latter applied them so modified to men serving as members of Overseas Contingents. Re-enlistments under Army Order 124 were closed by Army Order 329 (published on 27 Sept 1919) from the date of its receipt in the various commands. The total number of men re-enlisted under these Army Orders, with bounty, was 74,930." And from the LLT....http://www.1914-1918.net/reenlistment.html Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 28 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 28 October , 2013 Great, thank you for adding that Steve, I have learned so much from this post Appreciate it Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootneck Posted 29 October , 2013 Share Posted 29 October , 2013 Jim Please send me a pm regarding your wife's great grandfather and I will see what I might have; however, it might not be much as records wise for 1914, even the digest of service is sparse, is a bit of a black hole for the 1st Battalion, ESR. I have a feeling it might have something to do with them being stationed in Ireland. My main WW1 interest is Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment POWs which led into the East Surreys but as might be guessed from my nom de plume I am interested in the Royal Marines, particularly during the 18th century. With regards to the Queen's it appears that they did not re-number in 1919. regards Bootneck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hastings Posted 30 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 30 October , 2013 Thanks Bootneck, will do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now