Rgtl Numbering immediately post-war

[Graham Stewart]

It's important to understand how numbering worked and how your number took precedence. Although these extracts are from Kings Regs 1923, they are practically no different from any other Regs before them in regards to numbering. Please note Para 1684 - "In all documents relating to a soldier, his Army number will precede his name" - again something that remained unchanged and if there were a new numbering system introduced in 1919, then these would have been recorded on these documents.

Note also the A.O.520 of 1920 in the margin of Para 1683 - this refers to when the new numbering system was introduced, and again similar A.O.'s can be found throughout prior KR's when there was a change to the numbering system, such was their importance.

[westkent78]

RWK seems to have gone directly from 4 or 5 digit L prefixed numbers to the 7 digit Army numbers.

I've got long service men from 1898 who are still in during 1920 and they are not renumbered at all but do not carry on beyond 1920.

There is a block of men who have 4 digit L prefix numbers, who at some point receive high 5 digit L prefix numbers (in the 13*** range) and are sorted alphabetically with no regard for service length and then receive a 7 digit Army number. Perhaps the L/13*** is the RWK version of the 0 series?

Matthew

[Guest]

Searching CWGC website for death ins 1919-20 produces numbers staring with zero for Devonshire Regt, DCLI, Hampshire Regt, Somerset LI and Wiltshire Regt only - largely consistent with the OP. Given no other regiments are represented it seems very unlikely that this was across the infantry.

I notice the RAOC used a series starting with zero. Any chance these were men who transferred from the RAOC? It would seem odd they only transferred into these five infantry Regiments... also does not explain a MIC with only the SLI and Hants and the Hants number one of the zero series...

[Ron Clifton]

Which does reinforce my hypothesis that only one of the District Record Offices was involved. I can't remember the number but it basically covers the same area as the Wessex Division TF.

Ron

[Guest]

Which does reinforce my hypothesis that only one of the District Record Offices was involved. I can't remember the number but it basically covers the same area as the Wessex Division TF.

Ron

All the infantry Regiments with battalions in the Wessex Div are represented except the Dorsets. including the Dorsets.

Devons

Dorsets

Somerset LI

DCLI

Hampshires

Wiltshires

[bootneck]

The Surrey History Centre holds the Enlistment, Transfer and Discharge Registers for both The Queen’s and the East Surrey Regiment c.1920-1958 under reference 7791/-. Amongst these records there is a condensed register of enlistment numbers 6132001-6138313 (c.1920-1930) which gives the enlistee’s name, army designation, date of enlistment, date non-effective and cause, including any pre 1920 military service dating back to 1890s (reference: 7791/2/1/23). At some time it appears that the corresponding index for The Queen’s became separated from these records and was lodged amongst the regimental records and was catalogued as a nominal roll of Queen's Royal Regiment c.1920-1926. It also gives army number; old number; name; battalion; whether line, reserve or territorial force and remarks; while the date of enlistment is given from January 1922 (reference: QRWS/1/3/4). The enlistment and transfer registers for both regiments have been separately indexed by army number, name and register reference for ease of use.

As I mentioned in my previous post I became aware that the East Surrey Regiment regular battalions had ‘tidied up’ soldiers regimental numbers while looking at discharges from them in 1920-21. This sample consisted of 606 men, of which 134 had enlisted in Kingston from 1908 onwards who should appear in the Surrey Recruitment Registers. 29 of the 606 subsequently deserted while another was claimed as a deserter from the Royal Navy. 9 others died from a number of causes.

It appears likely that they went back to the pre-war L/ prefix. It should not be too difficult to produce an index for both regiments’ regulars showing 1920 Army number, 1919 regimental number and former number and regiment/corps (if applicable) and date of enlistment and discharge.

Bootneck

[Muerrisch]

Bootneck it looks to me like the ESR felt a similar urge to Wessex Div and tackled the matter in a different way. There is a massive research project for someone handy to access the records. I can say that safely, from darkest Lincolnshire!

[butler]

I have used the National Archives MIC search facility, searching initially with just the regiment's name in the corps field to give a total number of MICs for that regiment and then with 0* in Regimental number field:

Total '0'

Hampshire Regt 57831 4702

Dorset Regt 26442 1367

Devon Regt 54089 1761

Wiltshire Regt 29243 1042

Somerset LI 38301 1248

DCLI 31510 1348

Gloucestershire Regt 49745 399

Ryl Berks Regt 39414 824

The '0' numbers will include soldiers transferring to or from regiments using '0' numbers or corps such as RAOC and RASC that used service numbers beginning with 0

The Gloucestershire Regt does not use '0' numbers but shows some 399 such transfers

The Ryl Berks Regt does not use '0' numbers but shows a high number of transfers (824) which is due to a block transfer of soldiers into the Hampshire Regt that were given '0' numbers.

The Hampshire Regiment shows the highest number of hits (4702) some 500 higher than the number of '0' numbers I have found in use.

The other regiments all have '0' numbers and by subtracting 400 as a conservative estimate or 824 as an extreme estimate of the number of transfers it gives a rough indication of the '0' numbers use.

[Graham Stewart]

I have used the National Archives MIC search facility, searching initially with just the regiment's name in the corps field to give a total number of MICs for that regiment and then with 0* in Regimental number field:

Total '0'

Hampshire Regt 57831 4702

Dorset Regt 26442 1367

Devon Regt 54089 1761

Wiltshire Regt 29243 1042

Somerset LI 38301 1248

DCLI 31510 1348

Gloucestershire Regt 49745 399

Ryl Berks Regt 39414 824

The '0' numbers will include soldiers transferring to or from regiments using '0' numbers or corps such as RAOC and RASC that used service numbers beginning with 0

The Gloucestershire Regt does not use '0' numbers but shows some 399 such transfers

The Ryl Berks Regt does not use '0' numbers but shows a high number of transfers (824) which is due to a block transfer of soldiers into the Hampshire Regt that were given '0' numbers.

The Hampshire Regiment shows the highest number of hits (4702) some 500 higher than the number of '0' numbers I have found in use.

The other regiments all have '0' numbers and by subtracting 400 as a conservative estimate or 824 as an extreme estimate of the number of transfers it gives a rough indication of the '0' numbers use.

Which is a good search, but what it won't do is give you the date in which these 0**** numbers were given out. For that each individual record would have to be researched and the majority of these 0**** numbers will be wartime transfers from the Corps, especially around 1918 after the German offensives and when there was a clear out of able bodied physically fit 'A1' men.

I've just done a similar search for the N.F.'s and there are 1,277 results and within the space of dozen cards I can tell you there's been a 100% c*ck-up - zero's have been added when no zero's were in the number and here are the examples;-

16/021 - Actual number 16/521

077162 - no such number and is 277162 - his new six figure number

16/098 - Actual number 16/598

5/0178 - Actual number 5/6718

NCB/0115 - totally incorrect - actual number NCB/715

0925 - too many Williams to determine just yet

5/0580 - Actual number 5/6580

None of these are the correct number - these zeros have been added or misinterpreted from the original number and when you've been doing regimental numbers for over sixteen and have copies of virtually every Medal & SWB Roll Book you can look at these on the N.A. site and say b*ll*cks.

[Ron Clifton]

Graham

A number of transcription errors would be a possible explanation, but butler's figures in post 33 show around 12,700 "0" prefixes, and all in the District covered by the Wessex Division.

I know that, in terms of the 5,000,000+ who served, that's still a tiny proportion, and of course your expertise in this field is far greater than mine, but could they ALL be c*ckups?

Ron

[Graham Stewart]

Graham

A number of transcription errors would be a possible explanation, but butler's figures in post 33 show around 12,700 "0" prefixes, and all in the District covered by the Wessex Division.

I know that, in terms of the 5,000,000+ who served, that's still a tiny proportion, and of course your expertise in this field is far greater than mine, but could they ALL be c*ckups?

Ron

I would say Kevrow(post 19) has nailed it when he actually did a 'records' search and not just MIC's - '52' is the figure and I came up with the same number and all seem centred around Depots in 1919 - I would say that the N.A. MIC search facility is almost an 100% c*ck-up. If you don't have the actual Medal Roll Books and if N&P didn't use them on their Disc and relied totally on the MIC's, then you're going to see the same problem crop up time and time again - the 1,277 N.F. hits are all incorrect, unless A.O.C. or A.S.C. transfers - therefore all other 0*** numbers have to be suspect.

[Guest]

Using Ancestry and searching Hampshire Regiment in the Regiment box and Somerset in the Key Word box produces dozens of examples. Lots of Hampshire Regt numbers in the 098xx series from what appears to be the block transfer as the numbers are all in a tight group. I realise the MICs are made from other documents but it seems highly unlikley in this case that the zeros are all errors. The handwriting on these MICs seems pretty clear.

On the first page alone:

09801

09828

09834

09836

09837

09839

09840

09843

09851

09856

And these are just the men whose names start with A and B

Using the wildcard

094*** generates 21 returns (many are old four-digit numbers) but five are five-digit numbers ranging from with 09487 and ending 09498

095*** generates 50 returns although many are also earlier four digit numbers.

096*** generates 49 returns

097*** generates 78 returns

098*** generates 72 returns

099*** generates 94 returns

etc...

Edit there are returns for

085***

086***

087***

088***

089***

An example:

[RussT]

I have seen the types of numbers many times before - I didn't realise they were a mystery:

Random page from an SWB roll of the Hampshire Rgt:

[Graham Stewart]

I have seen the types of numbers many times before - I didn't realise they were a mystery:

Random page from an SWB roll of the Hampshire Rgt:

Currently only found two service record of these to-date 03126 Pte William Henry Tuck - formerly TR/8/27981 53rd(Y.S.)Bn, R.Warwickshire Regt - doesn't get 03126 until change of designation of 52nd(Grad)Bn, Hampshire Regt to 52nd Bn, Hampshire Regt in Feb 1919.

02835 Pte William Crouch - formerly TR/7/9087 = 94th & 95th T.R.Bns; 287761 = Labour Corps; TR/7/6412 = 93rd T.R.Bn; TR/8/24299 = 52nd(Grad)Bn,Hampshires; 02835 = 52nd Bn, Hampshires - 22/2/1919.

A pattern is beginig to emerge in the redsignation of the 52nd(Grad)Bn, Hampshire to just 52nd Bn,Hampshires in February 1919.

[RussT]

A random one:

[RussT]

Direct enlistment into the 20th Hampshire on 6/8/19

Not sure from what the 20th Hampshire were formed

[RussT]

Number 015 - engaged on a 7+5 term (AF B265), joined 3/Bn 19/12/18, posted 1/Bn, posted 2/Bn

[RussT]

Authority for transfer + New Number

[RussT]

Attesting for 7+5 into the Infantry of the Line on 18/12/1919 at Winchester. Posted Hampshire Rgt Depot on 20/12/19

[RussT]

So from the above small sample of examples, it seems that the 0-series numbers were a distinct series being used at least by the Hants Rgt, and possibly by the Winchester Record Office generally.

And:

015 allotted Dec 1918

010228 allotted Dec 1919

It's sort of interesting to ask yourself which of the above two numbers is the highest?

Russ

[Graham Stewart]

So from the above small sample of examples, it seems that the 0-series numbers were a distinct series being used at least by the Hants Rgt, and possibly by the Winchester Record Office generally.

And:

015 allotted Dec 1918

010228 allotted Dec 1919

It's sort of interesting to ask yourself which of the above two numbers is the highest?

Russ

Which I'll say again wasn't across the board - and seems to be a feature in Southern Command only.

First image - formerly TR/8/30904 = 53rd(Y.S.)Bn, Hants - redesignated 53rd Bn, Feb 1919

Second image - interesting heading "Configured for Garrison Duties under A.O.195 of June 1919, published on the 10th May 1919

V - "Enlistment of men for Garrison Duties"

"It has been decided to enlist, for Garrison Duties with the Armies of Occupation, a number of men(ex-soldiers or men who have not previously served) who do not satisfy the normal physical standards etc."

20th(Service)Bn, Hampshire Regt - formed Winchester 10/5/1919 for Special Service in France & Flanders - body recovery?? - absorbed 26th(Service)Bn,Rifle Bde 25/7/1919 and later disbanded.

52nd & 53rd Bns, Hampshire became 'service' Bns in Feb 1919 and went to serve on the Rhine.

[RussT]

And just to say for information that Volume 2 of Howard Williamson's Great War Medal Collectors Companion (The Regimental Numbers of the British Army 1914-1919) makes no mention of the 0-series numbers to the Hampshire Rgt (or any other Rgt that I can see), implying that he has never seen a medal so impressed even though there are lots of MICs with 0-series numbers stating entitlement to the BWM & VM.

EDIT: Although having said the above, all MICs found so far with 0-series numbers to the Hampshire Rgt with entitlement to medals have another Rgt mentioned indicating that the medals would be impressed with the numbers of those other Regiments (as being the Rgt first served with overseas).

So far, the only MICs I can find with just a Hampshire Rgt 0-series number are for SWBs only. So perhaps this supports the suggestion from Graham that the 0-numbers were only allocated to Garrison Bn men.

I would be interested to hear from anyone who can find a MIC (with medal entitlement) with only a Hamphire Rgt 0-series number (unlikely if indeed the numbers were dished out post Nov 1918).

Russ

[RussT]

Further to the above, a reasonable but rather quick search finds these two examples - I wonder what the medal rolls say:

Edit: Lots more in the 09xx series

[ss002d6252]

0901 - 1/9th Hants

British War Medal and Victory Medal roll

0461 - no btn listed.

British War Medal only (enlisted in Chicago)

Also on the same roll page as 0461

04407 - no btn listed.

British War Medal only (enlisted in Chicago)

069 - no btn listed.

British War Medal only (enlisted in New York)

Craig

[RussT]

Thanks

1/9 Hants - Sailed for Russia Oct 1919, arrived back in England Dec 1919.