Rgtl Numbering immediately post-war

[kevinrowlinson]

Having returned to this thread I wouldn't dispute that there was a 0* series of numbers issued by the Southern Command Record Offices, but I would have thought the question is why. One cannot use the SWB rolls as an indication of medal entitlement and until someone posts the relevant medal roll to see what, or if, a different number was engraved we may still all be speculating. Although I really don't have much interest in this period after the war or regiments I am intrigued to see if there is an answer to why this Command thought it was necessary to start another series.

The answer may lie with the publication of AO 4 (IV) of 1919, which I do not have, and ACI 192 of 1919 which I do. ACI 192 deals with demobilisation of soldiers and it's appendix as a leaflet to soldiers, my theory is, at the present, that the record offices where trying to distinguish between those soldiers who were either pre war regulars and duration of war soldiers, and those that were compulsorily retained or recruited after the war under AO 4 of 1919. These terms may have been short term (1,2,3,4 yrs), or more along the lines of the pre war terms. These recruits effectively should have become the modern army, and some may have benefitted from the bonus that was on offer. The relative paucity of mens records on line may be because we can only see those that were discharged, for the normal reasons, when there may be possibly a greater number held by the MOD because many other soldiers served on.

For interest I will post a couple of ACIs that may add to the debate.

Appendix to ACI 324 of 1919 showing the list of costed units and establishments. Presumably this was published because it was different during the war.

Example of reference to AO 4 of 1919 that may be seen in soldiers records.

[kevinrowlinson]

Appendix to ACI 192 of 1919 (which is covers a few pages) for the demobilisation of soldiers has in paragraph 5.

Just out of interest, and I know some people actually like this sort of thing, ACI 475 of 1919 for the Recruiting Officer which may prove they were still active.

Whether the numbering was down to AO 4 of 1919, or whether it started earlier I would say it was the Southern Commands way of identifying new recruits, whether they served during the war or not.

May be completely wrong though.

Kevin

[Graham Stewart]

Whether the numbering was down to AO 4 of 1919, or whether it started earlier I would say it was the Southern Commands way of identifying new recruits, whether they served during the war or not.

May be completely wrong though.

Kevin

I have all of the A.O.'s for 1919 & A.O.4 of January 1919 first published 10th December 1918 is entitled;-

IV - Provision of "Other Ranks" for overseas Garrisons and Reserves at home.

1 - "In order to provide the men for overseas garrisons and the necessary reserves at home, it has been decided that soldiers may re-enlist for service in the various arms for periods of approximately 2, 3 & 4 years respectively from the date of re-enlistment, the object being to obtain equal numbers in these three classes. The conditions, terms, &c, under which men may re-enlist are notified herein for the information of all ranks." etc

It runs on for a further 6pages none of which deal with "numbering".

[kevinrowlinson]

It runs on for a further 6pages none of which deal with "numbering".

Perhaps not Graham, but it does not alter the fact that for one command it was thought necessary to introduce a new series however short lived. So why did they is surely the question. My theory was trying to explain why they thought it was needed, perhaps owing to that AO and possibly other ACIs. May be wrong. After only looking at a few records I am convinced that the numbers were used, although you appear to be in some doubt. Strangely the timing from the start of 1919 for AO and ACIs seem to coincide with these numbers.

Kevin

[Muerrisch]

Yet another first for the Forum. Shining light into an unilluminated corner yet again.

One aspect not discussed much yet is the consolidation of men into different regiments/ battalions at wars end, I suspect for convenience of demob. May be part of the same problem. I am very busy with Remembrance wekend but will be back on the case Monday.

[RussT]

... until someone posts the relevant medal roll to see what, or if, a different number was engraved we may still all be speculating.

Kevin

Isn't that what Craig has done for us on post #49? 1/9 Hants with number 0901?

Regards

Russ

Edit:

Noting (but I could be wrong): All hand done (probably with no one else checking for correctness):

What's on a man's medal comes from what the medal manufacturer put on it,

What the medal manufacturer used to inform himself as to what to put on a man's medal comes from what's on the man's MIC,

What's on the man's MIC comes from what's on his Medal Roll,

What's on his Medal Roll comes from what's on his service papers (or some other record)

What's on his service papers comes from what someone wrote on it

Plenty of mileage for errors along the way. I'm not all surprised to see plenty evidence of medals returned for adjustment. Even in modern industry with independent verification of each single step, it is very hard to claim a better than 1 in 1000 error rate via human performance for administration systems. Given the millions of medals issued, I'm surprised there are not even more returns (ignoring those that were wrong but not returned for adjustment for which there will be no evidence on the MIC).

Russ

[Graham Stewart]

Perhaps not Graham, but it does not alter the fact that for one command it was thought necessary to introduce a new series however short lived. So why did they is surely the question. My theory was trying to explain why they thought it was needed, perhaps owing to that AO and possibly other ACIs. May be wrong. After only looking at a few records I am convinced that the numbers were used, although you appear to be in some doubt. Strangely the timing from the start of 1919 for AO and ACIs seem to coincide with these numbers.

Kevin

I am 100% certain it was never used in Northern Command or any other Command apart from Southern - you guys are looking for something that was not and never was there - there was no 1919 numbering system - no Army Order, no Army Council Instruction indicating that this system was used universally throughout the Army - thats why these have indexes of Orders & Instructions. No new Kings Regulations introducing new numbers, even among the amendments - nothing.

I have a Database of 94,356 individual Northumberland Fusiliers from 1914 to 1920 and all taken from the Medal Roll Books, SWB Rolls, St.Georges Gazettes, Enquiry Lists, Absent Voters Lists, War Diaries, Battalion Rolls, Platoon Roll Books and other sources and not a single 0*** number is to be found and yet you all seem to think these sources are wrong.

[Graham Stewart]

Published on the 27th September 1919 - A.O.329 of September 1919 - Cessation of Re-enlistments under Army Order 124 of 1919

"From the date on which this Army Order is received in Commands all re-enlistments under Army Order 124(IX - Provision of "other ranks" for Overseas Garrisons and Reserves at Home) of 1919 will cease".

I have gone through everyone of these to see if I've missed anything on "re-numbering" and not one of them, as they are amended, have any reference to men being renumbered.

[kevinrowlinson]

Graham,

Quote, "I am 100% certain it was never used in Northern Command or any other Command apart from Southern - you guys are looking for something that was not and never was there - there was no 1919 numbering system - no Army Order, no Army Council Instruction indicating that this system was used universally throughout the Army - thats why these have indexes of Orders & Instructions. No new Kings Regulations introducing new numbers, even among the amendments - nothing."

No one has suggested there was an AO or ACI for a new 1919 numbering system, only that a few regiments in the Southern Command introduced one themselves for whatever reason.

Quote, "I have a Database of 94,356 individual Northumberland Fusiliers from 1914 to 1920 and all taken from the Medal Roll Books, SWB Rolls, St.Georges Gazettes, Enquiry Lists, Absent Voters Lists, War Diaries, Battalion Rolls, Platoon Roll Books and other sources and not a single 0*** number is to be found and yet you all seem to think these sources are wrong."

I certainly haven't suggested that was the case and cannot think why you have posted this.

Quote, " Published on the 27th September 1919 - A.O.329 of September 1919 - Cessation of Re-enlistments under Army Order 124 of 1919

"From the date on which this Army Order is received in Commands all re-enlistments under Army Order 124(IX - Provision of "other ranks" for Overseas Garrisons and Reserves at Home) of 1919 will cease".

I have gone through everyone of these to see if I've missed anything on "re-numbering" and not one of them, as they are amended, have any reference to men being renumbered."

Again I haven't mentioned "Overseas Garrisons and Reserves at Home" so I am similarly surprised by its inclusion.

Obviously all this numbering business is far beyond my comprehension, so I will leave it to you, David and Paul. Who knows perhaps there will be another definitive book on the subject in the future.

Kevin

[Graham Stewart]

Kevin - Deeply sorry if I've offended you, but a few here are under the impression that there was indeed a new universal numbering system, albeit short lived, which there wasn't. Why Southern Command went it's own way in 1919 is beyond me and reference has been made to the possibility of it being introduced under A.O.4 of January 1919(Provision of "other ranks" for Overseas Garrisons & Reserves at Home), which then runs through several amendments and A.O. numbers until it ceases with the final A.O.329 of September 1919 - so I double checked all the relevant A.O.'s in order to put my case forward that 'renumbering' wasn't mentioned.

Apologies once again - but geeky stuff like "numbering" I do find of great importance in the foundation of the British Army and while I'm generally open minded to suggestions, the finding of these 0*** numbers is in itself a revalation, but it doesn't imply a 'new' numbering system was in use, which we've missed.

[RussT]

Graham,

I hope it’s not me who you think belongs to the few contributing to this thread who are under the impression there was a new universal numbering system and/or has made reference to it being promulgated by some AO or such like. If so, that was not my intention by a long way but apologies if you got that impression from me. I hadn’t picked up in the thread that such a mind-set was being developed by anyone.

I don't claim to know anything about the official mechanics of army numbering systems (AOs, ACIs KRs etc).

My aim was simply to post observations, which if acknowledged to have a credible pedigree might be accepted as established facts. Those facts might help others better than me to find an understanding for the why/how. I think that's a reasonable methodology that might lead to a conclusion.

It seems that observations from records has led us to the fact that the Hampshire Rgt used a number series with numbers beginning with 0. It seems possible that a similar 0-number series was adopted more widely within Southern Command. I don’t recall I ever said or implied it was used wider than that or if I suggested a possible authority that promulgated it (I wouldn't know where to start).

Regards

Russ

[ddycher]

Gents

Late coming into this one and a little nervous jumping in as alot of what I have has yet to be validated but here goes.

A couple of years ago when researching the forming of the TF and looking for the oldest serving Volunteers that attested for the 5th Devons I came across a number of 0 prefixed regt numbers that threw me for a while. Ultimately I was able to build the following hypothesis :

In 1919 / 1920 in India the T.F. Reserve Bn's (the Devons were associated with the 8th Res. Bn.) as they went through demob disappeared and were consolidated into Combined British Infantry Depots. With the advent of the NWF resurgence all demob was halted and these Combined British Infantry Depots formed Special or Composite Bn's. In the case of the Devons they were formed into 2nd Composite Bn at the No.1 Combined British Infantry Depot at Rawalpindi. I know across the CBID's and ports atleast 35 Composite Bn's were formed over 6 Bde's. These Bn's seem, for some unknown reason, to have been renumbered starting in the case of the Devons in 2nd Composite Bn with one Pte E. Stockwin who became new regt no. 01. Stockwin was later to be renumbered with a Devons number 5608491 so not the first of the 5608*** series. The Bde's make for fascinating study not least for the fact that one of the Great War's mutinies came out of them when Mesop. demob'd men were retained in India.

All of the Devons I tracked at the time with 0 prefixed numbers served in India and I was reasonably comfortable that I had nailed the mystery at the time. Now throwing it to the wolves so to speak. Rather than a Southern Command issue I believe it was specific to the remaining Wessex units and their supporting Reserve Bn's / Depots in India.

Have a number of data points that support this but would be interested in other peoples views.

Regards

Dave

[Graham Stewart]

Gents

Late coming into this one and a little nervous jumping in as alot of what I have has yet to be validated but here goes.

A couple of years ago when researching the forming of the TF and looking for the oldest serving Volunteers that attested for the 5th Devons I came across a number of 0 prefixed regt numbers that threw me for a while. Ultimately I was able to build the following hypothesis :

In 1919 / 1920 in India the T.F. Reserve Bn's (the Devons were associated with the 8th Res. Bn.) as they went through demob disappeared and were consolidated into Combined British Infantry Depots. With the advent of the NWF resurgence all demob was halted and these Combined British Infantry Depots formed Special or Composite Bn's. In the case of the Devons they were formed into 2nd Composite Bn at the No.1 Combined British Infantry Depot at Rawalpindi. I know across the CBID's and ports atleast 35 Composite Bn's were formed over 6 Bde's. These Bn's seem, for some unknown reason, to have been renumbered starting in the case of the Devons in 2nd Composite Bn with one Pte E. Stockwin who became new regt no. 01. Stockwin was later to be renumbered with a Devons number 5608491 so not the first of the 5608*** series. The Bde's make for fascinating study not least for the fact that one of the Great War's mutinies came out of them when Mesop. demob'd men were retained in India.

All of the Devons I tracked at the time with 0 prefixed numbers served in India and I was reasonably comfortable that I had nailed the mystery at the time. Now throwing it to the wolves so to speak. Rather than a Southern Command issue I believe it was specific to the remaining Wessex units and their supporting Reserve Bn's / Depots in India.

Have a number of data points that support this but would be interested in other peoples views.

Regards

Dave

Decent observation and probably well thought out - now explain to me why none of the 2nd Garrison Bn, Northumberland Fusiliers weren't involved in the renumbering? I have copies of the Medal Roll Books which contain all of the 2nd Garrison Bn numbers, which is as near a full Battalion as you can get. Were your 0*** numbers found purely on records or on Medal Rolls??

The Battalion had been in India since March 1916, serving initially wth the 2nd(Rawalpindi)Division, moving to the Poona Bde, 6th Poona Divisional Area in March 1917 and they were still there in 1918, the problem I have is what happened to the Battalion on the cessation of hostilities on the 11th November 1918, although I believe they were still there when the N.W.F. flared up, as the Battalion Cadre didn't return to Newcastle until the 9th January 1920. Even if they were in the process of 'demobilization', then surely some of them would been caught up in the 'Composite' Bn formation, which would be reflected both on their records and in the Medal Roll Books and todate none have been found with a 0*** number.

[ddycher]

Graham

As far as I can work out established Indian Bn's may not have been renumbered only men going into the composite Bn's / composite Bde's. For example I show men from the 5th Devons who were posted to the 2nd GB Bedfords when the Bn went to Palestine not being renumbered similar to your men from the 2nd GB Northumberland Fusiliers.

Best I can do I'm afraid.

regards

Dave

[Muerrisch]

Another attempt to summarise the collective wisdom for my own benefit.

Graham has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that no Army Order provoked a new numbering series, regardless of whether in one command or universal.

He has also demonstrated that NF, at Home and Abroad, did not catch the zero bug.

This concurs with the observations of several others including RWF students.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that some [perhaps all] units of the Southern Command, and also their affiliates in India, did, for a short period after the war, apply a zero prefix to a new series.

The reasons are not known, but the numbers appear to apply to transferrees and to new enlistments and re-enlistments.

Please feel free to disagree with specifics above: remember, somebody will look at this thread in a year's time and want "received wisdom"

[butler]

With regard to the use of '0' numbers I would say the following:

- I have only ever said that it was a system used in the Hampshire Regiment and also used by other southern infantry regiments. I have never said that it was army wide. I think the regiments using it come under No 1 Infantry Records Office Exeter

- It is not in the Hampshire Regiment used for men serving in combined battalions in India. Those noted on MICs as serving in such battalions (usually No 6 Res Bn Kirkee) are shown under their TF numbers. Also its use shows men who died in Germany or at home.

- The idea of mistakes being made on the MICs goes both ways. I have also found Hampshire Regt numbers which have had the '0' omitted when entered on the MICs. I have viewed all the Hampshire Regt MIC with '0' numbers and there are identifiable patterns of enlistments and transfers from other regiments.

- Medals were issued with the 0 numbers on them, I have a couple in my collection.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you, I think we more or less have a consensus on this fascinating byway.

[Graham Stewart]

Further to my previous posts I've managed to download the General Service Medal Roll with clasp "Iraq" for the 2nd Bn, Northumberland Fusiliers, who set sail for that region in September 1919 arriving in Mosul, Iraq by the 10th December 1919. The Roll itself consists not only of men of the Battalion, but men being transferred 'in' as replacements for those going 'out' on Discharge. Many of these men were 'old sweats' i.e. pre-war Regulars, but also a vast number of them who were wartime enlistments, that had decided to serve on post-war.

Now this is possibly the clincher on the '0' not being in 'universal' use by the British Army at this time, no matter where they were stationed or on what terms of service - the first column lists the 'new' 1920 numbers of these men, followed by name and rank, while column four is filled with their previous 'old' numbers, none of which are a '0' number and this goes on throughout the 55pages.

While there is no denying the use of the '0' numbering sequence among certain units, there still isn't a clear explanation as to why it was taken into use by them, while others around them carried on as normal as per Kings Regulations, Army Orders and ACI's.

Apologies if I've raised some hackles among you in this discussion, but I believe it was far too important not to try and show that there was no interim 'numbering' system introduced in 1919. How and why it was allowed is beyond me, but I would dearly like to see some 'hard' written evidence from the '0' number areas as to why they decided to introduce it.