Index to be released of pre 1901 DoB service records still held by MoD

[Coldstreamer]

Hi,

If by unburnt series you mean the Ministry of Pension Service files I would agree that there are Guards service files in that series. I found my gf papers there.

In my experience that series contains papers of wounded/injured men who had applied for/might be expected to apply for a pension (my gf was wounded but did not apply for/receive a pension as far as I am aware.

The Guards files in the burnt series are, in my experience, in relation to those soldiers who transferred out to another regiment.

I have no knowledge of the Guards providing a second set of papers to be held "centrally". Perhaps Coldstreamer may be able to comment.

As an aside my reading of Coldstreamers comments above are that he is searching for Coldstream Guards who transferred out of the regiment into "infantry of the line" or other regiments. In those cases their papers would be transferred from their original Guards regiment to MOD (War Office) but post 1920/21 they would retain CG army numbers in the series 264????.

Regards

Steve Y

thought of that - and yes some are there with the 264 ???? number series - but doesnt say Coldstream - unless I had one of their papers I wouldnt know if a CG man or transferred out

I would say all the records are at RHQ but you just never know - so much stuff gets done in duplicate

True, the fact that Coldstreamer was looking for Guards records had not twigged (oh well)! Hence why he could only find the transfers!

Im always check as papers turn up in odd places

me thinks that everyone replied to

[tullybrone]

Thanks Ian.

Steve

[Justinth]

Paul Nixon (co-incidentally) has his say on the matter and comes down to the idea files arranged in regimental order before the 1940 fire. His answer to the question of the incidence of some pre-1914 files amongst the burnt papers also comes down to the same thing (that the papers were arranged in regimental order):

http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/2014/christmas-despatches-from-paul-nixon/

[Derek Black]

Is it known which regiments lost in percentage terms least and most? I rarely find black watch service papers.

Derek.

[David_Underdown]

In the post by Paul that Justin has linked to, Paul gives a methodology for estimating the losses (more or less). He hasn't carried it out across all regiments though.

[Hywyn]

Thank you for posting this Justin.

Hywyn

[ss002d6252]

Paul Nixon (co-incidentally) has his say on the matter and comes down to the idea files arranged in regimental order before the 1940 fire. His answer to the question of the incidence of some pre-1914 files amongst the burnt papers also comes down to the same thing (that the papers were arranged in regimental order):

http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/2014/christmas-despatches-from-paul-nixon/

I don't doubt for a second that they were organised regimentally - I think the key interest is how they were ordered within the regiment - by battalion, surname, number or a combination.

Craig

[headgardener]

I don't doubt for a second that they were organised regimentally - I think the key interest is how they were ordered within the regiment - by battalion, surname, number or a combination.

On several occasions I've found files with adjacent numbers (but not alphabetically adjacent names) accidentally stashed together - as if someone had slotted a file back in a shelf accidentally 'engulfing' the file next to it. I'd imagine that a regimental number-based system would be the most logical way of filing (not that logic would necessarily dictate anything, of course.....).

Maybe someone with experience of the Guards filing system might have something to add....?

[ss002d6252]

On several occasions I've found files with adjacent numbers (but not alphabetically adjacent names) accidentally stashed together - as if someone had slotted a file back in a shelf accidentally 'engulfing' the file next to it. I'd imagine that a regimental number-based system would be the most logical way of filing (not that logic would necessarily dictate anything, of course.....).

Maybe someone with experience of the Guards filing system might have something to add....?

I think the biggest problem is that some of the records were hastily put back together after the bombing so it's hard to tell.

I'm curious as to what order they were in when they were originally microfilmed - I'd image that many of the records for the less damaged regiments probably hadn't been re-ordered between 1940 and then.

A thought that I had was that an idea of the least damaged regiments could be obtained , roughly, by dividing the number of remaining records by the number of battalions - the higher the number the better the survival rate. A look at the original microfilm for these, in theory, would suggest the order of the records as they shouldn't have changed much the N/A records were re-ordered at the time - are the ancestry records copies of the N/A's original copies ?

Craig

[Justinth]

Part of a recent freedom of information request I made on the indexing, shelving and number of Guards records (in this case the Grenadier Guards). It perhaps gives a clue as to how the records may have been shelved. To my mind there still remains the likelyhood that maybe the files even if organised regimentally may have been grouped chronologically by time (rather than whole areas set aside for just one regiment running up to 1940, records for a certain period were grouped by regiment), with perhaps a large number of the WW1 regimental archive for soldiers whose service ended in WW1 or shortly afterwards in the same part of the Arnside warehouse (hence the concentration of damage to WW1 records and others listed in the record of casualties of the bombing). Here is the response from the Grenadier Guards:

'1. Approx 200,000 plus since records are held in the Grenadier Guards archive.

2. The run begins in 1790 in the form of individual attestation papers (not complete). From 1800 onwards, service records are held.

3. Records are indexed on a card index by name, initials, number. They are then held in boxes numbered chronologically…All Service Records are held in individual files designated by number, name and initial. Boxes are numbered 1,2,3 etc and also identified by Regimental Army numbers – approximately 30 per box – on spine.

4. Officer cards, which are incomplete, start from around 1885. They are indexed by name on a card index and boxed alphabetically.'

I am also going to post this separately in its own thread as it has interest in its own right.

Regards

Justin

[headgardener]

A look at the original microfilm for these, in theory, would suggest the order of the records as they shouldn't have changed much the N/A records were re-ordered at the time - are the ancestry records copies of the N/A's original copies ?

They are taken directly from TNA's original microfilms.

Regarding the 'tidying up' after the fire, I'd imagine that they'd have used the opportunity to order them alphabetically.

[headgardener]

Justin, if the records were held in chronological order this would broadly (possibly exactly) correspond to numerical order.....?

[ss002d6252]

They are taken directly from TNA's original microfilms.

Regarding the 'tidying up' after the fire, I'd imagine that they'd have used the opportunity to order them alphabetically.

I'm not 100% convinced on that one - putting them in to a new order would have been a huge task but who knows ?. There must be a record office minute somewhere (that wasn't stored in the record office before the fire) that answers the question.

Craig

[headgardener]

I'm not 100% convinced on that one - putting them in to a new order would have been a huge task but who knows ?

I'm only speculating, of course. I understood that TNA received them in alphabetical order, so the reorganizing must have been done at some stage, and I can't see why there would have been any reason to attempt to recreate the regiment/battalion/whatever filing system with the surviving 30% of the overall total. I'm certain that sorting the files into any sort of order must have been a huge task. Even just the removal of the undamaged files from a fire-damaged structure during wartime must have been a logistical nightmare, not to mention the 'drying out' of water-damaged but intact docs.

I wonder whether any records office directives or minutes actually survive.....?

[Justinth]

Justin, if the records were held in chronological order this would broadly (possibly exactly) correspond to numerical order.....?

That is sensible and is implied by the current organisation of the Grenadier Guards archive (no date for its organisation like this, but it is suggestive of a possible format for Arnside).

What is am saying is that there must have been some sort of division by time in the way the records were stored. Otherwise you would have seen wholesale destruction of regiments records before 1914 and into the 1930s. Obvious point, but it means that you cannot have had the whole of a regiments service record archive stored in a single part of the warehouse, what is implied by the concentration of the destruction on WW1 records is that there were sections of records (probably organised by regiment) from particular times put within different parts of the warehouse.

To me this implies that the WW1 service records were probably received in a particular period of time and then stored in regimental runs within a particular part of the warehouse. This is why it would be good if ACIs etc could be produced which set out what the procedure in terms of time was before records were likely to be deposited at Arnside (for example after the end of obligation for service in the reserves). No one has answered this and it needs further research.

Regards

Justin

[headgardener]

Justin,

Agreed regarding the separation of WW1 files. The sheer numbers of servicemen must have dwarfed the numbers from any other period - possibly all previous periods in toto - and the workload that this must have created in the 20's and 30's would have been enormous. It would have made practical sense to separate these records (see my post #30 on this thread). I'd imagine that this would have been conducted at regional level and the relevant files concentrated at Arnside in the regimental groupings in which they were received.

[Justinth]

See my post #29 on this thread:

'There must have been some chronological division with the arrangement of the service records in the Arnside building (buildings?) as well, as if the service records were just stored by regiment alone there would have been more widespread damage to service records in the same regiment stretching back before WW1 and after 1920. As it was major damage in terms of service records was largely confined to WW1 records ... as noted in the list of records destroyed or damaged by the fire WO32/21769 (this is not to forget other personnel related files such as ...Confidential Reports (Officers) all branches of the service...1910 to 1938 listed amongst the records destroyed or the other types of record going up to 1940).'

We are in agreement, now aside from useful observations on service records and the balance of probability we need more firm research on Army/War Office procedures to do with the receipt of service records.

Also more number crunching is needed using the method outlined by Paul Nixon

 

[Justinth]

Two previous threads on the same issue:

 

 

speculation about the ordering of the records within regimental order

[Justinth]

Hi All

I looked at a relevant part of Kings Regulations 1912 (as amended to 1914) which is pertinent to the creation and disposal of the WW1 Service records before they at sometime following the end of the war were sent to the War Office:

'Para. 1929 Disposal of Documents...

The documents of a soldier will be disposed of as follows [the link takes you to a table, the Word table wouldn't paste into this post]':

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5txQl6Mp750QndCZ2JfX0JNbHM/view?usp=sharing

I have left out the paragraphs involving schoolmasters and for service in India, which follow the pattern set out above when a transfer takes place.

Looking at the procedure for discharge from a copy of form A.F. B268 it seems that in the case of men invalided out of the army that a copy would be sent by the officer i/c records to the Secretary, Royal Hospital, Chelsea (presumably to begin proceedings that would lead to a pension?).

What is noticeable is:

a) The table mentions the destruction of records of the deceased (albeit after 50 years), deserters records (15 years) and the emphasis on the retention of records by the officer i/c records of the regiment/corps.

b. The table reads as if the regiment/corps was the long-term home for the service records. Was the passing of service records to the War Office after the war a post WW1 innovation caused by the sheer amount of men that served (plus therefore the records)? Were the regional offices of WW1 which dealt with the service records also a wartime innovation?

c) In the London Gazette I found the following with relation to service records and the War Office, for example for 1912:

'Colonel Harry N. Sargent, D.S.O., from the Half-pay List, to have charge of Army Service Records, vice Colonel F. Horniblow.
Dated 1st August, 1912.'

Would this official just be in charge of format and procedure for Army Service records, or does it in fact mean that the War Office was ultimately responsible for the long term storage of service records all along, despite the above?

Lastly does anyone have access to a copy of the Kings Regulations for 1923 to see how the rules changed in the wake of WW1?

Regards

Justin

[Coldstreamer]

any one know why so many numbers have a P prefix - or what does the P mean?

only seen that on Military Police and they cant be all MFP can they ?

[David_Underdown]

This record http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C6005907 is the official report on what was lost in the fire, there's a partial transcript at http://www.1914-1918.net/arnside.html. Chris has palced this bit first in his transcription, but it is actually almost the end of the document:

"Great War Soldiers' documents received from Record Offices. Great War

Soldiers' non-effective documents up to 7th August 1920 inclusive.

Soldiers' Documents of M.G. Corps up to disbandment 1922"

and then immediately following this in brackets on the original "out of 6.5 million documents only 1.25 million have been saved" (the original uses symbols for 1/2 and 1/4 rather than decimal representations).

It does seem that the First World War records had been deliberately brought in from the record offices

[David_Underdown]

any one know why so many numbers have a P prefix - or what does the P mean?

only seen that on Military Police and they cant be all MFP can they ?

I believe (as commented higher in the thread) that these are officers' papers, if you look at WO 338, those for whom the papers are still retained by MOD are indicated by P/nnnnn. In fact it would be possible to cross-reference the two lists. In the new index they are also listed under a different account code than the rest.

[Coldstreamer]

Thanks - I did scan the thread but missed it clearly!

cheers

[Justinth]

This record http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C6005907 is the official report on what was lost in the fire, there's a partial transcript at http://www.1914-1918.net/arnside.html. Chris has palced this bit first in his transcription, but it is actually almost the end of the document:

"Great War Soldiers' documents received from Record Offices. Great War

Soldiers' non-effective documents up to 7th August 1920 inclusive.

Soldiers' Documents of M.G. Corps up to disbandment 1922"

and then immediately following this in brackets on the original "out of 6.5 million documents only 1.25 million have been saved" (the original uses symbols for 1/2 and 1/4 rather than decimal representations).

It does seem that the First World War records had been deliberately brought in from the record offices

Presumably they would not have been received until the record offices had filled out the medal rolls. Do we know how long these regional Army record offices continued to function?

I had quoted the manifest in an earlier post, the point I was making was whether the officer at the War Office was purely in charge of determining the nature of the service record, or in some way had a custodial oversight over the record offices and office i/c records.

The wording of the Kings Regulations strongly leads me to think that the taking in of the large number of service records (boosted massively by WW1) was an innovation by the War Office.

Also still hoping someone will have access to the relevant regulations in Kings Regulations 1923.

Best

Justin

[Dragoon]

Hello,

What a fantastic resource.Thank you.

I wonder if someone can do me a huge, huge favor?

I use a Library computer and it is unable for some reason open sheets 2 to 8.

I wonder if someone would kindly look through these sheets for me?

I know its big ask, but it will be greatly appreciated.

It would be amazing to get a copy of his record if it exists.

His name is William Brown, he does have a middle name Robert, but does not seem to use it in his RA Attestation on Find my past. His service number was 3646 but seems to also have a new number on leaving the Army which was 1040246. his birth year is 1879. He served in the Royal Field Artillery from 1899 to 1921, was in France 1914 to 1917 then India 1918/1919, the North West Frontier Afghanistan 1919.

As i said, if someone can help I will be most grateful.

Thank you for your time

Dragoon