Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 Any idea who this unit might be ? > Context is 1918 - on a battlefield - and the unit have returned a man's ID to his own unit. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 10 December , 2014 Share Posted 10 December , 2014 Given that F and D are next to each other on a typewriter - 10th Canadian Division a possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 10 December , 2014 Share Posted 10 December , 2014 Not really - there were only four Canadian divisions, plus elements of a fifth. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 10 December , 2014 Author Share Posted 10 December , 2014 Given that F and D are next to each other on a typewriter - 10th Canadian Division a possibility? I'm currently working through everything "Canadian" in WO95 for the correct year and with a "10" in the title, but as Ron says, "Div" isn't on the list ... and nothing else on there looks particularly promising for "Fiv". Anybody got any lateral thinking type ideas ? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 10 December , 2014 Share Posted 10 December , 2014 Not really - there were only four Canadian divisions, plus elements of a fifth. I did check before I posted, and whilst it is true in the context of the sentence the "10th" is pretty obvious, "Candn" seems to match some of the multitude variations of how Canadian can be abbreviated - and unless someone really felt the need to abbreviate the word "five" by one letter in a sentence already listing 10th then "Fiv." seem pretty obviously to be a mis-spelled Div. That seems to be what was meant, even if it is not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 11 December , 2014 Share Posted 11 December , 2014 Shame the poster only gives a couple of lines. The context and other info from it may have been helpful. But then I am only an amateur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 11 December , 2014 Share Posted 11 December , 2014 Forwarded by 10 (battalion/Brigade) to Canadian 5 Div (typo) Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 11 December , 2014 Author Share Posted 11 December , 2014 Shame the poster only gives a couple of lines. The context and other info from it may have been helpful. But then I am only an amateur. The exact context wouldn't help you at all - what you see is what you get - the question is that simple. All I have done is removed a man's name - that name having no bearing on the question and, again, wouldn't contribute towards an answer. I do have a good reason for doing that. Forwarded by 10 (battalion/Brigade) to Canadian 5 Div (typo) Mike "Forwarded by 10th Candn. Fiv" - its a stand-alone statement and hasn't been shortened. The Canadian "10th" war diaries indexed in WO95 have now all been checked and none of them were relevant. It has been suggested elsewhere that "Fiv" should maybe be read as "F 4" - does that maybe prompt any thoughts ? Tom 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