Conscription Service Numbers

[Sappersnooper]

I have manfully searched the site for an answer to my question but to no avail! Is there any way you can tell from the Service Number of a soldier, who joined in 1917, if he was conscripted, or is there no distinction in 1917 whether a soldier was a volunteer or a conscript?

The soldier in question was enlisted on 18 May 1917 with the number 268889 and joined 11th Service Battalion Sherwood Foresters, a New Army Battalion.

[ss002d6252]

Under the Military Service Act 1916 men were enlisted into the Army Reserve as soon as they reached the relevant age. After they they were called up for service as and when required (unless they managed to apply for a deferment etc). There wasn't much scope left for a person to volunteer as most were covered by conscription.

Craig

[Muerrisch]

I had never pondered the plight of a young man wishing to enlist for regular service after the MSA. Surely it was possible? The army usually thought long-term about such issues, and needed to provide for "when we get back to proper soldiering"!

 

Either way, a soldiers regimental number did not depend on status after the MSA, he just got the next number in the book in most cases.

[ss002d6252]

11 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

I had never pondered the plight of a young man wishing to enlist for regular service after the MSA. Surely it was possible? The army usually thought long-term about such issues, and needed to provide for "when we get back to proper soldiering"!

 

Either way, a soldiers regimental number did not depend on status after the MSA, he just got the next number in the book in most cases.

Presumably they either signed up as a regular before they had been called up from the reserve or afterwards with the permission of a CO but I'd be interested in the process as well. I'm sure you're right in that the army would have a process in place to deal with it.

Craig

[Terry_Reeves]

The Military Service Act, 1916 applied to unmarried men who, on August 15th, 1916 were 18 years of age or over and would would not be be 41 year of age on March 2nd 1916. All men (not excepted or  exempted) between the above ages, who on November 2nd  1915 were unmarried or widowers without any child dependant on them were, on March the 2nd 1915 be deemed to have enlisted for the period of the war. In May 1916 married men were included.

 

TR

 

 

 

[RussT]

 

 

268880 voluntarily attested in Nov 1915 and was mobilised on 17/05/1917

 

268885 voluntarily attested in Feb 2016 and was mobilised In May 1916; was discharged in Aug 1916 as not being likely to be an efficient soldier and was re-mobilised on 18/05/1917

 

268887 was deemed to have enlisted in March 1916 and was conscripted on 18/05/1917

 

 

[kenf48]

6 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

I had never pondered the plight of a young man wishing to enlist for regular service after the MSA. Surely it was possible? The army usually thought long-term about such issues, and needed to provide for "when we get back to proper soldiering"!

 

 

 

I don't believe it was possible after the MSA as the 'regular' standing army  was not re-established until after the Armistice.  

 

 From November 1917 recruitment was the responsibility of the Ministry of National Service.  The War Office did not resume responsibility for recruitment on pre-war lines, to enlist men for regular service until 19 January 1919.

By the end of that recruiting year (30 September 1919) over 126,000 men had enlisted, of these over 50% were on normal long term engagements.  

 

Ken

 

 

 

Edited 12 December , 2016 by kenf48

[Muerrisch]

Ken that is very interesting. Can you point us to a reference please?

[ss002d6252]

Just remembered I have the General Annual return for 14-18

 

At least from Nov 1918 there was some enlistment again on 12 year regular terms;

Although not relevant to the question, they also allowed re-enlistment for serving soldiers from 10 Dec 1918

Craig

Edited 12 December , 2016 by ss002d6252

[ss002d6252]

Recruitment to the Regular Army began on 'pre-war lines' from 15 Jan 1919 (when the control was handy back to the Army )

 

Craig

Edited 12 December , 2016 by ss002d6252

[Guest]

GARBA 1913-1919 shows men enlisting under a variety of terms of engagement throughout the War. While he overwhelming majority were "3 years or the duration" (AO 296 of 1914) a small number still joined under different terms. For example in the year ending 30th Sep 1917, 286 men enlisted for Long Service and over 5,000 on other terms, compared to 753,922 under AO 296

 

 

Edited 12 December , 2016 by Guest

[ss002d6252]

Just now, QGE said:

GARBA 1913-1919 shows men enlisting under a variety of terms of engagement throughout the War. While he overwhelming majority were "3 years or the duration" (AO 296 of 1914) a small number still joined under different terms. For example in the year ending 30th Sep 1917, 286 men enlisted for Long Service and over 5,000 on other terms, compared to 753,922 under AO 296.

I was just going to post part of one of the tables for an example - year to 30 Sep 1917

Craig

[kenf48]

5 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

Ken that is very interesting. Can you point us to a reference please?

 

I think Craig and Martin have it covered, thank you.

 

Logically, and legally, whatever the final terms of enlistment they were all initially conscripts after March 1916 (except for the residual Derby Scheme attestations) as in post 9.

 

Ken

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, kenf48 said:

 

I think Craig and Martin have it covered, thank you.

 

Logically, and legally, whatever the final terms of enlistment they were all initially conscripts after March 1916 (except for the residual Derby Scheme attestations) as in post 9.

 

Ken

 

 

 

Ken

 

While the vast majority would fit this scenario, there were thousands of men in Ireland (for example) who were exempt Conscription but felt they must commit to the cause. All of these would fall outside of your criteria. Ditto men who were exempt on other criteria based on professions deemed critical to industry who decided that they must serve. When these men signed up in 1916-1918, they were not Conscripts. Possibly thousands of men. 

 

To say they were "all initially conscripts after March 1916" is technically not correct. A very small point, arguably pedantic, but in the interest of anyone researching the out-liers in the vast but complex and ever-changing regulatory environment of the British Army, it is important. This is not a criticism of your very valid but broad observations. MG

Edited 12 December , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

Thanks people. i could not envisage circumstances whereby the army turned down regular enlistments.

Inherent Military Probability (IMP) strikes again.

[clive_hughes]

You're catching me early in the morning, but two minor observations:  it was possible even after May 1916 for some to volunteer in advance of being called up, and I have a statistic...somewhere...of voluntary enlistments during the rest of the war.  

 

It was also allowed from September 1916 (poss. prior to National Service 1917?) for 17-year-olds (those born 1899) to attest voluntarily, again in advance of their call-up at age 18.  

 

As well as these, voluntary Boy service on long-term contracts was going on and one of my Anglesey casualties enlisted in this way, only to die of illness whilst at Ripon Depot.  He was Walter Philison Pearson, Rifleman/Boy (both titles used) 13250 KRRC who enlisted at Folkestone on 5 September 1917 aged 15 years 3 months, on a full 12-year contract as a band boy with 4th Battalion. 

 

Clive

 

Edited 13 December , 2016 by clive_hughes
Found some info!

[Guest]

In the years ending Sep 1917 and Sep 1918 a combined 16,632 signed up under terms of engagement other than "3 years or the duration". This is of course a drop in the ocean when compared to the 1.27 million men conscripted during the same period.

 

In answer to the OP, I would say there was a 99% probability that the man was a Conscript. MG

Edited 13 December , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

Thank you. This was an interesting excursion into a little dark corner. Probably won't come up in a pub quiz, but might just do so in a GWF or WFA quiz I suppose.

By which time I will have forgotten!

[Muerrisch]

Just in case IMP has passed a few readers by, this from Wiki:

 

 

Burne introduced the concept of Inherent Military Probability (IMP) to the study of military history. He himself defined it thus :

My method here is to start with what appear to be undisputed facts, then to place myself in the shoes of each commander in turn, and to ask myself in each case what I would have done. This I call working on Inherent Military Probability. I then compare the resulting action with the existing record in order to see whether it discloses any incompatibility with the existing facts. If not, I then go on to the next debatable or obscure point in the battle and repeat the operation ^[1]

More succinctly, John Keegan defined IMP as

The solution of an obscurity by an estimate of what a trained soldier would have done in the circumstances^[4]

Burne's approach has been criticised on the grounds that his concept of Inherent Military Probability puts modern military thinking and doctrine into the minds of mediaeval monarchs. However, it does treat war leaders as intelligent, thinking creatures, and veteran mediaeval leaders were often likely to come to the same conclusion as British staff officers, albeit by different thought processes.

[kenf48]

4 hours ago, clive_hughes said:

You're catching me early in the morning, but two minor observations:  it was possible even after May 1916 for some to volunteer in advance of being called up, and I have a statistic...somewhere...of voluntary enlistments during the rest of the war.  

 

It was also allowed from September 1916 (poss. prior to National Service 1917?) for 17-year-olds (those born 1899) to attest voluntarily, again in advance of their call-up at age 18.  

 

As well as these, voluntary Boy service on long-term contracts was going on and one of my Anglesey casualties enlisted in this way, only to die of illness whilst at Ripon Depot.  He was Walter Philison Pearson, Rifleman/Boy (both titles used) 13250 KRRC who enlisted at Folkestone on 5 September 1917 aged 15 years 3 months, on a full 12-year contract as a band boy with 4th Battalion. 

 

Clive

 

 

An equally minor point, I wasn't going to bite but neither boys nor seventeen year old youths were subject to the provisions of the Military Service Act. Equally while it may been possible to volunteer for active service in advance of being called up, or to volunteer from an exempted class the original Act  as paraphrased by Terry at post 5 is explicit and should not require repeating in full  here but in Section 1(1) states that the provisions of the Act apply to 'Every male British subject...resident in Great Britain'.

 

There seems to be little element of choice or outliers in the Act or the term 'Every'.   It was almost a, dare I say, 'three line Bill".  

Once in the reserve then no doubt the aforementioned everyman could seek what may have appeared to be more favourable terms of engagement by volunteering.  

There is no evidence that any of the 16,632 enlistments who were resident in Great Britain and signed up for terms other than the duration of the war were not subject to the Act and it's subsequent amendments before doing so.

 

 In broad terms if by virtue of age they came within the provision of the original Act from the 27th January 1915 they must have been on the reserve when signing on for those engagements.  That is a separate issue as to whether or not a man enlisting in 1917 was conscripted or a volunteer, always assuming he was not previously exempt under the Derby Scheme as mentioned under post 6, or a married man for whom the scheme was extended until they too came under the provisions of subsequent Act.  

 

If the subject of the OP was resident in Great Britain and subject to the Act(s) as amended he was in the reserve and therefore logically, and legally, a conscript, unless you want to call him something else, but once his status was in the reserve he could not logically volunteer.

 

Ken

 

 

 

[Guest]

A man who joined the army aged 17 pre-war had served his twelve years and was time expired, could re-enlist aged 29. He was not subject to the Military Services Act as he was excepted on the basis of his prior service [edit: If I read the MSA correctly - see image below]  There were several thousands of men who had served and were discharged Time Expired during the War. An unknown number re-enlisted and may well account for more than a few of the 16,600. In the year ending Sep 1916 some 16,073 men were discharged time expired. 

 

The 16,600 figure who enlisted on terms other than "3 years or the duration" is an extremely conservative figure. The numbers to Sep 1916 should be included, however it is impossible to differentiate between those who enlisted before the Act came into force and those who enlisted after it came in. Still, a drop in the ocean when compared to the known number of Conscripts.

 

Looking at GARBA 1917, there are small concentrations of men in these 'outlier' categories enlisting in the RFC (4 years) RHA and RFA (3 years and 6 years) and the Infantry (7 years)

 

There were over 20,000 men who re-enlisted in the Special Reserve  for 1 year under AO 295 of 1914 between 1915 and 1918. I suspect these men were not subject to the MSA as opting out of "3 years or the duration" to serve only one year with the Special Reserve would seem unlikely.  MG

 

 

Edited 13 December , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

 

Martin, before someone else points it out, the exemption for time expired men was withdrawn:

 

The May 1916 extension of the Military Service Act

The Military Service Act of 27 January 1916 brought conscription into play for the first time in the war. Along with the Defence of the Realm Act, it was possibly the most important piece of legislation in placing Britain onto a "total war" footing. It was extended and new conditions implemented in legislation of 25 May 1916, which was known as the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2). Together they were known as the Military Service Acts, 1916.

The definition of who was in scope for conscription was changed to include all men who had been at any time resident in Great Britain since 4 August 1914 who had attained the age of 18 but was not yet 41 unless he was in the exceptions defined in the Schedule attached to the first Act. In other words, it added married men to the scope of conscription and reduced the minimum age to 18.

Paragraph Five of the Schedule of exceptions (that is, "Men who had served with the military or Navy and been discharged on grounds of ill-health or termination of service") ceased. Men who had been discharged became eligible for service again. If he was a Warrant Officer or NCO when previously discharged, he was restored to this rank while in reserve and awaiting call-up.

Paragraph Six of the Schedule of exceptions (that is, "Men who have offered themselves for enlistment since 4 August 1914 but been rejected";) ceased on 1 September 1916.

The new Act made clear than no man who had at any time been a Prisoner of War (or captured or interned) would be liable for service.

It also made made provisions that, contrary to the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907, that a man serving in a Territorial corps could without his consent be transferred to another corps or to the regular army or to any unit within the same corps. The latter was also made applicable to Territorial officers. The man's rate of pay would not be affected by any such transfer.

 

Nevertheless the statement that " I don't believe it was possible after the MSA as the 'regular' standing army  was not re-established until after the Armistice". has been shown to be not totally correct for a variety of reasons. 

I would also add that the residency caveat leaves open the possibility of patriotic expats joining the colours after the MSA Part 1 came into force.

There is a danger of counting angels on pin-heads, but 99% of a very large number leaves a rather large number of exceptions.

Edited 13 December , 2016 by Muerrisch
clarification if that were possible

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

Martin, before someone else points it out, the exemption for time expired men was withdrawn:

 Noted. The data still shows some being discharged time expired  (rather than discharged for medical or other reasons, including TE after 21 years) in 1917 and 1918, albeit in rapidly diminishing numbers. I think we discussed this on another thread - the likelihood of a WO serving in 1911 to have served during the Great War due to the MSA... 

 

To the point; there was however a window in 1916 where a time expired man was not subject to the MSA but could have re-enlisted voluntarily. There were 9,728 men (not boys) who enlisted under different terms and another 8,079 ex-servicemen enlisted with the Special Reserve for 1 year after the MSA i.e between Sep 1916 and Sep 1918. ...some 17,807 outside the "3 or duration" between end Sep 1916 and end Sep 1918. You could add 15,976 Colonial Corps men who enlisted into the British Army as well. 

 

I hope we are all at least agreed that there were still routes other than "3 years or duration" albeit small as a percentage it still translated into a few tens of thousands of men. 

 

The bottom line is that the GARBA data clearly shows these men enlisting on other terms right through the war, so making a deliberate decision at least to serve longer than MSA requirements. Someone who had been exempted or excepted could in theory ignore the escape route and 'ardent for some desperate glory' decide to sign up. I think. If they chose "3 or the duration" we would not be able to distinguish them from the normal conscripts, so I would argue that the numbers might be conservative.  

 

If I recall correctly, some serving men were sent back to civvy street for critical roles in certain highly skilled industries. At the end of the war 'Pivotal Men' and Coal Miners were prioritised for demobilization.  MG

Edited 13 December , 2016 by Guest

[kenf48]

3 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Martin, before someone else points it out, the exemption for time expired men was withdrawn:

 

 

Oh, I'm so disappointed!

 

Of course time expired men had the same 1916 window of opportunity to volunteer as could married men the latter mainly, but not exclusively through the extension of the Derby Scheme.

 

As has previously been observed the issue of recruitment was not only complex but subject to political and economic considerations as well as military.  For example, the 1918 Act stated the provisions cited above, May 1916 Act would 'cease to have effect'.  Those provisions were in fact the result of a Government amendment mainly as a consequence of opposition to a general prolongation for time expired men in the original (second) Military Service Bill.   As the situation became more desperate the exceptions were withdrawn completely.  It's interesting that during the May 1916 debate it was acknowledged that if time served men were volunteering there would be no necessity for compulsion.

 

Acknowledging there were exceptions, I leave my, hopefully, final words to the Times, Thursday March 2nd 1916:-

 

 "Single men between the ages of 18 and 41 had their last chance of entering the Army as volunteers yesterday.  At midnight the provisions of the Military Service Act took effect; poster appeals to single men to volunteer are being obliterated today, and those bachelors who have not attested are automatically "deemed to have enlisted"."

 

Ken

[Guest]

 

13 hours ago, kenf48 said:

 

Oh, I'm so disappointed!

 

Of course time expired men had the same 1916 window of opportunity to volunteer as could married men the latter mainly, but not exclusively through the extension of the Derby Scheme.

 

As has previously been observed the issue of recruitment was not only complex but subject to political and economic considerations as well as military.  For example, the 1918 Act stated the provisions cited above, May 1916 Act would 'cease to have effect'.  Those provisions were in fact the result of a Government amendment mainly as a consequence of opposition to a general prolongation for time expired men in the original (second) Military Service Bill.   As the situation became more desperate the exceptions were withdrawn completely.  It's interesting that during the May 1916 debate it was acknowledged that if time served men were volunteering there would be no necessity for compulsion.

 

Acknowledging there were exceptions, I leave my, hopefully, final words to the Times, Thursday March 2nd 1916:-

 

 "Single men between the ages of 18 and 41 had their last chance of entering the Army as volunteers yesterday.  At midnight the provisions of the Military Service Act took effect; poster appeals to single men to volunteer are being obliterated today, and those bachelors who have not attested are automatically "deemed to have enlisted"."

 

Ken

 The trouble with the Times quote is that it is wrong. It is a broad brush statement that fails to accommodate the reality of exemptions and exceptions.

 A man aged 18-41 who was exempted or excepted could still volunteer. In addition men aged over 41 could volunteer, so the idea that all men who enlisted after March 1916 (the subject of the OP) were only Conscripts is patently wrong, however unlikely.. The hard evidence is in the official stats in GARBA, particularly in the data of the many thousands of men who enlisted under 1 year service. We can either agree or politely disagree on this point. I really dont care as we are debating fact here, not conjecture..

 

I ask the question: Could men volunteer to serve in 1917? Yes or No? I think they could.

 

MG

Edited 14 December , 2016 by Guest