Please Mind the Gap - Numbering Locally Raised Units

[Guest]

 

Sequential Regimental Numbers. I am immersed in medal rolls. One aspect of the 1914 Star and 1914-15 Star rolls is that these long lists  - once transcribed - can be sorted by Regimental Number. This process allows us to see the rolls in a very different way: one that can reveal some interesting patterns previously hidden from sight.

 

Please Mind the Gap. As a general rule,  Regimental Numbers were issued sequentially and chronologically*. In a theoretical perfect, regimented world the medal rolls should show an unbroken sequence of numbers. In reality we see 'breaks' or 'gaps' in the sequences where the next number is missing from the roll. Many (most?) of these small gaps in the sequence might easily be explained; for example the sequence of numbers issued to men who had gone onto the Reserve might well be regularly punctuated by men 'missing' due to being medically discharged from their Reserve obligations being no longer fit. Similarly as we hit the sequences occupied by (Pre-War) serving men, natural 'wastage' will create gaps in the sequence reflecting men discharged or delayed in going overseas due to being invalids. When we hit the Kitchener men one might expect the frequency and size of the breaks in the sequences diminish, particularly as the time between enlistment and disembarkation overseas diminishes (less time to become a casualty). The opposite happens. Occasionally we see continuous runs of men with sequential numbers on the same roll (16 consecutive numbers is the longest unbroken sequence I have see so far on a 1914-15 Star roll). Lastly transfers of men to other units would explain a large proportion of the gaps. All the mass of small breaks seem easy to explain....

 

It is an easy task to measure the size of the sequential gaps and re-sort the data to see the distribution. This is revealing. The Border Regt, Royal Sussex Regt, Hampshire Regt 1914-15 Star rolls all show some very large anomalies in the sequences. 

 

For example on the Hampshire Regt 1914 Star roll and the 1914-15 Star roll:

 

Regular Army Reservists. Between No.6741 (enlisted in Aug 1903 and mobilized as a Reservist) and No. 7834 (enlisted end July 1907) there were 1093 enlistments. The combined rolls show 697 men, implying 'wastage' of 396 men either discharged or invalids. The average gap (to the nearest integer) is '3'.  

 

Regular Serving Men. Between No. 7834 (enlisted end July 1907) and No. 9629 (enlisted as the War started) there were 1,795 enlistments. The combined rolls only show 1,247 men. The implications are that 548 men are missing; either discharged or invalided or transferred elsewhere. The average gap (to the nearest integer) is '3'.  Slightly surprising that it is similar to the Reservists.

 

So far so good...

 

Kitchener Recruits. Between No. 9629 (enlisted as the War started) and No. 21,412 (last Kitchener man on the 1914-15 Star roll) there were 11,783 enlistments. The rolls however only record 3,939 men within this number sequence. Some 7,844 men are 'missing'. Clearly many hundreds, possibly thousands may have still been in training or having completed training were still being held in Reserve battalions to be sent overseas after the end of 1915 - and consequently their disembarkation would not be recorded on a medal roll. However when we follow the breaks in the sequences there are twelve large  continuous gaps in the sequence of over 100 men. The total of the large gaps equates to slightly over 2000 men. Seven gaps are between 101 and 104 men which seems too regular to be random. There are gaps in the sequence of 303, 122, 180, 363 and 396. The latter three are almost sequential: between No. 20165 and No. 21104  (a run of 939 numbers) there are only three men recorded on the 1914 -15 Star roll. Put another way 936 men in a sequence don't appear to have been sent out in 1915 - suspiciously close in magnitude to a whole battalion. All these men enlisted in early 1915 (close to the formation of the 15th (Service) Bn (2nd Portsmouth). Some 171 Kitchener men with later numbers managed to get overseas n 1915. 

 

Perhaps of greater interest are gaps in the sequence of 303 men  and 122 men who enlisted in Oct 1914. Something has to explain these gaping cataracts in the sequences. It seems statistically unlikely that 100 men or 300 men would all be discharged or held back for over 14 months. Either there was a break in the numbering (why?) or these gaps represent large block transfers to other units. The gap of 303 occurs between No. 13928 and No. 14231....searching for 14000 in Ancestry throws up 14002, 14003 and 14007 on the BWM rolls  - all 14th (Service) Bn (1st Portsmouth)  - started recruiting in late Sep 1914 - which did not go overseas until 1916.... so one possible explanation is that the 'breaks' in the number sequences were aligned with allocating large blocks  of numbers to locally raised units that took longer to raise, equip and train and deploy than K1 and K2.

 

Any alternative suggestions on what might explain these men Missing Not In Action would be gratefully received?

[ss002d6252]

In respect of sequential numbering it helped me massively when I was compiling my spreadsheet on the 6th DLI - the different numbering 'patterns' alone are  both of interest and a great help when tracking down 'missing men' as some inferences can be drawn to aid the search. That being said, some men seem unfindable regardless.

From glancing around service records of other battalion the 'bulk' usage of numbering is certainly apparent for some Kitchener battalions where large batches of men for particular battalions interrupt the 'flow' of the numbering. I would suspect that the same occurred with locally raised battalions that had to be 'brought in' to the army system, it would be clearly be easier to number them in one batch than in dribs and drabs.

The groups of 100 look suspiciously close to the 'standard' size of a reinforcement draft - I wonder if they were pulled out, re-badged and sent elsewhere. Short of the lucky finding of the men via a service record (or via the number being listed on SDGW as previous service) they'd not be easy to tack down to confirm.

Craig

[Perth Digger]

Craig

One would certainly think that handing out numbers in batches would be sensible, but I'm not sure if the Headquarters of the RWK at Maidstone did this in 1915, when there were two battalions being raised simultaneously, one in Maidstone (the 10th) and one in Lewisham (the 11th).

 

There seem to be blocks given to Lewisham, but rather randomly. These are the first batches (from May 1915 onwards):

G/8000-G/8080

G/8137-G/8199

G/8261-G/8310

G/8336-G/9569

G/8621-G/8647

G/8739-G/8777

G/8819 and so on

The blocks appear to vary in number.

Those in between went mostly to the 10th Battalion, although some appear to have been sent as reinforcements to battalions already in the field.

 

Mike

 

[Guest]

What appears to have happened in the Hampshire Regiment's numbering for Kitchener Battalions is that every so often a large block of between 100 and 400 numbers would be allocated to one of the two Locally Raised units (what eventually became the 14th and 15th Battalions or the 1st and 2nd Portsmouth Battalions).¹

 

1st Portsmouth Battalion appears to have been allocated 300 numbers in a block when it was first being raised. The common perception that Pals battalions were raised in one large surge of recruiting is largely undermined by the subsequent allocation of blocks numbers. In the subsequent weeks and months additional blocks of 100 were allocated; one might reasonably assume when each block was close to being fully utilised, another block was allocated from the central roll of Regimental Numbers until the battalion was at War Establishment. This system seems to be what one might loosely call 'demand pull'; blocks of numbers allocated as demand steadily increased.

 

2nd Portsmouth Battalion appears to have been allocated numbers slightly differently, with almost a whole Battalion's worth of numbers allocated in three blocks almost back to back. I wonder if the Hampshire Regimental Headquarters simply acknowledged that they would inevitably require 900-1000 numbers and allocated the numbers well ahead of 'demand'. It seems the only plausible explanation. The alternative explanation is that the RHQ waited until the battalion was full and allocated blocks of numbers at the end of the recruiting process. This system would have required a temporary numbering system for the battalion until allocated Regimental Numbers - something that seems administratively cumbersome and les likely in my view. My speculation.

 

The large blocks of numbers 'missing' from the near continuous sequence in the 1914-15 Star roll come to just over 2,000 Regimental Numbers which is reassuringly close to the numbers required to fill two Locally Raised Battalions. 

 

Separately, the number sequences of the 10th, 11th and 12th (Service) Battalions have extremely high correlations with large sequential runs of Regimental numbers and are consistent with the process of filling one battalion before raising the next. As a regiment required to raise only one battalion for K1 and another for K2 and another for K3, this steady sequential allocation fits perfectly. It is nonetheless interesting to see this consistency reflected in the medal rolls when sorted by disembarkation dates; large continuous runs of Regimental Numbers perfectly aligned with specific dates consistent with the disembarkation of whole battalions and (separately) their subsequent large reinforcement drafts. 

 

In large rolls where a number of Kitchener battalions and regular battalions are mixed up, it is reassuring to see some order in the mass of data. The runs of numbers are not perfect; scores of men were clearly cross posted between battalions, however in the main the correlation between Battalions and blocks of numbers remains extremely high. 

 

The two distinctly different approaches to allocating numbers to the two Locally Raised Battalions is a small revelation (to me at least) and perhaps reveals an underlying adjustment in the administrative process adapting to the realities of raising mass armies.

 

 

 

1. Interestingly one of the Portsmouth MPs recently claimed that Portsmouth had (proportionally) the highest level of enlistment in the country. Something that I think is not supported in the data. All attempts to elicit a statement from the MP providing the source of this claim have so far fallen on deaf ears. 

[Rvictor]

I was interest in your post, and in particular the extent that refer to the Hants Regiments ... I am working on a project, a work-in-progres record of those who served with the 11th Hants Pioneers .. and their individual fates .. and I have noticed the gaps occurring, just as you say ...largely distributed between the 10th and 11th

[ss002d6252]

On 28/03/2018 at 03:12, Rvictor said:

I was interest in your post, and in particular the extent that refer to the Hants Regiments ... I am working on a project, a work-in-progres record of those who served with the 11th Hants Pioneers .. and their individual fates .. and I have noticed the gaps occurring, just as you say ...largely distributed between the 10th and 11th

 For reference -the member is no longer on the forum, having left a little while ago, so is unlikely to be able to reply with any more information he has managed to derive.

Battalion wide projects are massive (and often frustrating task), good luck.

Craig