Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 Looking at a soldier who joined the ASC (TF) on 1.12.15 having previously been in the RAMC (TF) since 1.6.11. He appears to have re-enlisted in RASC (R) on 7.3.16 having left the ASC the day before. Hence the question in the thread title. I'm aware that the ASC didn't become RASC until 27.11.18 but what was the (R) suffix for? Regular? LLT does mention that some ASC (TF) men were compulsory transferred to regular terms in March 16 but doesn't elaborate. Did this have anything to do with conscription or is the date coincidental? This particular man was awarded the TFEM in 1920. He must have served at least up to mid 1919 and with war years counting double he just got his qualifying 12 years for the medal. It's interesting that a man who was compulsory transferred out of the TF still gained entitlement for a TF award. There are some interesting notes on his VM and BWM medals roll. His details are Pte. 1381 Thomas John Hann 2nd Welsh FA. RAMC. Born Cardiff. Survived the war and died in Bristol. Regards Alan. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2018 Forgot to add to the above that his medal 'Trio' is impressed RAMC but his TFEM shows RASC with his T4/Number. As far as I can tell his T4 number is not a TF number (Kitchener's new 4th army) nor is his RASC unit a TF unit. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 (edited) T4 is not a TF prefix - it was given to men who enlisted in the Horse Transport part of the ASC as a 'New Army' man. It may have been used where men were transferred and renumbered but I've not looked at that before so don't know. I would imagine that somewhere there is an Army Order that says a man wouldn't lose out on a TFEM just because the army transferred him to a non-TF unit (which they could do from 1916 onwards under the MSA). Craig Edited 11 September , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2018 10 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said: T4 is not a TF prefix - it was given to men who enlisted in the Horse Transport part of the ASC as a 'New Army' man. Craig, Thanks for confirming that. Yes, I've read it relates to fourth army but what I'm not quite sure about is whether it relates to Rawlinson's Fourth Army or Kitchener's K4. I know these can easily be confused. 14 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said: (which they could do from 1916 onwards). Craig Can you elaborate as to how this came about. Was it connected in some way to the MSA? Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 Quote Can you elaborate as to how this came about. Was it connected in some way to the MSA? The extension of the MSA in May 1916 brought in the power to move men between Regular and TF units at the Army's discretion. Quote Craig, Thanks for confirming that. Yes, I've read it relates to fourth army but what I'm not quite sure about is whether it relates to Rawlinson's Fourth Army or Kitchener's K4. I know these can easily be confused. New Army (K4). Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 Quote Looking at a soldier who joined the ASC (TF) on 1.12.15 having previously been in the RAMC (TF) since 1.6.11. Was he a driver ? I wonder if it was technical move so that drivers were placed under the ASC as I believe they primarily provided the drivers to the RAMC. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2018 Craig. Good point.worth consideration. He was a private in the RAMC and driver in RASC however...horse transport? I could understand it if he had an MT number. Regards Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Alan24 said: Forgot to add to the above that his medal 'Trio' is impressed RAMC but his TFEM shows RASC with his T4/Number. As far as I can tell his T4 number is not a TF number (Kitchener's new 4th army) nor is his RASC unit a TF unit. Alan. Medals in the trio were normally impressed with the regiment or corps with which a man first served overseas, whereas the rolls were actually compiled by the regiment or corps with which he last served. It is a common, but I think erroneous, assumption that T1, T2, T3 and T4 (and other ASC prefixes) link directly to the New Armies K1, K2, K3 and K4 respectively. It may apply in many individual cases but it is not as simple an "equation" as that. The ASC did indeed supply drivers for RAMC units, but these could have been either HT or MT men. Field Ambulances (medical units, not vehicles) had a mixture of horse-drawn and motor ambulances. Ron Edited 11 September , 2018 by Ron Clifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2018 This is the actual extract from the Medals Rolls for 3 consecutive men (TJ Hann being the middle one) which surprisingly gives quite a lot of information for a medal roll and is extremely useful where a service record has been lost. Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2018 (edited) Looking at the 15 star rolls the 2 men above came from 2nd Welsh FA. In the rolls on the adjacent pages there seems to be a whole raft of men from the 2nd Welsh FA transferred to the ASC on 6-3-16. This date obviously predates the May 1916 extension to the MSA as noted in Craig's post #5. Regards Alan. Edited 11 September , 2018 by Alan24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 Looking at some other surrounding men shows this: 174036 Bennett There is a B2505 showing enlistment in to the ASC on 6 Mar 16 on a DoW term He had joined the RAMC on 28 Oct 14 on a 4yr term so was still a serving TF man on 6 Mar 16. HE was however transferred to the TF ASC on 1 Dec 15 which must have been by choice as at that time a man could not change TF corps except by consent. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 #174241 - this is of interest regarding the TFEM Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2018 2 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said: #174241 - this is of interest regarding the TFEM Craig Craig, Great find. My man did get his TFEM and he could only have done that from enlistment on 01.06.1911 to demob on 12.07.1919 by counting his service with the ASC and counting war years as double...which just gets him the 12 years. Perhaps he wasn't entitled after all... Is there such a thing a a Medal Roll for the TFEM? Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 11 September , 2018 Share Posted 11 September , 2018 2 minutes ago, Alan24 said: Craig, Great find. My man did get his TFEM and he could only have done that from enlistment on 01.06.1911 to demob on 12.07.1919 by counting his service with the ASC and counting war years as double...which just gets him the 12 years. Perhaps he wasn't entitled after all... Is there such a thing a a Medal Roll for the TFEM? Regards Alan. The index cards seem to exist but I don't know about the roll. I think he was given it on an incorrect basis based on the above post (unless the rules were later changed). Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 September , 2018 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, ss002d6252 said: #174241 - this is of interest regarding the TFEM Craig Digging deeper...it looks from his MIC that he did eventually get his TFEM in 1927 on army order 53 of 1927 posthumously. Maybe something changed and others including my man also got his award. J Williams MIC As well as the TFEM, his sister also applied for a TFWM on his behalf (as he was deceased). He would have qualified for the TFWM except for the fact he didn't sign Army Form E624 (imperial service obligation) before 30.09.1914. Regards Alan Edited 12 September , 2018 by Alan24 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