names on equipment or service numbers

[coffmanb17]

a simple one, did officers and service men mark there clothes, and equipment with there names and service numbers to help id them in case of death ?, i would like to see some photos please , i am starting with a pair of binoculars. also i have seen a few spoons with service numbers on,  and how easy is it to id B.C.Allen ?. please ? thank you    

Edited 2 June , 2019 by coffmanb17
to add words

[MikB]

In this case, if there are no other markings, it's most likely a private purchase marked up with the owner's name - probably to prevent it being mistaken for army or anybody else's property, rather than id-ing his corpse!

[coffmanb17]

The binoculars in question are french made, and in a 1918 English case marked with broad arrow . thank you for your reply. 

[mark holden]

27 minutes ago, coffmanb17 said:

a simple one, did officers and service men mark there clothes, and equipment with there names and service numbers to help id them in case of death ?, i would like to see some photos please , i am starting with a pair of binoculars. also i have seen a few spoons with service numbers on,  and how easy is it to id B.C.Allen ?. please ? thank you    

The simple answer is yes soldiers did mark their equipment with service numbers but not primarily to identify them in case of death more to ensure that they did not 'lose' their kit to other soldiers. Officers leather equipment was often impressed with initials or name, canvas kit similarly marked with indelible pencil.  

 

Regards

 

Mark  

[Chasemuseum]

It was and still is essential to mark kit with names or numbers (or both) to mark issue/ownership. Great War officers do not have service numbers.

 Kit has a remarkable ability to evaporate !

[MikB]

The photos in post #3 change the situation. From the broad arrow and S.3 grading (= Special, Galilean binoculars, first grade), these must be a civilian glass officially adopted for military service in the emergency from autumn 1914 onward, and thus WD property even if expected to be temporarily on loan. The registration number would link to a record of their source and type of acquisition.

 

It raises an interesting question as to whether the engraved name

i) is that of their original civilian owner left in place to aid their theoretical return, or

ii) records their service allocation to a specific officer

 

There are possible objections to either answer. Anybody have a better one?

 

The case is almost certainly a later addition.

Edited 3 June , 2019 by MikB
typo

[mark holden]

1 hour ago, MikB said:

The photos in post #3 change the situation. From the broad arrow and S.3 grading (= Special, Galilean binoculars, first grade), these must be a civilian glass officially adopted for military service in the emergency from autumn 1914 onward, and thus WD property even if expected to be temporarily on loan. The registration number would link to a record of their source and type of acquisition.

 

It raises an interesting question as to whether the engraved name

i) is that of their original civilian owner left in place to aid their theoretical return, or

ii) records their service allocation to a specific officer

 

There are possible objections to either answer. Anybody have a better one?

 

The case is almost certainly a later addition.

I have an identical set of requisitioned Binos similarly engraved to an officer who was later KiA. I would suggest the name relates to the owner rather than an official.

[healdav]

17 hours ago, mark holden said:

The simple answer is yes soldiers did mark their equipment with service numbers but not primarily to identify them in case of death more to ensure that they did not 'lose' their kit to other soldiers. Officers leather equipment was often impressed with initials or name, canvas kit similarly marked with indelible pencil.  

 

Regards

 

Mark  

Not just in case they were taken. Things like this were on an officer's or man's slop chit. He lost them, he paid, unless he had a very good excuse. Still the case today.

 

[Jools mckenna]

If it is an officer's pair of binoculars, there is one officer called B C Allen.

[MikB]

1 hour ago, mark holden said:

I have an identical set of requisitioned Binos similarly engraved to an officer who was later KiA. I would suggest the name relates to the owner rather than an official.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd've expected a rank and/or unit with the name. In most circumstances where there's a Broad Arrow, the actual owner would be the WD. 

[mark holden]

I have a variety of named officers kit which has from rank initial name and regiment through to just the initials. There was no convention it was up to the individual. I would go with Jools' research.

[MikB]

2 hours ago, mark holden said:

I have a variety of named officers kit which has from rank initial name and regiment through to just the initials. There was no convention it was up to the individual. I would go with Jools' research.

 

That's a useful clarification - thanks. Names seem pretty unusual on service issue (as distinct from private purchase) binoculars and even more so on telescopes IME. 

[Chef_Hendrix]

Not binoculars... But my Great Grandads Royal Scots ToS has his service number 49109 stamped on the inside

[Chasemuseum]

 

On 04/06/2019 at 02:07, MikB said:

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd've expected a rank and/or unit with the name. In most circumstances where there's a Broad Arrow, the actual owner would be the WD.  

Mike,

the ultimate owner may be WD but if the soldier (OR or Officer) to whom an item of kit cannot produce it when required or if it has been "illegally" modified (such as cutting great coats short due to the mud in the trenches) then they are required to pay for it.