Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

tootrock

Location of War Diaries

Recommended Posts

tootrock

I am involved in a project to research a local War Memorial, and have encountered a couple of problems while looking for the respective War Diaries for the men.

Jemmett, Charles William. His grave marker states he was in the 5th Bn, The Buffs, but there appears to be no such Battalion (according to LLT)

Suters, George R, stated to be in the 2nd/1st Royal Fusiliers. What does this mean?

Martineau, Alfred John. 19th Heavy Siege Battery. Did siege batteries have War Diaries, and if so what would they be classified under (can't find them in TNA)

 

During the course of this research I have found a man who died on 15 August 1916, according to CWGC, but all his paperwork (Soldiers died, Soldiers effects,, Grave registration, Concentration, and Headstone) state 18 August 1916.  He is Harrod, Peter James, Royal Sussex, buried in Delville Wood Cemetery. Is this just a typo on the CWGC website, or is that what is on his headstone? Should I contact CWGC?

 

Any help welcomed.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEW

For issues like those for the Buffs and RF I would use TNA's 'discovery to see how they have numbered the battalion.

I suspect it will be 1/5 Buffs.

This should make life easier if looking for diaries on ancestry.

TEW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnboy

Suters, George R, stated to be in the 2nd/1st Royal Fusiliers. What does this mean?

Probably London Regiment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tootrock

Johnboy,

I realised it was the London Regiment (should have said), it is the 2nd/1st that confuses me. Or does it mean he was in the 2nd Battalion and then the 1st? MIC just says 1st.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr
3 hours ago, tootrock said:

19th Heavy Siege Battery. Did siege batteries have War Diaries,

Which is it?

19th Heavy Battery or 19th Siege Battery? They are different batteries.

Siege Batteries (and I assume  Heavy Batteries) kept individual diaries until 1917, after which, they were relieved of that responsibility.

Any record of the S & HBs from then on were recorded in the RGA Brigade/Heavy Artillery Group Diaries.

Having said that, S & HB diaries up to 1917 were often scanty and lacking in information.

And many (most?) have been lost or maybe never existed before.

 

You find out about the S & HB allocations to Brigades/HAGs from the document  at the National Archives WO95/5494, and then download the appropriate diary for the time frame you are interested in £3.50 a pop).

I can't access my copy at the moment, but I'm sure someone will kindly tell you who 19HB were attached to during the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
charlie962
15 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Which is it?

19th Heavy Battery or 19th Siege Battery? They are different batteries.

SIEGE

 

Here is a good write-up on the man Suusex People with a detailed list of sources and thanks to GWF !

 

Charlie

 

Edited by charlie962

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr
17 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I can't access my copy at the moment

Now I can:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr
18 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Which is it?

19th Heavy Battery or 19th Siege Battery?

 

6 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

SEIGE

Is that right?

B****r!

 

19th Heavy Battery

France 15/7/1915

20/7/1915   21 HAG

4/3/1916     17 HAG

27/4/1916    1 HAG

2/5/1916      16 HAG

29/7/1916     4 HAG

28/8/1917     29 HAG (joined 3/9/17)

1/10/1917     14 HAG

6/10/1917      92HAG

Moved to Italy 16/11/1917    joined 104 HAG

No subsequent change

 

[Heavy Artillery Brigades became Heavy Artillery Groups 2/4/1916

Heavy Artillery Groups became Heavy Artillery Brigades 17/12/1917]

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
charlie962
3 hours ago, tootrock said:

During the course of this research I have found a man who died on 15 August 1916, according to CWGC, but all his paperwork (Soldiers died, Soldiers effects,, Grave registration, Concentration, and Headstone) state 18 August 1916.  He is Harrod, Peter James, Royal Sussex, buried in Delville Wood Cemetery. Is this just a typo on the CWGC website, or is that what is on his headstone? Should I contact CWGC?

If you look at the Grave Registration Report on the CWGC site it says 18/8/16 which coincides with all other records you've seen. I suggest you ask CWGC to check their record for a typo !

 

Charlie

1 minute ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

B****r!

missing letters 'othe' (pronounced oath!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tootrock
2 hours ago, charlie962 said:

If you look at the Grave Registration Report on the CWGC site it says 18/8/16 which coincides with all other records you've seen. I suggest you ask CWGC to check their record for a typo !

Hi,

I did mention Grave Registration in my original post.

I have sent for a photo of his actual headstone, to see what that says, before contacting CWGC.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tootrock

jrmh

Thanks for that. I will contact CWGC abojut their apparent typo.

 

Others

Thanks for your input.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan24
11 hours ago, tootrock said:

jrmh

Thanks for that. I will contact CWGC abojut their apparent typo.

 

Others

Thanks for your input.

Martin

As I understand it from a few people, when the CWGC digitised their records, they used Optical Character Recognition (OCR) scanning resulting in quite a lot of errors.

 

Regards

Alan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tootrock

I have contacted CWGC, and they accept that the date should be 18/8/16, and they put it down to a scanning error. It will be corrected shortly.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
charlie962
On 01/12/2019 at 10:33, Alan24 said:

they used Optical Character Recognition (OCR) scanning resulting in quite a lot of errors.

Useful to know. Thanks

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...