Service numbers

[The_Historian]

Hi,

Anyone able to suggest a good starting point for the thorny subject of regimental numbers? I have the basics(i think), but have no idea of blocks allocated and to whom.

Regards,

Gordon Wilkie

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Hi,

As my very good friend JB (Jock Bruce) pointed out to me recently, when Territorial units were re-numbered circa 1916, the various number allocations are recorded in document WO 329/5 at the PRO Kew.

Good luck.

Ian

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Gordon

I would also like to know more about the subject of regimental numbers, I have some Idea with the K.S.L.I., for example if someone said they were researching a K.S.L.I. man and his No. was 9867, I would be able to say he was a pre-war Regular, or if his No. was 12374, I could say he was a Kitchener and 6th Battalion BUT then saying that, there are sometimes, when info. comes to me that does not fit in with my thinking and makes me wonder if I am right, also I not 100% sure were the Pre-war Regulars end and the Kitcheners start on so on.

I have noticed several posts about the subject but no-one as come up with a full answer yet ? To me it seems that each Regiment had its own system ?

Regards

Annette

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Annette,

That's why I ended my post with the words 'good luck'!

Ian

[pbrydon]

I am sure if anybody was to give details of their own research on regimental numbers especially for specific regiments there would be a great deal of interest.

Peter Brydon

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Ian

I did not mean you, I started to write my post before you posted yours I'am a slow typer at times and was trying to think what I wanted to say, I was just trying to say that there had been several posts on the subject but no full answer on the whole

Hi Peter

I have not researched Regt. Numbers themselfs but over the years have been able to spot the different group like Terriers, Regulars and Kitcheners but if anyone does take on research into Regt. No. then I do not mind passing on my observations of the K.S.L.I. numbers.

Regards

Annette

[jhill]

Good luck to anyone researching regimental numbers, and please let us know how you are getting along. Everyone must have some stories about frustrations they have had.

As an example you may perform the following demonstration with Canadian numbers. Regimental numbers in the Canadian Expeditionary Force were and improvement over the British model in that there was a single sequence of numbers for all soldiers. Thus each man had one and only one number.

Now go to the admirable computer index of the National Archives of Canada and type in "1" to find out who was the first soldier enlisted. Out will come a list of eleven (11) men with regimental number "1" !!

[mordac]

Hi James:

Broznitsky has pointed me in the direction of a book that details the blocks of numbers allocated to battalions in the CEF. The book also provides information on the dispersion of troops to the 48 active battalions on the Western Front.

'A Call To Arms' by David Love, 1999 ($40 CDN). I managed to find and order a copy on the Internet.

Thanks Broz for tossing me that lifeline!

Garth

[Paul Reed]

Regimental numbers in the Canadian Expeditionary Force were and improvement over the British model in that there was a single sequence of numbers for all soldiers. Thus each man had one and only one number.

Now go to the admirable computer index of the National Archives of Canada and type in "1" to find out who was the first soldier enlisted. Out will come a list of eleven (11) men with regimental number "1" !!

That's not entirely true, as you found out by asking for '1' - the original CEF battalions and some sub-units (eg CAMC, CFA, CASC etc) seemed to have repeated number patterns, as was common in the British Army at that time. Thus there are several (?many) CEF men with the same number - this seems to have been abandoned at some early stage in the war and the 'unique' system introduced.

There were patterns to numbers in the British army, and a soldier's regimental number normally directly related to his date of enlistment or transfer.

There is a new edition of Howard Williamson's Researching Soldiers of the First World War (or similar title) coming out later this year, and this subject will be covered.

[jhill]

That's not entirely true, as you found out by asking for '1' - the original CEF battalions and some sub-units (eg CAMC, CFA, CASC etc) seemed to have repeated number patterns, as was common in the British Army at that time. Thus there are several (?many) CEF men with the same number - this seems to have been abandoned at some early stage in the war and the 'unique' system introduced.

Alas! I fear things may not be this simple. (Not that it is that simple!). I have seen examples which are fairly obvious transcription errors and perhaps pure poor handwriting which resulted in two or more men's Attestation Papers bearing the same number. Unfortunately there were no computers or check digits in those days so errors could perhaps have coasted along indefinitely.

However you are correct is stating that there were some units using repeating patterns. For example, the Royal Canadian Regiment, as the only pre-war Canadian infantry regiment, had its own set of numbers. However, the Canadian Expeditionary Force was an entirely new legal entity, and all the RCR men had to be re-attested before going overseas. Of course, this provided opportunity for confusion as to which number to use.

In short, the number situation seems to me to be a mixture of Byzantine administrative practice and clerical error, but how much of each is something I shall have to learn over time.

Thanks very much!

[Broznitsky]

I think a major point to add is that although you can generally rely on the NAC database, there are many transcription errors in names and some errors in numbers. Careful examination of the on-line image combined with a study of the service file is really the only sure way to go, supported by all the other ephemera and detail material you can acquire.

And don't forget the attestation papers can contain outright lies, misrepresentations, and honest mistakes, created by both the man you are studying and the diverse fellows who may have worked on various parts of his form.

Cheers, Garth, don't go blind when you get David "small font" Love's book!!

Peter

[Joe Sweeney]

Alas! I fear things may not be this simple. (Not that it is that simple!). I have seen examples which are fairly obvious transcription errors and perhaps pure poor handwriting which resulted in two or more men's Attestation Papers bearing the same number. Unfortunately there were no computers or check digits in those days so errors could perhaps have coasted along indefinitely.

However you are correct is stating that there were some units using repeating patterns. For example, the Royal Canadian Regiment, as the only pre-war Canadian infantry regiment, had its own set of numbers. However, the Canadian Expeditionary Force was an entirely new legal entity, and all the RCR men had to be re-attested before going overseas. Of course, this provided opportunity for confusion as to which number to use.

In short, the number situation seems to me to be a mixture of Byzantine administrative practice and clerical error, but how much of each is something I shall have to learn over time.

Thanks very much!

Jhill,

The duplication of CEF numbers was common in 1914.

Only those units mobilized at Valcartier were given sequential numbers in 1914. Those units mobilized outside Valcartier had their own sequences of numbers and there were a lot of these, mostly small medical and CASC units. These may or may not have been renumbered when the Army wide block system was established.

This problem was not rectified until the publication of the "Canadian Expeditionary Force, Instructions Governing Organization and Administration" was published in early 1915 by the Canadian Government. In this document instructions were issued to newly forming CEF units to apply for blocks of numbers. Later number blocks were allocated to districts.

Joe Sweeney

[The_Historian]

Hi,

Thanks to all who wrote, at least I have SOME idea of where to start!

Regards,

Gordon

[Jock Bruce]

Just a bit more on WO 329/5.

This is one of the bound volumes of Army COuncil Instructions, in this case covering Jul-Dec 16. The are 2 ACIs publsihed in late 16 which set out the new numbering system for TF infantry and TF RE. Each gives a complete list of the blocks of 6 digit numbers allocated to each infantry battalions and RE unit respectively. The change of RE numbers was to be effective 1 Jan 17, that for infantry by (I think) 31 Mar 17.

I have a vague idea there is also one covering TF artillery.

These apart I'm not aware of any Army-wide system before the 20s - I think you have to study each regiment individually and, as others have noted, just when you think you've cracked it you find something that knocks over your house of cards.

JB