Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Albert Dale. 7th Battalion, East Yorks or 175th Tunnelling Coy?


KernelPanic

Recommended Posts

I’m researching a soldier in the 7th Battalion of the East Yorks. His service record appears to say that he was attached to the 175th Coy in September 1915.

I’ve searched around to see if I can find out whether this Coy refers to the 7th, and if so whether it is A, B, C, or D Coy in the WDs, but with no luck. Am I thinking this through correctly? 

Thanks

 

AD.jpg

Edited by KernelPanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the RE reference, but dismissed a link between them and the 175th Coy because it looks like Royal Engineers had been crossed out, so I assumed an error.

Here's another reference to the 175th Coy elsewhere in the service record.

I'm definitely a novice reading these things, so any thoughts gratefully received.

 

untitled.jpg

Edited by KernelPanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think EDWARDI is correct.  Attaching infantry men to RE tunnelling companies as fatigue (carrying) parties was common. These are typical of the various fatigue duties that battalions carried out.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to you both.

 

Now I have to try and figure out if he was transferred back to the East Yorks. There doesn't seem to be an entry to that effect in the record. But the bleed-through from the typing on an adjacent page makes the line between the two red boxes in my first post (and elsewhere on that page) very difficult to read. Quite a puzzle.

 

One more question if I might. Any thoughts on what the '2nd Army letter No. A/1118' etc. would have been? Was this an order authorizing the transfer?

Edited by KernelPanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KernelPanic said:

Thanks to you both.

 

Now I have to try and figure out if he was transferred back to the East Yorks. There doesn't seem to be an entry to that effect in the record. But the bleed-through from the typing on an adjacent page makes the line between the two red boxes in my first post (and elsewhere on that page) very difficult to read. Quite a puzzle.

 

One more question if I might. Any thoughts on what the '2nd Army letter No. A/1118' etc. would have been? Was this an order authorizing the transfer?


It’s not a “transfer”, but a short period of attachment on duty.  It was quite usual to return to the parent unit after a period of time.  To transfer is to move permanently to a new unit and then wear its insignia.  It involved significant administrative processing, usually a change of records office and the issue of new insignia.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the correct meanings of the lingo is obviously important. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I found what seems like a confirming entry in the 175th Coy WD. 

17/8 1915. '100 Infantry from 17th and 46th Divisions were attached for unskilled work.'

Now I'll see if I can find a return entry in an appropriate WD.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I’m trying to clarify the sequence of units where Albert Dale served. His service record is intact, but quite difficult to read in places because of bleed-through or deterioration.

 

His service numbers are: 7218 (7 E. Yorks), then 53521 (2 York & Lancs),

 

Here’s what I have so far:

 

He entered France on the 13th of July 1915 with the 7th East Yorkshire Battalion, 50th Brigade, 17th Division. About a month later he was attached to the 175 Tunnelling Coy, Royal Engineers. The attachment date is unreadable on his record, but the WD of the 175 Coy records ‘100 infantry from the 17th and 46th Divisions were attached for unskilled work’ on the 17th of August. 

 

At this point his record becomes confusing. It appears to say that he was then ‘Transferred’ to the 175 Coy on the 27th of August. But parts of these entries are lined out. The word ‘Error’ appears a little further up the record, but it’s not clear whether it refers to the Royal Engineers entry or a Field Punishment No. ?? entry that also seems to have been lined out. I can’t find other references to the Royal Engineers elsewhere in his record.

 

A later sequence of entries documents a ‘medical issue’ in late March/early April 1917. The evacuation line was the 53 Field Ambulance (a 17 Div. unit), 2 Corps Rest Station, and 4 CCS, which at the time was in Varennes, NE of Albert. He ended up in the 51 General Hospital, Etaples.

 

The problem here lies with the geography. At the time of his March 1917 evacuation in the Somme area, the 175 Tunnelling Coy appears have been in the south east part of the Salient. Their WD is somewhat sketchy in terms of location, but their work records show nothing in the Somme area at this time.

 

The next entries on his service page show June 1918 postings to Depot and to the 3rd, I presume, East Yorks Battalion, which was a training unit in England. At this time Albert had been in England recovering from gas poisoning. Again, his casualty record seems to have the 53 FA involved, along with, possibly, the 48the CCS (Ytres). The175 Tunnelling Coy WD is missing for this period. After returning to France in June 1918 he was transferred to the 2 York and Lancaster, and was KIA in September 1918.

 

So my question is, did Albert serve in the 175 Tunnelling Coy beyond his 1915 attachment, or was this a short term thing after which he returned back to the 7th East Yorks? The casualty evidence suggests he did not serve, but there's no evidence of a return to the 7 East Yorks. In that case, was the transfer entry an error? 

 

The chances are that I have some of this confused and/or missed something, but figuring it out makes a big difference to understanding where Albert was for 1916 and early 1917.

 

Thanks.
 

Ancestry/Fold3

 

Dale 1.jpg

Dale 2.jpg

Albert Dale service record 2 edit.jpg

Edited by KernelPanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

still primarily 2 threads on the same topic

 

Simon

Edited by mancpal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I'll ask the mods to merge. 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the word "Transferred" has been crossed through it looks like the word 'attached' is written above it.

 

So effectively looks like you get two very similar statements.

 

"attached to 175 Coy R????  date 18.8.1915"

 

"attached to 175 Coy (Authy 2nd Army Letter No. A/1118 V.A. 1580 d/. 28.9.1915) date 27.9.1915"

 

For now that doesn't help you with when they came back.

 

Perhaps some whizz with Photoshop could take out the worst of the leached through lettering which might make some of the other bits decipherable.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

image.png.4cfbb69b0b7617113b21aa0f3db74823.png

Image sourced from Findmypast

 

16 hours ago, KernelPanic said:

About a month later he was attached to the 175 Tunnelling Coy, Royal Engineers. The attachment date is unreadable on his record

 

Looking at it with a bit of a squint, I think that it might read as "18/8/1915"

 

17 hours ago, KernelPanic said:

So my question is, did Albert serve in the 175 Tunnelling Coy beyond his 1915 attachment, or was this a short term thing after which he returned back to the 7th East Yorks? The casualty evidence suggests he did not serve, but there's no evidence of a return to the 7 East Yorks. In that case, was the transfer entry an error? 

 

The chances are that I have some of this confused and/or missed something, but figuring it out makes a big difference to understanding where Albert was for 1916 and early 1917.

 

I didn't see a specific date in his file as to when he returned to his Battalion. However, at the very latest I presume that it must have been before 5th August 1916, for him to have received 7 days Field Punishment No. 1, as reported by the "OC Battn".

 

Edit:

 

I agree with Peter.

 

image.png.18eb12792141ac0c1ae812a8dbdff785.png

Image sourced from Findmypast

 

I think that reads as 'Attached to 175th Coy RE with effect...….18.8.1915'. In the entry following that, whilst "Royal Engineers" and "Transferred" has been struck through, the word "attached" has been inserted, leaving it to read as "attached to 175 Coy (authority....)

 

image.png.a0ca07c39e547c1a57abc2c26640a8be.png

Image sourced from Findmypast

 

Regards

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Chris’s excellent interpretation.  The word ‘transferred’ had been misused and so was struck through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris, Peter, Frogsmile. Your interpretations definitely make sense. But still, questions remain, as always.

 

Any thoughts on what the 'Error' note refers to? The lined out Field Punishment in July 1915 seems the most likely.

 

I'd like to pin it down the date of Albert's return to the 7th East Yorks in the context of where he was in June/July 1916. I take it from Frogsmile's comments earlier in the thread, and the entry in the 175 Tunnelling Coy WD, that his attachment in 1915 was for "unskilled work", perhaps implying he was of little value to the 175 Tunnelling Coy beyond general fatigue duties. 

 

Would this suggest only a short term attachment for a specific need by the 175 Coy at that time?

Would these types of troop attachments/re-attachments be recorded by the 17th Divisional Quarter-Master? Or were they too trivial (if that's the right word) for a record at that level?

 

The 7th East Yorks was part of the July 1st action to take Fricourt, and I'm wondering whether Albert was there or not. He seems to have been back with the 7 East Yorks by August 6th when he received the FP No 1. The Battalion WD indicates they were engaged in Montauban Alley at that time. What sort of indiscipline might that have been for? Is it a punishment that would have been administered in front line trenches? Seems like a soldier undergoing FP 1 would have been a huge liability at the front line.


Finally, am I correct in thinking that the FMP images are better quality than the ones I got from Ancestry/Fold3? Chris's images certainly look like they are better candidates for more photoshopping. I'll try and get a copy of his record from FMP next time they have a freebie.

 

OK, too many questions, so I'll stop here.

Thanks again. Much appreciated.

Edited by KernelPanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...