Multiple Service Numbers

[gdc]

Could anyone please explain the multiple issue of service numbers please. I have been researching members of the Royal Garrison Artillery listed in a diary from 1917. While researshing the numbers in "Find My Past"  I have found several entries containing several issues of the same number referanced in the WO 363 Burnt Records

Leonard John Chinn                 145877        Royal Garrison Artillery                         

Ernest Muir                              145877         King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry(perhaps transfered to the Medical Corps below)                                                                                       

Ernest Muir                             145877          Royal Army Medical Corps   Ernest James Thompson         145877        Royal Engineers   https://www.findmypast.com/search/results?datasetname=british army service records&servicenumber=145877&sid=999 Also    Donald White                         163548        Royal Garrison Artillery    William Henry Wall                 163548        Labour Corps     https://www.findmypast.com/search/results?datasetname=british army service records&servicenumber=163548&sid=999   Could any one explain this please . I am sure there is a simple explanation.   Thanks for All   GDC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Until 1921 or thereabouts, each individual regiment had its own numbering system. So for a low number, eg 12345 there are 81 names in the Ancestry MIC list. The system was then updated to introduce a unique 7 digit number that eventually had no relationship to the soldier's regiment.

Edit. In fact, each battalion of regiments  would re-used the same number - just search 1234 London Regiment.

Edited 21 February , 2022 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[gdc]

Thanks for the reply.

          I am still not sure about the numbering system.

Are you saying that if each regiment was issued with a block of numbers as required .

Did the soldier keep his number if he was transfered to another corps/regiment or after he was

declaied fit to return to the "front" after say a wound but not necessarily to his original unit?

Thanks

GDC

[ss002d6252]

Each infantry regiment was originally self-contained for numbering.  To (grossly) simplify it-

The 1st and 2nd battalions (regulars) had typically shared a range of numbers starting at #1 and then running in sequence from there.

The 4th, 5th, 6th etc (territorial) each had their own individual numbering range starting at #1.

The 3rd battalion (special reserve) may have had their own, or shared with the 1st & 2nd Bns.

So, in a regiment, you could have #1 of 1st Bn, #1 of 3rd Bn, #1 of the 4th Bn etc etc, all at the same time.

When a man moved regiments (and sometimes even within a regiment) he was typically issued with a new service number.

Craig

[gdc]

Thanks Craig,

                    So was his service number was allocated to another man if he was transfered ?

                                        GDC

[battle of loos]

good morning,

I have the same problem with this spoon that I found in the field.
It remains to be seen then if one of them passed to this place.

Wm H A Wray
1 Rw Kents, Machine Gun Corps 5769, 1437 58    

E Wookey
Royal East Kent Yeomanry (The Duke of Connaught's Own) (Mount Rifles), Royal Air Force 1793, 1437 58    

William W Pritchard
Labour Corps 1437 58    

Edward Park
Royal Engineers 1437 58    

William Aspin
Royal Army Medical Corps 1437 58    

Charles S Cutbrush
Royal Garrison Artillery 1437 58

regards

michel

[ss002d6252]

8 minutes ago, gdc said:

 

                    So was his service number was allocated to another man if he was transfered ?

Yes and no.

The number wasn't allocated to another man but when the number sequence reached a certain point, it rolled back to #1. In most cases, the original holder of the number would be long gone by the time it came around again.

Craig

[charlie962]

33 minutes ago, gdc said:

Thanks Craig,

                    So was his service number was allocated to another man if he was transfered ?

                                        GDC

No.

But it is a minefield. Eg:

Remember also that the RGA had is own numbering system separate to the RHA/RFA so if a man moved either way he would change number. What really makes it confusing is that sometimes these new numbers were issued but because it was only a temporary arrangement you may not see that number recorded on any surviving records and the man may have moved back and picked up his old number. I have this with a number of RGA Regular men in India who were sent to Mesopotamia in 1915 or 16 and posted to RHA or RFA units as reinforcements. They were issued new numbers. Those who fell sick or were wounded and thus repatriated permanently to India generally reverted back to the RGA, picked up their old RGA numbers, and unless they have a surviving service record it is very difficult to be sure whether one is looking at the same man or two different people.

As for the Territorial Force, that is  specialist area in itself! The LongLongTrail has some very helpful articles on renumbering. 

Best thing to do is ask a specific question about a man and learn from the responses.

Charlie 

Ps As a suggestion, when searching near numbers on FindmyPast I always put in keyword 'garrison artillery' or if I can be bothered, regiment as 'Royal Garrison Artillery'.

Do look at the dates because even the 5 figure number sequences repeated more than once in the Artillery given its vast number of men in WW1.

 

 

Edited 21 February , 2022 by charlie962

[gdc]

Thanks again Craig and Charlie

                      I find all this all both facinating and confusing but I am understanding more and more,

what with Armies, Corps, HeavyArtillery Groups , RGA,RFA, Numbering etc .I am just trying to put together some events of 1917

and find that the Australian records are quite interesting in this respect. I even have traced some events by process of

elimination from very sketchy information about location and actions.

I am getting there I think....Very Slowley

Thanking you both  your kind attention and knowledge

  Graham

 

[charlie962]

1 minute ago, gdc said:

what with Armies, Corps, HeavyArtillery Groups ,

Lots of old threads on this forum about this subject.

As I said, don't hesitate to ask specific questions as there are some real experts lurking on RGA matters. It is often much harder to give you a concise answer to a general question because there are always exceptions and the system evolved as lessons were learned (thank goodness).

Charlie

[ss002d6252]

6 minutes ago, gdc said:

I am getting there I think....Very Slowley

We all are.

Craig

[gdc]

Thanks

   I will investigate this " long road" for knowledge,

I have been doing it on and off for several years now and even visited places which have given me insparation

to continue the story ,visiting  small museums in France and meeting  a French and German artillery historian 

who is now working on English artillery.

         Sorry I cannot help with the "Loos" spoon

                  Regards

                              Graham

[Gingerfreak]

As everyone else has said, the numbers change. I'm researching a TF Infantry Battalion from 1900 to 1922. Part of that process is to research the 1915 medal rolls. I'm also researching the 44th RFA Brigade. 

Regarding Service numbers up until 1908. 

The posts from Charlie22 and ss002d6252 are really good sources of info for you. To expand on ss002's post. The artillery, the RFA (Regular) in particular used the numbers 1 -99,999. Once that number was reached the number reverted back to 1. To give you an example:

Driver L. Tennant - Joined the RFA on 12th Nov 1913 - Service number 75012, his brother and brother in law enlisted into the RFA (Regulars) in  August 1914, thier numbers are 4920 and 4922.  What I have found is that the regular service numbers were cyclic. By 1914 there were two cycles of numbers in operation. By 1915, there were three. So it's possible to have three men with the same number, in the same Corps. However, its more likely that there would be two.  

Another factor to consider is the reservists. RFA attestation paperwork for Regulars stated that a man served for 6 years with the regulars and then a further six years on the reserves. (This could be changed to 7 and 5 etc). When a reservist was called up he retained his number. 

This last bit is to do with the infantry, the TF and the Boer war. It may have happened to the artillery but I have no evidence to back this up. As with all Infantry, the Volunteers (later TF) where allocated a service number. The Volunteers (and TF) were for home service duties only. They had to Volunteer for foreign service. When they were selected to go to South Africa as a Volunteer Company/battalion, they were allocated another service number. When they returned from active service, they went back to thier old service number. I've found service records for TF men that go back to the Boer war and these changes in the numbering can be seen.  

Finally, with regards Charlie22 post on Mesopotamia, i believe that the RGA was considered as a seperate entity from the RHA and RFA. If you look at the military documentation that's left the RHA/RFA are often together. The RGA is seperate. If men were originally in the RFA and then posted into the RGA, the RGA would give them RGA numbers. I believe that these would have been a sort of semi permanent number. Permanent if they stayed with the RGA and not if they went back to the RFA. Just thinking out loud, I think this happened to a lot of signallers and auxillieries with the RFA rather than the actual gun teams themselves. 

Sorry for the size of the post, force of habit from researching.

Hope this helps.

 

[gdc]

Just seen this --Thanks.

   I saw your comment regarding the RHA/RFA/RGA (last paragraph) and would seem this is correct as the people I was researching are mentioned as RFA which tie in with the verbal history from my grandfather, a signaller/observer who was gassed in November 1917 and where his war ended but survived .

He had mentioned that his RGA battery seemed to be made up from both RHA and RFA gunners but been unable to discover yet his full story as it would seem the records are in the "Burnt service records" WO363 at PRO Kew,(must make another visit to view) although I have the war diary for his battery but does not really have much details about gunners or casualties around this time.

Regards

     Graham

[ss002d6252]

4 minutes ago, gdc said:

yet his full story as it would seem the records are in the "Burnt service records" WO363 at PRO Kew,(must make another visit to view)

All burnt records should be on FMP and Ancestry.

Craig

[charlie962]

The Horse and Field artillery batteries had to be more mobile than Garrison with their heavier guns. This might have had an impact on reason for transfers.

The Mespot examples I gave were the other way round and that was more an exercise in combing out the fitter from the Garrison Btys in India and sending them to Garrison, Field or even Horse Btys in Mespot. I noted a number were old soldier's with previous service to the RGA in the Cavalry so they could adapt pretty quickly to the RHA.