Same Service Number

[WARFORUM]

I have been trying to find which Battalion of the Suffolk Regiment my Grandfather was in by his Service Number (Topic - Which Suffolk Regiment) and I have found three men's Medal Cards from the Suffolk Regiment with the same service number '40199'.

Is that normal as I thought they were unique to the individual, or is there a reason- Puzzled!

[Michelle Young]

Unique numbers didn’t come in until post Great War as far as I know 

[WARFORUM]

Thanks Michelle

[ss002d6252]

I would expect 40199 was in a sufficiently high range that it would be unique in the battalion (although most numbers weren't).

Who are the men?

Craig 

[Jim Strawbridge]

A bit of a jumble. Some battalions in some regiments were individually numbered so that there were as many identical service numbers as there were battalions. Some TF soldiers kept their service number when drafted into the regular army. With regards to Corps (R.F.A. R.G.A. and R.E. particularly) have much duplication presumably because each administration part had it's own issuance of numbers.

[WARFORUM]

15 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

I would expect 40199 was in a sufficiently high range that it would be unique in the battalion (although most numbers weren't).

Who are the men?

Craig 

The men are;

Lewis Parminter - Thomas C Hood and my Grandfather Harry Lofts

[kenf48]

Discussed previously on this thread:-

Parminter appears to have been Sussex Yeomanry posted to 1st Battalion Suffolk in Salonika so 4 or 6 digit Yeomanry number first:-

e.g. SDGW 40100 Chivers 1st Bn, formerly 3328 Suffolk Yeo

There is also a fragment on FMP that lists these Yeomanry men and allegedly comes from Part 2 Orders 3 Battalion Suffolk Regiment dated 29 October 1916

 

These are all Salonika men, no idea what 'K' means but apparently formerly Suffolk Yeomanry It is alphabetical so we can assume, if we could P..T..O.. the next one on this list is 40199 Parminter

I believe Lofts was in a draft to France from the 4th Reserve Battalion (4 digit number) and renumbered at the IBD in France, however he was renumbered again as the newspaper clipping shows and as evidenced by the original renumbering on surviving records struck through so apparently and admin. error.

This man was renumbered from the 4th (Reserve) Battalion (3832) on arrival in France,

his new number is struck through and he was renumbered 43963 which is written in the top right corner of the Army Form 103B, see below

 We know the Record Office issued blocks of numbers to the IBD for allocation in France (AO 204/16 & ACI 1499) so it would appear the problem began there, at Warley. The 1st was a regular Battalion, whereas the 9th was a Service Battalion

Pte Lofts was apparently renumbered 44018 as in press cutting on previous post. 

As for Thomas Hood he served with the 1st Battalion and was posted to Salonika on 15 September 1916 and then on to the 3 Royal Fusiliers on the 4th October when he was renumbered G/48259.  If the document above is from Part 2 Orders of the 29th October it looks like a bit of recycling at the Depot.

 

 

[PRC]

One thing to bear in mind with the Suffolk Regiment is the added potential for the number to actually refer to a man serving with with the Cambridgeshire Regiment.

The Cambridgeshire Regiment was an all Territorial Force Unit that was administratively aligned with the Suffolk Regiment, and the two Regiments maintained close ties. To add to the mix the Suffolk Regiment raised a wartime Battalion, the 11th (Service) Battalion (Cambridgeshire).

It crops up just often enough to be a nusance that a man will be referred to as serving with the 11th Bn Cambridgeshires, (there was no such unit), which then requires further investigation to see if he was 1/1st Battalion, Cambridgeshires or 11th Suffolks. A few years round I went round and round in circles as I found men with the same name and service number who died on the same day and had no known grave, who were remembered on two different memorials, one with the Suffolk Regiment and one with the Cambridgeshire. Neither had surviving service records and there was no obvious alternative candidate who accounted for the number with one of the regiments.

However I didn't think they got as far as the five digit 4xxxx numbers until I had a look at the MiC record in the National Archive catalogue for the Labour Corps numbers running on from Harry Lofts. I don't subscribe to FMP \ Ancestry so can't check out the service records.

593341 ex 40199 Suffolk Regiment, Harry Lofts.
593342 ex 18309 Suffolk Regiment, Thomas Hickford.
593344 ex 36913 Army Service Corps, Walter Atkins. Surviving service record.
593345 ex 41407 Cambridgeshire Regiment, Leonard A. Chapman. Surviving discharge record.
593346 ex 20576 Suffolk Regiment, Robert Ward.
593347 ex 18300 Suffolk Regiment, Frederick Hughes.
593348 ex 18059 Suffolk Regiment, Thomas Tweek. Surviving discharge record.
593350 ex 43243 Suffolk Regiment, Albert Mickleburgh.
593351 ex 201932 Suffolk Regiment, Thomas E. Turner.
593352 ex 15971 Suffolk Regiment, Leonard H. Barber.
593353 ex 9068 Suffolk Regiment, Frederick Ward.
593354 ex 23922 Suffolk Regiment, Thomas Clayden.

So potentially of the three men serving with the Suffolk Regiment with regimental number 40199, Thomas C Hood may have been a Cambridgeshire Regiment man.

Cheers,
Peter

[WARFORUM]

Thanks very much Peter