eviltaxman Posted 26 March , 2005 Share Posted 26 March , 2005 I've aquired another SWB to a "Turner" but his SWB papers state he was a member of 40 Coy RGA. I've checked TLLT, but there's no definate answer to my question - that I can see anyway. Can anyone out there let me know if they actually left the British shores after Aug 1914, as his entry on the roll states, enlisted December 1895 & discharged December 1917, aged 43 years & 8 months - KR para 2d, & para 392 (xvi). I initially thought he'd left due to age, but there's several on the list a lot younger and from different companies for the same reason. I'm assuming 40 Coy were a training battery - given his age and probable experience! It also states that he never went overseas. Everyone else on the list were members of seige batteries. Cheers, Les. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 26 March , 2005 Share Posted 26 March , 2005 Les, Generally RGA Companies were coastal defence outfits. At the start of the war these units were scoured to form the cadre for other new batteries which eventually went overseas. Those too old or in ill health were left with the original company either on coastal defence or training/depot duties. In this particular case a war diary exists at the NA which would normally indicate some overseas service. 40 Company RGA Hope this helps Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 26 March , 2005 Share Posted 26 March , 2005 During the Great War 40 Company, RGA (along with 46 Company, RGA and one company of Kent RGA TF) formed the RGA Garrison for the Defended Port of Dover. The personnel of these companies manned the guns that defended the port, consisting of five 9.2 inch, six 6 inch, and 5 - 12 pdr guns. I would guess that most of the personnel were men who were too old, or medically unfit, to serve overseas. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviltaxman Posted 26 March , 2005 Author Share Posted 26 March , 2005 Roop/Dick Thanks guys. I was never too sure about the RGA/RFA/RHA etc.... but this info would make sense. His SWB roll states he never went overseas, so it'll be interesting to suss out the Kings Regs on this one. Thanks again, Les. Just checked on TLLT - KR 392 xvi states -- "No longer physically fit for service". More than likely due to his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 26 March , 2005 Share Posted 26 March , 2005 Les wrote: KR para 2d, & para 392 (xvi) KR, para 392 xvi = no longer fit for war service. At home: A soldier found medically unfit to re-engage and any man discharged for insanity, irrespective of his length of service, will be dealt with under this heading. KR, para 2 does not have a subsection "d". Regards. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviltaxman Posted 26 March , 2005 Author Share Posted 26 March , 2005 A soldier found medically unfit to re-engage and any man discharged for insanity, irrespective of his length of service, will be dealt with under this heading.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know I've been a bit of a looney over the years... this explains everything Les King of the Flowerpot Men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviltaxman Posted 26 March , 2005 Author Share Posted 26 March , 2005 Dick, I'm not sure in which context the "para 2d" is, but here's a scan of the roll. Les. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now