Research enquiry

[andrew pugh]

Good Evening to you all

I was just doing some research on a chap belonging to the 19th Battalion Kings Liverpool Regiment Cpt G S Sutton while doing this I looked at the concentration Report and notice the following I will write it as it is written on the document. 

Plot1. Row H. Grave19. 3664 Unknown British Soldier. Means of Identification Identity Disc. My question is there is a number 3664 given, could this be his service number? And If he had an identity disc why is he unknown. Could the service number come up with a name?

Your Thoughts would be most welcome. 

Regards

Andy

[Chesterboy]

59 minutes ago, andrew pugh said:

Good Evening to you all

I was just doing some research on a chap belonging to the 19th Battalion Kings Liverpool Regiment Cpt G S Sutton while doing this I looked at the concentration Report and notice the following I will write it as it is written on the document. 

Plot1. Row H. Grave19. 3664 Unknown British Soldier. Means of Identification Identity Disc. My question is there is a number 3664 given, could this be his service number? And If he had an identity disc why is he unknown. Could the service number come up with a name?

Your Thoughts would be most welcome. 

Regards

Andy

Looking at the forms, I would say the number is a service number 

It’s is possible to give a number, 19 names on the CWGC database with that number and only 11 on memorials to the missing 

Possibly the number was the only thing they could see on the disc

 

[PRC]

1 hour ago, andrew pugh said:

My question is there is a number 3664 given, could this be his service number? And If he had an identity disc why is he unknown.

Almost certainly his service number. Looks like the individuals concerned may have been killed March 1918 and from the dates on the Burial reports it looks like they were exhumed and reburied some two and a half years later.

It's not clear from the Concentration Report whether these were 8 individuals recovered from a common grave, (with possibly more on the preceding page), or recovered from the same 50 yard by 50 yard map reference, the bodies perhap still then lying on the battlefield. The state of the bodies would have probably left little to work with. The fact that there is no question marks about the number would seem to indicate that the service number being four digits are correct and that all of it has survived relatively unscathed.

My understanding is that the Imperial War Graves Commission would have worked with the Army to try and identify the individuals who might have died in the general area. But that will only be as good as the information known - in the chaos of retreats like that from Mons or in the German Spring Offensive men could end up anywhere. What we don't know if whether the IWGC got every service number associated with the men who was missing - if this was an old tag that was found with the body that could have been an older number from much earlier in their service. You have only to look at Concentration Reports for Territorial Force men in the opening months of 1917 to find examples where they were identified from tags showing their old numbers.

Which knocks on to another issue. If a single tag was found, not clearly in an area of the body where it would be expected, then there is the possibility that it doesn't even belong to that individual. They may have collected it from the dead man in order to report the death, leaving one tag still attached to the body. They may then have been killed themselves. So if for instance a body was subsequently found with a single ID tag round his neck with service number 3664 and another body was found with a loose ID tag with service number 3664 somewhere about their remains then I suspect I know which one would be credited with the associated name.

It does make you wonder how many men identified from spoons, bits of boot and groundsheets have indeed been correctly named! Having said which some fantastic work was done by the IWGC - I've even come across the odd instance of dental records being used. But there were no computers to make cross-referencing easier and near instantaneous and what they gained from comtemporary knowledge could also be a handicap - when the "everyone knows" stuff turns out to be a complete load of tosh.

Cheers,
Peter

[andrew pugh]

Hi Chesterboy and Peter, sorry for the late reply.

Thank you both for the information you have given. I will look into this a bit more. Once again thank you both.

Regards

Andy

[chaz]

On 03/12/2022 at 21:24, Chesterboy said:

Looking at the forms, I would say the number is a service number 

It’s is possible to give a number, 19 names on the CWGC database with that number and only 11 on memorials to the missing 

Possibly the number was the only thing they could see on the disc

 

just a thought, I wonder if anyone is already researching any of the soldiers listed as missing with that number.

may pay to post in one of the other two areas as this one is for cemeteries and memorials, maybe a mod can move it to avoid duplication.

[JMB1943]

Andy,

You have named him as Cpt GS Sutton.

If directly commissioned as an officer, he would not have had a number.

If commissioned from the ranks, he would have had his original regimental number issued upon enlistment.

Perhaps that might help to eliminate some of the 19 candidates.

Or, should I infer that 19 candidates implies OR’s not officers, and that Cpt should be Cpl?

Regards,

JMB