BottsGreys Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 Hello: Below is a image of Sapper Frank Tunnicliff of 38 Clifford Street, Wilmorton, Derby, in 1917. A check of his MIC shows that he was: 2244 Royal Scots, 35208 Notts & Derby, 268937 Royal Engineers (Sapper), and WR 203286 Royal Engineers. Forum Pal Andrew Hesketh has suggested that the Royal Scots may have been his initial unit because of the low number and then he moved on to the Notts & Derby perhaps upon being wounded. Would anyone be privy to the service number ranges of the various units in which he served in order that the battalions in which he served and (hopefully) a timeline could be established as to his service? Thank you in advance for your consideration of this inquiry, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 The RE number 268937 would be some time during 1917, with the WR/203286 probably being later when the Waterways and Railways was set up a s a seperate section of the Royal Engineers. The 2244 number would be a pre-1917 TF number. He was probably not 5th or 9th Battalions as the 2244 number for those battalions have been used by two other soldiers - Robert Sinclair (2244/250487) and James D Clark (2244/350471) That just leaves 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th Battalions TF! I would say this order: Royal Scots 2244 (pre-1917) Notts & Derby 35208 (date ?) RE 268937 (mid-1917) RE WR/203286 (1917-1918) The fact that he is in "Hospital blues" in his picture means that he was wounded/gassed/sick at least once in that lot. What cap badge is that? Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brown Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 The badge looks like Royal Engineers? Living at Wilmorton the huge Derby locomotive works was right on his doorstep. I would take a guess that that was where he worked pre war and with his previous experience that was why he transferred to Waterways and Railways (RE) - just a guess. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brown Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 I add this just for interest, a bit of a coincidence? The name "Tunnicliffe, Frank .. Leicesters" appeared on the memorial for St Andrews Church, Derby. I never saw the memorial but saw a photocopy so the original may have been paper or a card that people could buy ?? It listed 4 killed, and so many - wounded, but also the parishioners who were in the armed forces. St Andrews Church used to stand on London Road, Derby , virtually outside of the Locomotive works and and about half a mile from Clifford Street, Wilmorton. Just for info. Stuart Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 Chris - further to our other communications, I suspect strongly that he would have been 12th battalion (pioneers) in the SF, not 16th or 17th as I originally suggested. I'll carry on fiddling with the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dycer Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 In view of Andrew's comments re Pioneers there is a temptation to suggest the 8th Royal Scots which was a Pioneer Battalion. I have limited Numbers allocated to the 8th Royal Scots(DCM awards) and the Numbers range from 646 to 8629. Unfortunately there are no names in the 2200 range.The nearest is 1637 Pte.W.Herd. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 Steve, are you saying that every battalion of the Royal Scots would have had a 2244? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dycer Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 Andrew, Prior to renumbering in 1917 individual Royal Scots TF Battalions used the same Numbers starting at 1. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 That's a bit of a bummer for researchers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 His original RE number probably pre-dates 1917. There appears to have been renumbering of the Inland Water Transport and Docks in 1917 and at a guess his original number probably was issued the previous year. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dycer Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 Andrew, I know For example my Uncle went to France in November 1914 with the 1/8th Royal Scots and his Number was 20.He was killed March 1918 whilst still serving with the Battalion and his 6 Figure Number was 325002.The rhetorical problem. He has another Number, 4208.There is no suggestion he changed Battalion as a result of wounds,etc but something happened to give him this additional number.Unfortunately his Papers do not survive so all I can say, from his Medals, that he served with the Royal Scots from his pre-War TF enlistment until his death. Serious point.Have you seen the explanatory? information on the researching Soldiers Site about the 1917 TF renumbering exercise. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 Andrew, Not so bad because a lot of the TF battalions renumbered in the same order of the old numbers. e.g. provided numbers 2241 to 2250 didn't get discharged, die, etc. the would become 247541 to 247550 for example. Depending on the number of TF battalions in the Regiment (the Royal Scots had a lot, as for the Londons, sheese) you can match up early numbers with missing later numbers and vice versa. Of course, if it were a regiment like the Northamptonshires with only the 4th Battalion as TF, easy! As for 2244s The 1st and 2nd Battalion would have had a joint series. 2244 would probably have been allocated in the mid-1880s and therfore the men with these numbers would nearly all be retired (barring the numbers "rolling round" when they reached 9999 or 19999. The New Armies continued using the Regular series and the sky was the limit for high numbers. The TF battalions would all have had a number series (though the 1/4th, 2/4th, etc. would all be from the same series). The re-numbering (barring the retention of old militia numbers) would have started in 1908. The combination of starting in 1908 and only having one battalion to allocate to is why the pre-1917 numbers are all usually so low. I don't understand the Reserve numbering very well, but if LangleyBaston19141918 stops talking to himself, he will explain it to me again. With a hammer, if necessary. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 George / Steve, It's at moments like this, when I'm beginning to believe that I'm getting a handle on the complexities of this numbering business, that I am reminded that I know bu**er all. Yes I'm aware of the page on the main site - a very useful document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 SDGW search of SF 5 digit numbers beginning with 35 > these battalions 1st = 7 2nd = 8 3rd = 1 2/5th = 1 2/6th = 1 1/8th = 1 2/8th = 1 10th = 3 11th = 6 12th = 1 14th = 1 15th = 7 16th = 3 17th = 6 No pattern at all is there? He could have been in any battalion, even the territorials despite the fact that his number is not 'classic' territorial.However given his evident engineering skills I would say that the 12th battalion would have been most likely. The only thing for certain is that it's not an early SF number. The earliest death date for 35*** numbers is 26 November 1915 and there's only two in total pre-Somme 1916. I can pin number 30346 to an enlistment date in August 1915 and 41472 to February 1916. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottsGreys Posted 28 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 28 February , 2006 Thanks to everyone for their very knowlegible contributions. I appreciate your giving me an image of Tunnicliff's probable service and sharing insights regarding the regimental numberings. Chris 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