What is a "regimental number"?

[derwisj]

Hello,

on the dutch forum there is a discussion about the possibility of two men having the same regimental number; is it possible that two or more soldiers have the same number, if they serve in a different regiment?

And what is the difference between regimental number and service number?

Is it possible that the numbering system changed later in the war?

thanks,

pascal

[Graham Stewart]

Pascal,

Welcome. It's easier for me to post this from Kings Regulations for the Army 1912, rather than explain "Regimental Numbering", but basically each regiment or corps were given a series of numbers to use and these were given to a man on enlistment. There are some peculiarities especially when it comes to the Special Reserve and Territorial Force and more than one man can end up with same number.

Up until 1906 line regiment numbers were from 1 - 9999, but in 1906 this was amended and the numbers increased to 19999, and once used up you were supposed to start again at number 1. However the outbreak of the War changed all that. It can get complicated and there were changes, but if you like number crunching it's good fun.

Regards,

Graham.

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

about the possibility of two men having the same regimental number; is it possible that two or more soldiers have the same number, if they serve in a different regiment?

And what is the difference between regimental number and service number?

Is it possible that the numbering system changed later in the war?

Until the 6 figure Numbers for Soldiers in the TF were introduced in 1916{& each TF Unit was given a series of Numbers peculiar in most cases to them alone{though there are some discrepancies} it was not uncommon for men in the SAME TF regiment{yet different Battalions} to have the same number{1~9000 odd}

Men in different Regiment could easily have the same number as a number of Men in other Regiments,as each Regiment used the same Number base as stated above.{again it was not until after WW1;in the 1920s, when unique retained Service Numbers that followed a Man through out his service which ever unit he served in,were introduced}

In common parlance;in the context of a Man's Service, "Service Number,Army Number,& Regimental Number" are generally accepted as meaning virtually the same thing{Though;strictly speaking Regimental Number could in other context refer to the actual Number of the Regiment in order of precendence}

[Graham Stewart]

With reference to what Harry has just said regarding Territorial Force numbering, here is the 1912 T.F.Regulation regarding numbering. In effect the 1906 change of numbers which saw the numbers allocated for regular line infantry rise from 1- 9999 to 1 - 19999, did not effect the T.F.. They continued to use 1 - 9999 for each battalion within the County and so depending on how many T.F. battalions each County had then you would have more than one man serving with the same number.

At the end of 1916 a new Army Council Instruction 2198 was given for the introduction of new six figure numbers for members of the T.F., which were introduced as Appedixes 183; 184; 192 & 207 of this ACI in early 1917.

The same numbering system was infact used by the Special Reserve, but on their documents all regimental numbers were to be pre-fixed by the number of the Battalion in which they served.

Graham.

[derwisj]

Thank you guys, it is a bit clearer now...I think...

pascal

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

Admittedly it does in the beginning appear as clear as mud!,but if one accept the premise that Men had the same number as other Men in both the same & other units then it does cause many problems{unless you happen to get men who also share the same Name,along with the same Number;eg:Jones,Brown,Smith,etc;then it can get dificult![& there are examples if you care to peruse the Medal index cards,using a number search~that helps make it clearer.]}

[Guest]

My army number was 24347668 and a guy within the regiment was 24347669, some times thing would get mixed up ie records and others

[Tom A McCluskey]

Hi Pascal,

Just as an example, if you put 4 figure and 5 figure numbers into 'Service Number' on the SNWM you will often get a handful of men with the same number:

http://www.snwm.org/website/frames.html

It was possible to have 2 soldiers in the same battalion, of the same Regiment with the same Regimental number, especially if TF and regular soldiers were serving in the same battalion - before TF re-numbering. A battalion prefix was added to help avoid confusion, I think this was an Army Order from 1915. In the Black Watch the two regular battalions numbers stayed as they were; Those from the 3rd Training Reserve Battalion kept their 3rd Bn Prefix. New Army (those on a 3 year/duration of war engagement) were prefixed with an 'S'. Territorial Force got renumbered Dec 1916-Jan 1917 so were easier to identify as Territorials and which battalion they belonged to. Here are names from the 1st Bn The Black Watch, you can see the various numbers:

Sgt Chapman - Regular Army 1st Bn Black Watch, serving with 1st Black Watch

Pte Chapman - Special Reserve for the Regular Bns 3rd Black Watch, serving with 1st Black Watch

Chick - Territorial Force (renumbered to a 6 figure), 6th Black Watch, serving with 1st Black Watch

Christie - New Army, 1st Black Watch, serving with 1st Black Watch

hope this helps

Aye Tom McC

[Muerrisch]

RWF certainly had duplicates, triplicates etc:

1st and 2nd shared a series, 3rd[sR] another series and no prefix used, 4th, 5th 6th and 7th all had their own series with le opportunity.

[findabetterole]

Gentlemen,

Allow me to explain about a persons service or regimental number.

As soon as a person joins the Armed Forces, he or she is given a unique number. This number stays with the person throughout their service career. It is like a credit card number, an engine number, etc; etc;.

A service number, or regimental number are one and the same. It is also a number that one never forgets.

Hope that has helped.

Seph

[Paul Reed]

Gentlemen,

Allow me to explain about a persons service or regimental number.

As soon as a person joins the Armed Forces, he or she is given a unique number. This number stays with the person throughout their service career. It is like a credit card number, an engine number, etc; etc;.

A service number, or regimental number are one and the same. It is also a number that one never forgets.

Hope that has helped.

Seph

Seph in WW1 they were not unique; certainly not in the British Army.

[CROONAERT]

Gentlemen,

Allow me to explain about a persons service or regimental number.

As soon as a person joins the Armed Forces, he or she is given a unique number. This number stays with the person throughout their service career. It is like a credit card number, an engine number, etc; etc;.

A service number, or regimental number are one and the same. It is also a number that one never forgets.

Hope that has helped.

Seph

Seph,

Upto 1920, soldiers were issued with "Regimental numbers" which were (supposedly) unique within each regiment (meaning that someone else in another regiment could have the same number). On a transfer to another regiment, this number would change. (1 to 6 digits not inclusive of prefixes)

Between 1920 and 1950, a soldier was issued with an "Army number". This number was issued upon enlistment and was allocated as to regimental blocks (ie. one regiment was allocated a certain set of numbers, and another had a different set). This number remained with the soldier throughout his career and, because of the system, it's possible to discover a soldiers original unit even if he's serving elsewhere. (1 to 8 digits)

From 1950 a new system of "service numbers" (or "Serial Numbers") was introduced (the current system). These started from the number 22000000 in September(?) 1950 and since then was issued on a "first come first served" basis. As you say, this number remains unchanged throughout the career. A unit isn't possible to discern from this number, but an approxomate date of enlistment is (eg. 24924619 is the number of a soldier from the late 1980's (me!!! ) and that 2924619 people had enlisted between september 1950 and the day that I did). (8 digits up to present and for a few years yet!).

Dave

[wrdimitroff]

Hi

My grandfather was in the East Lancashire Regiment (TF). He had two numbers 1664 and 200258. Can anyone tell me what year he was likely to have joined (I think 1914, but I don't know what month). Also if he stayed in the army until the 1930s, how can I find a discharge date or year?

Thanks in advance

Wendy

[CROONAERT]

Hi

My grandfather was in the East Lancashire Regiment (TF). He had two numbers 1664 and 200258. Can anyone tell me what year he was likely to have joined (I think 1914, but I don't know what month). Also if he stayed in the army until the 1930s, how can I find a discharge date or year?

Thanks in advance

Wendy

Wendy.

To add to confusion, TF units underwent number changes as from March 1917. The two numbers of your grandfather indicate a soldier of the 1/4th Battalion East Lancs. I'll have to see if I can deduce any clues as to enlistment month from his first number (I don't have much on the 4th Bn), but it does appear to be a pre-war number. (East Lancs numbers are notoriously difficult to make sense of). If he left the army in the 1930's, then, after yet another number change, his records will probably still be held by the MoD.

Dave

[findabetterole]

Gentlemen,

I stand corrected..

However, if the chaps number was unique, was there not a prefix attached to the chaps number to identify his regt?

Seph

[Paul Reed]

Not to identify his regiment. In some cases some regiments did this with battalions (i.e. 5/1555 in the Royal Sussex Regiment would indicate a man in the 5th Battalion). Such a number would also not be unique either. Such 'unique' numbers did not exist in the British Army during the Great War.

[Pete L]

Also if he stayed in the army until the 1930s, how can I find a discharge date or year?

Wendy

Hi Wendy

Just on this point, you can contact help@veteransagency.mod.uk who can tell you how to apply. You have to prove he is dead, and his closest living relative has to apply. They also charge about £30, and it takes a few months.

Pete

[CROONAERT]

Upto 1920, soldiers were issued with "Regimental numbers" which were (supposedly) unique within each regiment (meaning that someone else in another regiment could have the same number). On a transfer to another regiment, this number would change. (1 to 6 digits not inclusive of prefixes)

Forgot to mention the hotchpotch of numbers that some regiments (or even just certain battalions of some regiments) adopted in 1919 immediately prior to the issue of the Army numbers. These, to me, simply have no army-wide sense of order at all and can be the most confusing of all numbers being a purely regimental thing. (usually 5 to 7 digits)

Dave

[CROONAERT]

Between 1920 and 1950, a soldier was issued with an "Army number". This number was issued upon enlistment and was allocated as to regimental blocks (ie. one regiment was allocated a certain set of numbers, and another had a different set). This number remained with the soldier throughout his career and, because of the system, it's possible to discover a soldiers original unit even if he's serving elsewhere. (1 to 8 digits)

...unless, of course, he had service prior to 1920, then his new number would indicate the unit he was with at the time of the number change. his original unit could be something totally different.

Dave

[CROONAERT]

From 1950 a new system of "service numbers" (or "Serial Numbers") was introduced (the current system). These started from the number 22000000 in September(?) 1950 and since then was issued on a "first come first served" basis. As you say, this number remains unchanged throughout the career. A unit isn't possible to discern from this number, but an approxomate date of enlistment is ... ... (8 digits up to present and for a few years yet!).

...(as above), this is only true if the soldier had no service prior to 1950.

Dave

[wrdimitroff]

Many thanks for everyone's help. I think I will try the veterans agency. I did apply a few years ago, but at that time I didn't have info on Regiment or service number and they couldn't help

Thanks

Cheers

Wendy

[TIR]

With reference to what Harry has just said regarding Territorial Force numbering, here is the 1912 T.F.Regulation regarding numbering. In effect the 1906 change of numbers which saw the numbers allocated for regular line infantry rise from 1- 9999 to 1 - 19999, did not effect the T.F.. They continued to use 1 - 9999 for each battalion within the County and so depending on how many T.F. battalions each County had then you would have more than one man serving with the same number.

At the end of 1916 a new Army Council Instruction 2198 was given for the introduction of new six figure numbers for members of the T.F., which were introduced as Appedixes 183; 184; 192 & 207 of this ACI in early 1917.

The same numbering system was infact used by the Special Reserve, but on their documents all regimental numbers were to be pre-fixed by the number of the Battalion in which they served.

Graham.

[TIR]

With reference to what Harry has just said regarding Territorial Force numbering, here is the 1912 T.F.Regulation regarding numbering. In effect the 1906 change of numbers which saw the numbers allocated for regular line infantry rise from 1- 9999 to 1 - 19999, did not effect the T.F.. They continued to use 1 - 9999 for each battalion within the County and so depending on how many T.F. battalions each County had then you would have more than one man serving with the same number.

At the end of 1916 a new Army Council Instruction 2198 was given for the introduction of new six figure numbers for members of the T.F., which were introduced as Appedixes 183; 184; 192 & 207 of this ACI in early 1917.

The same numbering system was infact used by the Special Reserve, but on their documents all regimental numbers were to be pre-fixed by the number of the Battalion in which they served.

Graham.

Oops! I stuffed up my first attempt to subscribe, so trying again.

Graham's post above has helped me unravel a puzzle about my father's service numbers. In September 1916, when he would have been 17.5, he enlisted in the Lovat Scouts. I assume this would have been either in the 2/1st or 2/2nd regiments formed during the war years, as the two regiments existing at the outbreak of WWI were serving overseas at Gallipoli, Egypt and Macedonia when in 1916 the two depleted regiments were amalgamated into the 10th (Lovat Scouts) battalion Queens Own Cameron Highlanders (QOCH). I have no documentation on his Lovat Scout service but believe his Regimental number was 6592.

In March 1918, the month he turned 19, he transferred into the 7th service battalion of the QOCH and was sent to France the following month. His service records are part of the burnt set, and were damaged in the WW2 bombing raids but I have partial records showing his service number as S/32186. In May this year as part of my research and following his section of the long long trail, I visited the UK and France, including the Highlanders Museum at Fort George and the area near Soissons in France, where he was wounded in the second battle of the Marne in July 1918.

The staff at Fort George were most accommodating and helpful but did not recognise S/32186 as a "Cameron" number, nor did that number appear in their enrollment rosters. From what Graham has written above I now deduce that he would have been included in the renumbering of the territorial battalions in March 1917 and took that number with him into the Camerons in 1918. However the S/ part of his number stands for "Service battalion", which I assume would not have applied until he transferred into the Camerons. If so and the numbers allocated in 1917 were 6 characters, what prefix, if any, would the "32186" component have had when first issued and he was serving in a territorial unit.

This is not an idle question, as I am still trying to find some information about his Lovat Scouts service and the circumstances under which he transferred to the Camerons.

Thanks from Down Under for any enlightenment forthcoming.

Ian Robertson

Sydney

[Muerrisch]

Seph,

Upto 1920, soldiers were issued with "Regimental numbers" which were (supposedly) unique within each regiment (meaning that someone else in another regiment could have the same number). On a transfer to another regiment, this number would change. (1 to 6 digits not inclusive of prefixes)

Dave

Sorry but this is simply not the case: there never was any suggestion that a soldier's regimental number was unique, or was to be unique, within his own regiment.

The Royal Welch Fusiliers were a fairly typical case, so that in August 1914, a total of six series were running, with many duplicates and triplicates and more.

These series were:

The two regular battalions and their regular reservists shared one series.

The Special Reserve battalion had an entirely separate series, and never used a prefix.

Each of the four TF battalions had their own series.

When the Service battalions were raised in 1914 they numbered their recruits by extending the regulars' series.