SHARONCMAUD Posted 14 March , 2006 Share Posted 14 March , 2006 I HAVE PUT A THREAD UP ON GOING TO THE NA..... NOT SURE IF THAT'S HOW YOU GO ABOUT IT !!! NOBODY SEEMS TO REPLY...SO - CAN ANYONE HELP WITH THESE CARDS -- PLAIN ENGLISH - DON'T BOG ME DOWN WITH TOO MUCH INFORMATION -- I AM A WOMAN....!!! HERE WE GO.. FILES ARE TO LARGE SO PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO SEE OTHERS !!! IF YOU NEED ANYMORE INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION LET ME KNOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHARONCMAUD Posted 14 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2006 I HAVE PUT A THREAD UP ON GOING TO THE NA..... NOT SURE IF THAT'S HOW YOU GO ABOUT IT !!! NOBODY SEEMS TO REPLY...SO - CAN ANYONE HELP WITH THESE CARDS -- PLAIN ENGLISH - DON'T BOG ME DOWN WITH TOO MUCH INFORMATION -- I AM A WOMAN....!!! HERE WE GO.. FILES ARE TO LARGE SO PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO SEE OTHERS !!! IF YOU NEED ANYMORE INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION LET ME KNOW. PTE JOHN HENRY MAUD SOUTH LANCS REGT 47937 18.12.15 - 23.1.1919 PARA 892 (XV)kr ACTION TAKEN J/1289/1 NO REFERENCE TO A MEDAL HERE IS THERE, COULD HE HAVE BEEN POW ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnr.ktrha Posted 14 March , 2006 Share Posted 14 March , 2006 Hello, The top one states that Timothy Maud served as a Gunner in the Royal Garrison Artillery and his number was 124460. He was awarded the British War Medal & the Victory Medal. Therfore his medals would be named -''124460 Gnr. T Maud RA'' on the rim/edge. In the box next to the medals you will see it's headed ''Roll'' & ''Page''. The information below tells you which roll his name appears in and what page his entry is on. This entry will possibly tell you which Artillery battery he served with. Once you know the Battery, then you can workout which theater he served in. He must have served in a Theater of war after Dec 31st 1915. The Royal Garrison Artillery were the ones that fired the larger type of guns. Some were moveable otheres were mounted on railway tracks and others were in fixed positions and could only be moved with difficulty, there is more info on them on the Long Long Trail site at the top left of the page. I'm sorry, but I can't really make out the second card. Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Stewart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 14 March , 2006 Share Posted 14 March , 2006 Looks like 47937 Pte John Henry Maud, South Lancs Reg't. A Silver War Badge card for a man discharged as unfit for further duty (usually due to wounds or sickness). Kings Regs 392 XVI refers to this. Enlisted 15-12-1915, discharged 22-1-1919. List J/1289/1 refers to the medal rolls for the SWB at Kew. This may tell you what unit he was discharged from, and whether he served overseas. There is no stamp for his other campaign medals on this card so there is probably another card around. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHARONCMAUD Posted 14 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2006 Looks like 47937 Pte John Henry Maud, South Lancs Reg't. A Silver War Badge card for a man discharged as unfit for further duty (usually due to wounds or sickness). Kings Regs 392 XVI refers to this. Enlisted 15-12-1915, discharged 22-1-1919. List J/1289/1 refers to the medal rolls for the SWB at Kew. This may tell you what unit he was discharged from, and whether he served overseas. There is no stamp for his other campaign medals on this card so there is probably another card around. Steve. Forgive me, looking at this card he has a SWB you say, did he serve for 4yrs If he had another card would it not be on this list I have- it starts at James H and finishes with Morris H. There is a JW but he is with RAF.RFC I don't think that's him, in fact I'm certain. If it says Discharged 22.1.1919 will he have served up to this date as a soldier or could he have been injured early on and never gone overseas, and this is just a date decided by the war office. If you enlisted 15.12.1915 as a Pte, wouldn't you be there in France for the offensive, training finished and ready to go 6 months later. He was 30yrs old when he enlisted, did the older men stay at home ??? Sorry I have so many questions and I am new to the GT War Forum, and have been amazed at just how much you all know out there, do they never have get togethers where we could all spend a week together, my arthritis is giving me hell, with all this typing !!!! I'm a woman, I prefer to talk !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHARONCMAUD Posted 14 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 14 March , 2006 Every little bit of information helps, so don't be sorry. Timothy was punished twice IN THE FIELD 18.01.18 Whilst on active service confirmation of Army R O (Dated 10.03.18) TRANSGRESSING ON LIGHT RAILWAY UMMM!! Guns on Railways you say. I wonder what he got up too ?? PUNISHMENT 5 days FP No2 date of award 28.01.18 IN THE FIELD 14.12.18 Whilst on active service absenting himself without leave in that he being ......to UK from 30.11.18 to 14.12.18 absconded himself without leave from 14.12.18 to 26.12.18 Absent 12 days PUNISHMENT 7 days FP No2 and forfeits 12 days pay under RW Date of award 6.1.19. His wife became eligible for Widows Pension from 12.06.1919 - does this help in ones search for information or not. We clutch at straws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 14 March , 2006 Share Posted 14 March , 2006 Being in the army that long I would have thought it is likely that John served overseas. He is sort of at the border age. If he had prior army experience, then it is possible that he could have been utilised to train other men. Alternatively he was not classed as fit enough for overseas service. The SWB roll should state Yes or No to the "served overseas?" question and answer your query. The punishment Timothy received are detailed here. http://www.1914-1918.net/crime.htm Field Punishments Field Punishment Number 1 consisted of the convicted man being shackled in irons and secured to a fixed object, often a gun wheel or similar. He could only be thus fixed for up to 2 hours in 24, and not for more than 3 days in 4, or for more than 21 days in his sentence. This punishment was often known as 'crucifixion' and due to it's humiliating nature was viewed by many Tommies as unfair. Field Punishment Number 2 was similar except the man was shackled but not fixed to anything. Both forms were carried out by the office of the Provost-Marshal, unless his unit was officially on the move when it would be carried out regimentally i.e. by his own unit. Field Punishment was army punishment from a different age of the world, yet it happened to our grand-parents. Times change. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHARONCMAUD Posted 15 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 15 March , 2006 Being in the army that long I would have thought it is likely that John served overseas. He is sort of at the border age. If he had prior army experience, then it is possible that he could have been utilised to train other men. Alternatively he was not classed as fit enough for overseas service. The SWB roll should state Yes or No to the "served overseas?" question and answer your query. The punishment Timothy received are detailed here. http://www.1914-1918.net/crime.htm Field Punishment was army punishment from a different age of the world, yet it happened to our grand-parents. Times change. Steve yes I know what you mean, thankfully he wasn't shot, which I believe happened - terrible - and they called them the good old days !!! 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