service numbers

[adinetuse]

Thanks to a breakthrough from the Absent Voters List and thence to the Medal Cards, I now know that my grandfather John Ward was Pte 30071 Notts and Derby Regiment, and later Pte 08158 20th Hants. Can I deduce anything from the actual service numbers?

[Coldstreamer]

Hello

With some regiments the number can pin point when they joined - or the battalion

Ian

[Stebie9173]

A suggest you edit the title of this Topic to included either "Notts & Derby" or "Sherwood Foresters". That will attract the Sherwoods experts like a baited trap....!

Steve.

[Coldstreamer]

Hello

you will learn (like we all have) that wording the title is all important.

Ive asked questions before, heard nothing, rephrased it and got the answer

Ian

[Andrew Hesketh]

A suggest you edit the title of this Topic to included either "Notts & Derby" or "Sherwood Foresters". That will attract the Sherwoods experts like a baited trap....!

Steve.

That's a good suggestion, but we can smell 'em anyway!

Is it possible to deduce a battalion from a service number? In many regiments ‘yes’: in the Foresters, ‘no’!

The territorials are normally fairly easy to sort out but not the others, and 30071 is almost certainly not a territorial number.

Using a few examples from ‘Soldiers Died’ the difficulty soon becomes clear:

30016 – 1st Battalion

30044 – 16th

30099 – 16th

30143 – 1st

30151 – 17th

It would therefore be tempting to assume that 30071 would match the 16th, but I would not be too confident. However I’ve got an extra idea, which adds a little weight to this assumption.

Using the MIC’s I notice that many of the men around the number also moved on to other regiments and 30072 also went to the Hampshire’s. Now, this would add a bit more weight to the 16th battalion theory, as the 16th were reduced to cadre as part of army reorganisation in May 1918 and the men redistributed to other battalions of the SF or other regiments entirely.

So I would go on a theory that it’s the 16th but I would not regard this as safe without further evidence.

The only other thing I can add is that the number suggests a pre-conscription enlistment date, as one of the two 16th men referred to above died in July 1916.

(I now sit back, and wait for another Forester enthusiast to wade in and demolish this theory!!)