sherwood foresters service number

[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 finished the war as Pte 08158 20th Hants. I have an earlier photo which is possibly him, in SF uniform, wearing ribbons which look like the Indian General Service 1895 and the Queens South Africa Medals. Earlier service would explain why and how he enlisted in 1914 at the age of 44 but other data (not listed here) contradicts the possibility. Can I learn anything from his actual service number 30071?

[mikebriggs]

Hi

Just a thought - you have his medal index card.

Does it provide anymore information; i.e. does he have a 14 or 14-15 Star? date and theatre of War he first served in?

His number isn't a Territorial one so maybe he was a Regular or 'New Army' Kitchener recruit

Mike

[Andrew Hesketh]

Nimrod,

I added the reply below to your original thread, but in case you don't go back to it, here it is again.

****

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.