Service numbers

[minininja]

Hi members

Ive got a couple of quick questions about some service numbers..

Having read a number of threads and picked up that service numbers generally were 5 digits, with an additional number being added if they change regiments/units etc.... i was wondering about my GGF (listed in my signature) his number was 2088...does this mean he enrolled early in the war or was he part of the regiment before the war..(he was KIA in 1915)

On another point i noted that my other GGF (also listed below) was a lance-corporal...again does this mean he was with this regiment before the war as he was discharged as unfit on 12/10/1915...and how would you get promoted

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Colin

[Muerrisch]

Small numbers: big subject.

Please which regiment? We have experts on numbering for many rgts.

In general: low numbers are usually pre-war members of the Special Reserve or the Territorial Force, or long-serving regulars.

The whole subject is complicated and difficult, but we can try!

[harribobs]

If the manchester regiment is anything to go by

the regulars and the territorials used four digit numbers and recycled them when they got to 9999, the new army battalions and replacements used five digit numbers and six digit number were only used by the territorial battalions after the re-numbering in 1917

i've never heard of adding another digit on when changing regiments, in my limited experience that would involve a new service number

[minininja]

Grumpy

Pte Alfred G. Sales 2088 3rd bn Monmouthshire Regiment.

Also Lance-corporal Charles Skeats 155423 Dorsetshire Regiment.

harribobs

my mistake i meant he did get a new service number but it changed to a 6 digit one...

thanks

Colin

[Andrew Hesketh]

3rd Monmouthshire yes? Not my area I'm afraid. In the Notts & Derbys, 2088 would be a very, very long-standing regular or a territorial. I think all Monmouthshire battalions were territorial.

[Muerrisch]

Harribobs: unless your regiment were an exception, the 'recycling' rule was changed well before the war to click in at 19999, but did not, in fact, but went straight on. Most 2 battalion [regular] regiments had reached about 10000 to 14000 by 1914. RWF for example had reached 12000. New army [service] battalions merely continued that same series, as they were ''just another sort of regular' to the army. These happen to be 5 figure numbers, although there may be some 4 figure ones in poorly recruited regiments. As for 6 figures, they arose from the renumbering of TF soldiers as you say.

[Andrew Hesketh]

he did get a new service number but it changed to a 6 digit one...

Territorials were renumbered from 4 to 6 digits in early 1917.

[minininja]

I think all Monmouthshire battalions were territorial.

ive just checked the long trail web site and youre right they were all terratorial...i had no idea he was with them before the war...so grumpy would be correct in saying he was a pre-war territorial!!

Thanks you guys have been most helpful...

Any ideas on my other question in the first post??

Col

[harribobs]

Harribobs: unless your regiment were an exception, the 'recycling' rule was changed well before the war to click in at 19999, but did not, in fact, but went straight on. Most 2 battalion [regular] regiments had reached about 10000 to 14000 by 1914. RWF for example had reached 12000. New army [service] battalions merely continued that same series, as they were ''just another sort of regular' to the army. These happen to be 5 figure numbers, although there may be some 4 figure ones in poorly recruited regiments. As for 6 figures, they arose from the renumbering of TF soldiers as you say.

i have just looked at the service numbers for the 1st batttalion for all casualties upto 31-12-1915 and only 5 men have five digit service numbers out of 351

the 2nd battalion has only 2 men with five digit numbers killed in the same period out of a total 459

to correct myself, the pals battalions did start with 4 digit and moved through into 5 digit

[Andrew Hesketh]

3rd Monnmouthshires suffered 334 deaths up to and including the last day of 1915*. The number range is from 35 to 3618. There are some rogue 6 digit numbers in there, but these must be men listed still as missing at the time of renumbering I would guess.

45 men were numbered 0-999

140 men were numbered 1000-1999

132 men were numbered 2000-2999

17 men were numbered 3000+

You do need a Monmouthshire expert here (who is it that has a Monmouthshire shoulder title as his avatar? it's bugging me!), but I would suspect 2088 to be a pre-war enlistment number, though probably not by much.

(* Data from 'Soldiers Died in the Great War')

[Andrew Hesketh]

On another point i noted that my other GGF (also listed below) was a lance-corporal...again does this mean he was with this regiment before the war as he was discharged as unfit on 12/10/1915...and how would you get promoted

No, this doesn't imply pre-war service. Promotion could be for a wide variety of reasons - too many to begin to speculate about.

[Muerrisch]

i have just looked at the service numbers for the 1st batttalion for all casualties upto 31-12-1915 and only 5 men have five digit service numbers out of 351

the 2nd battalion has only 2 men with five digit numbers killed in the same period out of a total 459

to correct myself, the pals battalions did start with 4 digit and moved through into 5 digit

What is the range of the numbers of the dead please? I note that the regiment had two regular battalions pre 1914. As the numbering series started at 1 in 1881/2, to use only 10000 numbers in 32 years at 5000 per battalion suggests a turnover of about 150 men per battalion per annum. This is a very low figure, and I expect I have missed something vital. It is, for example, possible that the Manchesters had recruited very well indeed, and had shot through their 9999 before the rule change, starting again from 1.

A good man to involve is Graham Stewart, who has a vast knowledge of the vagaries of numbering.

[Martyn Gibson]

Hi Col,

I do have your GGF listed on my database of the 3rd Mons.

His number would have been issued around July/Aug 1914 as he was with the first draft who left for France/Flanders in Feb 1915. Previous posters are quite correct the Monmouthshire Regiment was only made up of Territorials.

If you would like any further info on the 3rd Mons during this period up to when he died then please PM me and I will copy it on to you.

Regards

Martyn

Andrew

"You do need a Monmouthshire expert here (who is it that has a Monmouthshire shoulder title as his avatar? it's bugging me!), but I would suspect 2088 to be a pre-war enlistment number, though probably not by much"

Yes it is me. Is there no hiding place on this forum. LOL.

[John_Hartley]

David

I have no expertise on Manc. numbering but a flick through SDGW for 1/Manc's casualties to 31/12/14, show lowest number being 32 ; highest 9910. The vast bulk of casualties are in the 1000-2000 range.

John

[Graham Stewart]

David & John,

Didn't really want to get involved here, as neither the Monmouths or Manchesters are my subject, but decided to come in really to assist. Grumpy is right about the numbering system changing, and a recent copy of KR's for 1904 indicates that the numbering system had changed for regular infantry battalions from the old 1 - 9999 to 1 - 19999. Grumpy and I are pooling our sources on this subject, and as he correctly says once many regiments reached 9999 c.1904(no correct date of implimentation as yet), they carried on into the new five figure series, so that by 1914 at least 24 regular battalions were now numbering their men with five figures.

However others like the Northumberland had used their 1 - 9999 series up by 1903 and so had began back at number 1, and so lagged behind. The Northumberlands were only into the 38** four figure series by August 1914, which took eleven years to reach, and you don't have to be a mathmatician to see how long it would have taken to reach the new five figure numbers.

A study I did many years ago shows that the Manchesters were one of those battalions which were also still using four figure numbers by August 1914, and in my own opinion their recruiting record was similar to the N.F., as they also raised an additional two regular battalions in 1900, which were disbanded in 1906. On top of which your Volunteer Service Companies for South Africa were also set aside block numbers in the 7000 series.

Added together this see's a higher turn over of numbers than would normally expect during the recruiting year, and I also suspect that the Manchesters, like the N.F. had reached 9999 and began renumbering at 1, before the new series was introduced via K.R.'s 1904. After the disbandement of the two new regular battalions and dispersal of the V.S.C.'s recruiting would have settled into a normal steady routine.

Graham.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Yes it is me. Is there no hiding place on this forum. LOL.

Nope! Thanks for resolving that annoying issue. I thought it was either you or Michael-somebody-or-other.

[harribobs]

A study I did many years ago shows that the Manchesters were one of those battalions which were also still using four figure numbers by August 1914, and in my own opinion their recruiting record was similar to the N.F., as they also raised an additional two regular battalions in 1900, which were disbanded in 1906. On top of which your Volunteer Service Companies for South Africa were also set aside block numbers in the 7000 series.

Added together this see's a higher turn over of numbers than would normally expect during the recruiting year, and I also suspect that the Manchesters, like the N.F. had reached 9999 and began renumbering at 1, before the new series was introduced via K.R.'s 1904. After the disbandement of the two new regular battalions and dispersal of the V.S.C.'s recruiting would have settled into a normal steady routine.

Graham.

thank you Graham, glad to see i wasn't talking total b.....ks

however just looking at the servce numbers for the 3rd volunteer service company raised in 1901...they are in the 8000 range!

cheers

chris

[Graham Stewart]

Chris,

What were the numbers of your 1st and 2nd V.S.C.'s mine started at 7000, but the 3rd and final Company seems to have had blokes in the 8000 series?? I think Grumpy recently found an Army Order with the V.S.C. numbering sequence and it's on my computer somewhere. My problem is I put them in files where I can easily lay my hands on them and then forget which file.

Graham.

[harribobs]

Chris,

What were the numbers of your 1st and 2nd V.S.C.'s mine started at 7000, but the 3rd and final Company seems to have had blokes in the 8000 series?? I think Grumpy recently found an Army Order with the V.S.C. numbering sequence and it's on my computer somewhere. My problem is I put them in files where I can easily lay my hands on them and then forget which file.

Graham.

spot on mate...they were the 3rd VSC raised from ashton ( source cpt bonners book, volunteer infantry of ashton u lyne) i do have the full lists ( somewhere i think ) but i suspect they don't have s/n's but i'll look into it

[manchester regiment]

the 16th manchesters originally were numbered 1-1000,but they changed them to 6200-7500s batch,bernard

[DaveNich]

Had a quick look at the numbering of the 2nd Monmouthshire.

1914 Casualties - Lowest number 46 and highest number 2476.

1915 Casulaties - Lowest number 65 and highest 3095 (June 1915)

If you look at the 1914 star entitlement highest number is 2843.

Regards

David

[daggers]

Can any expert tell me about the service number 37843, Pte Angus Crawford, 11th Bn South Wales Borderers, d.o.w. in September 1917? His papers are not at Kew and his MIC is like many incomplete as to entry into theatre, so we do not know when he enlisted. CWGC website is also silent on service details.

[i'm very impressed with responses since joining]

Daggers

[SPotter]

Daggers,

I would recommend repeating this request, properly titled, in the Soldiers section. You might get a bit more response.

Regards

Steve