Service Numbers

[susiehill]

I have been trying to find out as much as I can about my great Uncle who was killed/missing at the Battle of Loos. He belonged to the 13th Battalion Northumberland Fusilliers. I have been reasonably succesful and have read Niall Cherry's book Most Unfavourable Ground.

As part of my searching I looked up my G/Uncle's service number and there appeared to be quite a few people wity the same service number.

I joined the WRAF as a Student Officer in 1977 and was told that my service number was not unique, everyone thinks there's is unique, as it would have been used in WW1, but that's all I have known until now. So I typed my service number in to the WW1 records and low and behold there are about 10 people with my service number.

Can anyone tell me how service numbers were allocated and why people had the same number and indeed why I as a WRAF student officer was given a previously used WW1 army number.

[Graham Stewart]

Ex-WRAF,

Welcome to the Forum and you'll have to give us the name of your relative. As for service numbers it's all very daunting for beginners, but in the case of the services at this time numbers were actually allocated by regiment and began at 1 through to 19999, the exceptions being the Corp's, Territorials and some New Army units.

Originally it had be 1-9999 from around 1881, but was expanded around 1901 to 19999. Once all numbers were completed you had to start at number 1 again, but the Great War soon put the mockers on that and the numbers were allowed to grow.

So in effect every infantry regiment was using the same number system, but would use them up at a different pace depending on the units popularity or expansion, which happend to quite a few during the Boer War, but it averaged about 20years to use up the numbers 1-9999, prior to the expansion.

Your own WRAF number is unique to you and is not an Army related number and I think I'm correct in saying all officers numbers were different to that of the other ranks. Regimental numbering was changed in 1920 to a new regimental block system, the difference being it went with you if you transferred, as it does today with the modern numbering system. Up to 1920 your number changed on transfer. The RFC/RAF also had it's own system as did the Royal Navy.

Territorials are a different subject, as are the Militia/Special Reserve, so won't cover them and what I've given here is really only the basics. Myself and another Forum member(Grumpy) are continually researching the numbering system and it's effects on individuals.

Graham.

[susiehill]

Ex-WRAF,

Welcome to the Forum and you'll have to give us the name of your relative. As for service numbers it's all very daunting for beginners, but in the case of the services at this time numbers were actually allocated by regiment and began at 1 through to 19999, the exceptions being the Corp's, Territorials and some New Army units.

Originally it had be 1-9999 from around 1881, but was expanded around 1901 to 19999. Once all numbers were completed you had to start at number 1 again, but the Great War soon put the mockers on that and the numbers were allowed to grow.

So in effect every infantry regiment was using the same number system, but would use them up at a different pace depending on the units popularity or expansion, which happend to quite a few during the Boer War, but it averaged about 20years to use up the numbers 1-9999, prior to the expansion.

Your own WRAF number is unique to you and is not an Army related number and I think I'm correct in saying all officers numbers were different to that of the other ranks. Regimental numbering was changed in 1920 to a new regimental block system, the difference being it went with you if you transferred, as it does today with the modern numbering system. Up to 1920 your number changed on transfer. The RFC/RAF also had it's own system as did the Royal Navy.

Territorials are a different subject, as are the Militia/Special Reserve, so won't cover them and what I've given here is really only the basics. Myself and another Forum member(Grumpy) are continually researching the numbering system and it's effects on individuals.

Graham.

[susiehill]

Graham,

Thank you for the info, i have now managed to read some of your previous replies to other members and have a better understanding of the numbering system.

My service number was 9132, I was a graduate entry and never attested so my commission was conferred from the date I joined 2 Jan 77 once I had completed and passed officer training 21 Apr 77. RAF and WRAF officer service numbers are 7 numbers long and in 1979 the MOD brought in the letter prefix. My number was odd in that it was only 4 numbers long and I was told that it was taken from the Army. However your explanation expalins why there's a number of service men with my number.

My G/Uncle was 18624 Private James Hewett 13th service Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers. I have his medal index card and a copy of the CWGC certificate, which says he dies on 3rd October 1915 at the Battle of Loos. Nial Cherry's book suggests that 62nd Brigade went in as reserves on 25/26th September, sufferd great losses and was then used in penny packets for a variety of tasks. I don't understand the term penny packets.

I can't find anything aboit the movemnets of the 13 bat NF after 26th Sep 1915 and I have read a report the General French took back his K3 forces to retarin before going in agina on 8th October. Is there anyway that I can find out how my g/Uncle was killed?

[jim_davies]

The term "penny packets" would relate to the battalion being used in small groups and not as a whole.

You also may want to have a look at the battalion war diary, which should have more info on this period. Is it possible that he was wounded at Loos and died of wounds on the 3rd?

Jim

[Graham Stewart]

Ex-WRAF,

I'm intrigued as to how you got your particular number 9132, and why it was considered to be an Army number, considering this number had been used by all and sundry prior to WWI, and then disgarded under the new 1920's numbering system for the Army. My feeling is that as an undergraduate entrant you had numbers that were easily recognised from those used by direct entry officers, but I'd be reluctant to think unergraduate numbering was a tri-service thing in which the Army took precedence, as it would require the renumbering of the RAF & RN element for administration purposes at a later date.

As a Fleet Air Arm rating from 1975-81 my number was D155650L, which ineffect was a continuation of the old Naval system, whereas my T.A. number 24770986 was introduced in the new numbering system of the 1960's. What the officers of the three services used I couldn't honestly say, but your number certainly isn't an Army number, as one of the criteria of Army numbering under QVR's, KR's & QR's, is it cannot be used by anyone else, a practice which was strictly adhered to.

The number 9132 was last used in the 1920's by the Royal Army Service Corps, and only by them. The ATS, the fore-runner of the WRAC used the letter W/ in front of their numbers(W/1 - W/500000) as did the VAD(W/500001 - W/1000000).

Graham.

[susiehill]

Hi Graham,

I was a graduate enmtry whivch means I had already got my degree whne i joined. When we were given the talk about service numbers thye said everyone is unique except the WRAF Graduate officers who have a servuce number that has already been used in the Army, so i don't think that it was that the number was Army, it was defunately RAF, just that it had been issued before.

It's becoming intriguing, how do we find out where and how my series of numbers commenced?

[susiehill]

The term "penny packets" would relate to the battalion being used in small groups and not as a whole.

You also may want to have a look at the battalion war diary, which should have more info on this period. Is it possible that he was wounded at Loos and died of wounds on the 3rd?

Jim

Hi Jim,

I had assumed as he is missing no known grave that he would not have died of wounds, assuming he was wounded he would have been cared for and his body whereabout known or is that too simplistic. How did they register a death, who told who who was missing.

Susie

[Graham Stewart]

Susie,

Apologies for getting the term between under-graduate and graduate entrant wrong, although I did recognise it as a degree entry into officers world. Your number certainly has me scratching my head and I can't possibly see how it can be an Army number. Even if we were to look at the early developement of the RFC and it's two branches Army dominated by the Royal Engineers & RN, then your number was being used by Sapper Frank R.Moss, and I've added the KR regarding numbering and how it was not to be re-used.

What we do need is an expert on RFC/RAF numbering and in particular WRAF numbering, which is a subject that I'm certainly not familiar with. I've already mentioned that only the RASC used that same number post 1920, by whom I don't know, but again once he was killed, died, discharged etc it was not to used again. The Royal Engineers post 1920 don't enter into the equation as they use to be involved in flying.

Going back to your last post after every combat action a roll is called of surviving members at the earliest opportunity and it's at this point the fate of others are determined.

Graham.

[Tom Morgan]

I had assumed as he is missing no known grave that he would not have died of wounds, assuming he was wounded he would have been cared for and his body whereabout known or is that too simplistic. How did they register a death, who told who who was missing.

Susie

Susie, to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, "missing" means the soldier has no known grave now. It doesn't mean that he never had one. Indeed, many of the "missing" do have graves!

It is possible for a soldier to have been given a proper, marked grave during the war, but for that grave to be lost in later fighting. The grave may have been found afterwards but without any possibility of identification. The soldier would have been reburied in a war cemetery with an "unknown" heastone. Or the lost grave may still be lost, never having been found. Either way, the soldier will be named on a Memorial to the Missing.

Tom

[Stebie9173]

I also have a copy of the file of an officer who "Died of Wounds" but was also missing. The said officer was badly wounded and had to be left behind during an attack. Word was sent back for stretcher bearers to find him. They couldn't find him and he was recorded as Died of Wounds rather than missing. His parents held out hope for his discovery as an amnesia case or a P.O.W. for another year, but eventually he was recorded as dead.

All sorts of possibilities in the midst of battle...

Steve.