Rates of enlistment into a Territorial Battn 1908-16

[mikebriggs]

Dear all

I though that I would post some recent research if it’s of interest to anyone.

Over the last 18 months or so I have been compiling a 'nominal role' for the 6th Battalion Notts and Derby Regiment (Sherwood Foresters). As part of this I have been making a note of enlistment dates from the 'Silver War Badge' Medal Role.

I've now had chance to plot these out to calculate the rate of enlistment from 1908 to end of 1916.

By taking the regimental number (assigned numerically to the men as they enlisted) and their enlistment date it’s possible to see how the rates of enlistment changed.

For example:-

1) Between the formation of the Battalion in April 1908 and the outbreak of the War in August 1914, the Battalion had enlisted over 2000 men. Of course from ~1000 onwards these would have been replacements for men leaving, but even then there was a turnover of a ~1000 men in the 5 years between 1908 and 1913.

2) You can see clearly the affect of establishing a 2nd Line Battalion in September 1914 (and even the 3/6th Battn in March 1915). The 2/6th were up to strength by the end of October.

3) Also the start of the Derby Scheme and then Conscription obviously had an affect on enlistment rates – as expected

cheers

Mike

[Ken Lees]

Mike,

I should do the same for the 9th Bn. King's Liverpool Regiment and perhaps compare findings.

What did you use to create the chart?

Would I be correct in thinking that after the intorduction of the <ilitary Service Act, conscripts were not given TF numbers?

Ken

[Promenade]

Enlistment_rates.pdf

Hi Mike,

I have also had a look at enlistment rates - in a slightly different way to you. However I used a cut-off date of the end of Dec 1915 as I was finding it difficult to differentiate been attestment and mobilisation dates. I probably need to update this graph which was done a few years ago as I now have more complete information.

I used the graph to illustrate the logistics faced by the TF system to cope with the large influx of men - in 31 months (Jan 1912 to July 1914) 10 KLR recruited about 580 men - in the following three months they processed about 1200 men. The figures for 5 Glos Regt are about 800 and 1400 for the respective periods.

Promenade

[mikebriggs]

Dear both

Thanks for your thoughts

Ken - Yes, it would be interesting to see the enlistment rates for the 9th King's. I just used Excel and created two columns:-

1) I coded the months from 1=April 1908 to 105=Dec 1916

2) Identified the highest regimental number to be assigned for that month

The chart wizard then creates whatever graph format you would like.

Promenade - A very interesting comparison between the two Battalions. I also had trouble with attestation and mobilisation dates (and also enlistment dates) quoted from October 1915 onwards. I have included dates in 1916, but to be honest I am not too confident that they are correct and it is more than likely a big under-estimation. I think it’s pretty accurate up until about October 1915 (or even December as you have used)

I can see no particular pattern in the assignment of regimental numbers from about 4500 to 7800 (i.e. Jan 1916 onwards). I am also not convinced that all these numbers were used and that the men even stayed with the 6th N & D and were not spread amongst the Regular and Service Battalions.

cheers

Mike

[Muerrisch]

Very interesting, thank you. Did you detect any hint that the numbering might not have started from zero in 1908?

I ask because some TF battalion series are contaminated with old Volunteer numbers: veterans allowed to bring their very low and prestigious numbers with them after VF ended and TF began.

[jim_davies]

4th Lincs enlistment info:

4-6 Aug 1914 150 men

28 Aug 1914 261 men

Sept 1914 241 men

Oct 1914 315 men

Nov 1914 247 men

Dec 1914 70 men

Jan 1915 34 men

Feb 1915 53 men

Mar 1915 68 men

Apr 1915 100 men

May 1915 667 men

June 1915 121 men

July 1915 37 men

Aug-Oct 1915 183 men

Jim

[Andrew Hesketh]

Very interesting, thank you. Did you detect any hint that the numbering might not have started from zero in 1908?

I ask because some TF battalion series are contaminated with old Volunteer numbers: veterans allowed to bring their very low and prestigious numbers with them after VF ended and TF began.

Mike - fascinating stuff. I will mull this over for a while - I may have some questions (never answers as always) as a result of fiidling with something similar for the 7th battalion.

David, re. your question above. The 7th N&D appear to have started with a clean sheet in 1908.

[mikebriggs]

Yes, same for the 6th Battn and here is an interesting passage from the Battalion History

and the gentleman in question (as a Derbyshire Volunteer at Camp in 1907)

Andrew - it would be interesting to compare the enlistment of the 7th, which were effectively a 'City' (i.e. Nottingham) Battalion, with that of a 'County' (i.e. Derbyshire) Battalion. I think that I read (from the Regimental Annuals) that the 7th were up to strength much quicker that the 6th.

Jim - thanks for posting 6th Lincs information, most interesting, thats a lot of men who enlisted. Where did you find the actual numbers from?

thanks

Mike

[Promenade]

In the Liverpool Regt all of the TF Bns renumbered from 1.

Promenade

[jim_davies]

Mike,

The numbers and dates mainly come from the SWBs rolls, newspapers listings of lads that enlisted each week and the "war diary" from before the battalion served abroad.

The 4th Lincs numbered their men in batches alphabetically (with a few exceptions) for 1914 and much of 1915. The first "batches" were quite large and included men who enlisted appear to have enlisted within 7-10 days of each other, but all were numbered at the same time (ie at Lincoln). So once I had the enlistment info for most (or many) of the men in a batch, I can have a pretty decent estimate of when the rest of the lads in that particular group enlisted.

I know there's some element of error as I'm missing some men from my database, but it should be relatively minor.

Hope the above makes sense,

Jim

[Andrew Hesketh]

Andrew - it would be interesting to compare the enlistment of the 7th, which were effectively a 'City' (i.e. Nottingham) Battalion, with that of a 'County' (i.e. Derbyshire) Battalion. I think that I read (from the Regimental Annuals) that the 7th were up to strength much quicker that the 6th.

Yes it would. My stuff is not yet sorted very well but I will naturally send it along to you at some point when I've ironed out most of the obvious glitches.

To answer your second point, the battalion moved into 4 figure numbers c. March 1909, which seems to correspond with the graph above for the 6th.

[Charles Fair]

Excellent thread chaps, keep it coming!

Mike - I have something very similar with the 19th Londons which I will post in due course. Recruiting was slower in London, with the 19th reaching 2000 at the outrbreak of war. It starts going haywire in around Nov/Dec 15 with the Derby scheme.

I have found a useful check is to look at the strength returns in WO 114. WO114/114 (I think) gives the quarterly retruns for the TF 1908 - July 1914, and gives how many new recruits were enlisted each quarter. Other volumes in 114 give fortnightly (and later weekly) data for each TF unit at home from late 1914 onwards.

[Graham Stewart]

I used to have a newspaper article which was highly critical of TF recruitment, which if I remember rightly was dated early 1915. It declared that at the current rate it would be around 1930, before the Northumberland Territorials were up to establishment. I would have reproduced it here, but I loaned it to someone years ago and never got it back.

The Derby Scheme element is very interesting as my NF regimental journals show that all initial intakes, the first of which were in January 1916, were directed to the T.F., the bulk of them going to the infantry.

Graham.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Nothing to add, but this was a fascinating little thread which died too early. This posting is a blatant attempt at reviving it.

[Charles Fair]

I'm sure that there is more to come. I am working on it....

[Muerrisch]

Nothing to add but I am very interested in the subject as it has a big bearing on my lot.

Would that I could contribute.

[mikebriggs]

I'm stuck at home today due to the weather - strange but true

So I will try to add a bit more to the thread during the day, but in the meantime here is an interesting snippet that I was surprised about - and it does sort of fit the theme of the thread .

Posted below is a Nominal Role of E Company 6th Sherwood Foresters. I'm pretty certain that it was drawn up 1908-1909 based on Officers/men leaving. It is during the time of the 8 Company structure and I would assume that it is the first E Coy Roll after the formation of the Battalion in April 1908.

There are 117 men, so they are not far off from being up to strength.

Now, what surprised me most was that I can only find 13 of these men on the WW1 Medal Roles - what happened to the other 104

This was drawn up only 6 years before the outbreak of the War and I can't believe that they had all left by 1914. There is no evidence from the 1909-1914 Regimental Annuals that great swathes of men left for the Regulars - and that is also the case post August 1914 (from the War Diaries)

Thoughts please

[PPCLI]

Mike,

Unfortunately, I do not have such a detailed list but analysis of the men listed within my database reveals a striking similarity.

Using SWB data to delimit enlistment before June 1908, then my best estimate of the number of these not-so-old-timers that went overseas with the 5th KOSB is low- to mid-90s. So, on the basis of the eight company system that would average out at about 12 men per company. Very similar to E Company 6th Sherwood Foresters.

I do know of a handful of other pre-war TF men who enlisted into K1 service battalions and others (Sgt-Instructors, Colour Sgts) who received commissions and went on to serve with other units. If included, they would increase numbers a little but not greatly.

One problem that I have with any analysis is that the major proportion of the newly formed 1908 battalion appeared to keep their old Volunteer number, i.e., come Feb 1909, only about 500 new numbers had been allocated but the battalion was more or less up to establishment. Out of the 90 odd men mentioned above, it appears that almost 60 served with a regt. no. pre-dating 1908, or that their numbers were issued in blocks given to the individual companies. All in all, quite confusing.

I am working on my enlistment data/graph, but it isn't easy (see last paragraph!).

Stuart

[Muerrisch]

It was well-known that retention of TF men was a major problem: turnover in the four RWF battalions was also high.

And it is true that in some battalions, ex VF men were allowed to bring their VF numbers with them. This makes attempts at statistical analysis very difficult if not dangerous.

One last thing: TF men signed for 4 years at a time, but had an extra year liability if embodied for war. Someone signing in 1910 could well have been stuffed for an exit strategy!

[Graham Stewart]

Sadly most of my data is post August 1914, but I'm also of the opinion that all T.F. personnel were renumbered in 1908. What I do have that is quite interesting is all of the Northumberland T.F.A. Strength Returns which read;-

Strength as of 1st January 1914

4th Bn, N.F. - 19 0fficers; 740 Other Ranks.

5th Bn, N.F. - 29 Officers; 803 Other Ranks.

6th Bn, N.F. - 24 Officers; 639 Other Ranks.

7th Bn, N.F. - 17 Officers; 757 Other Ranks.

Strength of Imperial Service Units as of 1st November 1914

4th Bn, N.F. - 29 Officers; 990 Other Ranks.

5th Bn, N.F. - 26 Officers; 979 Other Ranks.

6th Bn, N.F. - 29 Officers; 971 Other Ranks.

7th Bn, N.F. - 27 Officers; 979 Other Ranks.

How many of these were returned personnel renumbered is difficult to say, but almost certainly those enlisting as raw recruits since August 1914 were already being placed in reserve battalions, whose strength is roughly about a third of the above.

Going off target slightly my 3rd(Reserve)Bn, N.F. weren't renumbered in 1908, as my data shows them going into five figure numbers pre-fixed "3/" very, very quickly.

Graham.

[mikebriggs]

Dear all

Thanks for your further thoughts. It does seem that it's not a level playing field with regards to the numbering of the TF men following the 1908 re-organisation in particular the retention of VF numbers.

Fortunately the Notts and Derby R adopted relatively straight forward numbering and 1917 re-numbering systems.

I guess the other problem has been the Derby Scheme and then Conscription. Its clear from the numbering of men in the 6th Sherwood Foresters than from mid to late 1916 the battalion were receiving men from a central Regimental Depot (as opposed to the Battalion HQ). I say this becasue from mid-1916 you start to see batches of men in alphabetical order that are issued with sequential regimental numbers.

Were did the Derby men go ? to the 2nd or 3rd line Battalions ?

I ask this because both the 2/7th and 3/7th record the arrival of 'Derby Men' in 1916 (this is the same for the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the 5, 6th and 8th Battns). Why did this happen? I would have thought that all the new recruits would have gone to the 3rd line Battalion

I have read reports that many of the Sherwood Foresters that went ot Dublin in Easter 1916 had never fied their rifles - how true is this and were these Derby men?

cheers

Mike

[mikebriggs]

I've just come accross this interesting paragraph from the 2/8th Notts and Derby War Diary.

It is dated November 1914 and shows that the this 2nd line Battn were up to strength by then and were sending men to the Regulars (and perhaps to the Service Battalions).

Stuart - you mentioned this occured with the 1/5th (Dumfries and Galloway) Battn - it must have been quite widespread perhaps?

Makes you wonder why they didn't form the 3/Line Battns earlier? perhaps the powers-that-be had no intention of sending the 2/Line overseas at that time.

Mike

[Charles Fair]

Mike - thanks for your last interesting post. I would interpret the excerpt slightly differently than perhaps you may have done however.

I would interpret 'sent' in this context as meaning that men who turned up at the drill hall to join the the 2/8th Notts and Derby were actually being turned away because the 2/8th was full, rather than being formally transferred after enlistment. 'Army' I would interpret as 'New Army' i.e. Service battalions.

Mr Bloggs turns up at the 8th N&D drill hall hoping to enlist in his local unit. He is then told "I'm sorry mate, we can't take you at the moment cos we are full to bursting. If you are really keen to join up today you could join Kitchener's mob. If you pop along to the Town Hall they will be able to help you..."

Legally, once a man had enlisted into the TF he could not have (at that stage of the war) then been transferred to a Regular or New Army unit as the terms of service were different. This sort of transfer only became possible after the 1916 Military Service Acts which effectively swept away the distinctions.

The 2/19th Londons started recruiting on 1 Sept 1914 and were full within 2 weeks according to the strength returns in WO114. There was also a cadre based at the drill hall which carried out the functions of depot for both battalions. Both 1/19th and 2/19th were full, with enough spares for first line reinforcement. The Home Service men had been gathered in the 2/19th.

From early Oct the 19th therefore had little scope to recruit (except to replace a trickle of men who were discharged as unfit). Prospective recruits would most likely have been told to go round the corner to the New Army recruiting office at the Workingmens' College in Crowndale Rd, all of 300 yards away.

Before late Nov 1914 the TF could not raise more units because it hadn't been authorised to. On 24th Nov 1914 an Army Order instructing 'third line' battalions to be raised in place of 'first line' units proceeding overseas is issued. The 1/19th is put under orders to proceed overseas in late Feb 1915, at which point it is able to start recruiting for the 3/19th. (In March 1915 an Army Order is issued in which all TF units are authorised to form third line units.)

By this time unfortunately the TF had missed out on much of the recruiting in late Sept and Oct 1914 when recruiting was good. By Feb/March 1915 recruiting for the TF and New Armies was getting tough.

The 2nd line units could not have been sent overseas at that stage because most would have contained a sizeable proportion of HS men. This only became possible once the 3rd line bns were being raised and the HS men were pushed into them and from from April 1915 when the HS men were moved out of all 2nd & 3rd line units into the Provisional Battalions.

Charles

[mikebriggs]

Charles

Many thanks for posting that information - it is very interesting and helps to clarify in my mind what was going on.

I agree with your interpretation, a sort 'no room at inn', but you might like to try down the road

thanks again

Mike

[Charles Fair]

Mike - please find attached 3 charts which show the strengths of the battalions of the 19th London Regt when in England from Sept 1914 - Dec 1915. These help to explain the points made in my previous post.

These patterns appear to be typical of other London TF units. I would also point out the weakness of both 2/19th and 3/19th in late 1915 which reflects the difficulty of recruiting from mid 1915. The Military Service Acts and conscription were inevitable.

Charles

19th_London_strengths_at_home_1914_15.doc