Derby Scheme Numbering

[kevinrowlinson]

Were Derby Scheme soldiers given their regimental numbers on attestation or when mobilised?

Given the number of posts, requesting when a soldier enlisted, I think it is pertinent to ask whether it is a fair indication as to when they served. Perhaps those lucky members who have been able to obtain a Derby Scheme soldiers records could post them to see whether the number was or wasn't given, or whether they were actually given another Ref. number. In my example 19753, or did it depend on regiment?

Facts for this one:

RGA

Attested 7 December 1915

Mobilised 21 April 1917

The "Cong. 18 April 1917" may be when his mobilisation papers were sent.(?)

Regards Kevin

[Michael]

My experience of the Buffs shows that they got their number when they turned up at the barracks for mobilisation. It has made it difficult to equate attestation date with service number because they were deemed to have enlisted when they signed up for the scheme and then given a much higher number when they were mobilised.

However I would add my normal warning that just because this is what happened in the Buffs, it doesn't mean that it was universal for the rest of the army.

Mick

[Coldstreamer]

whats Derby scheme all about ? never heard that before

[Chris_Baker]

Why do I bother?

http://www.1914-1918.net/derbyscheme.html

[Coldstreamer]

Thanks Chris - I shall go and read it

Perhaps it wasnt there when I joined.........

[mikebriggs]

It has made it difficult to equate attestation date with service number because they were deemed to have enlisted when they signed up for the scheme and then given a much higher number when they were mobilised.

I've had the same problem with the Sherwood Forester's Territorial Battalions. After about Nov/Dec 1915 the service numbers seem to lose all order.

The Following are taken from the Silver War Badge Rolls and seem to be a mixture of enlisted men and Derby Scheme Men

From the above numbers I might be tempted to say that they got their numbers on mobilisation

but I could be convinced otherwise

[kevinrowlinson]

Thanks to both Mick & Mike for your interest.

I thought that there must be some logic to when a man attested and was mobilised and given his number. In my example it has been suggested that he was given his number from a batch at the end of 1915, which if true, for the RGA, trying to give an idea when a man served is nearly impossible. Given that there are members who must have obtained service records I thought if they posted them there may be something useful on them ( Buffs or Sherwood Forester's for example) that may add to the research that some members are doing.

The other question is, if a soldier did not get his no. on attestation how was he known? Another no.?

Regards Kevin

I very nearly deleted this post yesterday.

[KONDOA]

I have an instance whereby a large number of men of the Derby scheme were first assigned a number in the Lincolns. Presumably this was for training purposes. They were then renumbered to their respective regiments upon posting, in my case to the North Staffs.

This would cover 1915 enlistments.

Roop

[Graham Stewart]

The problem with the Derby Scheme lads is that on voluntary enlisting they are then divided into the relevant groupings in preparation for call-up. So intially you had a load of lads enlisting on a particular day, then being placed on the Army Reserve until mobilised. In the meantime they would then be "grouped", as it was known as the "Group System", into their various age, marital status, occupation groups, etc.

From what I have discovered following the Northumberland Fusiliers, the first batches weren't received for training until January 1916, and obviously these would be young men, unmarried and unskilled. As a whole the first batches seem to have been earmarked soley for the T.F. infantry, with later groups going to Corps.

The numbering is a problem it's own right, but I'm not convinced they were numbered on enlistment, the one reason being, that they didn't know to which unit they were going and nor did the recruiters. For instance Norman Gladden enlisted on the 10th December 1915 at the recruitment office, Scotland Yard and was sent home on completion, complete with new khaki armband.

He wasn't called for until the 3rd May 1916 and was mobilised at Wandsworth Town Hall with 150 others and marched to Kingston Barracks. What is apparent is that all of the miltary paperwork isn't being done until this particular time, as mentioned in his book "Somme 1916". This makes me think that in December he was placed onto a "register of Derby recruits" and not officially "enlisted" until the May.

During the recruitment process he was medically graded "Home Service" and on the following day on return to the Barracks was posted to the Hertfordshire Regt, sadly he doesn't quote his Herts number. However all of those other recruits from his batch who were passed as A1, went to the R.West Kents. Therefore I've concluded that the "Attestation Papers" were only filled in at this point, as Gladden does not mention any other regiment throughout the whole process, which I think he would have done. At the same time I don't think a regimental number would have been appointed until he reached the regimental Depot the following day, where the number would have been issued by the officer I/C records.

Why do I come to this conclusion? Simply because the Staff at Kingston Barracks would have no access to the Hertfordshires numbering system and would not have known what number to give him. The same would have applied to the others in his batch, they too wouldn't have been numbered until they reached the RWK Depot.

The rest is history as he was eventually transferred to the Northumberland Fusiliers(7/7137).

My Derby numbering like Mikes, is also fractured for the NF, but it would appear at this moment that all the remaining four figure numbers T.F. were placed in a single batch and then divided between the NF Battalions, hence huge gaps appearing or they simply may have been posted out to another unit.

Graham.

[swan]

hi all

I have a copy of grandfathers attestation papers when he joined the 2/5 notts and derby on 17/2/15

it gave his number as 3840. This was then crossed through when he was given a 6 figure

number which i believe was in 1917.

It also notes "Armlet F 55449" , his SWB number and bootsize.

What exactley was the significance of the armlet?

swan

[Stebie9173]

The Armlet was the Derby Scheme khaki armband mentioned by Graham, above. This signified that the man had volunteered to be called up ("mobilised") when his time came based on the Group system.

In practical terms it meant that the man would not be picked on (e.g. white feathered) for not being in uniform. The Armlet was worn over the man's civilian attire.

The Armlet number is possibly the number by which these men were known to the Army before they were officially allotted a Regimental or Corps number, since it would not have been possible to pre-guess what unit would require them on mobilisation, which could be six months or more down the line.

The only thing that seems odd with your example, Swan, is that 17-2-1915 is far too early for the Derby Scheme, which began in November 1915.

Steve.

[kevinrowlinson]

Thanks Roop & Graham, I shouldn't be, but still am, surprised with the kowledge you chaps have.

I think I have made the mistake to assume that when a man went to sign on he naturally signed his attestation papers.

You both give examples of soldiers who were given/sent to one regiment only to be transfered to another.

Swan when was your grandfather mobilised?

Kevin

[Graham Stewart]

The Derby Scheme armband being worn in evening dress of all things, or a waiter.

Graham.

[swan]

kevrow

On my granfathers "Military History Sheet" under service it states

Home 17-2-15 - 9-11-15

France 10-11-15 - 5-5-16

Home 6- 5 -16 - 20-7-17

Military History Sheet also states that his Emdodied service started on

17-2-15 which was his attestation date.

Rather strange.

swan

[Graham Stewart]

Swan,

If he's been "embodied" then it's seem to me he's actually enlisted into the Territorials in February 1915, considering that the Derby Scheme hadn't begun. Had he been a Derby man he wouldn't have been "mobilised" until January 1916 at the earliest. In the meantime he would have been placed on the Army Reserve until his Group was called for. What you have to remember that you could still enlist voluntarily at any time you wished throughout the war, without being called for either under the Derby Scheme or Conscription.

Graham.

PS

The "Home" on his service records actually means serving at home, not being at his place of residence.

[kevinrowlinson]

One would have to say Swan that your grandfather enlisted in the ordinary way. Mike Briggs may be able to help but what I have read he couldn't have stayed in the 2/5 Battalion for long, not if he went to France.

As to the Armlet? Even they were given numbers.

Kevin

[swan]

hi

yes he must have enlisted in the ordinary way

That was my fault for not reading the post properly saw Derby

as that was where he came from

You are right kevrow he was only in the 2/5 for just 5 weeks

17-2-15 2/5

26-3-15 3/5

10-11-15 1/5

swan

[kevinrowlinson]

Thankyou all for your imput. For what it is worth I now wonder whether the following is plausible.

A man goes to the recruiting office and attests. This he signs on that day, on Army form B 2512, which only has to be signed by Magistrate or Attesting Officer, this is later used for grouping. He also has a Descriptive Report sheet filled out. The certificate of Approving Officer will only be signed ( last part of form) if or when he is mobilised to a particular regiment. Because of the experience and knowledege this is done by the recruiting officers and staff of most regiments. From that time the men have been semi adopted by the regiment that attested them and when mobilised will be processed by them when their group is called. It is not until the man has had a medical, and been regrouped if need be, is he sent to his first proper regiment. All through this he has been given a clerical no., code etc. to identify him.

Just a theory and is probably complete nonsense.

Kevin

"I'll get me coat"

[Private Wilkinson]

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but here's hoping .....

My soldier - Private Wilkinson, WYR, 37342 - was a Derby Group man, enlisting / attesting on 2 Dec 1915. His service papers have not survived but I attach those of Arthur Teale, WYR 37393. Wilkinson was 18 and 3 months at attestation; Teale was 18 and 1 month - so both Group 1. I have seen a date of 28 March 1916 as the date when Group 1 was called / mobilised but neither Teale nor Wilkinson would have been 19 by that date. Teale's papers show that he was mobilised on 30 August 1916 and went to France on 2 Dec 1916. Both were Leeds men (Wilkinson from Armley; Teale from Headingley) and both were eventually allocated 10th (Service) bn WYR. Considering their similarities I hope I am right in choosing to believe that Wilkinson's attestation form must have looked pretty similar to that of Teale's. Questions:

a) did the minimum age requirement of 19 become relevant at time of mobilisation or at the moment a soldier reached France - it's hard to believe that it was the former, since Teale would still have been 18 on 30 August 1916;

b) I understand that all members of each of the Groups 1 - 46 were mobilised sequentially on particular dates and that this applied to all members of each Group - so, if Teale was Group 1, and his attestation form shows mobilisation as 30 August, does this mean that ALL of Group 1 were mobilised at this time?  

c) Teale's name and regimental number at the head of his attestation form appear in a different hand to that which recorded his responses to the questions - might this suggest that the regimental no. was allocated at some point after attestation;

d) does the no. '1' in the 'Card No.' box reference Group 1?