Southwold, Suffolk ?

[londons]

Hi,

Can anyone help to clear up a family puzzle ?

My great grandfather, Pte David Martin Vincent, served with the 6th London Rifles, a TF, from just before the start of the war. The medal roll shows his service as being:

- Pte 269365 - 1st Royal Warwickshire Regt 20/6/1917 - 5/8/1917

- Pte 360789 - Labour Corps 6/8/1917 - 15/2/1918

- Pte 424457 - 1/10th London regt 16/2/1918 - 19/9/1918 KIA

It makes most sense that his first regiment was in fact the 1st Garrison Battalion RWR since his first and only posting was Egypt, his labour corps number is believed to be for a coy based in Egypt and he died in Palestine with the Londons.

The family recall that he was stationed for a period in Southwold and Burgess Hill.

Does anyone know the significance of these places , especially Southwold ? E.g. did troops sail for France from Southwold ? As I am still puzzled why the medal roll would seemingly miss out the word " Garrison " from the RWR listing.

There is no family recollection of him going to France as the 1st RWR did and a photo signed by his hand shows him in Egypt in July 1917 when supposedly with the 1st RWR, hence the assumption that it is the 1st garrison bn RWR who were based in Abbassia at the time.

Any help would be really appreciated.

Many thanks.

[Jock Bruce]

269365 is from the block of numbers allocated to 7 Warwicks in the TF renumbering of early 17. So at that point he was considered to be serving in 7 Warwicks, presumably in UK. Your man would have retained this number as long as he served in the Warwicks.

I don't know where 3/7th Warwicks were stationed in UK in 1917 - but I bet someone on here does.

Jock

[londons]

Hi Jock,

Thanks for you reply, and the plot thickens !!!

Hopefully someone will offer some info on the 7 Warwicks.

Thanks again,

Lee

[Guest Pete Wood]

Londons, I think Jock is on to something here.

While I can see why you are thinking your man may have been with 1 Garrison Bn RWR, because all their casualties occurred in Egypt - and you have your signed photograph - there is another death in Egypt of a 7 Warwicks man (albeit later than your G Grandfather).

Look at:

Name: HATFIELD, HARRY WALTER

Initials: H W

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Private

Regiment: Royal Warwickshire Regiment

Unit Text: 7th Bn.

Age: 22

Date of Death: 02/06/1919

Service No: 303022

Additional information: Son of Charlotte Hatfield, of Tadmarton, Banbury, Oxon, and the late Harry Hatfield.

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: P. 31.

Cemetery: CAIRO WAR MEMORIAL CEMETERY

[Guest Pete Wood]

It does seem strange that ALL the other deaths recorded on SDGW for the 7 Warwicks are in France and Flanders, I admit.

Why would the Warwicks send a (small?) detachment to Egypt I wonder.....?

[Terry_Reeves]

7 RWR was a Coventry based unit with companies in the surrounding towns. 1/7th served in France, Flanders and Italy. There is no record in the Bn war diary of any men serving in Egypt. Same goes for 2/7th RWR.

3/7 RWR was formed in May 1915 and never served outside the UK. They went to Weston-Super-mare in April 1916, Ludgershall, on the Salisbury Plain, in September 1916. By March 1917 they were at Catterick and in the summer of the same year moved to Northumberland (Blythe area)as part of the Tyne Garrison, where they remained until the end of the war.

Terry Reeves

[londons]

Thanks Terry,

It does still appear that the most logical explaination is that he was either in the 1st Gn Bn RWR from the start and the medal roll is in slight error. Or he did infact join the 1st RWR went to France and was injured and sent to Egypt prior to July 1917 when the photo was taken in Egypt. But to my knowledge the 1st RWR went nowhere near Egypt ?

Thanks again,

regards,

Lee

[Charles Fair]

Lee

Southwold was a common location for London TF units in 1915 - 1916.

The units that I know were there were some of the Provisional Battalions of the TF. These were battalions consisting of TF men who were either not A1 fit (on health or age grounds) or more commonly who had not signed the Imperial Service Obligation. There were 68 TF Provisional Battalions, which were organised into brigades and divisions which spent ther time on the E coast watching for Zeppelins, German invasion fleets etc.

Those in the Southwold area included the 100th and 106th bns, mainly London TF men. War Diaries for these units from about Sept 1915 - May 1916 are in the PRO in WO 95/5458 or thereabouts.

Men who elected to sign the ISO were then transferred into another TF unit (often their own, but postings between London TF bns were common).

The PBs had reduced to about 40 battalions by mid-late 1916, when the coming of conscription with the Military Service Acts of 1916 effectively removed the distinction between the TF and the rest of the Army. Men who were serving in the PBs and who had not until then signed the ISO would, I believe, have been liable to be posted anywhere they were needed.

I suspect your ggf started the war with the 6th Londons, been posted from the 2/6th or 3/6th to a PB in the Southwold area, and then been posted in late 1916 into a completely unrelated unit, which thus explains his medal roll entries.

Charles

[londons]

Hi Charles,

Thank you very much for your interesting reply, it certainly makes sense. maybe my ggf as a TF didn't volunteer for overseas duty or was held back in the UK as he was married in 1914 and had a newborn child in early 1916 ? I do believe from family recollections that he had extremely poor eyesight ?

I am still puzzled by the fact that the medal roll states his first posting as 1st royal Warwickshires when the first Gn Bn Royal warwickshires looks more likely since his first posting overseas was Egypt and we have a photo of him in Egypt dated within his period of service with the "1st RWR".

Thanks again Charles.

Regards,

Lee

[londons]

Hi Jock,

Thanks again for your earlier reply. I have just noticed that David Martin Vincents number for the 1st RWR which I believed was actually the 1st Gn Bn RWR has bee typographically modfied.

I originally read it to be 269365 but it could actually be 299365.

Could you tell me what the change might mean ?

Many thanks,

Lee