Paul Reed Posted 14 January , 2008 Share Posted 14 January , 2008 I am not sure if the composition changed, but the L prefix seems to have been used in regiments governed by the Eastern Command Records Office. I am not sure if any records of that survive, but it may help. I will see if I can find those articles next time I look in that area of the grenier - but it might take me some time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fair Posted 14 January , 2008 Share Posted 14 January , 2008 I agree that it would be good to include the post 1920 numbering system. In the MIC Index I found a number of men who are in the 19th London block of numbers who did not serve overseas with the Regiment in the Great War, though some were subsequently found to have 4 digit numbers as they were pre-war enlistments. Page xix of "Artists Rifles: Regimental Roll of Honour and War Record 1914-1919" consists of a nice table showing the concordance between the 1908 4 digit numbers and the 1917 6 digit numbers for the 28th Londons. Inns of Court OTC can be deduced quickly from their unit history/Roll volume as all entries give their enlistment date. The lowest no that I could find quickly was 42 on 1/4/1908. I do have photocopies of some notes re numbering from I think Bulletin MHS from c. 1970s / 1980s. Not quite sure where they are at the moment but will dig them out. (Still boxed up from our move 18 months ago I think....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westkent78 Posted 15 January , 2008 Share Posted 15 January , 2008 I can help with the RWK as well, although I suspect Jonathan and/or Neil has that covered more fully than I do at present, but I've also been working on the system 1881-1914 so let me know if you need help in that regard. As for 23rd London I'm still lacking many datapoints, but as a taster they were at 1940 on 8th July, 1952 on 6th August 1914, 2381 on 1st September, 3205 on 2nd October and 3405 on 4th January 1915. (There just aren't enough hours in the day!) Best regards, Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubriscoe Posted 15 January , 2008 Share Posted 15 January , 2008 I am happy to share the small amount of 1/6 and 2/6 South Staffs information with you. This mainly covers 1908 - 1919, but I have some information on other Battalions of SSR, and a few details of 7 digit numbering for these men. Regards, Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Matthews Posted 15 January , 2008 Share Posted 15 January , 2008 I'm more than happy to assist with the Grenadier Guards, as and when required. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 15 January , 2008 Share Posted 15 January , 2008 Grumpy I can help out with the 1/6th, 2/6th & 3/6th Battn Sherwood Foresters, which should also mirror the 5th, 7th and 8th etc. So can add details on the:- 1908 Numbering The use of a 2**** numbering system used to transfer men between the N & D TF Battns prior to the 1917 renumbering The use of a 7**** numbering system used to transfer men from N & D TF Battns to Reg/Ser Battns from Sept 1916 onwards The renumbering of 4-digit TF men with 'new' 4-digit numbers when the 3/5th - 3/6th & 3/7th - 3/8th Battns merged to form 5th Res and 7th Res in June 1916 The 1917 renumbering and then the 'odds and sodds' (eg why did the 1/6th renumber from 240001 to 242639 and then start at 260001 - although I'm not sure myself yet) cheers Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 15 January , 2008 Share Posted 15 January , 2008 Grab him quick Grumpy - I told you he'd come alomg. A numbering project without Mike on board would be a bit like fish without chips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Matthews Posted 16 January , 2008 Share Posted 16 January , 2008 Please check the list and shout if I have omitted your lot! Yes, the Grenadier Guards...apologies for the echo! Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanks3 Posted 16 January , 2008 Share Posted 16 January , 2008 Grumpy, Will this new exicting work cover the Tank Corps, at all? I know there have been several questions/threads on the topic of Tank Corps and Royal Tank Corps numbers so there is definately a need. I think Stebbie and Delta are the "experts" here. Tanks3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffsyeoman Posted 16 January , 2008 Share Posted 16 January , 2008 Well, I'm sure the loose cabal of those of us who know MGC numbers (and I trail considerably behind the real experts, but have some acquaintance with MGC (Cavalry) numbers) could assist as well. In basic form, dear Grumpy, yes - the Heavy Section/Heavy Branch of the MGC would indeed segue into the Tank Corps in July 1917, but I'm not versed enough to know whether the system changed; my gut feeling is that it didn't immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 20 January , 2008 Share Posted 20 January , 2008 Just dropping in to say a big "thank you" to all of those who have responded to our request regarding your own regimental research projects and their numbering. Hopefully when finished we will have many of the answers that you crave to help with your own numbering questions, but we're also aware some regiments may throw in the odd spanner to b*gger up our efforts. Presently I'm working away from home and leave again today and won't be around for another week, so will be switching off shortly. As such poor old Grumpy is gratefully shouldering the burden of all your response once again Many thanks, Graham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 30 January , 2008 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2008 'Home Counties' regimental numbering. It seems, with one exception, the Eastern Command regiments adopted letter prefixes such as L/ for regulars etc, and this well before the war. But I think the East Surreys [who certainly were within the Command] did not. If I am right, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 31 January , 2008 Author Share Posted 31 January , 2008 Another puzzle. Slogging through SDIGW period Aug to end Dec 1914, I note a curious lack of numbers say 9750 upwards to 9999 : usually plenty 10xxx. This is in regiment after regiment. Any idea why this might be? Nothing to do with training period. If it helps, Shropsh. L. I. are an exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPCLI Posted 31 January , 2008 Share Posted 31 January , 2008 In the KOSB case, this run of numbers approximates to the enlistment period just before the 1st Battalion left for four years in Egypt and then onto India, with the Battalion in Lucknow in August 1914. Maybe, it is just a huge coincidence that these numbers are associated with the regular battalion of other regiments that happened to be on overseas duty when war broke out. Or maybe not.... Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPCLI Posted 31 January , 2008 Share Posted 31 January , 2008 Oh well, with the KOSB that was certainly the case. Compared to a handful of 2nd Battalion men in 1914, dozens of men with these numbers, serving with the 1st Battalion, were killed at the Gallipoli landings and then during the Krithia battles in May and June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 1 February , 2008 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2008 Please! 'Home Counties' regimental numbering. It seems, with one exception, the Eastern Command regiments adopted letter prefixes such as L/ for regulars etc, and this well before the war. But I think the East Surreys [who certainly were within the Command] did not. If I am right, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westkent78 Posted 1 February , 2008 Share Posted 1 February , 2008 Please! 'Home Counties' regimental numbering. It seems, with one exception, the Eastern Command regiments adopted letter prefixes such as L/ for regulars etc, and this well before the war. But I think the East Surreys [who certainly were within the Command] did not. If I am right, why not? I'd always been under the impression that the East Surreys did use the L prefix. Type in East Surrey and enter L/ in the 'other keywords' in the MIC search engine and you get over 4,000 entries, and they aren't just in the 7-10,000 range although I suspect most will be. I'm fairly sure I've run across some WO364 entries where they have L prefixes on pre-war regular papers. Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 1 February , 2008 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2008 Thank you very much. I was, perhaps, foolishly, relying on SDIGW: every other relevant regiment uses the letters, but the E Surreys only have a handful of TR prefixes for the whole war. Perhaps they were entered incorrectly. I will now browse CWGC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 1 February , 2008 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2008 Curious! Curioser! CWGC: no L/ no G/ just a few TR. MiCs nearly 5000 of L, 3000 of G/ So, who stripped off the prefixes and when. And do they appear on E Surrey headstones and memorials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Thompson Posted 1 February , 2008 Share Posted 1 February , 2008 Slogging through SDIGW period Aug to end Dec 1914, I note a curious lack of numbers say 9750 upwards to 9999 : usually plenty 10xxx. This is in regiment after regiment. Any idea why this might be? For the Hampshire Regiment those with a regimental number in the range 9750 to 9999 had an enlistment date in August 1914 with almost all ending up in the 10th Hants, 10th (Irish) Div K1 (landed Gallipoli 05/08/1915). Another link that may be of interest which I came across some time ago concerns the Royal Berkshires numbering Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westkent78 Posted 1 February , 2008 Share Posted 1 February , 2008 Another puzzle. Slogging through SDIGW period Aug to end Dec 1914, I note a curious lack of numbers say 9750 upwards to 9999 : usually plenty 10xxx. This is in regiment after regiment. Any idea why this might be? Nothing to do with training period. If it helps, Shropsh. L. I. are an exception. It may be a function of which battalion was on home service pre-war and was sending drafts to the overseas battalion or possibly that a battalion with a great proportion of the men in that number range wasn't involved in fighting during 1914. RWK for instance had 2nd Bn overseas so most of the casualties 84** to 94** are 2nd Bn men dying in mid 1915- to late 1916. (this is a very general overview), whereas 1st Bn had quite a number of 1914 casualties in 7*** to 8*** range. In the specific range you're concerned with, RWK had about 50 fatalities with just over 50% of these 1st Bn 1914 fatalities and most of the rest 2nd Bn 1916 & 1917 fatalities. Best regards, Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPotter Posted 2 February , 2008 Share Posted 2 February , 2008 Matthew, I'm sure that this is the reason for some of the numbering patterns seen. It was the same for the Dorsets, with the 1st Bn at Home (in Ireland) and the 2nd Bn in India, although they were in Mesopotamia by November 1914 and incurring casualties too. Because of this it is relatively easy to breakdown the allocation of numbers, as 1st Bn men landed in France in August 1914 and appear on the 1914 Star roll, whereas the 2nd Bn men all appear on the 1915 Star Roll. There is also some help on the 1915 Star roll with the 5th and 6th Service Bns, as the 5th Bn landed in Gallipoli as their First Theatre, whilst the 6th Bn went to France, so they also can easily be separated. It is only once the 1st, 5th and 6th were in France in 1916 that complications can arise, but fortunately the BWM/VIC medal roll indicate with which Bn a man served. Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 9 February , 2008 Author Share Posted 9 February , 2008 Progress report. I have deleted a few posts above that were 'thank you's' and not much substance. My thanks remain! Still need a lot of regiments' likely last number issued 4th Aug 1914 ..... those who know they have helped in this respect, rest assured the data are entered. Very interested in the period 1881 to say 1890 because it is becoming clear that many men carried their 'old series' numbers with them well into period. Any Pal with medal roll or rolls for any campaigns in period please have a look for XX/xxxx or X/xxxx numbers on rolls: such men have not received numbers in the series that was up to 10000 for many regiments by August 1914. Apart from that, am up to 1923! PS Graham has a fair bit to do when he comes out of his tree! Exams and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Jones Posted 10 February , 2008 Share Posted 10 February , 2008 Hi Grumpy, The Worcestershire Regiment had four Regular Bn.s in 1914 but they did NOT get to 10000 and start again. The highest number for a Boer War Medal was 6*** . They issued 2088 in 1887 ; 2635 in 1890 ; 3875 in 1893 ; 4743 in 1897 and 5676 went out on 3rd Jan 1900. I wont carry on with an endless list but you can see the regular progress. The number 10000 was issued for the first and only time on 5th July 1906 and they just carried on up. On 4th August 1914 13604 was issued. Regards Mike Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 10 February , 2008 Author Share Posted 10 February , 2008 Mike: thank you, very useful. The 'failure' to start again at No. 1 in 1906 will be due to fact that this was the year when regiments were told to run to 19999 instead of 9999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now