Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Commissioned from the ranks


Guest lightburn

Recommended Posts

During WW1 British Officers did not have "service numbers". When an Other Rank was discharged to commission his service number no longer had any relevance.

regards - Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the Army but in the RAF that was the practice during my career. The only difference being that from 1964 a prefix letter was added to ORs service numbers in order to simplify Record Office computerisation. The added letter gave us the same number of characters in our service number as the Army had in theirs. Officers commissioned from the ranks did not retain the prefix letter.

Garth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

............... 1964 ..............

Garth - I'm sorry if I've somehow caused confusion - I was refering to British Army Officers during WW1 - 1914-1918. They had War Office file reference numbers, but they did not have "service numbers".

regards - Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do note that Army Officers did have a 'long number' used for pay purposes during WW1, as per WO 338.

Rgds,

Alex.

Alex - I can only refer you back to my postings above.

You are correct in that TNA record class WO338 lists the file reference numbers (the "long numbers") for Regular Army Officers who served at the time of WW1, but this is not to be confused with having a "service number".

regards - Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do note that Army Officers did have a 'long number' used for pay purposes during WW1, as per WO 338.

Rgds,

Alex.

They may well have, but as Tom says this is not the same as a regimental number, and I suspect few, if any, officers would have been aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal numbers for officers were authorised on December 31st 1929 and in use from the following day. They were only to be used for administrative purposes and not in normal correspondence.

Terry Reeves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that 'long numbers' were not a service / regimental number; they were used for pay purposes only as I stated in my previous posting. I included them merely as a clarification of war office reference numbers. As to whether officers were aware of their numbers is a different matter. I know of one Canadian officer who most definitley did know of his long pay number as he quoted it is correspondance. No doubt it bore some relation of my own 'employee number' (not military!) is use today. Certainly it helps big brother find me if I have a wage query so maybe an officer would be better aquainted with his if it affected his fiscal renumeration. Apologies if my original posting was unclear or misleading,

My very best regards :) ,

Alex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...