Special Reserve: recruitment

[Keith_history_buff]

On the basis that 13358 Charles Edward Townsend is on the medal roll for the regiment, and is not on the Special Reserve element of the roll, I am comfortable that he enlisted under regular terms. By a process of elimination, I would think it is the case that 13358 Thomas Horgan has therefore enlisted under Special Reserve terms of service. 

Here is an attestation form for 13348    Edward    Sweeney

Image courtesy FindMyPast
 

[Muerrisch]

Absolutely fascinating [OK I know I am sad!] and what an erudite thread I hesitantly started way back.

Bad form to quote oneself, but in the context of an apparently "wrong form" being issued post-attestation, the very early instruction re. status of New Armies and SR quoted below may explain some irregulaties. Anyway, fascinating, please keep digging, even if the 'ole keeps getting deeper.

QUOTE FOLLOWS:

On a more general note on the purpose of this thread:

The status of ‘New Army’ soldiers, Special Reservists and, from 1916, conscripts.

Army Council Instruction (ACI) 123 of 12th October 1914 entitled ‘Status of Special Reserves, New Armies, and Regular Army’ said:

‘From representations made to the War Office it would appear that there is still some misapprehension with regard to the status of the Special Reserve, and the new armies in process of formation, when compared with the regular army as it existed before war was declared.

It is therefore explained that the New Armies, the reserve units and the Special Reserve are, since mobilisation, to all intents and purposes, portions of the regular army.

It is thus apparent that soldiers, whether attested under the ordinary terms of service in the force before mobilisation, or attested for the duration of the war under the conditions of AOs 295 and 296 of 1914, are, during the period of embodiment, regular soldiers, and are therefore eligible for posting to any of the units of the corps to which they have been appointed, at the discretion of the competent military authority’.

One of the effects of this instruction was (should have been) that members of the reserve forces and the new armies should be numbered in the regular regimental series. Most were, although batches were issued to new formations and transferees.

[RussT]

It seems to be quite a mix up with these SWB enlistments during this period - no wonder Paul Nixon made those comments.

Those specific Medal Rolls are indeed sub-titled as being for Special Reserve enlistments but here is a curious example (I'm sure there are plenty of others) - 15330 George Hipgrave - he's on the SWB "SR" VM/BWM Medal Roll WO/329 1090 (image courtesy Ancestry).

He attested on the common-and-garden B2505 Short Service "For Duration of the War" (image courtesy of FMP) terms - albeit with a comment that he has an "SR number" but his number is then prefixed with a New Army Battalion 7/ prefix.  I note he is a 12 years (1907) T/E man.

A right dog's dinner !

Is it possible that this Medal Roll was originally set up with the sub-title "Special Reserve" and was indeed used to begin with for actual SR men but they just carried on using the Roll for later enlistments for those who were not actually SR?

Russ

 

[Keith_history_buff]

If we take the example of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, it is simpler to make that SR vs Regular delineation. 5308 Martin MacDermott on FindMyPast enlisted under Special Reserve terms of service at Wrexham on 23 July 1914. 5309 Walter Gwynne Davies enlisted in the Regulars for 12 years, split 7&5 on the 4th August 1897. There is a gap of seventeen years between the two number sequences. Any soldier with a 52** series number who is in their twenties will have enlisted under SR terms of service. 

If we look at the South Wales Borderers, the number sequences in use were close to each other. There appears to have been the two number sequences in place until June 1915, and thereafter there was just the one number sequence. Going through both number sequences would take years to research. 

The concept of the battalion number prefix came in belatedly on 18 May 1915, and was less of an ongoing issue for men volunteering to serve for 3 years under AO 295 of 6 August 1914, given that the two sequences were replaced with just one mid-June 1915, that being the 2***** series for the SWB in 1915.

  

On 01/09/2022 at 10:09, RussT said:

There is no particular significance to the 3/ prefix on his service number noted on his PIC - it also appears on his Soldier's Effects Record.

Typically a 3/ prefix would designate that a man enlisted into the Special Reserve under their Terms of Engagement - but [15 Jan 1917 fatality Pte James] Wood's 3/ prefix has nothing to do with the SR numbering system.

Rather it stems from a rather feeble attempt by the army (via an ACI in May 1915) to introduce a system of Battalion prefixes in order to help with the problem of duplicate numbers that had by then made the whole service number system within a Regiment quite confusing.

The idea was to prefix a man's number with the Battalion he first joined and he would then stick with that prefix all the time he stayed with that Regiment irrespective of whether he changed Battalion within his Regiment. It was a rather silly instruction/system that most Regiments ignored or implemented in a half-hearted way. It was particularly silly in Wood's case because his SWB number of 28454 comes from the SWB Regular number series that wasn't (and was unlikely to be) duplicated.

Regards

Russ

 

Whilst I was seeing SR men being posted to the legacy 1st and 2nd Battalions, this was not exclusive, and some of the SR men were posted to New Army battalions, as evidenced by the Special Reserve medal roll.

I did play around with the N&MP, and only two line items came up for Suffolk Regiment, which would suggest nothing to identify SR men on their roll.

Suffolk - 2 results
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/search/results?sourcecategory=armed+forces+%26+conflict&sid=101&keywords=special+reserve&regiment=suffolk+regiment&datasetname=britain%2c+first+world+war+campaign+medals

removal of Suffolk as filter - 5049 results
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/search/results?sourcecategory=armed forces %26 conflict&keywords=special reserve&datasetname=britain%2c first world war campaign medals&sid=999

[Muerrisch]

Contributors will be aware I am sure that the use of battalion prefix number such as 3/ or indeed xx/ was eventually  forbidden in any public references. This presumably to avoid allowing Germans to construct an Orbat from casualty lists. 

Not entirely relevant to the above, but another layer of potential confusion.

I can dig out the ref. if needs be. I think.

[Keith_history_buff]

A useful piece of further information to add to the metaphysics around the metadata of record keeping by the British Army. Thanks for sharing.

[RussT]

1 hour ago, Muerrisch said:

Contributors will be aware I am sure that the use of battalion prefix number such as 3/ or indeed xx/ was eventually  forbidden in any public references. This presumably to avoid allowing Germans to construct an Orbat from casualty lists. 

Sounds like a sensible idea - but evidently oft ignored. You can find 1000s of German PoW/IRC records of men with their Battalion number prefixes on those records. Plus, good luck to anyone trying to construct an ORBAT for those men with a 3/ number prefix given that most 3rd Battalions did not deploy overseas but men who had such a 3/ number prefix evidently did (to whatever active service Battalion they were posted).

I wonder if name/identity tags were issued with such a Battalion prefix and, if so, had to be re-issued once this requirement was stipulated?

A reference stipulating this requirement would be welcome - and any references to documents referring to its implementation equally so.

Regards

Russ

[RussT]

Just going back to the South Wales Borderers "Special Reserve" Medal Roll.

I am working my way backwards from numbers around 15300ish looking for Service Records.

Of course, as expected most Service Records for these men have not survived but those that I am finding so far are the same as the one for Hipgrave I posted earlier.

They are the good ol' AF B2505 Short Service Attestation Forms - but again with the annotation that the number is a "Special Reserve No" - see two more examples below.

I am beginning to conclude that these men attested under the standard "Duration of War" terms but, for whatever reason, were allotted numbers from the SR number sequence which, as noted, was running in parallel to the Regular number sequence. There is no evidence that they were actually Special Reserve enlistments. Given they have numbers from the SR sequence, they have been bundled on to the "SR" sub-titled Medal Roll.

Having a service number from the SR numbering sequence is not the same as having attested under SR Terms.

On the basis of this investigation so far, in finding some sort of rather late enlistment date for men on this "SR" Medal Roll does not necessarily lend support to the question as to when SR enlistments began to be phased out.

Russ

 

[Muerrisch]

Regretably, memory failed me.

I quote below the article that I wrote with Graham Stewart on Regimental Numbers. It won the annual Lummis Cup award of the MHS, but helps this thread not one iota.

 

Somewhat belatedly, on 18^th May 1915 ACI 144 was issued, entitled ‘Procedure to be adopted in dealing with Duplication of Regimental Numbers’. This duplication arose in regiments where no prefixes or compounds were used, such as the RWF, who had six series (at least) running at that date: a regular series shared by the two line battalions and the Service (New Army) battalions, the separate series of the Special Reserve 3^rd battalion, and separate series for each of the four Territorial Force (TF) battalions 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th. The regular series had moved on, whereas the others were in the zone 4000 to 8000 having either begun at 1. in 1908, or continued previous series from a comparatively low base line. There was therefore an overlap between regular ‘old soldiers’ where numbers around 6000 was still serving, and the others, and 1^st RWF went to war with at least 30 duplicated pairs, comprising SR and regular.

 

The instruction said:

“The following procedure should be adopted, in order to deal with the duplication of regimental numbers which has been found to exist in certain regiments: -

1.      In any regiment in which such duplication exists: -

a.                Every soldier’s regimental number will be prefixed by the number of the battalion in which he is serving on the date of this letter (eg. 5/3492;

b.                In the case of men enlisting on or after the date of this letter, the regimental number will be prefixed by the number of the battalion to which the man is first posted;

c.                In both cases a. and b. the number and prefix will be retained by the man as long as he remains in the regiment, and will not be affected by re-posting to another battalion of the same regiment;

d.                Officers i/c records should at once take steps to notify these instructions to their offices in which duplication of numbers now exists, and Officers i/c records and COs concerned will take the necessary steps to amend all documents in their possession accordingly;

e.                Officers i/c records concerned will cause Officers Commanding units affiliated to their offices to furnish a certificate to them by 1^st June 1915 that all documents in their possession have been amended in accordance with these instructions, and Officers i/c records will forward to the War Office by 15^th June 1915 a similar certificate with regard to documents in their possession, adding that the certificates referred to above have been duly received from all COs concerned.

2.      In those regiments in which no duplication of numbers exists, either as a result of separate blocks of numbers having been allotted for each battalion, or in consequence of a system other than that described above having been introduced to deal with the matter, it is not desired that any special orders should now be issued. It should, however, be made clear to all concerned that no alteration of number or prefix should take place if a man is re-posted to a different battalion of the same regiment”.

 

This was a very sensible order apart from the ‘do nothing’ option if no problem was perceived. In this spirit, some regiments, RWF included and with real problems, did nothing, and the problem persisted in those regiments.  Within a year, these battalion number prefixes had become a problem, in that their use in published casualty lists became a source of intelligence to the enemy. They promptly disappeared from public view, but no official instruction has been traced.

[Keith_history_buff]

Thank you for finding the full text, and reproducing it. In many instances the men with a "3/" prefix are Special Reserve, but not always, for reasons already mentioned. All that I had seen up to now was the précis of this Army Order from Paul Nixon's domain.

[Keith_history_buff]

  

2 hours ago, RussT said:

Just going back to the South Wales Borderers "Special Reserve" Medal Roll....

[snip]

 

Russ

 

I would be interested in seeing some formal documentation that would authorise two concurrent number sequences to be utilised by a regiment if all of these men were enlisting solely under the terms of Army Order 296, to serve for 3 years or the duration. It would be easier for all to use just the one number sequence.

If the army had issued an ACI on 18 May 1915, with a view to overcome numeric confusion, then why was there not an order issued concurrently to immediately do away with the Special Reserve enlistment number sequence issuance, and for all soldiers enlisting in the South Wales Borderers in 1915 to use the Regular number sequence - which was in the 20000 range during 1915, and would go up to the 70000 range during 1919, with 80000 being used for postwar short service enlistments? 

To refer back to the Hipgrave post:
The attestation is marked in pen to state "Special Reserve No" on the duplicate attestation for Hipgrave, when he attested on 22 December 1914. He is marked as being Special Reserve on the medal roll. This makes sense, given that 15330 John Edward Russon had enlisted as a regular on 3 September 1914, to serve 3 years or the duration.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, well.... I do not comprehend why you think the medal rolls labelled Special Reserve do not relate to Special Reservists. My opinion is unlikely to shift, in the absence of primary source data of good provenance being forthcoming from the War Office secretariat, with regard to deviating from existing practice when it came to number sequences for men enlisting under terms of service other than those of the TF. Until such time as that occurs, I have nothing further to add.

These men on the SR medal roll are older men in general, which ties in with the use of the AO 295 terms of service, and should see former soldiers being absorbed from Civvy Street. 

What I do find peculiar about the latter attestations is that although there are annotations as to the terms of service of the soldier concerned, the explicit mention of 3 years or 1 year is no longer appearing. Perhaps ACI 123 of 12th October 1914 has some bearing on this? From 1871 onwards, the attestation was explicit insofar as the time and its split is to be 'specified in the attestation paper in Army service', as the army introduced the split between colour service and reserve service.

[RussT]

5 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

I do not comprehend why you think the medal rolls labelled Special Reserve do not relate to Special Reservists

Because many of the men on that Roll were attested on B2505 Army Forms - I've posted plenty of examples above and there are lots more. But because they have been given, for some obscure reason, numbers from the SR number series I think they have been bundled on this so-called "SR" Medal Roll.

This does not preclude Russon having the number 15330 given that his number is from the so-called Regular number series.

If they were truly Special Reservists, why weren't they attested on AF B248 like some of the others who are on this Roll, as per the example you provided in a post above?

Russ

 

[Keith_history_buff]

As per my prior post, I have nothing to add on the subject and am disappointed that you cannot respect this.

The thread does mention that the "3/" prefix is suggestive of a Special Reserve background. There is mention of ACI 144 of May 1915 on the number prefix post on the armyservicenumbers blog from around 2015. The following, taken from the same domain, different post, is a good example of the prefix as an indicator of service, but always worth following up.

Quote

It may be stating the obvious, but it is worth pointing out that when Britain went to war in 1914, many [Special Reserve] men serving with the 3rd and 4th Battalions were immediately posted to the (regular) 1st and 2nd Battalions and were soon facing German troops in Belgium. Thus 21 year old 3/6061 Private Henry Campbell went missing on 21st October 1914 whilst serving with the 2nd Battalion, but his number belongs to the series used by the 3rd (Special Reserve) Battalion which he had joined on 4th December 1908. He has no known grave and is commemorated on the Ploegsteert Memorial. A note in his file reads, "In accordance with the decision of the Army Council, this soldier is to be regarded for official purposes as having died on or since 21.10.1914."

https://armyservicenumbers.blogspot.com/2009/02/argyll-sutherland-highlanders-3rd-4th.html

 

 

 

[Keith_history_buff]

I have been able to get a copy of GARBA, and there is the following which is of interest:

'Increase and decrease of the non-commissioned officers and men on the Regimental Strength of each Arm of the Service'
Broken down by each financial year ending 30 September

 

Year ending 30 Sep 1914
Increases
Across pages 24 & 25

00,494 Cavalrymen enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 4 years
22,666 men enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 6 years
03,579 men extending their Special Reserve service, beyond their original term
74,846 men re-enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 1 year or duration of war, AO 295 supplemental terms
In contrast, there are 373,048 men who enlisted under the original supplemental Regular terms of service, Short Service for the duration of the war

 

Year ending 30 Sep 1915
Increases
Across pages 28 & 29

00,693 Cavalrymen enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 4 years
09,694 men enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 6 years
01,255 men extending their Special Reserve service, beyond their original term
42,636 men re-enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 1 year or duration of war, AO 295 supplemental terms cancelled 7 Nov 1914
In contrast, there are 167,280 men who enlisted under the original supplemental Regular terms of service, Short Service for the duration of the war, up to 7 Nov 1914
In contrast, there are 725,717 men who enlisted under the revised supplemental Regular terms of service, Short Service for the duration of the war, from 8 Nov 1914 onwards

Year ending 30 Sep 1916
Increases
Across pages 32 & 33

00,830 Cavalrymen enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 4 years
02,153 men enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 6 years
000022 men extending their Special Reserve service, beyond their original term
12,392 men re-enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 1 year or duration of war, AO 295 supplemental terms cancelled 7 Nov 1914
In contrast, there are 850,958 men who enlisted under the supplemental Regular terms of service, Short Service for the duration of the war

What I cannot understand, from this time period going forwards, is how there is a metric for AO 295, given these terms were cancelled.

Year ending 30 Sep 1917
Increases
Across pages 36 & 37

3,401 men re-enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 1 year or duration of war, AO 295 supplemental terms cancelled 7 Nov 1914
In contrast, there are 753,922 men who enlisted under the supplemental Regular terms of service, Short Service for the duration of the war

There is only one line item against Special Reserve. These men would be enlisting under 6 year terms of service, not the 1 year reenlistment terms, so I believe this is an administrative error of classification

 

Year ending 30 Sep 1918
Increases
Across pages 40 & 41

4,678 men re-enlisting under Special Reserve terms of service, for 1 year or duration of war, AO 295 supplemental terms cancelled 7 Nov 1914
In contrast, there are 515,927 men who enlisted under the supplemental Regular terms of service, Short Service for the duration of the war

There is only one line item against Special Reserve. These men would be enlisting under 6 year terms of service, not the 1 year reenlistment terms, so I believe this is an administrative error of classification

 

In comparison with the "Kitchener men", the amount of Special Reserve enlistments gets smaller and smaller.

From 1908 to 6 August 1914, the Special Reserve looked to recruit younger men, who could meet the 5 + 1 month period of training. From 7 August 1914 to 7 November 1914, the Special Reserve looked to reenlist men with prior military experience, and this pool of older ex-military men appears to have been absorbed by the end of 1914.

From this point onwards, it no longer served a purpose. It was preferred that recruits voluntarily enlisted under Regular terms of service, for the duration of the war. This was superseded by the MSA. 

The following post directed me towards GARBA
 

  

On 13/12/2016 at 17:24, Guest said:

There were 9,728 men (not boys) who enlisted under different terms and another 8,079 ex-servicemen enlisted [K_H_B: for the period 1 Oct 1916 to 30 Sep 1918 3401 + 4678] with the Special Reserve after the MSA i.e between Sep 1916 and Sep 1918. ...some 17,807 outside the "duration of war" terms between end Sep 1916 and end Sep 1918. 

I hope we are all at least agreed that there were still routes other than "duration of war" terms albeit small as a percentage it still translated into a few tens of thousands of men. 

The bottom line is that the GARBA data clearly shows these men enlisting on other terms right through the war, so making a deliberate decision at least to serve longer than MSA requirements.......  

 

If I recall correctly, some serving men were sent back to civvy street for critical roles in certain highly skilled industries. At the end of the war 'Pivotal Men' and Coal Miners were prioritised for demobilization.  MG

 

[Muerrisch]

Keith, its late at night but I am staggered. 

I cannot get my head round the SR terms take-up after sep 1915.

[Keith_history_buff]

My copy of GARBA is grainy, so I have used the Mk 1 eyeball to type into a spreadsheet some of the numbers that I am seeing.

Here is the breakout of the single line of SR enlistments for 1916-7 and 1917-8. Proportionally, there are a lot less infantrymen than in prior periods.

1917		Cavalry of the Line	445	13.08%
1917		RHA & RFA	1221	35.90%
1917		RGA	1271	37.37%
1917		Foot Guards	92	2.71%
1917		Infantry of the Line	343	10.09%
1917		Tank Corps	0	0.00%
1917		Colonial Corps	0	0.00%
1917		Army Service Corps	9	0.26%
1917		Army Ordnance Corps	1	0.03%
1917		Labour Corps	3	0.09%
1917		RAMC	16	0.47%

 

1918		Cavalry of the Line	21	0.45%
1918		RHA & RFA	3487	74.54%
1918		RGA	759	16.22%
1918		Royal Engineers	257	5.49%
1918		Foot Guards	9	0.19%
1918		Infantry of the Line	85	1.82%
1918		Tank Corps	5	0.11%
1918		Colonial Corps	2	0.04%
1918		Army Service Corps	49	1.05%
1918		Army Ordnance Corps	3	0.06%
1918		Labour Corps	1	0.02%

[Keith_history_buff]

Here is a breakdown of the mystery line item:

The 1 year SR service was cancelled on 7 November 1914 by Army Order 470. GARBA tells us that in 1915-16 there were 12,392 enlistments under these cancelled terms of service.

1916		Household Cavalry	5	0.04%
1916		Cavalry of the Line	590	4.76%
1916		RHA & RFA	912	7.36%
1916		RGA	2034	16.41%
1916		Artillery Clerks	1	0.01%
1916		Royal Engineers	1	0.01%
1916		Royal Flying Corps	3018	24.35%
1916		Foot Guards	142	1.15%
1916		Infantry of the Line	3012	24.31%
1916		Army Cyclist Corps	2	0.02%
1916		Machine Gun Corps	2527	20.39%
1916		Colonial Corps	0	0.00%
1916		Army Service Corps	44	0.36%
1916		RAMC	96	0.77%
1916		Army Ordnance Corps	7	0.06%
1916		Royal Army Pay Corps	1	0.01%

[Keith_history_buff]

For 1915-6

Here is a breakout of those men who were extending their Special Reserve service, beyond their original term. Does this cease as of the passing of the MSA?

1916		Cavalry of the Line	19	86.36%
1916		RGA	3	13.64%

Army Order 470 of 7 November 1914 did cancel the 1 year enlistments in the SR, but mentioned that it was still possible to enlist under the terms that existed before the war. Here is a breakout of those enlistments, but no infantry enlistments are recorded?

1916		RGA	3	0.14%
1916		Royal Engineers	1772	82.30%
1916		Infantry of the Line	378	17.56%

[Keith_history_buff]

For 1914-5

Here is a breakout of those men who were extending their Special Reserve service, beyond their original term. The subtotal in GARBA states 1255 but I make it 1165. Unlike the following year, we see few engineers and many infantrymen

1915		Cavalry of the Line	30	2.58%
1915		RGA	30	2.58%
1915		Royal Engineers	4	0.34%
1915		Infantry of the Line	1101	94.51%

These men enlisted under the terms that existed before the war, of 6 years. There is a surge in the Royal Engineers. Could there be a link with the creation of Tunnelling Companies? In the following year, there are 1772 enlistments under these terms in the Royal Engineers (see post above).

1915		RGA	33	0.34%
1915		Royal Engineers	4519	46.62%
1915		Infantry of the Line	5060	52.20%
1915		RAMC	82	0.85%

[Keith_history_buff]

For 1914-5

Here is a breakdown of those who - ostensibly - enlisted under the 1 year terms, introduced by Army Order 295 on 6 August 1914 and rescinded on 7 November 1914. In theory, it should cover the time period 1 Oct 1914 to 7 November 1914.

My sum of the parts is 42,546 whereas the subtotal in GARBA is higher by 140, stating 42,686

Enlistments in line infantry are the predominant figure, unsurprisingly.

1915		Household Cavalry	57	0.13%
1915		Cavalry of the Line	2752	6.47%
1915		RHA & RFA	3443	8.09%
1915		RGA	3794	8.92%
1915		Artillery Clerks	2	0.00%
1915		Royal Engineers	90	0.21%
1915		Royal Flying Corps	1	0.00%
1915		Foot Guards	763	1.79%
1915		Infantry of the Line	27188	63.90%
1915		Army Service Corps	4042	9.50%
1915		RAMC	408	0.96%
1915		RAVC	6	0.01%

[Keith_history_buff]

This is the final post from me, regarding transcriptions from GARBA.

I have no interest in neither the 6 year enlistments nor the extensions of service (totalling 22,666 & 3,579) for the time period 1 Oct 1913 to 30 Sep 1914.

Here is the breakout of those men who enlisted from 6 August 1914 to 30 September 1914 under the 1 year terms of Army Order 295. Of these, 85% are in the infantry of the line.

1914		Household Cavalry	80	0.11%
1914		Cavalry of the Line	2877	3.84%
1914		RHA & RFA	2798	3.74%
1914		RGA	3012	4.02%
1914		Royal Engineers	324	0.43%
1914		Foot Guards	839	1.12%
1914		Infantry of the Line	64223	85.81%
1914		RAMC	622	0.83%
1914		RAVC	12	0.02%
1914		Army Ordnance Corps	59	0.08%

[Muerrisch]

Keith,

a mighty thank you for this meticulous research.

Its a case of 'thanks but no thanks', because you have dug up a huge can of worms!

I remain baffled, and have only three explanations for the longevity of the AO 295 enlistments.

1. wilful disobedience

2. Clerical incompetence at GARBA

3. A missing ACI saying please disregard AO 295 until further notice.

 

Of these, only 3. is feasible in an era when meticulous record keeping was standard.

[Keith_history_buff]

AO 295 was cancelled by AO 470 of 7 November 1914.

At the time, there were two supplementary terms of service for the duration of the war, one being for 1 year or Duration of War in the SR (AO 295), the other being for 3 years or Duration of War. To my mind, it made sense to close down AO 295, as it had served its purpose of mopping up those former soldiers in civvy street.

From an administrative angle, the supplemental SR terms get binned. The supplemental regular terms get replaced, and the "3 years or" prefix is removed. All voluntary enlistments are encouraged to enlist as "Kitchener men". As well as getting rid of the "Is it 3 years or 1 year" faff, you now have new men being allocated a regular service number, and their details are added to the Army Form 358 Enlistment Book as a consequence.

The regulations seem to say one thing, and GARBA seems to be saying something different for 1916. I think the 1917 and 1918 figures relate to 6 year enlistment, not the 1 year enlistment that was cancelled on 7 November 1914.

On an exceptional basis, an individual wishing to enlist in the SR could enlist 'under conditions that existed before the war'.

It would have made sense for men enlisting from November 1914 onwards to go for the new singular General Service terms 
         'in the Regular Army, and for the duration of the war, at the end of which men so enlisting will be discharged with all convenient speed.'

 

The most appealing terms of service, in my humble opinion, were the General Service terms for the Duration of the War, so it raises the question of why would an aspiring Private/Trooper/Sapper/Gunner/Driver/Air Mechanic even consider joining the SR under the legacy 6 year terms?

(Please note the differentiation between enlisting in the ranks, and leaving out of the equation the Special Reserve of Officers, which is outside of scope of the debate.)
 

  

On 07/01/2023 at 01:33, MBrockway said:

If I'm reading it correctly, Army Order AO 470 issued as Order No V on 07 Nov 1914 [snip]

There is evidence from service records that soldiers were enlisting under Special Reserve terms. As others have noticed from their research, there were less and less from November 1914 onwards.

[Keith_history_buff]

Just now, Keith_history_buff said:

AO 295 was cancelled by AO 470 of 7 November 1914.

At the time, there were two supplementary terms of service for the duration of the war, one being for 1 year or Duration of War in the SR (AO 295), the other being [AO 296 Regular terms] for 3 years or Duration of War. To my mind, it made sense to close down AO 295, as it had served its purpose of mopping up those former soldiers in civvy street.

From an administrative angle, the supplemental SR terms get binned. The supplemental regular terms get replaced, and the "3 years or" prefix is removed. All voluntary enlistments are encouraged to enlist as "Kitchener men". As well as getting rid of the "Is it 3 years or 1 year" faff, you now have new men being allocated a regular service number, and their details are added to the Army Form 358 Enlistment Book as a consequence.

[snip]

On an exceptional basis, an individual wishing to enlist in the SR could enlist 'under conditions that existed before the war'.

It would have made sense for men enlisting from November 1914 onwards to go for the new singular General Service terms 
         'in the Regular Army, and for the duration of the war, at the end of which men so enlisting will be discharged with all convenient speed.'

 

The most appealing terms of service, in my humble opinion, were the General Service terms for the Duration of the War, so it raises the question of why would an aspiring Private/Trooper/Sapper/Gunner/Driver/Air Mechanic even consider joining the SR under the legacy 6 year terms?

(Please note the differentiation between enlisting in the ranks, and leaving out of the equation the Special Reserve of Officers, which is outside of scope of the debate.)

I think it made a lot of sense to "kill" AO 295 and to "supersede" AO 296 with the simplified terms of AO 470. 

One new preferred way of doing things, less scope for confusion.

[Keith_history_buff]

Given there is an underlying interest in line infantry, I thought I would take the time to gather some data, and put it in a table.

 

Year	Category	Element in numbers	Element (%)
1914	AO 295, Special Reserve	64223	85.81%
1915	AO 295, Special Reserve	27188	63.90%
1915	6 years, Special Reserve	5060	52.20%
1915	extension of service,      Special Reserve	1101	94.51%
1916	AO 295, Special Reserve	3012	24.31%
1916	6 years, Special Reserve	378	17.56%
1916	extension of service,      Special Reserve	0	0.00%
1917	Special Reserve	343	10.09%
1918	Special Reserve	85	1.82%

It is of interest that no infantrymen extended their service during the time period 1 October 1915 to 30 Sep 1916. I am unsure as to when that voluntary choice was taken away, but presume this happened with the Military Service Act. There is a surviving, although badly charred, service record for 10285 Sydney Alexander Bull, Private, South Wales Borderers. He was discharged, time expired (6 years + 1 year + 95 days) He is recorded as 2/10285 having concluded his military service in Gallipoli with the 2nd Battalion. I believe that he embarked 10 May 1915 and disembarked at Gallipoli on 26 May 1915.

Of those enlisting for 6 years service under Special Reserve terms of service, 17.56% were enlisting in the infantry in 1915-16. With the numbers having dropped off, I wonder if there was an informal policy of infantry regiments refusing to enlist new recruits under Special Reserve terms. This was extra red tape, requiring a number from the Special Reserve number block, another entry to add to the rarely used Army Form 359 book. 

As I have mentioned before, both the 1914-15 Star and BWM & VM rolls have Special Reserve entries. I am wondering if whoever was involved with the record keeping had challenges in the past with service number confusion. Had this been the case, then it would make sense to work through the Special Reserve first, accessing the Army Form 359 book, and the associated portfolios of service records grouped by sequential service number. Having performed this element, it then makes sense to thereafter use the Army Form 358 Enlistment book, and the associated portfolios of service records grouped by sequential service number, to compile the rolls for the regulars, then the New Army, then conscripts.   

Were those 85 infantrymen who enlisted in 1917-18 all in the same regiment, I wonder?

The GARBA data creates more questions than it answers.