London Regt, Supernumerary Companies

[Chris_Baker]

I'm researching a soldier whose London Regiment number was 1/18/45949. He served with the 1/18th Bn, the London Irish Rifles. His number is unusual.

I've checked out "Soldiers Died", and the only casualties I can find with 5-digit numbers starting 45 are shown in the remarks section as having served with a "Supernumerary Company" of the London Regiment. There are only three of them, and all died at home in 1915.

Can anyone confirm that my man's number suggests he had been with a Supernumerary Company? Is there any way of telling which Company? What was a Supernumerary Company anyway?

[Jock Bruce]

Chris,

this is the simple version (because I'm still trying to get my head round the complicated version).

Before the war there was an organisation called the National Reserve (NR), composed largely of men with some former service experience (which could include RN and RIC), who had no reserve obligation but had given an 'honourable obligation' to serve if called upon. Although not part of the TF, the NR was administered by the County Territorial Associations.

On the outbreak of war some NR were formed into companies for the static guarding of railways and vulnerable points (others rejoined the regular forces or TF). It was decided to attach these to the local TF units and, by the end of Aug 14, it had been decided to enlist these men into the TF for home defence duties only. From about Oct 14 these begin to be described as Supernumerary Comapnies.

Sup Coys are usually described as e.g. No 1 Sup Coy, 2/5 Blankshires; No 2 Coy, etc, etc. But London was different - Sup Coys appear to have been allocated to 7, 10, 18, 20 and 24 Londons only; the ones I've seen associated with 18 Londons are 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 27, 32. There is no logic I can detect. As far as I know no operational records for Sup Coys exist, although our Londons experts may know diferently.

The Sup Coys became the Royal Defence Corps on 29 Apr 16 - that's another story.

And yes, Sup Coys of the London Regt are the only time I have ever seen 5 digit TF numbers (except for Yeomanry post numbering change and the RDC itself, before the pedants pipe up). The 1/18 prefix is maybe slightly odd. These coys were usually considered as second line, but I wouldn't sweat it - it was all a bit confused.

Some Sup Coy men did end up in the regulars or active service TF, otherwise you're unlikely to find medals BUT given these guys were generally older there's a good chance of a SWB either as 18 Londons or RDC.

Clear as mud ?

Jock

[Chris_Baker]

That's great Jock, thanks. My man did see service with 1/18, and got the pair for it. Unfortunately I'm trying to unravel his story from just the medal roll, as his papers are no more.

[Charles Fair]

Jock - thanks for this, your understanding if these units is way ahead of mine. Perhaps Charles M can add something.

Although not part of the TF, the NR was administered by the County Territorial Associations.

There may some evidence surviving in County TF Association minutes. (Unfortunately there is no such evidence for the County of London TF because it didnt hold a formal meeting between July 1914 and mid 1917.)

On the outbreak of war some NR were formed into companies for the static guarding of railways and vulnerable points (others rejoined the regular forces or TF).  It was decided to attach these to the local TF units and, by the end of Aug 14, it had been decided to enlist these men into the TF for home defence duties only.  From about Oct 14 these begin to be described as Supernumerary Comapnies.

Could some of these companies have been attached to the Provisional Battalions for administrative purposes?

Sup Coys are usually described as e.g. No 1 Sup Coy, 2/5 Blankshires; No 2 Coy, etc, etc.  But London was different - Sup Coys appear to have been allocated to 7, 10, 18, 20 and 24 Londons only; the ones I've seen associated with 18 Londons are 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 27, 32.  There is no logic I can detect.  As far as I know no operational records for Sup Coys exist, although our Londons experts may know diferently.

Ditto, not in the PRO as far as I know.

I only have one man on my database who may have been former 19th Londons who is listed on SDGW as 14th Supernumerary Coy (but CWGC gives formerly 1/18th). Pte SR Lambert.

The Sup Coys became the Royal Defence Corps on 29 Apr 16 - that's another story.

And yes, Sup Coys of the London Regt are the only time I have ever seen 5 digit TF numbers (except for Yeomanry post numbering change and the RDC itself, before the pedants pipe up).  The 1/18 prefix is maybe slightly odd.  These coys were usually considered as second line, but I wouldn't sweat it - it was all a bit confused.

Ditto, have noticed the same - could 5 digit Sup Coy numbers have been carried over unchanged into the RDC? Or was the RDC numbering completely new?

Some Sup Coy men did end up in the regulars or active service TF, otherwise you're unlikely to find medals BUT given these guys were generally older there's a good chance of a SWB either as 18 Londons or RDC.

I have over 200 19th men who received the SWB but who did not serve overseas. I havent yet looked at any of their service records, but I guess some may have served with Sup Coys. Will let you know what I find.

Charles

[Jock Bruce]

Chris,

more thoughts

if your man is the one whose birth was registered in the Pancras district in the first quarter of 1896, that makes him way too young to have gone the NR - Sup Coy route.

The common factor for men with the 1/18 prefix in the online MICs seems to be service in the London Regt then the R I Rif. You get 4, 5 and 6 digit numbers with that prefix - it looks a total potmess.

I think the 5 digit = Sup Coy of London Regt thing might be a red herring here, this may a reflection of something peculiar to the 18th Londons and R I Rif.

Jock

[Charles Fair]

The common factor for men with the 1/18 prefix in the online MICs seems to be service in the London Regt then the R I Rif.  You get 4, 5 and 6 digit numbers with that prefix - it looks a total potmess.

I think the 5 digit = Sup Coy of London Regt thing might be a red herring here, this may a reflection of something peculiar to the 18th Londons and R I Rif.

ah, the joys of numbering...

The London Irish were affiliated to the R I Rifles from sometime in 1916 (which possibly postdates the existence of the Sup Coys?) so presumbably a way of avoiding wholsale renumbering of 18th London men.

[Jock Bruce]

The Sup Coys became the Royal Defence Corps on 29 Apr 16 - that's another story.

And yes, Sup Coys of the London Regt are the only time I have ever seen 5 digit TF numbers (except for Yeomanry post numbering change and the RDC itself, before the pedants pipe up).  The 1/18 prefix is maybe slightly odd.  These coys were usually considered as second line, but I wouldn't sweat it - it was all a bit confused.

Ditto, have noticed the same - could 5 digit Sup Coy numbers have been carried over unchanged into the RDC? Or was the RDC numbering completely new?

Charles,

RDC numbering was completely new.

The RDC, on formation, consisted of Protection Coys and Observer Coys - the latter were really the Royal Observer Corps of their day and are a wonderland all of their own (still trying to get a handle on them).

I looks as if the RDC began numbering at 1 and ran on from there, probably with blocks being allocated to Prot Coys as they stood up. The one exception are the Observer Coys - they were allocated numbers in the 5xxxx block. I think you have to treat the Obs Coys as a distinct 'corps' within the RDC.

The establishments and distribution of the Prot Coys were not the same as the Sup Coys, so the process was not so simple as 'No 2 Sup Coy - Ground arms' - - - 'No 209 Prot Coy - Take up arms'. But most men from a particular Sup Coy do seem to move initially to the same Prot Coy and get numbers in the same block.

But I'm not sure if this works for the guy Chris is after - just another example of how the ****** London Regiment manages to make life complicated!!

Jock

[Charles Fair]

RDC numbering was completely new.

...

just another example of how the ****** London Regiment manages to make life complicated!!

Jock - thanks for this clarification

thats an understatement. Maybe the London Regt enthusiasts will have just about cracked it in another 10 years on this forum.