Alan24 Posted 22 November , 2014 Share Posted 22 November , 2014 On the RGA Medal Rolls index it is quite common to see "base details" in place of an actual unit. What does this mean? Does it mean that soldier would have stayed behind front lines back at one of the general base depots etc. Is it possible that an RGA man may never have been posted to any particular unit...so what would he have been - division troop...? Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seany Posted 22 November , 2014 Share Posted 22 November , 2014 I think it just means they were mostly not assigned to a battery at that time or awaiting postings. Some may have been in transition between batteries and other duties, at end of war some not yet demobilised but their battery may have been disestablished, something like that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildaremark Posted 22 November , 2014 Share Posted 22 November , 2014 I think it just means they were mostly not assigned to a battery at that time or awaiting postings. Some may have been in transition between batteries and other duties, at end of war some not yet demobilised but their battery may have been disestablished, something like that anyway. I don't believe this is correct. My understanding is that it means that the gunner was not assigned to any particular battery on their initial arrival overseas. Where a unit is mentioned it generally indicates that they went overseas with this unit or were posted to it from home as their first unit. i.e. it is not the unit that they were in when the medals were issued but the unit they first went to, to qualify for the medals. I feel a few experts looming who may clarify further..... Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seany Posted 23 November , 2014 Share Posted 23 November , 2014 I don't believe this is correct. My understanding is that it means that the gunner was not assigned to any particular battery on their initial arrival overseas. Where a unit is mentioned it generally indicates that they went overseas with this unit or were posted to it from home as their first unit. i.e. it is not the unit that they were in when the medals were issued but the unit they first went to, to qualify for the medals. I feel a few experts looming who may clarify further..... Mark Not sure about that Mark, I know my grandfather went to BEF with 293 siege battery but on MIC roll he is listed as base details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 23 November , 2014 Share Posted 23 November , 2014 That may have been his final posting overseas, seany. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildaremark Posted 23 November , 2014 Share Posted 23 November , 2014 My understanding is that the Medal Roll was created to determine who was entitled to medals so the rank on the medal roll is also the rank on going overseas. The Medal Index Cards were created from the Medal Roll. There was no reason to record what unit someone was with in 1919 as it was not relevant to the task. When you look at those killed in action, they are also recorded as with the relevant unit or Base Details. if the Medal Roll was recording the 1919 situation, they would have no unit! It's a pity because it has cost many of us years to try and determine the units gunners served with! Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headgardener Posted 23 November , 2014 Share Posted 23 November , 2014 My understanding is that the Medal Roll was created to determine who was entitled to medals so the rank on the medal roll is also the rank on going overseas. The Medal Index Cards were created from the Medal Roll. There was no reason to record what unit someone was with in 1919 as it was not relevant to the task. Agree with what you say about 1919, but the BWM/VM rolls list the last rank that a man served with overseas. Only the 14 and 14/15 star rolls list the rank that they first served with. I have to say that I'm very confused about the unit shown on RGA rolls. I've been told that it's the first unit that a man served with but, given that the rank shown is the last that a man served with, it would make more sense that it would be the last unit as well. I remember researching a Heavy Battery that went to France in 1914, yet I'm sure that it was only the casualties who had the same HB listed on the medal rolls. I remember some time ago being told rather forcefully by someone here that it was definitely the first unit that was shown on the rolls, which I am prepared to accept, but my experience seemed to be different. Is it invariably the first unit? Are there any published rules relating to this point? What are other people's experience of comparing the unit shown on RGA rolls with the same man's service records? Edit: with reference to the OP, if the rolls invariably showed the first unit that a man served overseas with then surely every RGA reinforcement who did not go out with a specific SB, HB, etc, would be shown as 'base details'...? Wouldn't that leave the bulk of the later medal rolls listing only 'base details'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seany Posted 23 November , 2014 Share Posted 23 November , 2014 I don't know when the decision was made to issue medals and hence when a medal roll was required. I suspect the rolls were completed from service records over time. in the case of my GF he would have been listed as base details in 1919 as his siege battery was disestablished and he had, I again suspect, been posted from RGA to an RFA battery in Egypt (along with a number of RGA men from Italy) and probably in base awaiting demobilisation in UK. His last unit/posting would therefore have been base details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 24 November , 2014 Author Share Posted 24 November , 2014 Thanks Guys, I was originally looking at the Special Reserve men, to see which batteries the men around my GGF went to. My GGF (SR/8101/283101) is the only one on the page with a battery listed. There are very few on the pages either side who have a battery listed too. What I did notice in other RGA Rolls was that several gunners KIA with their battery also had 'Base Details' which seems to point to it not being the last posting. e.g. 61338 Gunner E. West. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeokeith Posted 13 July , 2015 Share Posted 13 July , 2015 Just noticed this (rather old) topic. I'm researching a particular heavy battery, 156 (Oxford) Heavy Battery. In 1917 the service no. renumbering took place and the range of numbers issued to this battery was 297101 to 297400. I have gone through all the medal rolls for the service numbers in this range and many were men that I have other evidence to show that they actually served with 156 Battery. Other men have a different battery in the medal roll or the aforementioned "Base Details". It's my understanding that allocation of a particular service no in the range allocated to a battery is NOT a guarantee that the man actually served with that battery. Is this the case? Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 13 July , 2015 Share Posted 13 July , 2015 Just noticed this (rather old) topic. I'm researching a particular heavy battery, 156 (Oxford) Heavy Battery. In 1917 the service no. renumbering took place and the range of numbers issued to this battery was 297101 to 297400. I have gone through all the medal rolls for the service numbers in this range and many were men that I have other evidence to show that they actually served with 156 Battery. Other men have a different battery in the medal roll or the aforementioned "Base Details". It's my understanding that allocation of a particular service no in the range allocated to a battery is NOT a guarantee that the man actually served with that battery. Is this the case? Keith Keith, There was never a guarantee that a gunner would serve in just one battery, even if it was locally raised. The best one could say for these locally raised ones is that the vast majority did. However given some areas raised more than one battery it is not unusual to see some posted to a sister battery. There were certainly some who were posted after enlisting in the 156 HB to the 135 HB. The numbering you gave is slightly wrong. On formation the men would have been allotted numbers from 8801 to 9129. After renumbering and taken in all the previously raised batteries they would have been allotted numbers from 297064 to 297388. Obviously if a man was sick/wounded and left the establishment of the battery he may have been posted to any heavy battery after recovery. The rolls will only show a battery, if shown, at a particular point in time which may not be his original, or last, battery. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeokeith Posted 13 July , 2015 Share Posted 13 July , 2015 Hi Kevin, Thanks for this. Yes there were certainly transfers to other locally raised batteries i.e. 128, 132 and 135 as well as other batteries and yes I have the relevant 8nnn to 9nnn numbers that you mention to go with their 297 range. It's interesting that you say the allotted numbers were in the range 297064 - 297388 and not as I stated. I must recheck my source of this information. Do you mind telling me where your info. came from? I plan to research 135 Heavy Battery next. You've confirmed my understanding that a man may not definitely have served in a battery that his allotted service number was in the range for that battery. Many Thanks, Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 13 July , 2015 Share Posted 13 July , 2015 Keith, The numbering came primarily from mens service records and I went through these some time ago. You would need to look at both numbers as many may have left the battery before the renumbering or may have been transferred to another regiment. These men may be on a number of different medal rolls. For the other Oxfordshire battery numbering you could have a look at http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207439 . Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeokeith Posted 13 July , 2015 Share Posted 13 July , 2015 Kevin, Thank you very much for the response and the link to the RGA Numbering topic. What an amazing amount of work Thank you for sharing it. Very interesting to see No. 1 Depot, R.G.A. in Newhaven (where I live) mentioned. I wrote a bit about that unit when I researched my book "Newhaven Fort & Garrison in the Great War" which I got published last year. Keith 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