kevinrowlinson Posted 5 July , 2015 Share Posted 5 July , 2015 Logic was indeed applied, but only to those who were Reservists - they were called back and given their 'old' numbers back - however that only applied to those who were still within their five year term of Reserve service up to August 1914. You only had to be one day over that five year period and your Reserve commitment was finished totally and so on coming back after mobilisation you would have been regarded as a 'new' enlistment and given a new number, as your old number would have been struck off the Nominal Roll. This I found happening to old NF's just outside of their Reserve service. The East Lancs weren't unique in renumbering their old wounded on return after spells in the Training Reserve, you'll find that all infantry units followed the logic as laid down in KR's and it becomes even more clearer if you have large regimental databases, which clearly show how it worked, as in the case of the 95,456 individuals I've documented. In the case of those lads who served solely within the 'Territorial' element of a Regiment and who were never transferred, they could in theory be numbered up to 'six' times(as could possibly happen in the N.F.(T.F.) and never even have left the Regiment and it would work thus;- 4/1234 - 1/4th Bn,NF 5/5678 - transfered to 1/5th Bn,NF 6/2468 - transferred to 1/6th Bn,NF 7/1357 - transferred to 1/7th Bn,NF 246890 - renumbered 1917 4256789 - renumbered 1920 on formation of T.A. Thank you Terry but I fully understand how the numbering worked for men from the Reserve. What you have not understood is that for the RGA, at least, it did not apply only to what you have said "only to those who were Reservists" but to those who were transferred to a different regiment or corps during the war and on being transferred back was given his old number back. Now that is logical. The infantry in their infinite wisdom decided to make it more clerically difficult rather than giving a man just one unique regimental number that would suffice irrespective of what battalion he was posted to. The TF numbering is obviously different to that of the "regular" series. Are any of the men that Retlaw are referring to TF men? Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 5 July , 2015 Share Posted 5 July , 2015 Thank you Terry but I fully understand how the numbering worked for men from the Reserve. What you have not understood is that for the RGA, at least, it did not apply only to what you have said "only to those who were Reservists" but to those who were transferred to a different regiment or corps during the war and on being transferred back was given his old number back. Now that is logical. The infantry in their infinite wisdom decided to make it more clerically difficult rather than giving a man just one unique regimental number that would suffice irrespective of what battalion he was posted to. The TF numbering is obviously different to that of the "regular" series. Are any of the men that Retlaw are referring to TF men? Kevin I certainly understand what you are saying about the R.G.A., but they appear to be the only 'Corps' not following the logic of Army Numbering as laid down in K.R.'s, A.O.'s and A.C.I.'s unless someone can tell me otherwise. None of Retlaws men are T.F., all appear to be Kitcheners Army, who are in reality 'regulars'(ACI 123, 12th October 1914) and it's really quite simple;- You return as a 5year Reservist - you keep your number. You rejoin the Regiment on completion of your Reserve commitment - you get a new number. You serve in the Special Reserve and are posted to a 'regular' battalion within the Regiment - you keep your number. You leave your 'regular' battalion and are posted to a Special Reserve battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'regular' Battalion to another - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised' Battalion to another 'Locally Raised' battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised' Battalion to a 'Locally Raised' Reserve Battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised Reserve' Battalion to another 'Locally Raised' Battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised Reserve' Battalion to another 'Locally Raised' Reserve Battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from a 'regular' battalion to a T.F. battalion within the Regiment - you get a new number. You are 'attached' from a 'regular' battalion to a T.F. battalion within the Regiment - you keep your number. You are posted from a T.F. battalion to a 'regular' battalion within the Regiment - you get a new number. You are 'attached' from a T.F. battalion to a 'regular' battalion within the Regiment - you keep your number. You are posted from one T.F. battalion to another T.F. battalion within the Regiment - you get a new number. You are attached from one T.F. battalion to another T.F. battalion within the Regiment - you keep your number. You leave the Regiment through whatever cause and join another Corps - you return to the Regiment - you get a new number. Now what exactly is hard to understand about all of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 6 July , 2015 Share Posted 6 July , 2015 None of Retlaws men are T.F., all appear to be Kitcheners Army, who are in reality 'regulars'(ACI 123, 12th October 1914) and it's really quite simple;- ... You are posted from one 'regular' Battalion to another - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised' Battalion to another 'Locally Raised' battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised' Battalion to a 'Locally Raised' Reserve Battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised Reserve' Battalion to another 'Locally Raised' Battalion - you keep your number. You are posted from one 'Locally Raised Reserve' Battalion to another 'Locally Raised' Reserve Battalion - you keep your number. ... Now what exactly is hard to understand about all of that? I think the problem seems to be, as regards the East Lancs men mentioned in the original posts, that apart from the man transferred to 75th TR Bn, they all seem to fall in one of the five categories above, and therefore, according to the official regulations, they should all have retained their original numbers. That does not seem to have happened, which is why Retlaw asks for the logic in these cases, which seems to be absent. That is why I suggested in my earlier post that they were either mistakes or misunderstanding the regulations - in either case, basically clerical errors, and therefore there is no logic in them. We do seem to be going round in circles a bit with this. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin RussT Posted 6 July , 2015 Admin Share Posted 6 July , 2015 I think the problem seems to be, as regards the East Lancs men mentioned in the original posts, that apart from the man transferred to 75th TR Bn, they all seem to fall in one of the five categories above, and therefore, according to the official regulations, they should all have retained their original numbers. That does not seem to have happened, which is why Retlaw asks for the logic in these cases, which seems to be absent. That is why I suggested in my earlier post that they were either mistakes or misunderstanding the regulations - in either case, basically clerical errors, and therefore there is no logic in them. We do seem to be going round in circles a bit with this. Ron Half a mo. I seem to be the only one actually looking at the service records for these men, and I've consistently shown that on every occasion their numbers are consistent with the regulations. An example record for an EL man that breaches the regulations has not been offered up by Retlaw. In post #9 I showed that John James Alston had an intermediate transfer to the 75/TRB, and therefore he got a new EL number on his return to the EL In post #18 I showed that Daniel Crossley had an intermediate transfer to the 75/TRB, and therefore he got a new EL number on his return to the EL In post #22 I showed that Arthur (Ralph) Crompton stayed with the EL, and therefore he kept his EL number. That's why I posted earlier that these are not mistakes or misunderstanding. I don't agree that we are going round in circles. Can we have an EL example please which contravenes the regulations? Regards Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 6 July , 2015 Share Posted 6 July , 2015 Russ, I think you are absolutely right as I said in post 23- for the infantry. What I was trying to point out was that one regiment, the RA, did not take this cause and took the logical approach of giving the mans original number back. It is quite obvious that logic didn't come into it for anyone else and one just has to accept it. Perhaps you or Graham can post the relevant KR, AO or ACI which says "You leave the Regiment through whatever cause and join another Corps - you return to the Regiment - you get a new number" for future reference. It's the "you return to the regiment" that is important. I have KRs and various renumbering ACIs but cannot find this for a man returning to a previous regiment he served with. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin RussT Posted 6 July , 2015 Admin Share Posted 6 July , 2015 Kevin I'm afraid I can't add anymore than Graham did in post #27 with respect to the RA (and are you also saying RFA/RHA too as well as RGA?). For whatever reason that Corps evidently decided that is what they were going to do. Did the RA (TF) adopt the same? My last post was directed explicitly at Ron's comments with respect to the East Lancs (as per the OP), where I have shown (so far!) that they complied with the regulations. Happy to be proven otherwise. Regards Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 6 July , 2015 Share Posted 6 July , 2015 Did the RA (TF) adopt the same? where I have shown (so far!) that they complied with the regulations. Happy to be proven otherwise. Regards Russ The RGA TF did. I cannot speak for the RFA TF. The "regular' series for the RFA did. I have always understood that the Infantry took one interpretation and the RA took another. Interpretation being the operative word. It will be interesting to see the official order for numbering men returning to a previously served regiment. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 6 July , 2015 Share Posted 6 July , 2015 Half a mo. I seem to be the only one actually looking at the service records for these men, and I've consistently shown that on every occasion their numbers are consistent with the regulations. An example record for an EL man that breaches the regulations has not been offered up by Retlaw. In post #9 I showed that John James Alston had an intermediate transfer to the 75/TRB, and therefore he got a new EL number on his return to the EL In post #18 I showed that Daniel Crossley had an intermediate transfer to the 75/TRB, and therefore he got a new EL number on his return to the EL In post #22 I showed that Arthur (Ralph) Crompton stayed with the EL, and therefore he kept his EL number. That's why I posted earlier that these are not mistakes or misunderstanding. I don't agree that we are going round in circles. Can we have an EL example please which contravenes the regulations? Regards Russ Sorry Russ, but as you were already on the case regarding their records I didn't want to interfere, but tried to back you up with the addition of KR's. Kevin - Todate I have no such reference to a man receiving a 'new' number on returning after transfer out of a Regiment - nor is there any reference that a man should receive his 'old' number on return after transfer apart from what you have said and the R.G.A.. The Regimental Records Office took KR's & T.F.R.'s at it's word - "A soldier when posted or transferred to a Corps, will receive a regimental number in that Corps" - even though he may have already previously served in the Corps, he never got his number back once transferred out. The reality here is - that I'm not just talking about a slack handful of blokes, I'm talking about thousands upon thousands of men who were renumbered after being transferred out of their original units and later transferred back - their old numbers being 'defunct'. You see it on document after document, the evidence is also there in the Medal Roll Books. The R.G.A. seems to be the only Corps in which the general rule was not applied and that they, for some unknown reason, gave their tranferee's their old numbers back and they seem to be the only unit making it up as they go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 6 July , 2015 Share Posted 6 July , 2015 However I do have this regarding the Training Reserve, which is quite specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 6 July , 2015 Share Posted 6 July , 2015 Hopefully this will explain as to exactly what both Russ and I have been trying to tell everyone. Pte John William Kerrone enlists into N.F. - numbered 21077 and posted 2nd Bn, later posted to 1st Bn and keeps original number. Leaves N.F. for whatever reason and transferred to Labour Corps - numbered 399019 in their numbering series and posted to 791st Employment Coy. Leaves Labour Corps and transferred to Royal Fusiliers - numbered 106583 and posted to 43rd Garrison Bn. Leaves R.Fusiliers and transferred back to the N.F. - renumbered 80923. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted 6 July , 2015 Share Posted 6 July , 2015 And as seen on Medal Index Cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinrowlinson Posted 7 July , 2015 Share Posted 7 July , 2015 No one has suggested, as far as I can see, that an infantryman did get his old number back. It would be silly to do so. The working of the renumbering is well known but that was not, how I read it, the OPs question. It was this system of numbering, I would suggest, that highlighted the necessity for a new numbering system post war otherwise, if it was so perfect, we may still have exactly the same system today. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 7 July , 2015 Share Posted 7 July , 2015 I would like to make a comment which has nothing to do with numbering and everything to do with good forum manners. Graham Stewart won the MHS Lummis cup for his massive contribution to the dark arts of line infantry numbering from 1800 to date. Together with Paul Nixon he is THE EXPERT. Graham has an incomparable collection of the official instructions and has looked into aspects that few others have a clue about. Nowhere in the above correspondence do I see him thanked or acknowledged. We would all be the poorer if our true experts decided they could not be bothered Retlaw in particular do please have a think about this. I would like to make a comment which has nothing to do with numbering and everything to do with good forum manners. Graham Stewart won the MHS Lummis cup for his massive contribution to the dark arts of line infantry numbering from 1800 to date. Together with Paul Nixon he is THE EXPERT. Graham has an incomparable collection of the official instructions and has looked into aspects that few others have a clue about. Nowhere in the above correspondence do I see him thanked or acknowledged. We would all be the poorer if our true experts decided they could not be bothered Retlaw in particular do please have a think about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 7 July , 2015 Share Posted 7 July , 2015 Sorry about the echo ...... smartfone not so smart at moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 7 July , 2015 Share Posted 7 July , 2015 I agree with Grumpy. Graham obviously has a lot of patience! Such a complex subject needs a lot of digesting. I think that the OP's original question has been answered many times and he seems not to accept the facts. Whether a thing is 'senseless' or not logical is neither here nor there when presented with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retlaw Posted 7 July , 2015 Author Share Posted 7 July , 2015 Many thanks to all who have tried to explain the number system and then regulations. It would appear that the decendants of those who wrote those regs are alive and well and now work for the eropean union compiling the same sort of illogical regulations for them. No matter what the Kings regs state, I still cannot see why a man who serves all his time in the same Regiment, needs his number changing no matter which training reserve or training battalion he is sent to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiesoldier Posted 10 July , 2015 Share Posted 10 July , 2015 Don't think this type of numbering problem was solved in any permanent way for British and Commonwealth armies. I enlisted in the Citizens Military Forces in January, 1973. My number reflected my CMF status, the unit I joined, and the Military District I was in. If I had enlisted in the Permanent Military Forces or if I had been conscripted I would have had a different number series. (I'm not sure if they had different number series.) If I had enlisted a month later I would have had a completely different number series because they changed the process. I always had to explain where and when I enlisted because my number didn't fit into any number series the Quartermasters and their staff I dealt with understood. If I had been female it was also complicated by an F and a completely separate number series. My son has re-enlisted and I believe his number now remains the same as the records are now computerised. Just an observation from the colonies. 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