its the right number i have a lot of things to show that including his service history,a letter from Buckingham palace two letters from the parachute regimental association and a letter from the MOD plus other documents
Hi, I’m trying to work out my grandads army number from the list of numbers, I think he ended up in the RASC but I know that he was in the RAF and think that was before he went in the Army, the number I have on a letter he sent to my nana while he was in the RASC is 19093167 can anyone tell me where that number fits with the list please? Is it an RASC number or a number that he was given before he joined the RASC? Thank you ☺️
Wow Gelert thank you so much for your speedy response and also the date of enlistment, I didn’t know the date he joined the GSC, I know from his letter that it was written after December 1946 because in it he sends his love to my mum who was born on Christmas Day 1946, I think he was writing from Hamburg at that time. From his medical certificate on leaving the merchant navy “ after being torpedoed” I think he joined the RAF as Air Crew in 1943, at least that’s where it says he was heading on the medical report that says he had passed all the medical tests. I have no clue where he served from 1943 until the letter I have from after my mum was born and that states he’s a Driver in the RASC 19093167. DVR: MEAD.G D" PLAT. 17 COY. (T) RASC BA.O.R. So I am waiting “not very patiently” lol for his service records to see what he did in his time between 1943 and 1946. Is there any way of knowing if he was conscripted or joined voluntarily and how long a person signed up for without having their service records? If he enlisted in the RASC in 1946 this would have been after already being in the services since 1943, would his RASC enlistment have been voluntary and was there a minimum term he would have had to serve once he joined the RASC? I would really appreciate any info you have on this sort of thing please ☺️
I think I may have found my grandad in the Army list book December quarter 1946, G Mead R.A.S.C and next to his name on the list it says 1561c I got this information from another site and do t have access to view the whole document to see if there is maybe a page 1561 section C? can anyone tell me what the 1561c at the side of his name stands for please? Thank you ☺️
Hi The Army lists cover Officers only and is publicly available here; Browse Publications | The Gazette... There is very little quality information available online on WW2 so you need to wait for the service records. Hope this helps Gus
Unfortunately for you this is not your grandfather. The army list you quote refers to a T/Captain Gordon Mead (210638) who was commissioned 27th September 1941. Page 1557a – 1562c can be found here: https://archive.org. No need to go to sites that require payment to access records. Gordon Mead’s commissioning is here: London Gazette Richard
Thank you so much for looking into that for me ☺️ it’s a shame though, I thought I might have been onto something there The endless search for grandads trail goes on lol
Can I ask, what was the numbering protocol for Militia men (those called up under the short-lived Military Training Act, 1939)? Were they numbered by corps as per Regular and conscript enlistments?
They seemed to get a number from the Militia block and from what I've seen a new number from the block of the unit they went on to or later joined (I say that with very limited understanding of the Militia workings), for example the gent below
These men were not Militia as in reservists or special reservists. They were conscripts for whom the block of numbers from 1000000 to 10350000 was allocated in April 1939. A limited form of conscription was introduced on 27 April 1939 for the first time in British peacetime history. It was thought that calling the conscripts 'militiamen' would make this more acceptable, as it would render them distinct from the rest of the army. The Military Training Act required all single males to serve in the Armed Forces for six months on reaching their twentieth birthday. On completion of six months service, the conscripts were required to serve in the Territorial Army or Special Reserve. This measure had only just been instituted by the outbreak of war, with only one intake of 35,000 men all called up on 15 July, including your man Wood.
I have a couple of AB64's to men with Militia numbers 10,151,390 & 10,328,005 but an enlistment date of 15 September 1939 rather than July, any thoughts?
The "Militia" numbers continued to be used until September or October 1939 because numbers were allocated to soldiers well before their enlistment date. This is how the process worked. The recruit received an enlistment notice under Military Training Act or the subsequent National Service (Armed Forces) Acts 1939, 1940, instructing him to report to a Regimental or Corps Depot. The enlistment notice quoted the recruit’s alpha numeric registration number from his Certificate of Registration under the Acts. Examples of recruit registration number are GHB 1236, LSN 2731 and PRF 3524. To further complicate things, these were tri-service. If you Google images "National Service Enlistment Notice" quite a few examples appear. The recruit would be given his number on the day he reported to the depot. The numbers were allocated to Depots in advance and were cross referenced to the recruit registration numbers. As you can imagine, the Ministry of Labour and National Service Central Office in London had an army of clerks corresponding with the Ministry of Labour and National Service Regional Offices who in turn corresponded with the various Regimental and Corps Training Centres or Depots (and the RAF and RN equivalents) all without the aid of IT systems and email. This was subsequently reduced to twenty-six Primary Training Centres or Wings for the army. Sometime in September 1939, the Militiamen already in the system started to be issued with a new number from the 1920 system to replace the number from the Militia block. Your man Wood received 7609043 between the 1st and 15th of September. Only two Militia numbers are listed on the CWGC: 10081004 Pte Robert Thredder of the Essex Regiment, died 12th September 1939 and 10225171 Pte Norman Beckett of the North Staffordshire Regiment who died on 17th September 1939. Both were 21 years old.
For what it's worth (13 years on!), I just now entered my own (TA) Service number (high end of the 2430 series) allocated on TA enlistment in - from memory - late Spring 1973 (I can't instantly lay hands on my Record Of Service), Your utility returns "Until January 1973". Given that I was recuperating from a dislocated hip "Until January 1973" (although I may have triggered the enlistment process during that period) it seems to indicate that there is a certain elasticity in the dating of service numbers, in post-WW2 instances, anyway. This isn't a criticism: I'm exploring the theme in hopes that I may better understand what I can/ cannot safely deduce or infer from the Service numbers of those who served in WW2, and I was intrigued by your utility, to which, no doubt, I will return, and for which I thank you.
It's a couple of years on since that post was new, but I'd really like to take you up on that offer, I'm working on building individual histories for 2 dozen WW2 names on our local memorial*, and feel like I should refine the exam question before I ask it - like, instead of "what can you tell me about 12345678 Pte McMalodorous", maybe "What can learn about 12345678 Pte McMalodorous from knowing his service number, and where's best to go looking?" . . . and O By The Way . . "What else should I be asking?" I've been reading this thread for the last hour, and reckon that the earliest few pages hold the most information to address the above, but those pages are followed by many pages questions about individuals, punctuated by occasional glimpses of wisdom as to data spources and their interpretation. * Stonkernote: It's proving harder than it was to do the ~100 WW1 names, mainly because by 1939 the link between local families and local newspapers seems to have eroded, very significantly.