Roger There is one in New Farm Park which is run by the Brisbane City Council. I saw it last year and there are quite of lot of names on it. I can't recall if they are only for Queensland or all those that died. I would suggest you go to the BCC website and see if their information/Public relations people or Library do not have any pictures of it. I think you will need all four sides. It had a map in brass, showing the ranges and path they took. Only last Thursday a friend said her husband was going to or something else in July to remember the anniversary. Mike Boyd Brisbane ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marine" <rm16460@btinternet.com> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:42 AM Subject: [AUS-MIL] Sandakan >A recent visit to Perth and Kings Park revealed a beautiful memorial to the >men of Western Australia who died in Sandakan. > I know my cousin is mentioned in Lynette Silvers excellent book "A > Conspiracy of Silence" and I know his name is at Labuan, but is there any > memorial in Queensland dedicated to the men of that state, if there is I > would appreciate a JPG Scan of the memorial especially if it shows Gunner > Harold Victor COPELIN 2/10 RAA > Thank You > Roger > Royal Marines > Member RMHS > Researching Copelin, Attrell, Reeves, Deacon & Pont > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > AUS-MILITARY is set so that, by default, replies go to the list. Please > check your replies before sending, to make sure that is what you know is > happening. >

Speaking for the Australian Army it was then and is now possible to rise from the ranks. Many Regimental Quartermaster Sergeants (RQMS) are promoted to Major as Quartermaster. Many other soldiers go to Duntroon (now that it is the lesser Officer Training Unit, junior to ADFA.) Here trained soldiers are put through what is referred to as a "knife and fork course". Previously Scheyville and Portsea also acted as training units for 'rankers' being considered for promotion, particularly in the huge expansion of the Army in the Vietnam era.. However it was understood that Lieutenant Colonel was as high as they would ever climb except in hugely unusual circumstances. Major was more common. The senior posts are "reserved" for Graduates of Duntroon (in the old days) and ADFA now. Cheers, Ted Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: <AUS-MILITARY-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <AUS-MILITARY-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:54 PM Subject: AUS-MILITARY-D Digest V06 #120

Hi All: Maj-Gen Hector McDonald, "Fighting Mac" in the South African (Boer) War rose from the ranks in the British Army. http://pw1.netcom.com/~reincke/homepage.html Yours, John Wilson > One of the great myths of the British Army was that it was impossible to > rise from the ranks. It may have been difficult and very few made it to > Field Marshal but even in peacetime many officers had originally served in > the ranks. In wartime soldiers were frequently promoted from the ranks and > after 1915 the great majority of officers in both the British and Australian > Armies came from the ranks including some battalion commanders. And > Pompey Elliot was awarded the DCM as a sergeant in the Boer War. >

Gidday Jan and others, The author of "HMAS Sydney-Fact, Fantasy and Fraud", asked me to pass on the Following from her research that she did back in Washington in 1990:- RG457: SRH-323. COMINCH: Combat Intelligence Division. File on Hospital Ships. Part I: General File. p.5: Tokyo (Domei) Foreign Broadcasting Digest: 9 April 1943, in English: Japanese hospital ship, Uraru Maru bombed in daylight, 3 April, off New Ireland. Damaged; direct hit. Manila Maru: torpedoed by enemy submarine off Palau, 4 March. (Managed to return to base; broadcast, 13 April.) p. 7: Berlin to North America in English, 16 April, 1943: During past 12 months, British and American planes bombed 14 Japanese hospital ships, according to Shanghai Times. p. 8: 20 April 1943, Berlin. Japanese hospital ship Fuso Maru bombed by Allied planes, 15 April. Shortly after sunrise. p. 9: 21 April: Rome: Japanese hospital ship considered sunk after enemy attack. #p.10: 28 April: Tokyo (in Japanese) to west coast, USA: American submarine torpedoed hospital ship Buenos Aires Maru; heavy damage. In daylight; South China Sea. Previously: Asahi Maru and Arabia Maru bombed. Manila Maru: sub attack. Ural Maru, Fuso Maru: bombed. p. 13 (Radio) America Maru (30 January, 4.20 am): bombed, outside Rabaul; again, 16 April. 6.12 - 8.22 pm. Machine-gunned. Fuso Maru: 15 April: bombed 3 times near Shortland Islands. Buenos Aires Maru: 25 April, entering Hongkong: 3.45 pm; torpedoed. p. 14: Ural Maru: 3 April: US plane, west of Kavieng. 4 May 1943: NAAF [?] hit hospital ship, probably Italian, near La Goulette accidentally. Apologise before protest made. (probably German Konstantz.) 7 May: Russians attacked by plane and submarine another ship. Aquileia: 26 April; bombed. Tuscana: 28 and 29 April: bombed. Virgilio: 4 May at La Goletta harbor. Principessa Giovanna: 5 May. Sicily to Tunis. *p. 23: Centaur sunk, 14 May. p. 30: Japan claimed 9 illegal attacks on 7 hospital ships in first 4 months of 1943. 24 January, 30 January, 4 March, 3 April, 15 April, 16 April, 25 April. 4 January: Arabia Maru: Three B-24s from Pandaveswar, Rangoon, R: 2 direct hits, 3 near misses. 30 January: America Maru. 4 March: Manila Maru: 2 torpedoes, south Palau; probably USS Trigger. 3 April: Ural Maru. 15 April: Fuso Maru. 25 April: Buenos Aires Maru. 24 April: Mizuho Maru: off Kikopo, near Rabaul. Machine-gunned. p. 34: 20 May: Arabia Maru attacked again yesterday; US Boeing bomber; 11.30, between Rabaul and Kavieng. p. 38: 24 May: Baikal Maru: on 22 May by 7 enemy aircraft; 3 machine-gunned. Rangoon R. p. 39: 10 January 1943: Harbin Maru: US sub Stingray; (claimed it was painted war color). 25 April 1943: Kongo Maru: US sub Pickerel. (Lights not switched on until after torpedo hit.) 13 May: attack by USS Skipjack on zig-zagging ship with Red Cross, but no other hospital ship markings. p. 43: 30 January, Rabaul: Six B(c)17s. Attack on shipping in Rabaul harbor. 3 April: near Rabaul: 1600K. One B(c)24 at 1600K attacked transport near Kavieng. 0445/0510K: eight B-17s: ship at Kavieng. 15-16 April: off Shortland Islands: no action reported by AAF these days. [RAAF??] p. 48: Japanese misuse of hospital ships. Assigned secret call signs. Escorted by mine-sweeper. (Manila Maru 23 February) ALUSNA, Chungking: hospital ship disembarked 2000 wounded, embarked artillery and infantry troops and supplies. Hospital ship transporting rice, Mindanao. 30 March report. 11 August 1942: Japanese Naval Attaché (Thailand) had permission to ship 128 tons non-ferrous metals in hospital ship to Saigon. 13 May: Skipjack attacked zig-zag Japanese armed transports; Red Cross, no other markings. p. 52: COMINCH: no direct evidence of use of Japanese hospital ships in violation of terms of Hague Convention. Does not expressly prohibit zig-zagging or being escorted. p.70: 2 December: Buenos Aires Maru bombed 0800, 27 November; sank 40 minutes later. (was in convoy) 18 November 1944: Tübingen: 4 Beaufighters. Empty. Salonika to Trieste. Believe sunk. 10 December: Third Fleet: gun camera of plane from USS Hancock, 25 November: shows plainly strafing of clearly and properly marked hospital ship; impact of bombs from another plane. (From CINCPAC) 13 November: protest re Muro Maru, off Manila. Bombed; sunk. Regards Peter Dunn "Australia @ War" http://www.ozatwar.com Over 650 Mbytes of Military home pages about Australia during WW2 Now also available on CD-Rom DISCUSSION LISTS Military Aircraft Crashes in Australia during WW2 OzCrashes-subscribe@topica.com 460 Squadron RAAF 460sqdn-subscribe@topica.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Thomas [mailto:jthomas4@bigpond.net.au] > Sent: Saturday, 13 May 2006 10:21 PM > To: AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [AUS-MIL] Hospital Ships > > Dear Anthony > > Thanks for your reply. > > Periodically throughout my life I have heard stories that the > Centaur was sunk in retaliation for Allied attacks on a > Japanese hospital ship or ships. > The most recent yesterday at a Centaur Memorial Service. > > I am secretary and founder of the 2/3 AHS Centaur Association > established in > 1999 for survivors, descendants, relatives and friends, or > indeed anyone with any sort of interest in the Centaur. > > Rumours surrounding the Centaur are rife and still surfacing > after 63 years. > They are very hurtful to those whose lives have been affected > by her loss, and I am trying to verify or scotch as many as I can. > > If this allegation is just another rumour, I need to be able > to state factually that the Allies did not attack Japanese > hospital ships. But I need concrete evidence - which of > course is very hard to find in the negative. Perhaps the way > for me to go is to follow your line that Japan didn't have > hospital ships, or ships that were internationally recognized as such. > > Thanks again > > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > Milton Ulladulla Boer War & WW1 > http://www.shoalhaven.net.au/~cathyd/war/ >

Mike You are mainly correct but only the 1st Division and the 4th Brigade were split. The 1st and 2nd Brigades formed the new 14th and 15th Brigades which together with the 8th Brigade became the 5th Division. The 3rd and 4th Brigades formed the 13th and 12th Brigades and together with the 4th Brigade formed the 4th Division. The 2nd Division was not split. This process would not have created duplicate numbers within units. Anthony -----Original Message----- From: Mike Boyd [mailto:mikejboyd@bigpond.com] Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 8:31 PM To: AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUS-MIL] Officers' Numbers David You have made a misrepresentation of what Bean says on page 42 of Volume III. The reorganisation of Feb 1916, was that the 1st and 2nd Divisions were split in half. The first half remaining as the initial Division and the second half becoming the 4th and 5th Divisions. So in the Case of the 1st Bn the second half became the 53 Bn. Then each unit was made up to strength with new recruites then being trained in Egypt. Certainly the First Bn did not disappear to be come the 53rd Bn. and so on. Mike Boyd Brisbane ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dixon" <dixond2@bigpond.net.au> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [AUS-MIL] Officers' Numbers > To strengthen my case, the official war history (Refer C.E.W.Bean, The > A.I.F. in France 1916 - Vol.III.) shows that a re-organisation of the > A.I.F. took place in 1916 and the 1st. & 2nd. Divisions became the 4th. & > 5th., hence if I have it right, the 1st Bde (1st.- 4th.Bns.) > became the 14th Bde.(53rd.-56th.). ie the 1st.Bn.> the 53rd, the 2nd.> > the 54th, > the 3rd.> the 55th etc.. It would have been chaotic to have numbers > attached to units at that point. > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== Please support RootsWeb who make this list possible http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html

David You have made a misrepresentation of what Bean says on page 42 of Volume III. The reorganisation of Feb 1916, was that the 1st and 2nd Divisions were split in half. The first half remaining as the initial Division and the second half becoming the 4th and 5th Divisions. So in the Case of the 1st Bn the second half became the 53 Bn. Then each unit was made up to strength with new recruites then being trained in Egypt. Certainly the First Bn did not disappear to be come the 53rd Bn. and so on. Mike Boyd Brisbane ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dixon" <dixond2@bigpond.net.au> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [AUS-MIL] Officers' Numbers > To strengthen my case, the official war history (Refer C.E.W.Bean, The > A.I.F. in France 1916 - Vol.III.) shows that a re-organisation of the > A.I.F. took place in 1916 and the 1st. & 2nd. Divisions became the 4th. & > 5th., hence if I have it right, the 1st Bde (1st.- 4th.Bns.) > became the 14th Bde.(53rd.-56th.). ie the 1st.Bn.> the 53rd, the 2nd.> > the 54th, > the 3rd.> the 55th etc.. It would have been chaotic to have numbers > attached to units at that point. >

David The system did change until 1918 when General Reinforcements were adopted. Your sample suggests that 20% of numbers changed. I tested your theory by looking at page 14-057 of the Nominal Roll. There was one entry with a suffix which suggests that it occurred but not frequently. Thanks for confirming the officers promoted from the ranks had their number crossed out. One of the great myths of the British Army was that it was impossible to rise from the ranks. It may have been difficult and very few made it to Field Marshal but even in peacetime many officers had originally served in the ranks. In wartime soldiers were frequently promoted from the ranks and after 1915 the great majority of officers in both the British and Australian Armies came from the ranks including some battalion commanders. And Pompey Elliot was awarded the DCM as a sergeant in the Boer War. Anthony Staunton -----Original Message----- From: David Dixon [mailto:dixond2@bigpond.net.au] Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 6:22 PM To: AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [AUS-MIL] Officers' Numbers I have to question the issue of army /regimental numbers, I have just looked through the five personnel dossiers I have on relatives in WW1. The soldiers seem to have been allocated their number at attestation. Only one relative had his original number later amended from 4200 to 4200A. All the others kept their original numbers as allocated. This was despite them all being through training battalions and some through holding battalions after being wounded. I suspect that the system quoted by the AWM for 1914 must have been changed very early in the piece. To strengthen my case, the official war history (Refer C.E.W.Bean, The A.I.F. in France 1916 - Vol.III.) shows that a re-organisation of the A.I.F. took place in 1916 and the 1st. & 2nd. Divisions became the 4th. & 5th., hence if I have it right, the 1st Bde (1st.- 4th.Bns.) became the 14th Bde.(53rd.-56th.). ie the 1st.Bn.> the 53rd, the 2nd.> the 54th, the 3rd.> the 55th etc.. It would have been chaotic to have numbers attached to units at that point. As far as officers are concerned, one of my relative did rise from the ranks - the original number allocated at attestation shows up as crossed out & does not appear in later documents. Regards & apologies for muddying the waters, Dave John Wilson wrote: > Though there are fewer officers than ORs, surely there is the chance > that for a common name like William Smith there will be two people > of that name in a regiment, a private and an officer or even two > officers? Which presumably is why Australian Army officers got > numbers in WWII. And the Australian system based on the regiment > with numbers duplicated in each regiment must have been difficult to > administer! > > The original 1st NZEF system used suffixes (A, B, C) when a soldier > was transferred, but there was already someone in his new battalion > with the number he already had from his previous battalion. > > Yours, John Wilson > > >> Australian and British Army officers in WWI did not have Regimental >> numbers, apparently because they were "officers and gentlemen". >> >> Soldiers of the British Army did not have service numbers until after the >> Napoleonic wars. When service numbers were introduced they were unique to >> the unit. So every unit had their own numbers starting with one. Australia >> adopted an identical system in 1914 with units issuing their own numbers. >> Since the numbering was unit based there was no real reason for officers >> > to > >> have numbers particularly since the names of officers were published in >> > Army > >> Lists. >> >> > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > Milton Ulladulla Boer War & WW1 > http://www.shoalhaven.net.au/~cathyd/war/ > > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== AUS-MILITARY is set so that, by default, replies go to the list. Please check your replies before sending, to make sure that is what you know is happening.

I have to question the issue of army /regimental numbers, I have just looked through the five personnel dossiers I have on relatives in WW1. The soldiers seem to have been allocated their number at attestation. Only one relative had his original number later amended from 4200 to 4200A. All the others kept their original numbers as allocated. This was despite them all being through training battalions and some through holding battalions after being wounded. I suspect that the system quoted by the AWM for 1914 must have been changed very early in the piece. To strengthen my case, the official war history (Refer C.E.W.Bean, The A.I.F. in France 1916 - Vol.III.) shows that a re-organisation of the A.I.F. took place in 1916 and the 1st. & 2nd. Divisions became the 4th. & 5th., hence if I have it right, the 1st Bde (1st.- 4th.Bns.) became the 14th Bde.(53rd.-56th.). ie the 1st.Bn.> the 53rd, the 2nd.> the 54th, the 3rd.> the 55th etc.. It would have been chaotic to have numbers attached to units at that point. As far as officers are concerned, one of my relative did rise from the ranks - the original number allocated at attestation shows up as crossed out & does not appear in later documents. Regards & apologies for muddying the waters, Dave John Wilson wrote: > Though there are fewer officers than ORs, surely there is the chance > that for a common name like William Smith there will be two people > of that name in a regiment, a private and an officer or even two > officers? Which presumably is why Australian Army officers got > numbers in WWII. And the Australian system based on the regiment > with numbers duplicated in each regiment must have been difficult to > administer! > > The original 1st NZEF system used suffixes (A, B, C) when a soldier > was transferred, but there was already someone in his new battalion > with the number he already had from his previous battalion. > > Yours, John Wilson > > >> Australian and British Army officers in WWI did not have Regimental >> numbers, apparently because they were "officers and gentlemen". >> >> Soldiers of the British Army did not have service numbers until after the >> Napoleonic wars. When service numbers were introduced they were unique to >> the unit. So every unit had their own numbers starting with one. Australia >> adopted an identical system in 1914 with units issuing their own numbers. >> Since the numbering was unit based there was no real reason for officers >> > to > >> have numbers particularly since the names of officers were published in >> > Army > >> Lists. >> >> > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > Milton Ulladulla Boer War & WW1 > http://www.shoalhaven.net.au/~cathyd/war/ > > > >

A recent visit to Perth and Kings Park revealed a beautiful memorial to the men of Western Australia who died in Sandakan. I know my cousin is mentioned in Lynette Silvers excellent book "A Conspiracy of Silence" and I know his name is at Labuan, but is there any memorial in Queensland dedicated to the men of that state, if there is I would appreciate a JPG Scan of the memorial especially if it shows Gunner Harold Victor COPELIN 2/10 RAA Thank You Roger Royal Marines Member RMHS Researching Copelin, Attrell, Reeves, Deacon & Pont

Hi Folks Can somebody help me out. Tomorrow I am presenting "Something Old, Something New - The Way We Were, The Way We Are" and I cannot find an image of the 6d(?) blue War Savings Stamp with a 'Spitfire.' Have hunted the web and I can see an image on Ted's site of a Certificate but cannot find the stamp. I specifically requested that I not be introduced as their 'computer guru' as I am demonstrating what we amused ourselves with in the 1940's as kids. I have somethings that are older and some more recent but before computers, television and all the current technology. One of the most fascinating things are found in my toolkit was the 'cat' from the game called 'Tip-Cat.' This game dates back to the 1600's and maybe even beyond! I have a few surprises in my collection like a cylinder recording (loaned) and a stereoscopic viewer and the like. It will be a real fun day and an adjunct to an otherwise much boring AGM? Much of my audience will be older with some younger. If anyone is interested in doing anything similar I can send my list of items and maybe, maybe, my Power Point? Kind regards Viv Martin Mentone, Melbourne .

You are probably right John. 1 thing that created SNAFUs was when a Digger (with a number) was field promoted to the exalted ranks of the Officer class where he needed no number. What to do? Cannot wipe the number as his records will "disappear", cannot keep using the number, he is now a "chosen one". Decisions, decisions. Cheers, Ted Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Wilson" <hugo@actrix.gen.nz> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [AUS-MIL] Officers' Numbers > Though there are fewer officers than ORs, surely there is the chance > that for a common name like William Smith there will be two people > of that name in a regiment, a private and an officer or even two > officers? Which presumably is why Australian Army officers got > numbers in WWII. And the Australian system based on the regiment > with numbers duplicated in each regiment must have been difficult to > administer! > > The original 1st NZEF system used suffixes (A, B, C) when a soldier > was transferred, but there was already someone in his new battalion > with the number he already had from his previous battalion. > > Yours, John Wilson > > > Australian and British Army officers in WWI did not have Regimental > > numbers, apparently because they were "officers and gentlemen". > > > > Soldiers of the British Army did not have service numbers until after the > > Napoleonic wars. When service numbers were introduced they were unique to > > the unit. So every unit had their own numbers starting with one. Australia > > adopted an identical system in 1914 with units issuing their own numbers. > > Since the numbering was unit based there was no real reason for officers > to > > have numbers particularly since the names of officers were published in > Army > > Lists. > > >

Though there are fewer officers than ORs, surely there is the chance that for a common name like William Smith there will be two people of that name in a regiment, a private and an officer or even two officers? Which presumably is why Australian Army officers got numbers in WWII. And the Australian system based on the regiment with numbers duplicated in each regiment must have been difficult to administer! The original 1st NZEF system used suffixes (A, B, C) when a soldier was transferred, but there was already someone in his new battalion with the number he already had from his previous battalion. Yours, John Wilson > Australian and British Army officers in WWI did not have Regimental > numbers, apparently because they were "officers and gentlemen". > > Soldiers of the British Army did not have service numbers until after the > Napoleonic wars. When service numbers were introduced they were unique to > the unit. So every unit had their own numbers starting with one. Australia > adopted an identical system in 1914 with units issuing their own numbers. > Since the numbering was unit based there was no real reason for officers to > have numbers particularly since the names of officers were published in Army > Lists. >

thank You -----Original Message----- From: Miss Fedelmar [mailto:fedelmar@lycos.com] Sent: Wednesday, 14 June 2006 5:50 PM To: AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUS-MIL] Re:Congratulations Neville Congratulations Neville :) Bright Blessings, Sandra. Sandra's Family History - http://tinyurl.com/o3mad MSN Messenger - fedelmar@hotmail.com My MSN Spaces - http://spaces.msn.com/fedelmar/ ~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~* Knowledge speaks and wisdom listens. ~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~* -- _______________________________________________ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp ?SRC=lycos10 ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== Milton Ulladulla Boer War & WW1 http://www.shoalhaven.net.au/~cathyd/war/

Slightly more detail is at http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-help/faq2.htm#numbers Cheers, Ted Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Staunton" <anthony.staunton@pcug.org.au> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:45 PM Subject: RE: [AUS-MIL] Officers' Numbers > From: John Wilson [mailto:hugo@actrix.gen.nz] Wednesday, 14 June 2006 > > A great post John but the Great War list let you down with this comment. > > Australian and British Army officers in WWI did not have Regimental > numbers, apparently because they were "officers and gentlemen". > > Soldiers of the British Army did not have service numbers until after the > Napoleonic wars. When service numbers were introduced they were unique to > the unit. So every unit had their own numbers starting with one. Australia > adopted an identical system in 1914 with units issuing their own numbers. > Since the numbering was unit based there was no real reason for officers to > have numbers particularly since the names of officers were published in Army > Lists. > > Anthony Staunton > >

From: John Wilson [mailto:hugo@actrix.gen.nz] Wednesday, 14 June 2006 A great post John but the Great War list let you down with this comment. Australian and British Army officers in WWI did not have Regimental numbers, apparently because they were "officers and gentlemen". Soldiers of the British Army did not have service numbers until after the Napoleonic wars. When service numbers were introduced they were unique to the unit. So every unit had their own numbers starting with one. Australia adopted an identical system in 1914 with units issuing their own numbers. Since the numbering was unit based there was no real reason for officers to have numbers particularly since the names of officers were published in Army Lists. Anthony Staunton

Australian and British Army officers in WWI did not have Regimental numbers, apparently because they were "officers and gentlemen", (from a discussion on the Great War list). But while New Zealand Army officers did not have Regimental numbers in the South African (Boer) War, they had them by WWI. Thus Lt-Col William Malone, killed on Gallipoli, was No 10/1039, the 10 being the prefix for the Wellington Infantry Battalion. No 10/1 was Lance-Corp Walter Cousins, also of the WIB. Prefix 15/ was for Headquarters staff, and No 15/1 was Maj-Gen Sir Alexander Godley, the Commandant of the New Zealand Defence Force (recommended by Kitchener in 1910), and of the NZEF (NZ Expeditionary Force) in WWI. For list of Prefixes, see Gallipoli by Pugsley page 361. The prefixes were not used after the 10th Reinforcements, because soldiers often returned to a different unit after hospital, training etc. So a 5-digit Regimental Number without prefix was allocated. Yours, John Wilson (New Zealand)

Please add my congrats and best wishes Cheers, Ted Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Barraclough" <kapana@netspace.net.au> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:12 PM Subject: Congratulations Neville > A little rumour is circulating (well, attached to a photograph that > looks disturbingly like him, on the front page of the local paper), > that one of the shy, quiet and retiring members of this list, W.O. > Neville Gibbons, has been saluted by H.M. The Queen in the recent > Honours. For his work in the establishment of the Gippsland Armed > Forces Museum at Sale. > > Congratulations, Neville - and well-deserved! > > Linda > List-admin AUS-MILITARY >

In reply to the query re the detachment that came out on the Surrey in Dec 1816. it was the 46th Regt The guard was Lt Reveley which I gather must have been the Senior person for this detachment. Kind regards Leanne Baulch Canberra ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Staunton" <anthony.staunton@pcug.org.au> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 9:42 PM Subject: RE: [AUS-MIL] Regiment aboard ship Surrey Arrived Dec 1816 > Jen > > Detachment of the 46th Foot which was stationed in NSW from 1814 to 1818. > The 48th Foot did not start arriving until the following August. > > I am not sure whether the AJCP, local papers, Historical Records of > Australia, the Army List or some other reference is the best way to find > name of the detachment commander. > > Anthony > >>Would anyone be able to tell me which Regiment /part thereof arrived in >>NSW >>on board the second voyage of the Surrey [Surry] in December 1816. >> >>Most importantly... who was the commanding officer of the Regiment on that >>voyage. >> >>Many thanks, >>Jen > > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > AUS-MILITARY is set so that, by default, replies go to the list. Please > check your replies before sending, to make sure that is what you know is > happening. >

Congratulations Neville :) Bright Blessings, Sandra. Sandra's Family History - http://tinyurl.com/o3mad MSN Messenger - fedelmar@hotmail.com My MSN Spaces - http://spaces.msn.com/fedelmar/ ~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~* Knowledge speaks and wisdom listens. ~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~* -- _______________________________________________ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10

A little rumour is circulating (well, attached to a photograph that looks disturbingly like him, on the front page of the local paper), that one of the shy, quiet and retiring members of this list, W.O. Neville Gibbons, has been saluted by H.M. The Queen in the recent Honours. For his work in the establishment of the Gippsland Armed Forces Museum at Sale. Congratulations, Neville - and well-deserved! Linda List-admin AUS-MILITARY