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. >

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. > > >

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/ > > > >

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.

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. >