There a birth registered for a Charlie Huntbach at Market Drayton in 1890. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Forrest Anderson" <listmail@military-researcher.com> To: <GREATWAR-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Charles Huntback > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:05:40 -0500, "Peter Gower" > <peter.gower@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >>Now, does anybody have any information, further to what is on the CWGC >>website, on 9193 Private Charles Huntback, 17th Bn., Manchester Regiment. >>If he is the man I am looking for, he had been in Canada (Battersea, >>Ontario) for 'some few years' before 1914, but came from England. he was >>married in mid-May 1916. > > Soldiers Died in the Great War says: > > Number 9193 > Rank Private > Name Charles HUNTBACK > Bn 17th Battalion > Regt Manchester Regiment. > How Died Killed in Action > When Died 01/07/1916 > Where Died France & Flanders. > Born Market Drayton, Shropshire > Enlisted Manchester > Resided Blackley, Manchester. > > Given the Manchester connection, I looked at the index to the > 14-volume National Roll of the Great War, but he is not shown. However > the index does have one other similar name - G H Huntbach, who is > apparently mentioned in the Salford Volume. Salford is near > Manchester, so there might be a connection. > > Huntback/Huntbach is a very unusual name, and there's only one other > soldier listed in SDIGW: > > Number: 305150 > Rank L/Cpl > Name Arthur HUNTBACK, > Battalion 1/8th Battalion, > Regt Sherwood Foresters (Nottinghamshire and > Derbyshire Regiment) > How Died Killed in Action > When Died 28/07/1917 > Where Died France & Flanders. > Born Nottingham > Enlisted Carlton, Notts > > This man is listed as Arthur Albert *Huntbach* by the CWGC, the entry > being at > http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=53478 with > Nottingham next of kin. > > Given the Canadian connection, I looked at the Canadian expeditionary > Force database at > http://www.collectionscanada.ca/archivianet/02010602_e.html for both > spellings, and found only one hit - 51213 Ernest Huntbach, born 12 Oct > 1893. See http://data2.archives.ca/cef/gpc007/408940a.gif and > http://data2.archives.ca/cef/gpc007/408940b.gif > > He is of particular interest because he was also born in Shropshire > (like your Charles), and his next of kin is William Huntbach, of > Battersea, Ontario. > > He was a member of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry > when he died in 1915 and is listed by the CWGC at > http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=282964 > > If you are looking for a Battersea Huntback who was born in England > and killed in WW1, then maybe Ernest Huntbach of the PPCLI is the chap > you want? > > Forrest > > -- > Forrest Anderson, Edinburgh, Scotland. > E-mail: forrest@military-researcher.com > Website: www.military-researcher.com > Forrestdale Research - Military Genealogical Researcher > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Firstly, many thanks for the fast answers on Q1. Now, does anybody have any information, further to what is on the CWGC website, on 9193 Private Charles Huntback, 17th Bn., Manchester Regiment. If he is the man I am looking for, he had been in Canada (Battersea, Ontario) for 'some few years' before 1914, but came from England. he was married in mid-May 1916. Peter

Hi Peter, You will find some information on HMS Perugia (Q.1) at the site listed below. She was sunk in the Genoa Gulf on 3 Dec 1916 with the loss of one senior stoker and 7 stokers . The rest of the crew were rescued by the French Navy. http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishQships.htm David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gower" <peter.gower@sympatico.ca> To: <greatwar@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:52 AM Subject: [GREATWAR] HMS Q1 > Can anybody tell me about this ship, or send me in the right direction to find more. I know about Q ships in general, but need some specifics on this one. Thanks. Peter > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Can anybody tell me about this ship, or send me in the right direction to find more. I know about Q ships in general, but need some specifics on this one. Thanks. Peter

F Y I

The last American (AEF) occupation troops departed the Rhineland in January 1923 and were replaced by French soldiers. LGS

Thursday, Feb 01, 2007SOURCE:THE WICHITA EAGLE, KANSAS Posted on Tue, Jan. 23, 2007 World War I vet Albert Wagner dies at 107 Associated Press SMITH CENTER - Albert F. "Jud" Wagner, who served with the Marines in World War I, has died at the age of 107. Wagner died Saturday at Smith County Long Term Care, said his son J.S. Wagner, who is 84 and also a former Marine. The elder Wagner was honored along with his family in November 2006 at a Veterans Day ceremony at the Statehouse. At that time, according to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' office and the Commission on Veterans Affairs, he was the only known World War I veteran living in Kansas and the oldest former Marine in the nation. He had also been honored in October 2006 when a 30-mile section of U.S. 36 through Smith County was designated as World War I Veterans Highway. J.S. Wagner recalled his father as a strong man who liked farming and raising livestock in Smith County and talking to his four children about serving his country in France and Germany. He enlisted at age 17 and served in the Marines in 1918 and 1919. The war stories were "the reason I became a Marine. They take care of one another. They're a proud outfit," said J.S. Wagner, who fought in World War II and in Korea. His younger brother, Robert Wagner, of Phoenix, was a Marine in mid- to late 1950s. A Marine detachment from Wichita will provide a military graveside service for Jud Wagner following his funeral at 1:30 p.m Wednesday at the Simmons-Olliff-Boeve Chapel in Smith Center.

My grandfather was in the AEF 2nd Engineers and was at Engers, Germany during the occupation. My mother says he told her he came home on the last ship to leave France. While the 2nd Battalion landed at Hoboken onboard the "Great Northern" on Aug. 8, 1919, my grandfather arrived home Sept. 9, 1919 aboard the SS Pastores. I have a picture of him boarding the ship. Question . was the SS Pastores, in fact, the last ship to return American soldiers from France? If so, what port did it leave France from and where did it land in the US? Thanks, Mitch Ryder http://cdf-oregon.com/

John, Thanks for your very informative reply. Patrick. John Chapman wrote: > No - what is surprising is that you didnt find a lot more men with the > same number. > > Unique Army numbers did not come into being until 1921. After that a man > kept his number whichever regiment he served in. > > Prior to that regiments had their own numbering systems - there were > three main choices:- > > A regimental number - there were generally three series one covered > regulars, kitcheners and conscripts. Another one or two different > territorial series and a reservist series so it was not uncommon for > there to be up to three or four men in the same regiment with the same > number at the same time. In 1917 all the territorials got renumbered > into the 200,000 series to avoid this duplication. > > A number within a battalion prefixed with the battalion number - this > was favoured by large territorial regiments like the London Regiment eg > 14/3456 > > A number prefixed with a service area - The Royal Engineers and ASC used > this system so you can get a number like MT45631 to indicate he was in > the Motor transport section. > > Regards > > John > > > In message <45C1C4D7.1040100@it.net.au>, patrick holland > <lambeth@it.net.au> writes > >> I was given the following information from a soldier's record book : Pte >> Charles Holland. RASC, Army number 20996. >> >> When I did a search for his MIC to my surprise I found an entry for a >> Pte. Charles Robinson. Northumberland Fusiliers, Army number 20996. >> >> Is this a mistake or is there some other explanation. >> >> Regards. >> >> Patrick Holland >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > >

Peter, Many thanks for your explanation. Regards. Patrick Peter Fellowes wrote: > Greetings all, > It was not uncommon for soldiers to have the same regimental number as some > Regiments had their own numbering system prior to the introduction of > Conscription and a 'Centralised numbering system' [to me at least a mine > field in its own right]. > > SWD CD for example shows six soldiers with the number 20996 > > Regards > Peter Fellowes > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "patrick holland" <lambeth@it.net.au> > To: <greatwar@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:45 AM > Subject: [GREATWAR] Re MIC : 2 different men in different regiments with the > same Army number. > > > >> I was given the following information from a soldier's record book : Pte >> Charles Holland. RASC, Army number 20996. >> >> When I did a search for his MIC to my surprise I found an entry for a >> Pte. Charles Robinson. Northumberland Fusiliers, Army number 20996. >> >> Is this a mistake or is there some other explanation. >> >> Regards. >> >> Patrick Holland >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

I was given the following information from a soldier's record book : Pte Charles Holland. RASC, Army number 20996. When I did a search for his MIC to my surprise I found an entry for a Pte. Charles Robinson. Northumberland Fusiliers, Army number 20996. Is this a mistake or is there some other explanation. Regards. Patrick Holland

No - what is surprising is that you didnt find a lot more men with the same number. Unique Army numbers did not come into being until 1921. After that a man kept his number whichever regiment he served in. Prior to that regiments had their own numbering systems - there were three main choices:- A regimental number - there were generally three series one covered regulars, kitcheners and conscripts. Another one or two different territorial series and a reservist series so it was not uncommon for there to be up to three or four men in the same regiment with the same number at the same time. In 1917 all the territorials got renumbered into the 200,000 series to avoid this duplication. A number within a battalion prefixed with the battalion number - this was favoured by large territorial regiments like the London Regiment eg 14/3456 A number prefixed with a service area - The Royal Engineers and ASC used this system so you can get a number like MT45631 to indicate he was in the Motor transport section. Regards John In message <45C1C4D7.1040100@it.net.au>, patrick holland <lambeth@it.net.au> writes > >I was given the following information from a soldier's record book : Pte >Charles Holland. RASC, Army number 20996. > >When I did a search for his MIC to my surprise I found an entry for a >Pte. Charles Robinson. Northumberland Fusiliers, Army number 20996. > >Is this a mistake or is there some other explanation. > >Regards. > >Patrick Holland > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- John Chapman

Patrick, There is another explanation. -----Original Message----- From: greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of patrick holland Sent: 01 February 2007 10:46 To: greatwar@rootsweb.com Subject: [GREATWAR] Re MIC : 2 different men in different regiments with the same Army number. I was given the following information from a soldier's record book : Pte Charles Holland. RASC, Army number 20996. When I did a search for his MIC to my surprise I found an entry for a Pte. Charles Robinson. Northumberland Fusiliers, Army number 20996. Is this a mistake or is there some other explanation. Regards. Patrick Holland ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-----Original Message----- From: patrick holland <lambeth@it.net.au> Sent Subject: [GREATWAR] Re MIC : 2 different men in different regiments with the same Army number. > I was given the following information from a soldier's record book : Pte > Charles Holland. RASC, Army number 20996. > When I did a search for his MIC to my surprise I found an entry for a > Pte. Charles Robinson. Northumberland Fusiliers, Army number 20996. > Is this a mistake or is there some other explanation. Patrick No mistake - in fact a quick search just on the number 20996 reveals 59 entries on the medal index card database. To put it in simple terms - in reality numbering is a tortuous subject - this is because during the period the number was allocated on a regimental rather than an army-wide basis. Identical numbers are therefore not uncommon. Regards Mike Shingleton

Greetings all, It was not uncommon for soldiers to have the same regimental number as some Regiments had their own numbering system prior to the introduction of Conscription and a 'Centralised numbering system' [to me at least a mine field in its own right]. SWD CD for example shows six soldiers with the number 20996 Regards Peter Fellowes ----- Original Message ----- From: "patrick holland" <lambeth@it.net.au> To: <greatwar@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: [GREATWAR] Re MIC : 2 different men in different regiments with the same Army number. > > I was given the following information from a soldier's record book : Pte > Charles Holland. RASC, Army number 20996. > > When I did a search for his MIC to my surprise I found an entry for a > Pte. Charles Robinson. Northumberland Fusiliers, Army number 20996. > > Is this a mistake or is there some other explanation. > > Regards. > > Patrick Holland > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

There were ten men numbered 604 in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. For a winter's diversion, can anybody beat that? Peter

I have some letters from my grandfather dated 1919 written from a Detention centre in Derby Goal. I have now traced his medal record and it says on this that he had his medals forfeited due to the fact that he had been sentenced to two years imprisonment. I obviously have his regimental details etc but i have no idea why he was sentenced. is there any way that i could find details of these records? I have tried to find out where i could go to check these but I cannot seem to find any details of records available. does anyone have any ideas? many thanks. Debbie Cameron debbie.cameron@alandeb.org.uk http://www.alandeb.org.uk

Can any lister help me please? What would have been the escort formation to return a deserter in the UK back to his Unit. Would they have been armed and if the Unit was in France would they have been returned there? Geoff Foster www.thinblueline.org.uk

FYI Buried at Payne Cemetery - Dade County, Ga MULL, William T. Apr 22, 1891 - May 10, 1965 SC-PVT Quartermaster Corps- World War 1 wife was Gladys L. Mar 187, 1917 - June 24, 1992

Hi John The answer actually turned out to be 'yes'!! In the case of the Leinster Regiment it was on his medal card all along (in the form of 2/Leinster - meaning 2nd Battalion) and it needed the knowledge of someone in the know to work it out for me. My grateful thanks go to Mike Shingleton for interpreting the card. The Army Cyclist Corps is going to take a bit more by way of investigation to sort out. Jo ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:50:11 +0000 From: John Chapman <john@purley.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Can I find a particular battalion if I have the Regiment number? To: greatwar@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <DiyOmmAzN1sFFw91@purley.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed Jo The simple answer is NO There are a few cases where you can have a pretty good guess, for example knowing when a Kitchener battalion was being formed or when you have a territorial number. Some regiments used to prefix the regimental number with the battalion number eg 3/3452 but this usually only applied to large territorial regiments or reserve battalions. Regards John -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.5/645 - Release Date: 22/01/2007 16:10 BullGuard Anti-virus has scanned this e-mail and found it clean. Try BullGuard for free: www.bullguard.com