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 >> >> > >