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