Military Chat

I have obtained a First World War medal trio to a Private 20716 George W White Army Service Corps, however, the Medal Index Card indicates that he also served as a Private in the Labour Corps with the regimental number 308074. What would the reason be for him to have had two different regimental numbers?

I can't tell you the reason but I know it is not unusual. My father in law had two different numbers. He served with two different regiments in both the first and second world wars.

Kath. x

There is this reply on rootschat which may help explain

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=185819.0

The Labour Corps were formed in the feb' of 1917 and lasted til 1921. It was made up of men that had been in the front line and who had been either wounded or taken ill and could not be returned to the front or men who, on enlistment, were found to be too old or did not pass as fit enough to be sent to the front. By the November of 1918 some 400,000 men were serving in the Labour Corps. Being in this body of men did not stop you being killed by enemy action as some 9,000 men were killed. Their duties would have been anything from helping in stores, taking equipment up to the front, repairing roads and such like, helping at rest areas by manning theaters and cinema's in fact anything that was need of them they would have done.

Ivor Lee has a very good site with regards to the Labour Corps at www.geocities.com/labour_corps and can be contacted on that site. As you have name and Labour Corps service number Ivor maybe able to tell you what company your rellie was in and even (at along shot) tell you where. If the link above does not get you to the site google Labour corps and Ivor's site will be one of the first that will appear.

I would suggest that your rellie was possibly wounded and after recouperation he would have been sent to the Labour Corps and given his "new" army service number which was a normal thing to have happened.

British army service numbers were not unique - they were unique within a regiment.
Since solders don't fight for their generals or regiments - they fight for their mates, the British reinforcement system was deeply flawed. returning wounded solders should have been sent back to their original units, like the Canadians and ANZACs did. Instead, they were sent back to the first unit that asked for reinforcements, and so often acquired a new regimental number.

Many thanks for all the replies, I was aware of someone who fought in the First World War who resigned his Commission with the Army but re-enlisted in the RAF in WW2 with a different service number. I hadn't come across this happening during the same conflict but the fact he might have been wounded makes sense. Thanks for all your help and advice.

Regards

Graham

Hi Graham
I volunteer and contribute to Lives of the First World War so I looked up the soldier and he is listed there.
https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/5129428
If you feel like adding a photo of the medals it would be much appreciated. I've seen at least three numbers and corresponding medal cards for some WWI soldiers.

Thank you Janet, yes I did find George White listed on Lives of the First World War Digital Archive but apart from the medal index card I have nothing to go on unfortunately.

Regards

Graham

My grandfather Percival Joseph Lander had three different numbers. He is shown on various documents that I have as serving in the 17th London, Poplar and Stepney Rifles, the 1st /17th London Rifles, and also the Royal Irish Rifles, (although he had no connection whatsoever with Ireland) His numbers were 7141, 39287, and 573807.

When a soldier was transferred from one regiment to another regiment he was given a new service number with the second regiment.