Regiment ID please

[alan o]

I think you may be on to something - the number he uses in his letter might be the TF one that he was issued when he joined up.  This would have to be pre-renumbering.

The one on the medal card the one in use when he qualified for the medal by which time the regtl numbers had been reallocated.

Again the LLT site explains it and confirms the re-numbering of the 344xxx series of numbers was Forth RGA.

http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/renumbering-of-the-territorial-force-in-1917/

If only his medals were still around.

[jess5athome]

Following with interest the thoughts of two very knowledgeable posters.

Frank.

[MaxD]

But lacking a bit of precision on my side Frank!  In my post when I wrote "no Inman entry appears for the number he gives in 1917 (perhaps post renumbering?)," I should perhaps have written "no entry appears for the number he gives in 1917 because it was after re-numbering". I've wrestled with the TF renumbering many times!

 I agree it would be great if his medals had survived and nice if the Forth RGA had taken the trouble to record both sets of numbers as others did.  I have been able to find, just for indicative purposes and before RSI set in, three more men who were renumbered in the Forth RGA and who later were serving in siege batteries in the BEF.  Proves only that men moved from one unit to another but helps my theory I think.

For Green Dragon - neither of us specifically confirmed that the original photograph is almost without doubt a photograph of an RGA unit in something other than a coast role and very likely to be part of 249 Siege Battery (there aren't enough men to be the whole battery).  And, in sum, the theory is that your man was, prior to 1917, in the Forth RGA on the coast of Scotland with the number he used in his letter and then, probably while serving in 1917 with 249 SB, received his other number which went on his medal record.  It will be super if a photo turns up but be ready for him not being in the main one.

MaxD

[alan o]

Going back to the original photo as it's in London, the unit are dressed for manning guns with horses rather than static guns in Scottish fortresses, and the size then I also think it will be 249 Siege Battery in the photo. 

The battery records state that it had,in 1917, 188 men, inclusive of 8 Officers and 8 Serjeants.   Looking at the photo I assume that we can see only a little of the centre and right hand side of the battery: which shows 6 officers, 4 sgts and approximately 80 men.  Allowing for the rest to be out of the cropped scan would account for the other half.

Alan

[alan o]

Actually I think I need to correct my post about numbering - his 122### number would be a Regular number that he was allocated by he joined up (in 1915?). 

He may well have been trained in gunnery by the Forth RGA (a TF number would only have 4 digits) which is why he was posted to Scotland as a Yorkshireman before being posted to France with his new siege battery: and then he was re-numbered in 1917.

[Green Dragon]

Thank you for all  your replies  I've got far more  on here  than I ever expected . You're right  Alan  it's only a sample of the uniform  for ID  it was too large for the scanner  so did it at twice. https://s3.postimg.org/v7jtkkgfn/bekly.png  I downloaded the medical card   but it doesn't give much detail.

https://s3.postimg.org/4760vzs4z/lowhouset_another_copy.jpg

  One  here when Ernest  would be  early 20's   around  1910.