This Forum is now closed to new requests. The Lives of the First World War team is responding to the final requests received and will provide updates in the comments section of posts.

Potential new LS: Tom BAGSHAW 7575414 Lance Corpl.R.A.O.C

.Absent Voters List autumn 1921
https://search.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/record?id=bl%2fer%2fd25%2ffmp000001133%2f0566&parentid=bl%2fer%2fd25%2ffmp000001133%2f0566&highlights=%22%22

Got to admit that given the date and a seven digit # starting with '75' I suspect a post-war soldier, at least at this date

0 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    R Bagshaw shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    2 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • R Bagshaw commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Yes, I do think it is the same man. An excellent spot by you! Always good to have a fresh set of eyes look at things. :-) I did know about the post-war "75" digit service numbers but the GWF is a great place to help research :-) Thank you. :-) :-)

      • Jane Dickson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hi
        I do think 1921 is rather too late as the only evidence from which to create a new life story, but if you check https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/122792 and look at the Absent Vote List entry for that Thomas Bagshaw, you will find a man of the same name at the same address whose service progressed from the Northumberland Fusiliers via the Labour Corps to the RAOC, in which he was a Lance Corporal. I have found the following snippet on https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/267442-ordnance-corps-army-numbers/
        "Seven-figure numbers were introduced in about 1921-22 to be unique across the Army. Each regiment or corps was allocated its own block of numbers, RAOC numbers all beginning 75."
        In other words, Thomas Bagshaw #S/10188 could well have become Thomas Bagshaw #7575414. Do you agree he is likely to be the right man?
        Best wishes
        Jane

      Feedback and Knowledge Base