Author Topic: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?  (Read 1853 times)

Offline Andy J2022

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,161
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #18 on: Tuesday 24 September 24 21:36 BST (UK) »
This page obviously repeats some details from the earlier page you posted, concerning his draft. The draft code RVGZF refers to the body of men which were brought together ready to embark on a ship or convoy. I had thought there was a direct correlation between the draft code and the convoy number, but I can't find the link which is why I crossed out that part of my earlier reply.

Once he arrived in theatre (BNAF) on 27 November he was placed on the X list subsection (iv). This category is for "Unposted reinforcements in the theatre of war belonging to the unit or corps". In other words he had not yet been allocated to a unit immediately on arrival. However this changed on 13 December when he was allocated for permanent attachment (PA) to the RAC (Royal Armoured Corps) training (?) Depot. The role of the BNAF RAC training Depot was to marry up new tank crews fresh from the UK with the tanks they would be operating in North Africa and later Sicily and Italy. This involved a certain amount of familiarisation training and gunnery practice the conditions of Morocco. His job was obviously to feed these men while they were there.

After the birth of his daughter, the next three lines refer to him being promoted, first, as an unpaid acting corporal, then paid acting corporal and finally to war substantive corporal. The latter meant that had he served on after the end of hostilities he would have reverted to the rank of Lance Corporal.

The entry after he was severely reprimanded has me puzzled. It seems to say that he came under the administration of 104 GA (whatever that was), and placed on the X(2) list. However, the X(2) list is for soldiers undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, which he wouldn't have been because he was only reprimanded. Very odd.

The next part about his demobilisation medical is self-explanatory, and once again he posted to the X list, this time under subsection ( 8 ) which is for "non-effective personnel held at a Base Reinforcement Unit whose return to the UK has been authorised." He is struck off the strength of Central Mediterranean Forces (CMF) to the UK.  I think the next line means that he ceased to be eligible for the Mediterranean Allowance, but this is a guess. He was transferred to the Z Reserve on 20 Jan 1946.

Offline Andy J2022

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,161
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday 25 September 24 08:30 BST (UK) »
Just re-reading my comments from yesterday evening, it occurs to me that it might be helpful to explain the purpose of the X list (today there is also a Y list but I'm not sure when that was introduced, possibly during or just after the Second World War - more on that at the end).

Every unit in the Army has an establishment. This is a table showing the required number of officers and soldiers, by rank, necessary to carry out the unit's task. The establishment has strength figures for peace and war. In the event of war, the unit will (theoretically) be brought up to its wartime establishment by calling up soldiers of the correct ranks from the reserve.

The location of all serving soldiers has to be accounted for at all times by holding them against an establishment. However for flexibility there needs to be a way of recording the fact that a soldier is temporarily between establishments, for instance because he is on a long course, or is moving overseas by ship, etc.  To cover these sorts of events he is placed on the X list, which is a purely paper exercise controlled by the parent Manning and Record Office of the Regiment or Corps concerned. Technically the Record Office is looking after the day to day administration of a soldier on the X list, although in practice this is often handled by a depot somewhere. Originally the X list was used to account for all soldiers, but today it is just used for effective soldiers. Effective here means he is physically available and able to carry out his role as a soldier. The Y list is used to account for non-effective soldiers, for instance because they are long-term sick, a prisoner of war, a deserter or absent without leave over 28 days.

Offline Elastik

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday 25 September 24 18:40 BST (UK) »
Thanks again Andy for fantastic detail. According to another sheet he married Winifred on 12th June 1939. Do you see this fitting in with dates on the attached (sheet 4 of 36)? I assume he would have been in the Reserve at this time. War was declared about 10 weeks after their marriage on 3/9/39. Presumably people could see it coming & thought it best not to wait.

Offline Andy J2022

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,161
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday 25 September 24 20:35 BST (UK) »
Yes I think you are right that the decision to marry may well have been prompted by the knowledge he would soon be recalled to the Colours (ie rejoin the Army for the remainder of his commitment). Since the Munich Crisis in September 1938, the news was all about when, not if, there was likely to be a war with Germany. So he and the other reservists would have known this was coming.

His recall letter was dated 15 Jun 1939, but he was given time to get his affairs sorted out before needing to report to the Depot at Invicta Barracks, Maidstone on 1 September 1939. At that point his commitment was to complete the original 12 year engagement from when he first enlisted  on 27 July 1931, but later legislation extended his engagement for 'the duration of hostilities'. The deal was that he was to be given preferential treatment when it came to demobilisation at the end of the war.

Just a couple of other details.

The reference to B120 in red at the top of the page, is to his regimental conduct sheet (Army Form B 120). This would show any disciplinary action against him awarded by his commanding officer, but not any similar disciplinary action by his company commander (recorded on Army From B121 - this would have been retained by his battalion and destroyed once he left the service). The severe reprimand he received later on would have been on his regimental conduct sheet.

The column headed Part II orders on the right hand side refers to the documentation created by his unit concerning various stages of his career, such as postings, promotions etc.

We can see that after his time at the depot where he received his recruit and initial infantry training, he was posted to the 2nd Battalion on 28 February 1932. The battalion was based in Aldershot from 1930 and then moved to Shorncliffe in 1934. This is where he earned his first promotion to Lance Corporal, albeit unpaid at this stage. Since this was just under 6 years after he first joined up, that is a fairly typical timescale for a reasonably good soldier. He was initially unpaid probably as he was on probation in his new rank.

Then on 4 January 1938 he was posted to the 1st Battalion. This probably because he was nearing the end of his initial 7 years of regular service ('with the colours'), and the 2nd Battalion had just departed Shorncliffe to go overseas to Palestine. The 1st Battalion had just returned from many years in India (latterly in Karachi) and were now based in Aldershot.

We then jump forward to his recall to the colours in September 1939. He retained his former rank of Lance Corporal and as we know, rejoined the 1st Battalion. They were part of 10 Infantry Brigade and deployed to France on the outbreak of war as part of the British Expeditionary Force. There then followed the Phoney War in the Autumn of 1939 before the rapid German advance through the Low Countries, and the debacle at Dunkirk, which we have already discussed.

One last item. In the right hand margin are what I take to be his Prudential Building Society Account details. It may well be that he made an allotment from his pay to go to support his wife and this was the account to which the money would have been sent.  Otherwise she would have had to visit the barracks in Maidstone every 2 weeks to collect the money in cash.

As a matter of interest who was responsible for the redactions in white at the top of the form, you or the MOD? I was trying work out what information could have been so sensitive as to need redaction by the MOD.


Offline Elastik

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday 25 September 24 22:17 BST (UK) »
The redactions in white were me. I just removed his surname & army number. Just being cautious.

Offline Andy J2022

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,161
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #23 on: Wednesday 25 September 24 22:44 BST (UK) »
Yes, I understand. I wondered if the redaction under the 'B120 held' was connected to his regimental conduct sheet, but now I see it would have been his Army number written well above the line.

Offline Elastik

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #24 on: Friday 27 September 24 01:15 BST (UK) »
I was interested to see that you thought Frank might have left Dunkirk as part of Operation Dynamo on the 7th June. It seems late to me. Looking at sources that give the "last boat" out of Dunkirk they often quote HMS Shikari which allegedly made its last trip on the 4th June. What is it that makes you think he might have been evacuated under Dynamo rather than Aerial?

Offline Andy J2022

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,161
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #25 on: Friday 27 September 24 08:10 BST (UK) »
I don't have any strong or direct evidence. My assumption was based the fact that the later Operations Cycle and Aerial didn't begin until 10 Jun and  13 June respectively, therefore if he was recorded as being on the Isle of Wight on 7 June, that indicated he left France/Belgium earlier. You probably need to consult the 1 RWK war diary for the period to get the best explanation of how he got back to the UK. Things were pretty chaotic, so in many cases the ships and other craft did not maintain complete lists of individual soldiers or indeed the exact units / sub-units they carried.

Going back to your original posting about this on page one of the thread, you mentioned the second date of 24/6/40. This was the date that the Record office was notifed via (I assume) a Part II order serial number 1/6. In other words it seems to have taken about 2 weeks for the Battalion to assemble the figures, suggesting that the men of the Battalion may have been initially scattered around the South Coast after they were successfully evacuated.

Offline Elastik

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Do WW2 records ever indicate if the individual was appointed as a "batman"?
« Reply #26 on: Friday 27 September 24 13:38 BST (UK) »
Thanks to everyone for answering my questions. I understand that I'll need to look through the RWK war diary for 39/40 if I want to try to identify the officer for whom he was a batman who was shot in France. The "severe reprimand" incident does seem quite out of character. I wondered if anything like that would appear in the records. He had a genetic disorder (Huntington's Disease) which eventually killed him & can produce unpredictable behaviour & a range of problems. It also killed his brother Robert & his daughter, both mentioned in the records. However his time in the army was very positive & he worked successfully as a crane driver for many years after the war.