FPHS - Legacy Forum

General Category => Members Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Alan Baker on November 19, 2014, 04:16:29 PM

Title: 21st DAC
Post by: Alan Baker on November 19, 2014, 04:16:29 PM
I have a rather grubby wrapper (attached I hope) addressed to a bombardier with the 21st DAC, BEF France. It was posted in Manchester in March 1918, as far as I can make out.

I have endeavoured to trace Bombardier Dutton, but no luck. Can anyone give me any info, for example, what does "DAC" stand for and where they might have been at this time?

Many thanks
Title: Re: 21st DAC
Post by: Frank Schofield on November 19, 2014, 05:55:45 PM
Alan

Try  21st Divisional Ammunition Column

Frank Schofield
Title: Re: 21st DAC
Post by: Michael Dobbs on November 20, 2014, 10:49:12 AM
Alan

If DAC does stand for Divisional Ammunition Column as suggested by Frank (and this seems most likely) see the following link which provides an order of battle for 21st Division and down in the list under Divisional Troops you will find a reference to 21st Divisional Ammunition Column RFA:
http://www.1914-1918.net/21div.htm

There is more information on 21st DAC showing movements and locations at this link (you will need to scroll down):
http://www.mawddachdreams.co.uk/ww1-the-ultimate-sacrifice/81-albert-edward-hickenbotham-battle-of-st-quentin-march-1918.html

Regards, Mike  ;)
Title: Re: 21st DAC
Post by: Frank Schofield on November 20, 2014, 06:37:28 PM
Alan

Any initials for Bdr Dutton???

Frank Schofield
Title: Re: 21st DAC
Post by: Alan Baker on November 21, 2014, 07:39:30 PM
No but the wrapper quotes his service number as 93270
Title: Re: 21st DAC
Post by: Chris Grimshaw on November 23, 2014, 03:51:14 PM
Hi Alan

No Dutton with this service Number traced in the Medal Cards, there are 1143 Dutton's recorded but not this one.

Also no one with the service number alone.  Nothing in CWGC or Soldiers Died Great war.

If he went overseas I can't trace him I'm afraid. There are a lot of Royal Field Artillery which Divisional Ammunition column would suggest, possibly sender got the service number wrong.

Cheers

Chris