If I'm reading the Postal Unit War Diary correctly, it appears they were at Aberlour at the time in question.I can see from Google Maps that is about 50 kms north east of Aviemore (THE Aviemore - the one in Scotland....). Wouldn't you say, then, that there is still the problem of accounting for the use of an FPO in West Africa, when it was allegedly in the custody of (?) 52 Div in Scotland?

chrs
N

Hi, Pete,

It's type R11, so if the number is 95, then we have that recorded with FPO 46 (Lagos) August 1943-February 1945, and US APO 606 (Gold Coast) on 8/10/43. If it's no.96, then that was in use at RAF Shaibah at this time.

Now, Proud's assertion that FPO 463 was allocated to 52nd Division: the internet is annoyingly unhelpful, here: I'm unable get any deeper into 52 Div history than this for the time in question:

'From May 1942 until June 1944, the 52nd was trained in a mountain warfare capacity, originally for a proposed invasion of Norway. However, the division was never employed in this role. Following June 1944, the 52nd Division was reorganised and trained in airlanding operations.'

That's from the fount of all knowledge (??), Wikipedia, and other sources say the same (I wonder why?). I would have thought if the Division had seen oversees service, it would have merited an explicit mention. I wonder how reliable Proud's attribution is of FPO 463 to 52 Div?

Pensively yrs
N

  - FPO 155: Proud has this in the Middle East (8 L of C from 3.6.41). I have a manuscript annotation (mine) in my copy that it was in Gaza from (1942) to (30/4/43). Your item is dated in December 1941, so I surmise there's a fair chance it may already have been in Gaza at that point.

    - 10d for the single air mail rate would therefore be correct I think, so your 2/6d rate would be correct for a triple rate item.

    - As regards the censor, well, it's the normal type of (army) censor for the ME at that time. I think ALK kept a register, and I think Mike Dobbs might have it, or know where it is. If ALK recorded it, he may have noted the unit, if it was on an item bearing the sender's details.

chrs
N

Ah, an interesting report, Tommy.

There's more to R4/50 than meets the eye, I think. Our good friend and colleague Ian Muchall reported it in January 2018 with a South African paquebot dated April 1941. This is interpreted as being from a troopship.Your recording (later in 1941, I think?) adds two more countries, Canada and Australia, to the story. This would presumably be from a later voyage, but why the censor R4/50 is STILL on board is difficult to account for.

chrs
N

Hi, Ross, interesting that you should put that up. I also have a cover from Senegal in May 1943. I have yet to establish the character of our naval presence in Senegal at that time, but considering what happened between the Allies and the (Vichy) French forces at Dakar in September 1940, I imagine relations between the Brits and the local French forces were less than cordial. Anyway, the nearest I've got so far is the establishment of a shore base, HMS Fann, at Dakar, which first appears in the June 1944 Navy List. However, the earliest dates of appointment of the officers listed are in March 1944. This is in agreement with the listing of HMS Fann in a compilation of naval shore establishments compiled by the late Bill Garrard – he has HMS Fann existing between March 1944 and 30th June 1945.

That's the best I can do so far.
Nick

Do you think it might now be known as Kassasin? About 30-40 kms west of Ismailia. See attached Google Maps screen snips. If so, then the country is Egypt.

chrs
N

Hi, chaps, I don't think I have anything with which to address your specific questions, Neil, but Pete's observation prompted me to see if I do indeed have a record of R9/99. I have one in my New Recordings file - entered in May 2021, with a chap whose initials are NW as the source :-)

chrs
N

Hi, Howard,

These appear to be examples of Dr.Gould's DA17 postmark: 8 bars not touching the circumference. He wrote an article in the Journal a few years back - Journal 275, Spring 2008 - and it seems there are several variations. The article describes them, and their ports of use (he identifies Lerwick as one of them, by the way) in some detail. Let me know if you don't have Journal 275: I can e-mail it to you, or you can download it from the website.

rgds
Nick

I'm pretty sure I've seen that style of mark before on South African civilian mail. However, that combination of period, use and country are largely outside my interests, so I paid no attention to destination(s), or from where the items were posted.

chrs
N

Hi, Sozont, welcome back,

I'm not sure I can provide much (if any?) useful information, but with luck whatever I offer might provoke other members to participate:

On board a healthy ship, the medical officer would have relatively little to do, perhaps, so he would be an obvious candidate for censoring outgoing mail.

As you may be aware, Dr.Gould has recorded several WW1 naval censor marks which include the word Surgeon. I've just been through his books, and he illustrates six of them. I don't think I have any of the marks in my own collection – they seem to be quite rare => expensive.

I've just looked at a Navy List from WW2 and many, but not all of the RN medical officers have affiliations to professional surgical bodies – eg MRCS. Surgical skills would be MOST useful on board ship in attempting to repair casualties with battle wounds. In common parlance, I suspect 'ship's doctor' and 'ship's surgeon' would be interchangeable.

Anyway, it's not much but hopefully of some interest, if not use?

Rgds
N

Folks, Mike e-mailed me last week before he put this on the Forum. FYI, this was my reply (slightly improved compared to my original response):

R14/471 is a new number: it's not in the original listing,and it's not in the New Recordings file.

The usage you report seems normal, so there's no cause for great excitement. I confess that the use of the 6c US airmail stationary by British servicemen to addresses in the US had not seemed worthy of note to me in the past, but I think, going from what I can recall from my own collection, that use may well be a little unusual. What does anyone else think? It was probably cheaper for a British serviceman to spend 6c than 1/3d (or more) using British postage.

rgds
N

Weren't APO numbers like that used as temporary addresses for units in transit? I recall I have a few examples - not necessarily that particular number, though - always as a manuscript return address. A quick look at Wikipedia confirms your enquirer's observations concerning North Africa and Italy.

chrs
N

There's another source as well: Rogan and McGrath, Locations and Assignments of US Army Post Offices, WW2 and Later. 3rd Edition, 1973.

It gives broadly the same story: 807 at Atkinson Field, Br.Guiana, opened 29th July 1941, closure/suspension date unknown, but it then starts again in France  - a place listed as 'Camp Pittsburgh' - from July 1945, then Epernay from February 1946, moving rapidly, apparently, to Bad Nauheim in Germany later the same month. No date is given for termination of operations.

For APO 857, the same listing gives Atkinson Field in Br.Guiana from 29th July 1941. That is the only entry they give for 857.

ok?
chrs
N

We need to prod Geoff, then. He'll have some spare time now he's got the auction list out of the way :-)

chrs
N

BTW, Mike, what format (page size) is AK's 'ledger'?

Hi, Jim, how interesting you should say that. I've been puzzling over why there was no FPO since I read your post, and I could think of no reason for that if the cover originated in France. Your date is the 2nd May, and Hitler's offensive didn't start until the 10th, so there's no obvious cause for troops to be separated from their postal facilities. However, it had occurred  to me that since operations weren't going too well in Norway, that could explain why what postal facilities there were for the troops in Norway had become not readily accessible to the troops. We need more observations of the censor marks, don't we, before we can confirm or deny the Norway hypothesis.

chrs
N