• Welcome to FPHS - Legacy Forum.
 

News:

This forum uses cookies which keeps track of your login preferences. With cookies enabled, you can log in automatically each time you visit the forum.

Main Menu

WW1 FPO 93 & CM4 Censor 2778 May 1916

Started by Michael Dobbs, January 22, 2015, 11:26:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Dobbs

Last November I received an enquiry via our website concerning an enquiry about PASSED FIELD CENSOR 2778 (K&C Type CM4) on a postcard postmarked FIELD POST OFFICE 93 dated 20 MY 16.

Alistair provided much useful information as follows -

[color=maroon]The postmark FPO 93 is of 93rd Infantry Brigade, in 31st Division on the Western Front.

The hexagonal censor stamp no 2778 has not been identified, but would almost certainly have been used by one of the units of 31st Division. The Divisional HQ and 92, 93 and 94 Brigade HQs and nine infantry battalions are believed to have used numbers 2743 to 2753.  Supporting units in the division at that time included:

165, 169, 170, 171 Brigades Royal Field Artillery
210, 211, 223, Field Companies, Royal Engineers
93, 94, 95 Field Ambulances RAMC
221, 222, 223, 279 Companies Royal Army Service Corps [transport][/color]

I have since received more information from the person making the enquiry -

[color=brown]I have also looked at the Official War Diary of the 31st Division 93 Infantry Brigade 15th BN WYR and on 20 May Harry Brown (15/120) of A Coy was on the right n the firing line and Monk? trench (near Courcelles?) and his commanding officer Lt. Col. S.C. Taylor was wounded in the leg and moved to hospital

The three WY battalions in the Division were the 15th (Leeds Pals) 16th (1st Bradford Pals) and 18th (2nd Bradford Pals) with the 18th D.L.I. formed the 93rd Infantry Brigade

My Grandpa (Harry Brown) was a Private in the Leeds Pals and 120 was his Regimental Number [/color](Me - hence the reference to 15/120 above?).

Could (CM4) 2778 be allocated to 15th (Leeds Pals) Bn - does anyone else have any recordings of this number ?

I note that the card does not appear to have a signature from the censoring officer - was this usual at times ?

Any further help much appreciated (I will attach a scan of the postcard later)

Regards, Mike  ;D