Unknown character
-
by
Stork
All 3 days have "No T Field Ambulance." Two of the 'Ts' have a dot over them. That 'T' must be a number, I'm guessing either 1 or 7, since those look closest to 'T.' Anyone know what it is?
Posted
-
Wonder if it means No. T Section of the Field Ambulance Bearer Division. *(Tented sub section). i.e.
“In 1914, each infantry Division had three Field Ambulances, each of which was divided into three Sections. In turn, those Sections had Stretcher Bearer and *Tented subsections.”
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
I'd guess it's No. 7 FA, although they were part of the 3rd Division, rather than the 1st...
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
Actually, I've had another think about this, and I now wonder whether the T with a dot on top is actually a roman numeral i. It's apparently commonplace in prescription writing to add a little bar to roman numerals in this way, so if the author is a medic that might make sense. If that is the case, then they're relieving elements of No. 1 FA, which was in the same division.
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
It does make sense that it would be No. 1 FA, as it seems, from other field ambulance diaries I have tagged, that the field ambulances within a division often worked together.
However, none of the other instances of either numeral 1 or 7 on the page look like the T in question, so I'm not sure it was No. 1 FA. Maybe the T did stand for tent sub-division and the author chose this rather odd way of noting it?
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
in response to cyngast's comment.
I don't think it's that, because they specifically refer to the bearer subdivision of the relieved unit.
Posted
-
by
Stork
I just got the answer to the question in the 3rd line from the bottom here AWD0003mfg So, ral104 is right- the 'T' with a dot over it is a Roman numeral '1.'
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
Brilliant! Thanks for letting us know, stork. I'm going to give myself a high five for working that one out 😄
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
Good work, Stork! I notice that he also uses Roman numerals for the month in the dates on the second page you posted--but not on the first. I wonder why?
Posted
-
by
Stork
Yeah, cyngast, I've noticed that this author uses Roman numerals one day and then standard numbers in the same place the next day. For some reason he just switches between the two randomly.
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
in response to Stork's comment.
I also noticed that for soldiers' service numbers he used standard numbers.
Posted