|
Post by lambstew on Sept 23, 2016 2:04:08 GMT 12
Thanks gentlemen. I shouldn't have placed NZ in front of the number. It is only the number and the name STEVEN. I just assumed the number and name scratched into the back was wartime since the wrist watch is Ref. No. 6B-N90. The watch itself is a real oddball and I know of only one other here: www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?76094-Here-is-a-odd-one-on-EBayMy watch is the one being discussed in the post. The second watch is in a collection in NZ and we are in touch. In 30 years of military watch collecting these are the only two 6B-N90 RNAF watches I have ever seen. The mechanism inside both are late '30's-40's. That's why I was thinking the number and name are wartime. I doubt the mark is a watch makers mark and more the name of the airman.. Cheers, Konrad
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Sept 23, 2016 3:24:47 GMT 12
Yep, A is 0 not 1. Put the beer down and have another look Jonesy 6 is indeed G.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 23, 2016 7:29:51 GMT 12
I've had a similar thing Jonesie where almost all other official numbers allocated seem to include part of my service number. Often three digits.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 23, 2016 21:53:18 GMT 12
Didn't exactly drop the NZ either. I joined in 1991, but when I got my dog tags, they didn't have my service number as G991375, it was NZ991375. Did anybody else in the 1990's have that? And I must say, we had crappy dog tags. Yes, my first set of dog tags in 97 were like this. And they were crappy. USGI style, but hand stamped with individual characters and all wobbly. Clearly the RNZAF didn't invest in a dog tag engraver until some time later, my second set that I got in about 2010 were properly machine stamped, but had both the NZ and my full service number (including the first letter).
|
|
|
Post by isc on Sept 23, 2016 21:59:27 GMT 12
I noticed that the second watch in Konrad's forum the winder is on the opposite side, next to 9 o'clock, instead of the usual next to the 3, is that feature common on issue watches? isc
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Sept 23, 2016 23:24:24 GMT 12
Yep, A is 0 not 1. Put the beer down and have another look Jonesy 6 is indeed G. Mmmm perhaps my nearly 5 years living in Australia has started to fry my brain....
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Sept 24, 2016 5:32:17 GMT 12
Didn't exactly drop the NZ either. I joined in 1991, but when I got my dog tags, they didn't have my service number as G991375, it was NZ991375. Did anybody else in the 1990's have that? And I must say, we had crappy dog tags. Yes, my first set of dog tags in 97 were like this. And they were crappy. USGI style, but hand stamped with individual characters and all wobbly. Clearly the RNZAF didn't invest in a dog tag engraver until some time later, my second set that I got in about 2010 were properly machine stamped, but had both the NZ and my full service number (including the first letter). Your tags sounded better than mine! My tags were brass or copper, hand stamped. One was a round disc, the other was octagonal from memory. After they stamped them, they burned them with a blow torch and the black stuff would slowly wear off on you. Lovely. And they never bothered to flatten them out after stamping your details on, so they were dished, not flat. Lovely again! I loaned mine to a friend 12 years ago. That was the last time I saw them
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Sept 24, 2016 7:40:05 GMT 12
My dog tags (1968) were a fibre material, one dark green and the other red
|
|
|
Post by rone on Sept 24, 2016 11:13:59 GMT 12
If 43 denotes year of enlistment, then how is this number 433318 with no letter prefix that was issued during 1956 correspond to all of the previous tracking methods. Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Sept 24, 2016 14:39:51 GMT 12
If 43 denotes year of enlistment, then how is this number 433318 with no letter prefix that was issued during 1956 correspond to all of the previous tracking methods. Just curious. 1948 was the last in which the first two digits of an airman's number indicated the year of enlistment. It was also the last year in which NZ was used as a prefix to an airman's number upon enlistment. Letter prefixes did not apply to numbers when allocated 1949-1970. The 433318 number you mention may have been a CMT one? Errol
|
|
|
Post by rone on Sept 24, 2016 15:29:49 GMT 12
Errol, you are correct, it is a CMT number
|
|
|
Post by raymondo5508 on Sept 25, 2016 9:25:27 GMT 12
I noticed that the second watch in Konrad's forum the winder is on the opposite side, next to 9 o'clock, instead of the usual next to the 3, is that feature common on issue watches? isc
|
|
|
Post by raymondo5508 on Sept 25, 2016 9:30:34 GMT 12
Yes the second watch which Konrad refers to above (which is mine) with the RNZAF stamping on the back as shown on MWR is original with the crown on the left hand side. I had my watchmaker check to see if the dial can be transposed and will not work. Any information on it's history and numbers to the outside of case back would be much appreciated. Cheers Russell.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Sept 25, 2016 21:23:35 GMT 12
I wonder if watches were ever made that way for south paws. isc
|
|
zolteg
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 82
|
Post by zolteg on Oct 2, 2016 22:11:27 GMT 12
Still amuses me that the bloke I got in the lift with at the recruiting office when I signed up got the number immediately after mine, as we discovered when we fronted up on junior trade course.
I do wonder how many numbers never actually get used....
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 2, 2016 22:29:36 GMT 12
I met a veteran who was in the pre-WWII Wellington Territorial Squadron, who's numbers were all prefixed like NZ438xxx pr NZ439xxx, the 4 being a squadron designations (Christchurch was 5 and Auckland was 6), and the 38 or 39 being the year they joined. Anyway in 1944 he was a Sgt or F/Sgt in the Pacific on an island base and was about to draw his pay as he was going home on a Dakota. There were others doing the same thing. The pay clerk asked the chap in front of him, an LAC, his service number and when he stated it, it was identical to his. He questioned the young LAC, and it turned out he'd joined in 1943, so got the NZ43 prefix and they'd allocated the rest of the number to him without realising it had been used and was still in use. What are the odds that a) this happened in the first place and b) the two men who'd never seen each other before were standing in a line together where they were being asked to state their number.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 4, 2016 9:44:04 GMT 12
Good story Dave! In fact those prewar TAF numbers often caused problems as they were poorly understood outside Air Department (and I don't think they were widely understood even within Air Department apart from a few specialists in the personnel records section!) To get around these endless problems, it was eventually decided to place the letter "T" AFTER the "NZ" prefix (to make it NZTxxxxx), as well as put out an ADO (Air Department Order) to explain to ALL personnel of the origins of these problematic numbers. Discussion on this problem seems to have started in Wellington in late March 1946, and by mid-August, instructions went out to add the "T" to all such numbers still in use, probably about 400 of them by one account. My Uncle Tom was one of those fellows, although being in the Christchurch Squadron he was NZ539084, which did not duplicate any other number in service, so he had no real problems apart from having to explain why he was ACTUALLY a "thirty-niner" despite all appearances to the contrary. As you note, it was the original Wellington squadron members that had the worst problems. There were also two OTHER letters sometimes inserted prior to the service numbers of wartime personnel which often intrigue people, "C" (which indicated prior training in the Air Training Corps, brought into use by ADO A.121/1943 of 5th May 1943, also in theory to be retrospectively applied to all ex-ATC members who had been enlisted prior to this date) and "W" which was used as a device to indicate that the subject person was in a Works trade rather than an aeronautical, or station, equivalent, with carpenters, draughtsmen, electricians, and some drivers, etc., being some of the trades in this problematic category. ADO A.100/1942 of 13th May that year introduced the "W" into service numbers of relevant personnel, in an attempt to prevent endless confusion with identification of personnel in Aerodrome Construction Squadrons, and aerodrome maintenance (Works Maintenance Units within New Zealand) personnel, although it was the letter rather than the numbers which was the problem. To quote this Order: "As many works personnel are enlisted in trades similar in name to those set out in AP 1112 (NZ) and used by normal RNZAF personnel, but differing in trade requirements, confusion is to be prevented by the introduction of the the letter "W" in the official number of aerodrome construction and maintenance personnel. Furthermore, the letter "W" in brackets must be inserted after the airman's trade abbreviation: for example:- (Normal Air Force) NZ42603 AC1 Brown, B A, Carpenter; (Territorial or Construction Unit) NZW42720 AC1 Smith, T R, Carpenter (W). However all did not proceed entirely smoothly, and after endless frustrations, discussions to get rid of the offending "W" commenced in April 1944, and ADO A.505/1944 was promulgated on 27the September that year to abolish its use, with all personnel documents to be amended. The last of these anomalies (the "C" for ATC Cadets) disappeared with the introduction of the new numbers in January 1949. Dave D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 4, 2016 12:10:27 GMT 12
Interesting, I was not aware of the Works conundrum.
|
|