Difference between revisions of "Manning Herbert William Phillips Gunner 901972"
(Created page with "{{personnel |Surname and forenames=Manning Herbert William Phillips |Army number=901972 |Rank=Gunner |Decorations= |Date of birth= |Age=36 |Unit=Enlisted in the Royal Artille...") |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | For some reason, as yet unexplained, Gunner Manning is omitted from the Regimental Rolls of Honour documented on the NEWMP database. There was also confusion between his Regimental Number and that of Gunner H Phillips - who is shown with 901972 on both Rolls of Honour | + | For some reason, as yet unexplained, Gunner Manning is omitted from the Regimental Rolls of Honour documented on the NEWMP database. There was also confusion between his Regimental Number and that of Gunner H Phillips - who is shown with 901972 on both Rolls of Honour. Gunner Phillips does not appear on CWGC records. It is possible that this is a question of an "alias" being used. These may, alternatively, be simple administrative errors, but need further investigation. |
Latest revision as of 10:16, 25 March 2016
Personnel Entry
Name Manning Herbert William Phillips
Army number 901972
Rank Gunner
Decorations
Date of birth
Age 36
Unit Enlisted in the Royal Artillery. Posted to 125th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery. Converted to 125th Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery. Died as a PoW.
Company/Battery
Platoon or other sub-unit
Task or role
Joined Brigade
Promotions
Wounded
Prisoner of War Yes. Captured Singapore 15/2/1942
Died/Killed in action 20/6/1943 (according to CWGC - other record shows 20/6/1944)
Home address No family information as yet. Buried Grave 6.A.71. Kanchanaburi War Cemetery, Thailand.
Source table
For some reason, as yet unexplained, Gunner Manning is omitted from the Regimental Rolls of Honour documented on the NEWMP database. There was also confusion between his Regimental Number and that of Gunner H Phillips - who is shown with 901972 on both Rolls of Honour. Gunner Phillips does not appear on CWGC records. It is possible that this is a question of an "alias" being used. These may, alternatively, be simple administrative errors, but need further investigation.
