Talk:Battle of Gara Heights: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m reply |
further to |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Sarah. The reference in Capt Nevill's Campaigns on the NWF is I-C Royal Horse Artillery, 4 guns and in the Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India Vol I it is 1-C R.H.A., 4 guns. I have now added to 1 to the page.--[[User:Symorsebrown|Sy]] 00:28, 5 December 2009 (PST) | Sarah. The reference in Capt Nevill's Campaigns on the NWF is I-C Royal Horse Artillery, 4 guns and in the Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India Vol I it is 1-C R.H.A., 4 guns. I have now added to 1 to the page.--[[User:Symorsebrown|Sy]] 00:28, 5 December 2009 (PST) | ||
:Oh that's good. Much more useful with a brigade. Thanks for checking. [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 11:06, 6 December 2009 (PST) | :Oh that's good. Much more useful with a brigade. Thanks for checking. [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 11:06, 6 December 2009 (PST) | ||
::Actually, further to...looking on [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/browser.asp?CATLN=3&CATID=13076&POSCATLN=6&POSCATID=1000 TNA catalogue] at RHA musters, I'm wondering if it should in fact be C Brigade, I Battery. It definitely says a 1 in your source, but that naming format doesn't match with that on the muster records. What do you think? I know its a bit of a minor point... [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 11:16, 6 December 2009 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:16, 6 December 2009
Sy, does the source name a brigade for the RHA battery? Sarah 13:50, 4 December 2009 (PST)
Sarah. The reference in Capt Nevill's Campaigns on the NWF is I-C Royal Horse Artillery, 4 guns and in the Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India Vol I it is 1-C R.H.A., 4 guns. I have now added to 1 to the page.--Sy 00:28, 5 December 2009 (PST)
- Oh that's good. Much more useful with a brigade. Thanks for checking. Sarah 11:06, 6 December 2009 (PST)
- Actually, further to...looking on TNA catalogue at RHA musters, I'm wondering if it should in fact be C Brigade, I Battery. It definitely says a 1 in your source, but that naming format doesn't match with that on the muster records. What do you think? I know its a bit of a minor point... Sarah 11:16, 6 December 2009 (PST)