WARTIMES.ca

Thank you for posting the No 45 General Transport Company, RCASC - Nominal Roll. My father was Private V.A. Moores (later Corporal) and I was happy to also see the name of his best buddy, J. McKenna. I had thought that my father was with No. 47 General Transport Company, RCASC. I don't know if that was incorrect information, or if he was later transferred to No. 47. I have several pictures of him and his unit. Would it be appropriate to post them here?

darmoores wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:59 pm

Thank you for posting this. My father was Private V.A. Moores (later Corporal) and I was happy to also see the name of his best buddy, J. McKenna. I had thought that my father was with No. 47 General Transport Company, RCASC. I don't know if that was incorrect information, or if he was later transferred to No. 47. I have several pictures of him and his unit. Would it be appropriate to post them here?

Hi, welcome to the site. Posting photos or other documents of your father and his unit would be great, thanks!

Excellent photo’s......I’m trying to help you with “which” unit that he was with during these photo’s. The “vehicle numbers” and “tactical signs” do help.....BUT, as the photo’s aren’t that clear, it is hard to tell.

First, some of the photo’s are actually printed backwards......

This first photo, show’s that is is printed CORRECTLY, and you can see the numbers show up correctly. You can see the vehicle type and Load classification numbers (I’ve put a GREEN square around them) and the UNIT TACTICAL NUMBER is in the RED SQUARE. I BELIEVE this say’s 840
The next photo’s is printed backwards, so it is difficult to read the UNIT TACTICAL NUMBER but I THINK is still says 840......in the RED SQUARE
I’m NOT sure which unit this is so far, but I BELIEVE its the TACTICAL SIGN for the 45th General Transport Company, RCASC.......I’m still trying to confirm this, and will post as soon as I can


Just so you know, the UNIT TACTICAL NUMBER for the 47th General Transport Company, RCASC was 578......as shown in the document below

As soon as I can confirm the 840 number, I will post up here.......and any of my fellow members, if your eye site is better than mine, could you also confirm I’ve read this right, and the number is indeed 840???

Temujin wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:32 am

As soon as I can confirm the 840 number, I will post up here.......and any of my fellow members, if your eye site is better than mine, could you also confirm I’ve read this right, and the number is indeed 840???

I can see two options, 840 or 849

Mark

I agree, either 840 or 849, impossible to tell definitively from that image. Perhaps the photo scanned/photographed at a higher resolution/close up would help.

Phil wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:13 pm

I agree, either 840 or 849, impossible to tell definitively from that image. Perhaps the photo scanned/photographed at a higher resolution/close up would help.

537B45A0-244E-4981-80CD-C44E1D985196.jpg

From the image, in the post quoted, I would concur with 840 over 849.