defaced WWI Missouri Nat. Guard dog tags

[Bob Hudson]

I dug out a bag of dog tags I've had for a while and had never really looked at. One is older than the rest and turns out to be from a guy who was with the Missouri National Guard during federal service starting in 1917. His name and service number are clear on the tag, but there's a bunch of information that looks like it was deliberately obscured. I can make out part of the last line where it appears to have said, "MG BN."

 

Was this something that might have been done after the end of federal service when they went back to their regular NG units?

 

 

 

I did find some info about his Missouri National Guard unit. Anyone know if these guys went to France in WWI?

 

 

[firefighter]

Very interesting, even defaced.

[RustyCanteen]

That sure looks like it says 129th MG BN.

 

Which was part of the 35th Division, made of up MO & KS NG units.

[firefighter]

That sure looks like it says 129th MG BN.

 

Which was part of the 35th Division, made of up MO & KS NG units.

 

I was just googling that unit.Thought the same.

[Bob Hudson]

Yep that makes sense. The parent unit of the 129th MG BN was the 2nd Missouri Infantry, which he belonged to in 1917.

,

[Dave]

I've had a few like that where the vets removed a previous unit they were no longer attached to. Sometimes, they would leave them "unit-less", and other times would stamp the new unit name in the remaining open space on the tag.

 

Dave

[BEAST]

Wasn't there a change during the war for the way dog tags were marked? IIRC, early on dog tags had unit markings, later only the name and service number was included. iI was told that the reason for the change was operational security. Why tell the Germans which regiments they were facing?

[Bob Hudson]

I've had a few like that where the vets removed a previous unit they were no longer attached to. Sometimes, they would leave them "unit-less", and other times would stamp the new unit name in the remaining open space on the tag.

 

Dave

 

It was nice of him to not completely obscure the 129th MG Batt. marks - that and the National Guard roster ID him as a combat vet of WWI.

 

A quick Google search turned up a couple more defaced WWI tags:

 

 

[BEAST]

It could also be due to so many replacement coming from depot units. The service number was assigned at the depot I believe.

[wildcat123]

I believe they discontinued the practice of putting the unit on the tag at some point in WWI. Those who had tags with the unit often (if not required to) "removed" the unit. I have a few similar tags (whoever defaced mine did it with little X's). I think I read this in the Paul Braddock dog tag book.

[RustyCanteen]

Here ya go Bob, just for confirmation:

 

 

http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/soldiers/details.asp?id=A21032&conflict=World%20War%20I&txtName=rodney&selConflict=World%20War%20I&txtUnit=&rbBranch=

 

It looks like he was pretty badly wounded on the first day of the Meuse-Argonne offensive!

[Bob Hudson]

 

Here ya go Bob, just for confirmation:

 

http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/soldiers/details.asp?id=A21032&conflict=World%20War%20I&txtName=rodney&selConflict=World%20War%20I&txtUnit=&rbBranch=

 

It looks like he was pretty badly wounded on the first day of the Meuse-Argonne offensive!

 

 

Thanks!

 

I had wondered if he was a Waggoner: the top line of the defaced writing does begin with a "W" and that's where the rank would be.

[RustyCanteen]

 

Thanks!

 

I had wondered if he was a Waggoner: the top line of the defaced writing does begin with a "W" and that's where the rank would be.

 

Yep, it looks like "WAG" on the tag, but I can't make out the next line (below the "9").

[gomorgan]

There was a regulation change in 17 I think that they where suppose to remove these unit stamps on tags, think the only units not required to do so were Air Service. I've got the Book around here somewhere that lists all the regulation changes during this period, lot of growing pains for our forces at the time,

[firefighter]

 

Here ya go Bob, just for confirmation:

 

1.jpg

 

http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/soldiers/details.asp?id=A21032&conflict=World%20War%20I&txtName=rodney&selConflict=World%20War%20I&txtUnit=&rbBranch=

 

It looks like he was pretty badly wounded on the first day of the Meuse-Argonne offensive!

 

 

 

That is awesome.Gotta love the internet.

[lovmilinsig]

Very interesting thread .

 

Ed

[Bob Hudson]

Very interesting thread .

 

Ed

 

A mangled little dag tag can hold a lot of info for sure...

[bobgee]

My understanding has always been that unit designations on WW 1 tags were obscured for intelligence reasons. My 2-cents.....Bobgee

[RustyCanteen]

My understanding has always been that unit designations on WW 1 tags were obscured for intelligence reasons. My 2-cents.....Bobgee

 

I believe there was a G.O. issued in regards to it, but I can't find it right now.

[Wharfmaster]

My understanding has always been that unit designations on WW 1 tags were obscured for intelligence reasons. My 2-cents.....Bobgee

I agree, I have a few tags like this too.

 

W

[Jack's Son]

My understanding has always been that unit designations on WW 1 tags were obscured for intelligence reasons. My 2-cents.....Bobgee

 

I've never owned one like these, but Bob's thought is as good a reason as any.