Assistance interpreting SAEC Service Record - 21st Field Park Company

Hi all

I wonder if anybody could assist me in interpreting a SA Service Record I have? It is to a SA Engineering Corps soldier, I just can't be sure of his specific unit.

His record states in January and March of 1944 that he was posted to the 21st Field Park Company - but later in his record (with no mention of a change in-between) it says in July 1945 that he was taken off strength from 21st Field Company (no longer the Park company).

It is my understanding that the Field Companies were more of a combatant/frontline role (as with field Squadrons of the SAEC) and that the Park Companies were effectively the non-combatant field depot units for the same. Would this likely just be a clerical error by the record keeper (i.e. he was part of 21st Field Park Company all along) or could it mean he was transferred internally and a record of this simply wasn't recorded?

Also does anybody know what the meaning of 'Z/Water' is on SA service records? I have highlighted a couple examples from this record but can't seem to find an explanation anywhere online.

Thanks in advance for any help!
Tom

 

Hello Tom,

The SAEC Engineer Training Centre was established in 1939 at Sonderwater, according to Salute the Sappers by Neil Orpen. It is described as, ‘not far from the railway station at Cullinan’.

There was also a PoW camp at Zonderwater, Cullinan.

Probably different spelling for same place.

 

Thanks you Richard, that makes sense. I hadn't factored in the 'E.T.C.' aspect as being Engineer Training Centre and therefore ETC Zonderwater would make complete sense. Thanks for helping solve this.

Hopefully people will be in touch about the 21st Field Park Company/21st Field Company query I have.

Thanks again
Tom

 

Tom,

It is best to stick to one thread. You posted the record in June 2025: 21st Field Company SAEC - Service in Italy 1944-45?

As we have one Moderator currently, I have not asked him to merge the threads.

 

Apologies David, I was looking for possible distinction between the two units (or whether they would be treated as separate units), apologies for the duplication. I will avoid this in future.

All the best
Tom