“Dougie” Martin

#2362945

What this roll records

ADDED TO THIS ROLL ON 12 SEPTEMBER 2026, AND HE IS NOT THE OTHER MARTIN ON IT. He comes from the corrected Troopers roll, where the informant against him is named as TAREK EL MAHDY, whose rolls this site already draws on for the Murzuk raid and the nominal rolls of 1940 to 1942. HE COMES WITH A SERVICE NUMBER, #2362945, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES HIM WORTH ADDING. Of the eight men put on this roll the day before, SIX HAD NO NUMBER AT ALL. A man with one can be searched at the COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION and in the service records; a man without one very largely cannot. HE MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH TROOPER ALEXANDER CHRISTIE MARTIN, who is also on this roll and will stand beside him in any index. That man is a NEW ZEALANDER — NZ #21956, T2 PATROL, known as “TANKIE”. This one carries a BRITISH number in the 236xxxx block, the same series as two other men here. The spreadsheet that supplied this row paired the two together ON THE SURNAME ALONE and reported a difference of patrol between them; THAT PAIRING IS AN ARTEFACT AND HAS NOT BEEN ACTED ON. Nothing on Trooper Martin’s card has been altered. THREE THINGS ON HIS ROW ARE RECORDED AND NOT ENTERED. HE IS GIVEN AS “EX COMMANDO” with no parent regiment named, and this roll’s form for that pairs the two together — two men read “Seaforth ex com” and one “R.A. ex com”, with another written out as “Royal Artillery / 11 Commando” — so with no regiment to pair it with, the field is left empty rather than made to carry a phrase that is not a regiment. HE JOINED IN SEPTEMBER 1941, AND THE MONTH STAYS IN THIS NOTE RATHER THAN IN THE JOINED FIELD ON THIS CARD. That field takes only a date a DOCUMENT states, and this row names none. AND A PATROL IS CLAIMED FOR HIM WHICH IS NOT ENTERED: the words against it are “Y Patrol — NO EVIDENCE”, and to put an unevidenced patrol on a card the day it is made would set a guess into this site’s groupings from the start. HIS FORENAME IS NOT KNOWN AND IS NOT GUESSED AT. The row gives the nickname DOUGIE, which plainly stands for DOUGLAS — and that is exactly why it has not been written into the forename field. A nickname is not a name, and this roll has more than once had to clear a working mark out of that field after it was left showing as though it were what a man was called. THE JOINING DATE IS THE BEST THING ON THE ROW. An ex-commando arriving in SEPTEMBER 1941 fits what was happening to those men: 11 Commando belonged to LAYFORCE, which was broken up in 1941 and its men sent to other units. GUNNER TOM PATRICK KELLY of this roll, himself marked “R.A. ex com”, joined the Group on 1 OCTOBER 1941 — WITHIN A MONTH OF HIM. Two ex-commandos in the same few weeks is a fit and not a finding, and nothing is entered on it. Recorded from Ian Chard’s red-line corrections to the L.R.D.G. P.S. Troopers roll of 11 September 2026 (LRDG_IanChard_Troopers_redlines_vs_roll_2026-09-11.xlsx), supplied by Tony Moore; added on his instruction of 12 September 2026.

WHAT LAY BEHIND “Y PATROL — NO EVIDENCE” IS NOW ON RECORD, AND IT IS RESEARCH AND NOT A BLANK CELL. Ian Chard, 19 September 2026: HE HAS SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL EX-Y-PATROL VETERANS, AND HE HOLDS A LIST OF Y PATROL NAMES WRITTEN IN OCTOBER 1940. His conclusion: THIS MAN DID NOT SERVE IN Y PATROL, though he MAY WELL HAVE BEEN WITH HEADQUARTERS OR THE HEAVY SECTION. NOTHING ON THIS CARD CHANGES, AND THAT IS THE POINT — the patrol field has been empty since the day he was added, and the note above sets out why. What was four words from a spreadsheet cell now has the work behind it, named and dated. THE TWO GROUNDS ARE NOT OF EQUAL WEIGHT FOR THIS MAN AND IT WOULD BE WRONG TO PRINT THEM AS THOUGH THEY WERE. A nominal list of a patrol written in October 1940 is a primary document of the Group’s first weeks and is the more impressive of the two — but IAN’S OWN ROW GIVES THIS MAN’S JOINING DATE AS 1 SEPTEMBER 1941, ELEVEN MONTHS AFTER THAT LIST WAS WRITTEN, and a list cannot omit a man who had not yet arrived. IT IS THE VETERANS WHO BEAR ON HIM. THE LIST IS RECORDED HERE ALL THE SAME, because a contemporary nominal roll of Y Patrol from OCTOBER 1940 is a source this site does not hold, and it would settle the patrol of men who were with the Group in its first months — which this man was not. HE IS NOT BEING TAKEN OFF THIS ROLL, AND THE DISTINCTION MATTERS. A man was removed from this roll the same day on Ian’s words “No evidence in LRDG”; THIS IS A DIFFERENT SENTENCE ABOUT A DIFFERENT THING. Evidence that he was not in Y Patrol is not evidence that he was not in the Group, and Ian expressly allows the opposite. HEADQUARTERS AND THE HEAVY SECTION ARE RECORDED AND NOT ENTERED: they come with “may well have been”, which is a suggestion, and both are groupings on this site already, so entering one would file him among men whose service in it is documented. IAN POINTS TO HIS OWN NOTE ON TOM KELLY as an example of the same discipline — the casualty found under #898707 DIED AGED 25 and the Tom Kelly of this roll was born in 1913 or 1914, so the record matches on name and number and is still NOT THE MAN. It is reported here and carried no further; nothing on Kelly’s card is altered by this note. Recorded from Ian Chard, 19 September 2026, supplied by Tony Moore and entered on his instruction of the same day.

See him in the full roll → In collaboration withThe Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) Preservation SocietyTo add information about this man, or note a correction, please post in the Society’s Facebook Group →

This page is part of the Long Range Desert Group roll of members at lrdgarchive.org. If you hold rights to anything on it and would like it credited differently, or taken down, please see Sources and Copyright. It will be dealt with promptly.

Not By Strength But By Guile