Why is another soldier named on my GG uncles record ?

[Mac657]

Evening all, i need help with why another soldier is named on my GG- uncles service record ? My GG uncle was 174608, Vincent Haylock, 1st Canadian Motor Machine Gun Brigade.

Attached is an extract from his Canadian service record and at 07/09/18 is a mention of another soldier, 55089, Cpl G.A. Mundie (Wd). My assumption is that Mundie was wounded due to the abbreviation and that Vincent replaced him, as it says, i think, "To be Cpl ???". I have found a record for a G.A Mundie from Canada but for a different regiment, probably prior to the CMGC. There is no record of a G.A. Mundie being killed or dying.

My question is , why would a specific soldier be named on a service record ? Is it something as simple as a straight forward replacement on promotion ? I have never seen another soldier named in anothers records, has anyone else ?

All the best,

Mac.

[ss002d6252]

I'd agree that Mundie was wounded - he has (wd) after his name - and was replaced by Haylock.

I've seen records of British soldiers where the man they replaced is named. I'm assuming it was for some sort of unit seniority record.

Craig

[Mac657]

I'd agree that Mundie was wounded - he has (wd) after his name - and was replaced by Haylock.

I've seen records of British soldiers where the man they replaced is named. I'm assuming it was for some sort of unit seniority record.

Craig

Thanks Craig, it just seems very precise actually naming the soldier wounded bearing in mind the huge amounts that actually were wounded/killed in certain actions.

[Phil Evans]

Mac,

I think you will find your answer here.

I must admit, I normally associate it with officer's records.

Phil

[rksimpson]

Hi

I have seen this in quite a few Australian records, where the soldier has replaced another wounded or killed soldier and been promoted to his rank and that soldier's name is mentioned like above. Why they recorded it is another question, but it may be due to seniority.

regards

Robert

[Blackblue]

It means he is simply going into Mundie's CPL position on the unit establishment...so 'vice 55089 CPL G.A.Mundie (wounded)'. Certainly commonplace in AIF records and I believe I have also seen similar in BEF records.

Rgds

Tim D

[johndavidswarbrick]

I've seen quite a few examples of this as the following three taken from my database show:

From the record of Swarbrick Frank, A.S.C., A/Corporal, T4/128580

15^th April 1918 from 1 Company [illegible] – appointed L/Cpl [illegible] but with pay vice T/30334 L/Cpl Travis appointed A/Cpl 7^th April 1918

From the record of Swarbrick John T., Royal Engineers, Sergeant, 201055

12^th October 1918 from ditto – appointed acting sergeant vice WR 550019 Sergeant Smith

2-11-18 from AD, S. Co & D – entitled to 2d per diem War Pay from enlist sergeant under ACI 1298 of 1918 to complete establishment Vice WR550019 Sgt Smith [to UK illegible]

From the record of Swarbrick Thomas, Royal Field Artillery, Gunner, L/15890

18^th January 1919 – appointed A/P/L/Bombardier vice Rastrick to A/Bombardier – 11^th January 1919

I always understood that it was because each unit was only allowed a fixed number of NCOs and that the appointment of a new one had to be accounted for as a replacement for another, departed, man. If that's wrong, perhaps someone could offer an alternative explanation.

Dave Swarbrick

[daggers]

'Vice' in this context means 'in the place of', or 'replacing'. [Latin]

D

[Mac657]

Gents, thank you very much for your help clearing that up. Maybe if had known about, or could decipher, the word 'vice' it may have helped !