Bombardier Little buried
-
I can't find a bombardier Little on the CWGC site who died on june 17th 1915. What I did find was a bombardier Little who died on may 16th 1915. But that bombardier is a member of the 64th Battery RFA and not of the 12th Battery? It is also the first time that one mentions that the killed soldier is buried, though succintly.
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
I love a mystery so I did a little digging. What I found was that both Lives of the First World War and the CWGC have an Acting Bombardier Frank Small--not Little but Small--who died on 16 June 1915 and is buried at Le Touret Military Cemetery in Richebourg-l'Avoue. And, according to the CWGC, he was from the 12th Battery, 35th Brigade.
Here are the links: https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/4076111 and http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/262141/SMALL, F
Pretty amazing! I found him on the CWGC site first by searching just for Royal Field Artillery in France between 15 and 19 June 1915. I didn't put in a name. On the diary page, the gap after Little before 12th made me wonder if perhaps that wasn't his entire name. I wasn't expecting to find Small, though!
I've found that when searching on CWGC it is often more productive to put in less information rather than more. I generally don't put in units, for example, in case the person was actually just attached, and I always search with a range of dates. Here's the link to the results of my search: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead.aspx?cpage=1 and from there I clicked through on F Small.
I think you should probably tag him as Little, but you can put something in the Comments box about possibly he is F Small.
Posted
-
by
Stork
Good job, cyngast! I tagged that page a couple hours ago, but couldn't find Br Little on either of those sites. You've shown me a good way to find people.
Posted
-
So, Little has nothing to do with it. And I suppose the author did not intend te be funny: Little - Small?
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
in response to erik.schaubroeckscarlet.be's comment.
My thought was that the author was tired or not where the records were--maybe in his own dugout instead of at headquarters--while he was writing, and couldn't remember the man's name exactly but except that it was something about being little and he just guessed. But that's just my idea.
I don't think he was trying to be funny, either. I think he just made a mistake.
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
It could have been a nickname, I suppose. Perhaps the adjutant remembered that better than his actual name. Whatever the reason, that was some excellent detective work, Cynthia!
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
I thought of it being a nickname, too, so universally used that the author didn't know his actual surname. Whatever the actual reason, I think--just my own opinion, here--that the author was tired, too busy, or otherwise distracted and so didn't look up the man's record when he wrote up that entry. That space after his name looks to me like it was meant for a service number.
Posted
