The recent and worrying thread about the construction work being done at ANZAC Cove, together with a talk that I heard this week about Gallipoli (Peter Hart) and at the same meeting a chap asking me how many men actually went over the top of the front line at 7.30am on 1 July 1916 got me thinking.
Has anyone ever assessed ANZAC casualties that were incurred actually on the beach on 25 April 1915?
Full Version: ANZAC casualties on the beach
Chris,
It is an interesting question.
I am inclined to believe that it would be impossible to obtain an accurate tally of specific 'beach' losses. I think most sources quote 'considerably in excess' of 2,000 Australian casualties on the 25th of April. Only a relatively small proportion of the total were probably killed on the beach as the beach itself is quite small at Anzac Cove. The landing time & location were significant factors in the chances of being hit on the 'beach. (i.e. men who landed in the boats at the northern end of the beach at dawn were badly impacted as were others in other areas & times of the first day).
Fatalities on the beach on the 25th of April were relativley high, but they also continued to remain frequent throughout the campaign because of 'Beachy Bill or 'Lonely Liz', & the odd sniper. Men continued to be killed frequently on the beach throughout the entire campaign. They were killed or badly wounded on the beach whilst bathing, receiving orders, awaiting evacuation, collecting stores or water, receiving medical attention, receiving orders, etc.
I think the significance of the beach at Anzac is not based so much on the total casualties - but rather the fact that it was considered so symbolic of the campaign. It was indeed the heart & soul of the entire sector.
I hopes this helps
Cheers
Geoff S
It is an interesting question.
I am inclined to believe that it would be impossible to obtain an accurate tally of specific 'beach' losses. I think most sources quote 'considerably in excess' of 2,000 Australian casualties on the 25th of April. Only a relatively small proportion of the total were probably killed on the beach as the beach itself is quite small at Anzac Cove. The landing time & location were significant factors in the chances of being hit on the 'beach. (i.e. men who landed in the boats at the northern end of the beach at dawn were badly impacted as were others in other areas & times of the first day).
Fatalities on the beach on the 25th of April were relativley high, but they also continued to remain frequent throughout the campaign because of 'Beachy Bill or 'Lonely Liz', & the odd sniper. Men continued to be killed frequently on the beach throughout the entire campaign. They were killed or badly wounded on the beach whilst bathing, receiving orders, awaiting evacuation, collecting stores or water, receiving medical attention, receiving orders, etc.
I think the significance of the beach at Anzac is not based so much on the total casualties - but rather the fact that it was considered so symbolic of the campaign. It was indeed the heart & soul of the entire sector.
I hopes this helps
Cheers
Geoff S
No. It would be impossible to determine which casualties occurred actually on the beach at Anzac Cove. It's hard enough to determine how many in total died on 25th April, as many dates of death are actually unknown and are indicated as (for example) '25th - 28th April 1915' .
Many Anzacs did not land in Anzac Cove itself. Those who died or went missing on that day may have been on North Beach, Ari Burnu, Brighton Beach, or in the cove itself, but may equally have died on the first, second or third ridge, or in any of the gullies between them. No official account that I've ever seen is so specific as to name 'the beach' as a place of death.
There are a few accounts of soldiers' deaths that tell us they never got off the beach, but the actual number never was, and never will be, known.
Many Anzacs did not land in Anzac Cove itself. Those who died or went missing on that day may have been on North Beach, Ari Burnu, Brighton Beach, or in the cove itself, but may equally have died on the first, second or third ridge, or in any of the gullies between them. No official account that I've ever seen is so specific as to name 'the beach' as a place of death.
There are a few accounts of soldiers' deaths that tell us they never got off the beach, but the actual number never was, and never will be, known.
again, there is no accurate figure for just 'beach' casualties.
Beans book gives many firsthand accounts of the landing including casualties suffered in the tows before reaching the beach, and those killed/wounded during the landing. A lot of the first wave were killed near Fisherman's Hut and Ari Burnu, north of Anzac Cove. And of course later on on 25th April many of the casualties that were awaiting evacuation on the beach were further wounded or killed by shrapnel.
The huge majority of casualties for the first day were on the second ridges, e.g. 400 Plateau.
Beans book gives many firsthand accounts of the landing including casualties suffered in the tows before reaching the beach, and those killed/wounded during the landing. A lot of the first wave were killed near Fisherman's Hut and Ari Burnu, north of Anzac Cove. And of course later on on 25th April many of the casualties that were awaiting evacuation on the beach were further wounded or killed by shrapnel.
The huge majority of casualties for the first day were on the second ridges, e.g. 400 Plateau.
QUOTE (Chris_Baker @ Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:08:30 +0000)
a chap asking me how many men actually went over the top of the front line at 7.30am on 1 July 1916
Apologies, because I know it is off topic in the context of this particular thread, but how many men did go over the top on 1 July 1916 at 0730?
Simon, why apologise, when you know it is off topic? Why not just start a new thread or use 'search'?
Bryn is correct, an accurate number of casualties for 25 Apr 15 can never be established. It would be nice to know, but the first few days were obviously chaotic when it came to holding on, let alone keeping a tally for field returns.
Chris, I think I can see the comparison you are trying to make. Are you really trying to calculate figures for casualties on the beach, or casualties until a firm defensive position was established?
Bryn is correct, an accurate number of casualties for 25 Apr 15 can never be established. It would be nice to know, but the first few days were obviously chaotic when it came to holding on, let alone keeping a tally for field returns.
Chris, I think I can see the comparison you are trying to make. Are you really trying to calculate figures for casualties on the beach, or casualties until a firm defensive position was established?
From the OH of the Australian Army Medical Services, Vol 1, Page 178, Note 20:
"Very discrepant casualty figures have been arrived at for the Landing. The British official statistical abstract cannot be accepted as correct for the Anzac Corps . . . . . The following table has been compiled from various sources: CASUALTIES AT ANZAC, APRIL 25 - 3- (INCLUSIVE)
KIA DofW Wounded Total Casualties
Australians 965 161 4114 5240
New Zealanders 275 78 698 1051
R.N. Division 12 7 244 263
[Total] 1252 246 5056 6554"
Doesn't answer original question, suspect no one ever will. However, I'll look in other sources in fullness of time.
Chris Best
"Very discrepant casualty figures have been arrived at for the Landing. The British official statistical abstract cannot be accepted as correct for the Anzac Corps . . . . . The following table has been compiled from various sources: CASUALTIES AT ANZAC, APRIL 25 - 3- (INCLUSIVE)
KIA DofW Wounded Total Casualties
Australians 965 161 4114 5240
New Zealanders 275 78 698 1051
R.N. Division 12 7 244 263
[Total] 1252 246 5056 6554"
Doesn't answer original question, suspect no one ever will. However, I'll look in other sources in fullness of time.
Chris Best
This is an interesting topic Chris and one that has intrigued me for some time. If you are asking if there is any connection between the scale of loss on 25th April and that date subsequently becoming significant, then I think that the answer must be no and that the true reason sought elsewhere.
From the British OH; “….the initial landing in the early morning (the operation involving the greatest risk) had been accomplished with slight loss.”
The basic reason for this was surprise. The Ottoman Turks were not expecting a landing at this point and they were not prepared. There was a lot of wire at Gaba Tepe, but the beaches to the north were unprotected by wire. Nor did the Turks, at least at first, have very many men in this particular area. As late as 09.30 a.m. they numbered only 500 and at no point during the day did they exceed 5,000 or six battalions
The Anzacs arrived at the beaches as follows
4,000 had landed by 05.00 a.m.
8,000 had landed by 08.00 a.m.
15,000 had landed by 6.00 p.m.
The numbers as at 6.00 p.m. were made up as follows
3 Australian Infantry Brigades
Half the New Zealand Infantry Brigade
1 18pdr gun
2 Mountain Batteries
CCS
Bearer sub-divisions of 3 F.A.s
Details of engineers and signallers
Total; 15,000 men and 42 mules
The generally accepted figure for casualties on the first day is, as Geoff S has already said, about 2,000. This figure comes from a telegraph message of Gen Birdwood’s timed at 8.45 p.m. Of these 2,000 casualties, about 1,400 were Australian and about 600 New Zealanders. [The latter figure is from Lt Gen Sir Leonard Thornton’ s Gallipoli Memorial Lecture 27 April 1994; the Kiwis began landing just before noon and 3,000 landed during that first day]
Be that as it may, the place, the action and the date caught the imagination and became legend [in the nicest sense of that word]. A lot of the credit for that must go to Charles Bean who’s ‘The Anzac Book’ had already sold 100,000 copies by September 1916.
By the time 25th April 1916 came around there were celebrations held everywhere that there were Anzacs. The King, Queen and Lord Kitchener attended a service in Westminster Abbey. Monash describes as service held in Egypt where the ‘veterans’ wore ribbons; one colour for those who had been at The Landing and another for those who had served at Anzac. The service was followed by sports, including swimming in the Suez Canal, and a brief visit from the Prince of Wales. In ‘Jacka’s Mob’ Edgar J Rule MC MM tells that everyone enjoyed the day except General Cox, as someone had sneaked into his tent and stolen his whisky supply. General Sir Ian Hamilton was not forgotten either. John Lee in his biography ‘A Soldiers Life’ says that he “must have taken special comfort from a letter to mark the first anniversary of the landings sent to him on 18th April by Bombardier Clarke of the Australian Field Artillery and thirteen other Australian soldiers in training near Weymouth. It is interesting if only in showing how immediate was the impact of Gallipoli in giving Australians a sense of nationhood. ‘The day draws near that marks Australia’s first birthday. With you on the 25th April last year we laid firmly the foundation of our Military History and in a few days we hope to celebrate a glorious anniversary.’”
Regards
Michael D.R.
From the British OH; “….the initial landing in the early morning (the operation involving the greatest risk) had been accomplished with slight loss.”
The basic reason for this was surprise. The Ottoman Turks were not expecting a landing at this point and they were not prepared. There was a lot of wire at Gaba Tepe, but the beaches to the north were unprotected by wire. Nor did the Turks, at least at first, have very many men in this particular area. As late as 09.30 a.m. they numbered only 500 and at no point during the day did they exceed 5,000 or six battalions
The Anzacs arrived at the beaches as follows
4,000 had landed by 05.00 a.m.
8,000 had landed by 08.00 a.m.
15,000 had landed by 6.00 p.m.
The numbers as at 6.00 p.m. were made up as follows
3 Australian Infantry Brigades
Half the New Zealand Infantry Brigade
1 18pdr gun
2 Mountain Batteries
CCS
Bearer sub-divisions of 3 F.A.s
Details of engineers and signallers
Total; 15,000 men and 42 mules
The generally accepted figure for casualties on the first day is, as Geoff S has already said, about 2,000. This figure comes from a telegraph message of Gen Birdwood’s timed at 8.45 p.m. Of these 2,000 casualties, about 1,400 were Australian and about 600 New Zealanders. [The latter figure is from Lt Gen Sir Leonard Thornton’ s Gallipoli Memorial Lecture 27 April 1994; the Kiwis began landing just before noon and 3,000 landed during that first day]
Be that as it may, the place, the action and the date caught the imagination and became legend [in the nicest sense of that word]. A lot of the credit for that must go to Charles Bean who’s ‘The Anzac Book’ had already sold 100,000 copies by September 1916.
By the time 25th April 1916 came around there were celebrations held everywhere that there were Anzacs. The King, Queen and Lord Kitchener attended a service in Westminster Abbey. Monash describes as service held in Egypt where the ‘veterans’ wore ribbons; one colour for those who had been at The Landing and another for those who had served at Anzac. The service was followed by sports, including swimming in the Suez Canal, and a brief visit from the Prince of Wales. In ‘Jacka’s Mob’ Edgar J Rule MC MM tells that everyone enjoyed the day except General Cox, as someone had sneaked into his tent and stolen his whisky supply. General Sir Ian Hamilton was not forgotten either. John Lee in his biography ‘A Soldiers Life’ says that he “must have taken special comfort from a letter to mark the first anniversary of the landings sent to him on 18th April by Bombardier Clarke of the Australian Field Artillery and thirteen other Australian soldiers in training near Weymouth. It is interesting if only in showing how immediate was the impact of Gallipoli in giving Australians a sense of nationhood. ‘The day draws near that marks Australia’s first birthday. With you on the 25th April last year we laid firmly the foundation of our Military History and in a few days we hope to celebrate a glorious anniversary.’”
Regards
Michael D.R.
QUOTE (Chris_Baker @ Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:08:30 +0000)
Has anyone ever assessed ANZAC casualties that were incurred actually on the beach on 25 April 1915?
To stick to your specific question Chris,
L. A. Carlyon [‘Gallipoli’ published 2002] offers the following which might be helpful; see p.183
“The landing of the covering force had in one sense gone well. Hamilton’s biggest worry with all the landings had been getting the men ashore. Well, they were ashore at Anzac. They had not met heavy opposition on the beaches. There were barely two Turkish companies in the area and these had had the sense to retreat, shooting all the way. The Australians had incurred casualties – Birdwood estimated them at between 300 and 400 – but they had not been massacred by machine guns, as the English would be at Helles.”
Regards
Michael D.R.
QUOTE
Birdwood estimated them at between 300 and 400
Michael,
I have the 2001 edition of the book you are quoting from but can you please confirm where Carlyon sourced this information. (Sorry to be a pain.) I assume it is listed in the endnotes, but I cannot locate it? I.e. who is this information intended for?
Bean notes that no infantrymen landed between 12.30 & 4.00pm on the beach, (between the reinforcement of the Aust Div by the Anzac Div) & the number of the casualties on the beach perhaps lessened by then. But I think the beach was pretty busy at this time of day none the less with many casualties, & the assault was clearly at a crucial stage on the ridges above.
I would like place the quote in the context of the original source document if possible, to consider if it is connected with wider issues. Like a proposed evacuation. Birdwood had a lot to consider by midnight on the first day.
Cheers
Geoff S
When Bean uses the phrase '...ashore at Anzac', this does not mean only at Anzac Cove itself. 'Anzac Cove' is a location within the 'Anzac sector' ('Anzac') at Gallipoli. It's not clear from the quote whether Birdwood was estimating casualties actually on the beach. If he was estimating total number for the first day in the Anzac sector at 300 to 400, then he underestimated by a lot.
Bryn,
Perhaps the figure 300 -400 is total fatalities of the 'All Australian' Brigade only on or near the beach at Anzac Cove (not the whole sector) in the morning? (i.e 10% of this force may seem likely not to have got far off the beach- i.e close enough to be included in this tota)
By the end of the 26th of April the 3rd brigade was just about spent, and much of it between the 2nd & 3rd ridges)
Cheers
Geoff S
Perhaps the figure 300 -400 is total fatalities of the 'All Australian' Brigade only on or near the beach at Anzac Cove (not the whole sector) in the morning? (i.e 10% of this force may seem likely not to have got far off the beach- i.e close enough to be included in this tota)
By the end of the 26th of April the 3rd brigade was just about spent, and much of it between the 2nd & 3rd ridges)
Cheers
Geoff S
Geoff,
My paperback edition gives no more info than yours does I’m afraid. In this instance Mr Carlyon has not been specific with the ‘when and to whom’ Birdwood reported these numbers. Earlier in that same chapter he has used ‘Birdwood’s Report on Anzac Landings to Braithwaite dated May 8, 1915, Birdwood Papers, IWM, London’ but it is by no means clear that these numbers are from the same docs.
Prof Tim Travers mentions Bean’s note of the hiatus in the landing and he also attributes the info to Lt Col W. G. Braithwaite [see Travers’ “Gallipoli 1915” p.76]. In discussing the reasons for this delay he seems to find that the RN was to blame.
I am sure that Chris won’t mind if I say that we are in need of some clarification on his original question here, before an answer can be given to it.
“..ANZAC casualties that were incurred actually on the beach on 25 April 1915?”
Does this refer to the first Australian impact on the beach; the landing of the Anzac Covering Force? If so, then taking Carlyon’s summary that that part of the landing ‘had in one sense gone well’ is quite valid, as is his [alas unsourced] quote from Birdwood, that 300 to 400 casualties were incurred up to that point.
Or does it refer to the whole of the landings and the whole of the day of the 25 April 1915? This is more difficult for, as has been pointed out earlier, lots of casualties were taken by units already away from the beach, and no separate figures are available for them. You must also now pick a time and a source and here again Birdwood presents an example of the difficulties inherent in this question.
E.g; Travers uses Birdwood’s Diary and says that at “about 8.00 p.m.” Bridges and Godley tell Birdwood of 500 dead and 2,500 wounded. However [per the British OH] when at 8.45 p.m. Birdwood comes to send his telegram to GHQ, this figure is reduced to 2,000 casualties.
The figure which I have seen for casualties evacuated on the 25th April is 1,500 or 1,600. Does this suggest that the higher casualty figure is the more realistic?
Regards
Michael D.R.
My paperback edition gives no more info than yours does I’m afraid. In this instance Mr Carlyon has not been specific with the ‘when and to whom’ Birdwood reported these numbers. Earlier in that same chapter he has used ‘Birdwood’s Report on Anzac Landings to Braithwaite dated May 8, 1915, Birdwood Papers, IWM, London’ but it is by no means clear that these numbers are from the same docs.
Prof Tim Travers mentions Bean’s note of the hiatus in the landing and he also attributes the info to Lt Col W. G. Braithwaite [see Travers’ “Gallipoli 1915” p.76]. In discussing the reasons for this delay he seems to find that the RN was to blame.
I am sure that Chris won’t mind if I say that we are in need of some clarification on his original question here, before an answer can be given to it.
“..ANZAC casualties that were incurred actually on the beach on 25 April 1915?”
Does this refer to the first Australian impact on the beach; the landing of the Anzac Covering Force? If so, then taking Carlyon’s summary that that part of the landing ‘had in one sense gone well’ is quite valid, as is his [alas unsourced] quote from Birdwood, that 300 to 400 casualties were incurred up to that point.
Or does it refer to the whole of the landings and the whole of the day of the 25 April 1915? This is more difficult for, as has been pointed out earlier, lots of casualties were taken by units already away from the beach, and no separate figures are available for them. You must also now pick a time and a source and here again Birdwood presents an example of the difficulties inherent in this question.
E.g; Travers uses Birdwood’s Diary and says that at “about 8.00 p.m.” Bridges and Godley tell Birdwood of 500 dead and 2,500 wounded. However [per the British OH] when at 8.45 p.m. Birdwood comes to send his telegram to GHQ, this figure is reduced to 2,000 casualties.
The figure which I have seen for casualties evacuated on the 25th April is 1,500 or 1,600. Does this suggest that the higher casualty figure is the more realistic?
Regards
Michael D.R.
Michael,
I believe the higher estimate to be the more accurate tally of casualties on the first day at the Anzac Sector. Unfortunately I have no proof, but I believe the 2,000 casualties frequently listed for 'day one' to be a very conservative estimate. And I think it likely that this tally was just the Australian Div.
As most of the Anzac Div landed later in the day they probably were not accurately included in the estimate of casualties on the 25th of April. Also many wounded men did not seek treatment for a number of days for injuries sustained on the first day.
Whilst the number of casualties was not the only reason for consideration for evacuation of the position of the Anzac sector by the end of that day, they must have been a significant issue. Whilst the beach landing had gone fairly smoothly, the situation on the hills above was quite chaotic. Many junior officers had been killed or wounded & the plans had been forced to be altered by lunchtime given the situation these men now faced.
The facts as we know them for that day are:
Approx. 15,000 Anzac troops landed at Anzac Sector on the 25th of April.
By the end of the first day evacuation was being considered by senior Anzac officers on the ground.
All reserves were committed.
So I believe that a figure 'significantly in excess' of the official (2000) figures listed above to be most likely. My best guess would be closer to 3,000 (perhaps even more) of those that landed perhaps became casualties (of some type) on the first day.
Cheers
Geoff S
Clearly, most of the post is my own personal speculation. As previous posts have indicated it is impossible to quantify the true number of casualties.
I believe the higher estimate to be the more accurate tally of casualties on the first day at the Anzac Sector. Unfortunately I have no proof, but I believe the 2,000 casualties frequently listed for 'day one' to be a very conservative estimate. And I think it likely that this tally was just the Australian Div.
As most of the Anzac Div landed later in the day they probably were not accurately included in the estimate of casualties on the 25th of April. Also many wounded men did not seek treatment for a number of days for injuries sustained on the first day.
Whilst the number of casualties was not the only reason for consideration for evacuation of the position of the Anzac sector by the end of that day, they must have been a significant issue. Whilst the beach landing had gone fairly smoothly, the situation on the hills above was quite chaotic. Many junior officers had been killed or wounded & the plans had been forced to be altered by lunchtime given the situation these men now faced.
The facts as we know them for that day are:
Approx. 15,000 Anzac troops landed at Anzac Sector on the 25th of April.
By the end of the first day evacuation was being considered by senior Anzac officers on the ground.
All reserves were committed.
So I believe that a figure 'significantly in excess' of the official (2000) figures listed above to be most likely. My best guess would be closer to 3,000 (perhaps even more) of those that landed perhaps became casualties (of some type) on the first day.
Cheers
Geoff S
Clearly, most of the post is my own personal speculation. As previous posts have indicated it is impossible to quantify the true number of casualties.
QUOTE (michaeldr @ Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:31:17 +0000)
I am sure that Chris won’t mind if I say that we are in need of some clarification on his original question here, before an answer can be given to it.
“..ANZAC casualties that were incurred actually on the beach on 25 April 1915?”
“..ANZAC casualties that were incurred actually on the beach on 25 April 1915?”
I chose my question carefully, although I suppose I could extend my question to "on the beach or in or on the sea". Not the climb from the beach, not other days. The beach and the day have enormous symbolic significance for Australians and New Zealanders. I have seen modern accounts talking of "thousands of casualties on the beach" - perpetuation of a myth?
Chris,
Thanks for the clarification.
In regard to the day as a whole and the beachhead + hinterland as a whole, then I think that Geoff is fully justified in going for a casualty figure in excess of the ‘official’ number. If Bridges & Godley had already told Birdwood of 500 dead + 2,500 wounded, then the latter’s telegraphed figure of 2,000 does not make sense and the official figure does seem to be based on the number in the 8.45 p.m. telegram.
With regard to the beach and the sea;
the casualties for the first landing of the Anzac Covering Force were probably as Birdwood stated [as quoted by Carlyon from an unspecified source]. The landing may not have been in exactly the right place but nevertheless the resulting surprise and minimal opposition did help keep the casualties down at this early stage. Mention has been made above of a hiatus in the landing of infantry later in the day. One of the reasons which the RN gave for this was the fact up until that point the landings had been going well and that by that stage they were in fact ahead of the planned schedule for their landing of men. Birdwood’s figure of 300 to 400 casualties for the first hours does not seem out of order then. Further evidence supporting this is a photograph taken by A. R. H. Joyner (1st Div Sigs Co.). The photograph was taken at 08.00 a.m. and apart from the body of one man on the beach there is little to suggest casualties; certainly not of the scale which to which you refer.
Anzac Beach is justifiably significant, as is the date 25th April 1915, but this significance is not based solely on the number of casualties suffered in that place, at that time. For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that this place and this date were chosen to represent the feeling of national pride in what the Anzacs achieved over the whole of their period on the peninsula, right up to and including their remarkable evacuation.
[photograph from ‘Damn the Dardanelles!’ by Dr John Laffin and credited as AWM neg A 1090]
Regards
Michael D.R.
Thanks for the clarification.
In regard to the day as a whole and the beachhead + hinterland as a whole, then I think that Geoff is fully justified in going for a casualty figure in excess of the ‘official’ number. If Bridges & Godley had already told Birdwood of 500 dead + 2,500 wounded, then the latter’s telegraphed figure of 2,000 does not make sense and the official figure does seem to be based on the number in the 8.45 p.m. telegram.
With regard to the beach and the sea;
the casualties for the first landing of the Anzac Covering Force were probably as Birdwood stated [as quoted by Carlyon from an unspecified source]. The landing may not have been in exactly the right place but nevertheless the resulting surprise and minimal opposition did help keep the casualties down at this early stage. Mention has been made above of a hiatus in the landing of infantry later in the day. One of the reasons which the RN gave for this was the fact up until that point the landings had been going well and that by that stage they were in fact ahead of the planned schedule for their landing of men. Birdwood’s figure of 300 to 400 casualties for the first hours does not seem out of order then. Further evidence supporting this is a photograph taken by A. R. H. Joyner (1st Div Sigs Co.). The photograph was taken at 08.00 a.m. and apart from the body of one man on the beach there is little to suggest casualties; certainly not of the scale which to which you refer.
Anzac Beach is justifiably significant, as is the date 25th April 1915, but this significance is not based solely on the number of casualties suffered in that place, at that time. For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that this place and this date were chosen to represent the feeling of national pride in what the Anzacs achieved over the whole of their period on the peninsula, right up to and including their remarkable evacuation.
[photograph from ‘Damn the Dardanelles!’ by Dr John Laffin and credited as AWM neg A 1090]
Regards
Michael D.R.
Michael,
Photographic evidence is scarce of course.
Perhaps these 2 pics (origin unknown) might be useful. The second is probably 16th Batt. coming ashore, and one of the earliest I have ever seen.
CGI
Photographic evidence is scarce of course.
Perhaps these 2 pics (origin unknown) might be useful. The second is probably 16th Batt. coming ashore, and one of the earliest I have ever seen.
CGI
No Anzac officer is known to have been killed in action on the beach at Anzac Cove itself on 25th April 1915. The first officer to die was Captain William Richard ANNEAR, 11th Battalion, of Western Australia, when he was shot through the head on the summit of Plugge's Plateau at about dawn.
It's possible that one or two officers died on Brighton and / or North Beach, to the south and north of the cove respectively, but this has never been definitely established.
The photo showing the soldier dead on the beach is sometimes captioned with his name: Sapper Fred Reynolds.
The significance to Australians and New Zealanders of Anzac Cove does not lie in the numbers of soldiers who were killed during the Landing. This certainly has been exaggerated at times, but Anzac Cove is more the focal point for the entire campaign.
Note though, that actually there were 'thousands of casualties on the beach' (or at least hundreds). These were the wounded, waiting for evacuation, and some of these would of course have died while waiting. Anzac Cove was sheltered - it's where most wounded were concentrated, either directly back down Shrapnel Gully, or along from the flanking beaches, after they'd returned from the firing lines. This does not mean that they were necessarily wounded or killed on the beach itself.
It's possible that one or two officers died on Brighton and / or North Beach, to the south and north of the cove respectively, but this has never been definitely established.
The photo showing the soldier dead on the beach is sometimes captioned with his name: Sapper Fred Reynolds.
The significance to Australians and New Zealanders of Anzac Cove does not lie in the numbers of soldiers who were killed during the Landing. This certainly has been exaggerated at times, but Anzac Cove is more the focal point for the entire campaign.
Note though, that actually there were 'thousands of casualties on the beach' (or at least hundreds). These were the wounded, waiting for evacuation, and some of these would of course have died while waiting. Anzac Cove was sheltered - it's where most wounded were concentrated, either directly back down Shrapnel Gully, or along from the flanking beaches, after they'd returned from the firing lines. This does not mean that they were necessarily wounded or killed on the beach itself.
Chris mate,
If I get what you are asking about as mentioned by Bryn is the landing on most Anzac beaches was not like the landing off the River Cyde or the marines on Tarawra in WWII.
There was not the whole sale slaughter as like the two battles above because the Turks were not covering all beaches the same, like the battle for the beaches on D Day, one would have been slaughtered as at Omaha while Utha was a walk over. That dosn't detract from what these men did as the fighting in the hills was more close quater and deadly then getting the troops off a boat on the beach.
We have all seen the films of the Anzac landing and how the men are being mowed down in there hundreds which is not right, as we never had the problem like the Munters did at Helles.
S.B
If I get what you are asking about as mentioned by Bryn is the landing on most Anzac beaches was not like the landing off the River Cyde or the marines on Tarawra in WWII.
There was not the whole sale slaughter as like the two battles above because the Turks were not covering all beaches the same, like the battle for the beaches on D Day, one would have been slaughtered as at Omaha while Utha was a walk over. That dosn't detract from what these men did as the fighting in the hills was more close quater and deadly then getting the troops off a boat on the beach.
We have all seen the films of the Anzac landing and how the men are being mowed down in there hundreds which is not right, as we never had the problem like the Munters did at Helles.
S.B
A major difference between ANZAC Day and 1st Day on the Somme is in the evacuation of the casualties.
By necessity, ANZAC wounded casualties were taken to the BEACH from all areas.
The failure to foresee & plan for the evacuation of the wounded was one of the greatest tragedies of the whole campaign. Even before the second wave of landings had been effected, returning boats full of wounded were being turned away from the Transports. Ironically, some of the earliest evacuations accepted by the Transports included Turkish wounded.
When added to the fatalities inflicted on the beach and in the water, the accumulated wounded from the surrounding areas would add to the impression of Chaos reported by eye-witnesses. The saddest part is that a very high proportion of early deaths would be Died of Wounds rather than Killed in Action.
The ability to treat these unfortunates was lacking, as was the ability to accurately count them. There is even doubt as to how many troops actually landed that day.
Lighthorsemen are known to have stowed away with the Infantry, and several infantrymen who had officially been returned to Australia were later located on the Peninsula.
The actual news of the Landings appearing in the major Australian newspapers was from the British correspondent Ashmesad-Bartlett & the language used was most heroic.
Two other English writers who contributed to the impact of the ANZAC myth were John Masefield
who was involved in medical evacuations, and Historian/MP Robert Rhodes James.
Australians do not uniformly equate ANZAC Day with the losses at Anzac Cove.
The Australian & New Zealanders sent to Helles for 2nd Krithia fared disasterously, perhaps losing more proportionally there than during their previous Gallipoli service, yet Helles is hardly ever associated with the ANZACs.
Many are fully aware of the sheer horror of Fromelles Bullecourt and Poziers. The much larger losses experienced in shorter periods than those on Gallipoli, do not generate the same feelings as does the mere mention of Dardanelles or Gallipoli .
The uniqueness of ANZAC Day will always be an enigma to outsiders. An indicator of that special aura can be found in the fact that the AIF itself commemorated the first anniversary of the Day with Parades and other ceremonies. Men who were at the Landing wore a distinctive ribbon, men who had joined them on the Peninsular wore another ribbon. These men later wore the A for Anzac badge on their colour patches.
By necessity, ANZAC wounded casualties were taken to the BEACH from all areas.
The failure to foresee & plan for the evacuation of the wounded was one of the greatest tragedies of the whole campaign. Even before the second wave of landings had been effected, returning boats full of wounded were being turned away from the Transports. Ironically, some of the earliest evacuations accepted by the Transports included Turkish wounded.
When added to the fatalities inflicted on the beach and in the water, the accumulated wounded from the surrounding areas would add to the impression of Chaos reported by eye-witnesses. The saddest part is that a very high proportion of early deaths would be Died of Wounds rather than Killed in Action.
The ability to treat these unfortunates was lacking, as was the ability to accurately count them. There is even doubt as to how many troops actually landed that day.
Lighthorsemen are known to have stowed away with the Infantry, and several infantrymen who had officially been returned to Australia were later located on the Peninsula.
The actual news of the Landings appearing in the major Australian newspapers was from the British correspondent Ashmesad-Bartlett & the language used was most heroic.
Two other English writers who contributed to the impact of the ANZAC myth were John Masefield
who was involved in medical evacuations, and Historian/MP Robert Rhodes James.
Australians do not uniformly equate ANZAC Day with the losses at Anzac Cove.
The Australian & New Zealanders sent to Helles for 2nd Krithia fared disasterously, perhaps losing more proportionally there than during their previous Gallipoli service, yet Helles is hardly ever associated with the ANZACs.
Many are fully aware of the sheer horror of Fromelles Bullecourt and Poziers. The much larger losses experienced in shorter periods than those on Gallipoli, do not generate the same feelings as does the mere mention of Dardanelles or Gallipoli .
The uniqueness of ANZAC Day will always be an enigma to outsiders. An indicator of that special aura can be found in the fact that the AIF itself commemorated the first anniversary of the Day with Parades and other ceremonies. Men who were at the Landing wore a distinctive ribbon, men who had joined them on the Peninsular wore another ribbon. These men later wore the A for Anzac badge on their colour patches.
Hi all,
It's interesting to note that as far back as the 40s, CEW Bean was anxious to disuade people from the notion that the landing at Anzac Cove was a spectacle of carnage. On page 83 of Anzac to Amiens he says (quite pointedly):
"Men in the boats began to be hit in fair numbers but this stage was quickly over when they ran across the shingle and sheltered under the bank. Neither then nor at any later time was that beach the inferno of bursting shells, barbed wire entanglements, and falling men that has sometimes been described or painted."
It seems that in his efforts to demonstrate that the real bloodshed occured after the landing, he actually plays down the heroics of the landing and the danger faced by the men. Anyone familiar with Bean's writing will know this is not a position he commonly takes, so he must have been fairly determined to set the record (as he saw it) straight.
He also mentions in the endnote on the same page that "much the heaviest loss was suffered by a few boatloads that rowed in much farther north."
Cheers,
Mat
It's interesting to note that as far back as the 40s, CEW Bean was anxious to disuade people from the notion that the landing at Anzac Cove was a spectacle of carnage. On page 83 of Anzac to Amiens he says (quite pointedly):
"Men in the boats began to be hit in fair numbers but this stage was quickly over when they ran across the shingle and sheltered under the bank. Neither then nor at any later time was that beach the inferno of bursting shells, barbed wire entanglements, and falling men that has sometimes been described or painted."
It seems that in his efforts to demonstrate that the real bloodshed occured after the landing, he actually plays down the heroics of the landing and the danger faced by the men. Anyone familiar with Bean's writing will know this is not a position he commonly takes, so he must have been fairly determined to set the record (as he saw it) straight.
He also mentions in the endnote on the same page that "much the heaviest loss was suffered by a few boatloads that rowed in much farther north."
Cheers,
Mat
The almost off-hand reference to those few boats does seem strange.
At pages 105 & 106 of A to A, Bean reveals that four boats were rowed ashore near Fisherman's Hut, and that only 35 of the 140 occupants 'managed to cross the beach and shelter behind the low grassy hammocks'. {Not exactly out of harm's way}.
He does not explain why the occupants were ordered to row all the way from their Transport, and glosses over the diversionary charge, made to protect them, by already-ashore troops who "lost half their men". Attempting to recover any survivors from these particular boats apparently cost the 3rd Field Ambulance further casualties.
Although recorded as dying at sea on April 27, Lt Chapman was mortally wounded whilst coming ashore in one of those boats.
At pages 105 & 106 of A to A, Bean reveals that four boats were rowed ashore near Fisherman's Hut, and that only 35 of the 140 occupants 'managed to cross the beach and shelter behind the low grassy hammocks'. {Not exactly out of harm's way}.
He does not explain why the occupants were ordered to row all the way from their Transport, and glosses over the diversionary charge, made to protect them, by already-ashore troops who "lost half their men". Attempting to recover any survivors from these particular boats apparently cost the 3rd Field Ambulance further casualties.
Although recorded as dying at sea on April 27, Lt Chapman was mortally wounded whilst coming ashore in one of those boats.
It needs to be pointed out here, to those not familiar with Bean's writings, that 'Anzac to Amiens' is essentially a summary of the war. For detail, we need to look at the actual official histories.
In Chapter 15 of Volume 1, 'The Story of Anzac', there is a very detailed account of the 7th Battalion's landing at Fisheman's Hut, which was a position on North Beach, Anzac sector, between what became Nos. 1 and 2 Outposts. It's a sixty-foot high hill, and the Turks manned trenches on its summit.
Chapter 15, 'The Extreme Left', includes an explanation of why these men rowed themselves all the way from the transport to shore, and reveals that the actions by others (a platoon from each of the 11th and 12th Battalions) on that flank were begun not in order to assist the 7th Battalion landing (they had not at that time arrived), but to subdue the fire from the left flank, particularly No. 1 Outpost and Fisherman's Hut, where the Turkish defenders had remained undisturbed. Once the 7th Battalion boats had landed, these two platoons also attempted to assist them. All involved suffered heavily. The 3rd Field Ambulance sent men to assist, as did other units, including New Zealanders.
Some Light Horsemen may have stowed away with the infantry later in the campaign (they definitely did with other Light Horse units), but I've never seen any evidence that any landed on 25th April. The different infantry brigades spent varying lengths of time at Lemnos before landing at Anzac, and any such stowaways would have been found either during the voyage to Lemnos, or while on that island. The first Light Horse death did not occur on the peninsula until 13th May.
TCIngrid, Lieut. E.H.S. Chapman, 7th Battalion, died of hs wounds at sea, as you stated. Do you know of evidence that he was mortally wounded in the boats during the approach to Fisherman's Hut? If so I'd like to be able to include it in his record on my database and web site. It's something my colleagues and I suspected, but have never been able to find proof for.
In Chapter 15 of Volume 1, 'The Story of Anzac', there is a very detailed account of the 7th Battalion's landing at Fisheman's Hut, which was a position on North Beach, Anzac sector, between what became Nos. 1 and 2 Outposts. It's a sixty-foot high hill, and the Turks manned trenches on its summit.
Chapter 15, 'The Extreme Left', includes an explanation of why these men rowed themselves all the way from the transport to shore, and reveals that the actions by others (a platoon from each of the 11th and 12th Battalions) on that flank were begun not in order to assist the 7th Battalion landing (they had not at that time arrived), but to subdue the fire from the left flank, particularly No. 1 Outpost and Fisherman's Hut, where the Turkish defenders had remained undisturbed. Once the 7th Battalion boats had landed, these two platoons also attempted to assist them. All involved suffered heavily. The 3rd Field Ambulance sent men to assist, as did other units, including New Zealanders.
Some Light Horsemen may have stowed away with the infantry later in the campaign (they definitely did with other Light Horse units), but I've never seen any evidence that any landed on 25th April. The different infantry brigades spent varying lengths of time at Lemnos before landing at Anzac, and any such stowaways would have been found either during the voyage to Lemnos, or while on that island. The first Light Horse death did not occur on the peninsula until 13th May.
TCIngrid, Lieut. E.H.S. Chapman, 7th Battalion, died of hs wounds at sea, as you stated. Do you know of evidence that he was mortally wounded in the boats during the approach to Fisherman's Hut? If so I'd like to be able to include it in his record on my database and web site. It's something my colleagues and I suspected, but have never been able to find proof for.
[TCIngrid, Lieut. E.H.S. Chapman, 7th Battalion, died of hs wounds at sea, as you stated. Do you know of evidence that he was mortally wounded in the boats during the approach to Fisherman's Hut? If so I'd like to be able to include it in his record on my database and web site. It's something my colleagues and I suspected, but have never been able to find proof for.
[/quote]
Bryn.
Not documentary proof, but at P50 of Our Dear Old Battalion, Ron Austin states
"Of the 140 men who boarded the boats from the GALEKA, only 35 men were unscathed. Of the officers, only Jackson, Layh [who was wounded] & Lt Scanlan were capable of resistance if the enemy attacked, Heighway was a casualty and 2nd Lt Chapman was soon to die from his wounds while on a hospital ship en route for Egypt."
The wording is not specific, but if Chapman was not capable of resistance, and soon died of wounds...... Classification of Heighway as a "casualty" may have been intended to convey that his, and Layh's, wounds were not mortal whereas Chapman's were.
Rather than merely debate the wording, I will try to contact Ron at Slouch Hat for clarification.
In the meantime I will re - visit Dean & Gutteridges older History of the 7th for any references.
POSTSCRIPT
In a 1953 edition of the "Guide to the AWM" p136
"Three platoons of the 7th Btn were thereupon sent off in four of the ship's boats, but as they neared the shore deadly machine-gun fire took appalling toll of them. Of the 140 men who left the Galeka in these boats, only 3 officers and 35 other ranks stepped ashore; the rest were killed or greviously wounded."
This version supports Ron Austin's in that Jackson Layh & Scanlan were 'mobile' whilst Heighway & Chapman were not.
Much comment has been made of the exaggerated portrayal of the losses incurred in coming ashore that day. The Galeka boats were in the 2nd wave, and many re-enactments are of the pre-dawn landings. No version of the Landings that I have seen depict any boat suffering the casualty rate of the Galeka's boats. In most first-hand accounts of the Landing, there are comments about rowers being hit and the oars taken-over by others. Some of the later arrivals may have been fortunate in that the waiting Turks were otherwise engaged, but despite the 10am photo mentioned previously, an unopposed landing would have been relatively rare.
Thanking you for the "Gallipoli Officers" site. The comment by Lt Wale "There will be a lot of promotions before this lot (2nd Krithia) is over" is extremely poignant. The fact that the casualty rates at Krithia were higher than at the Landing, and yet Krithia has apparently not become ingrained in the ANZAC psyche is IMHO another of the Aussie/NZ conundrums.
[/quote]
Bryn.
Not documentary proof, but at P50 of Our Dear Old Battalion, Ron Austin states
"Of the 140 men who boarded the boats from the GALEKA, only 35 men were unscathed. Of the officers, only Jackson, Layh [who was wounded] & Lt Scanlan were capable of resistance if the enemy attacked, Heighway was a casualty and 2nd Lt Chapman was soon to die from his wounds while on a hospital ship en route for Egypt."
The wording is not specific, but if Chapman was not capable of resistance, and soon died of wounds...... Classification of Heighway as a "casualty" may have been intended to convey that his, and Layh's, wounds were not mortal whereas Chapman's were.
Rather than merely debate the wording, I will try to contact Ron at Slouch Hat for clarification.
In the meantime I will re - visit Dean & Gutteridges older History of the 7th for any references.
POSTSCRIPT
In a 1953 edition of the "Guide to the AWM" p136
"Three platoons of the 7th Btn were thereupon sent off in four of the ship's boats, but as they neared the shore deadly machine-gun fire took appalling toll of them. Of the 140 men who left the Galeka in these boats, only 3 officers and 35 other ranks stepped ashore; the rest were killed or greviously wounded."
This version supports Ron Austin's in that Jackson Layh & Scanlan were 'mobile' whilst Heighway & Chapman were not.
Much comment has been made of the exaggerated portrayal of the losses incurred in coming ashore that day. The Galeka boats were in the 2nd wave, and many re-enactments are of the pre-dawn landings. No version of the Landings that I have seen depict any boat suffering the casualty rate of the Galeka's boats. In most first-hand accounts of the Landing, there are comments about rowers being hit and the oars taken-over by others. Some of the later arrivals may have been fortunate in that the waiting Turks were otherwise engaged, but despite the 10am photo mentioned previously, an unopposed landing would have been relatively rare.
Thanking you for the "Gallipoli Officers" site. The comment by Lt Wale "There will be a lot of promotions before this lot (2nd Krithia) is over" is extremely poignant. The fact that the casualty rates at Krithia were higher than at the Landing, and yet Krithia has apparently not become ingrained in the ANZAC psyche is IMHO another of the Aussie/NZ conundrums.
TCIngrid
As Bryn has already mentioned many of the details/answers including the ones you listed are to be found in the Australian Official Histories. (Anzac to Amiens is an extremely summarized version of the War)
I re-read most of Volume 1 ‘The Story of Anzac’ last week, Doing so, I was again reminded of the incredible amount of work that was done by Charles Bean & his assistants to verify the facts that exist in the recorded history. It is simply amazing the amount of detail that has been amassed for the 25th of April 1915 alone. Capt Bean was documenting extraordinary events happening in many places involving many men. In fact Bean was so thorough he went back to the Peninsula at the end of the War to verify some details that were too that point un-resolved, as well as collect material for the planned War museum.
I personally think the chances of ‘verifying’ specific events often difficult & frustrating. Modern sources sometimes ‘twist’ wording or ‘original’ quotes to suit the circumstances of the contemporary text. And original texts are often tainted by patriotic bravado, with the truth running a poor second. The truth is often very difficult to verify, as many years have passed. And perhaps unfortunately, we are forced to debate issues on the basis of likelihood, as the facts are now lost.
The events that took place of the extreme left involving the 140 men of the 7th Battalion would indicate to me a high chance of an officer/s being killed on or near the beach. But proof in this instance & many others could take an awful lot of finding I would think.
Military Order 279 for 1915 lists Australian Officers KIA’s at the Dardanelles into a single group i.e 25th-28th April. Bryn & his colleagues have endeavoured to answer some of these riddles. Not an easy task in 2005.
Cheers
Geoff S
As Bryn has already mentioned many of the details/answers including the ones you listed are to be found in the Australian Official Histories. (Anzac to Amiens is an extremely summarized version of the War)
I re-read most of Volume 1 ‘The Story of Anzac’ last week, Doing so, I was again reminded of the incredible amount of work that was done by Charles Bean & his assistants to verify the facts that exist in the recorded history. It is simply amazing the amount of detail that has been amassed for the 25th of April 1915 alone. Capt Bean was documenting extraordinary events happening in many places involving many men. In fact Bean was so thorough he went back to the Peninsula at the end of the War to verify some details that were too that point un-resolved, as well as collect material for the planned War museum.
I personally think the chances of ‘verifying’ specific events often difficult & frustrating. Modern sources sometimes ‘twist’ wording or ‘original’ quotes to suit the circumstances of the contemporary text. And original texts are often tainted by patriotic bravado, with the truth running a poor second. The truth is often very difficult to verify, as many years have passed. And perhaps unfortunately, we are forced to debate issues on the basis of likelihood, as the facts are now lost.
The events that took place of the extreme left involving the 140 men of the 7th Battalion would indicate to me a high chance of an officer/s being killed on or near the beach. But proof in this instance & many others could take an awful lot of finding I would think.
Military Order 279 for 1915 lists Australian Officers KIA’s at the Dardanelles into a single group i.e 25th-28th April. Bryn & his colleagues have endeavoured to answer some of these riddles. Not an easy task in 2005.
Cheers
Geoff S
Hello Geoff.
One has to retain some optimism, mate!
The missing clue to even the most puzzling of questions is out there somewhere.
We know there were 140 men in those Galeka boats, we know that some of the officers survived the war, we can only hope that some of the men did likewise, or at least for an adequate period. There were many other eyewitnesses. Although a clear statement has not yet apparently appeared in official records, some comment may have been recorded in a letter, diary, interview etc by some witness which clarifies the fate of Lt Chapman. Nobody was keeping a lookout to record the first fatality, it has now become a point of interest, and will probably be eventually solved.
The co-incidences keep coming. Commenting on local memorials, a Footscray Municipal Historian stated that 200 of the 250 Footscray men landing with the 7th Btn became casualties on the first day. He mentions E Company, but the battalion had been re-organised before then, and that casualty rate would suggest they were in the Galeka boats. The quotation by Ingrid from the AWM booklet was written before the Museum itself 'realised' that the boat on display could not have been from Galeka. That in itself is a clear indication that no facts are cast in stone, and should encourage us to keep chasing the missing facts.
One has to retain some optimism, mate!
The missing clue to even the most puzzling of questions is out there somewhere.
We know there were 140 men in those Galeka boats, we know that some of the officers survived the war, we can only hope that some of the men did likewise, or at least for an adequate period. There were many other eyewitnesses. Although a clear statement has not yet apparently appeared in official records, some comment may have been recorded in a letter, diary, interview etc by some witness which clarifies the fate of Lt Chapman. Nobody was keeping a lookout to record the first fatality, it has now become a point of interest, and will probably be eventually solved.
The co-incidences keep coming. Commenting on local memorials, a Footscray Municipal Historian stated that 200 of the 250 Footscray men landing with the 7th Btn became casualties on the first day. He mentions E Company, but the battalion had been re-organised before then, and that casualty rate would suggest they were in the Galeka boats. The quotation by Ingrid from the AWM booklet was written before the Museum itself 'realised' that the boat on display could not have been from Galeka. That in itself is a clear indication that no facts are cast in stone, and should encourage us to keep chasing the missing facts.
Brox
I wouldn't place much faith in this bloke mate. From memory he had some serious psychosis issues.
ooRoo
Geoff S
QUOTE
a Footscray Municipal Historian
I wouldn't place much faith in this bloke mate. From memory he had some serious psychosis issues.
ooRoo
Geoff S
155 men of the 7th Battalion died either on 25th April 1915, or in the period 25 April to 2 May. While this is a large number, it's certain that not all of them died on the first day, and not all of them came from Footscray. Now this is only deaths, and the historian quoted says 'casualties', but I have to wonder how he would know - from memorials - which Footscray men were wounded on 25th April?
[quote=Geoff S,Mar 31 2005, 06:46 AM]
Brox
I wouldn't place much faith in this bloke mate. From memory he had some serious psychosis issues.
Geoff!
Freud may have understood your diagnosis, but I kant.
Is the opinion trigered by the category "Footscray", by "Municipal", or by "Historian". I kan agree that Historian denotes certain mental problems and that the progression through Municipal Historian to Footscray Municipal Historian may give greater reason for concerns.
However the person referred to in my previous message was Dr John Lack, the Honarary Historian with the City of Maribrynong. The booklet is "Footscray's War Memorials : Their Past and Future". He may be contacted at the Footscray Historical Society on the web, should you wish to obtain further information or to apologise.
Bryn
I cannot speak for Dr Lack or for his research.
My own research has included perusal of the local newspapers of the period from which a supporting view of the Doctor's findings is quickly formed. If interested of course documentary evidence could be pursued.
The weekly "Footscray Advertiser" on June 19, published the names of two locals killed at the landing. A separate article stated that a rumour as to severe losses in Company E 7 Bn was circulating and was ONLY proving hurtful to relatives.
June 26 contained a "Roll of Honour" - Footscray's Heavy Losses with portraits of 8 locals killed in action at the Dardanelles. The article states "The fact that Company E, 7th Battalion was in the very heart of the terrific fighting at the landing in the Dardanelles has been well known for some time but successive lists of casualties is bring home to residents the seriousnes of the losses sustained by Footscray"
Brox
I wouldn't place much faith in this bloke mate. From memory he had some serious psychosis issues.
Geoff!
Freud may have understood your diagnosis, but I kant.
Is the opinion trigered by the category "Footscray", by "Municipal", or by "Historian". I kan agree that Historian denotes certain mental problems and that the progression through Municipal Historian to Footscray Municipal Historian may give greater reason for concerns.
However the person referred to in my previous message was Dr John Lack, the Honarary Historian with the City of Maribrynong. The booklet is "Footscray's War Memorials : Their Past and Future". He may be contacted at the Footscray Historical Society on the web, should you wish to obtain further information or to apologise.
Bryn
I cannot speak for Dr Lack or for his research.
My own research has included perusal of the local newspapers of the period from which a supporting view of the Doctor's findings is quickly formed. If interested of course documentary evidence could be pursued.
The weekly "Footscray Advertiser" on June 19, published the names of two locals killed at the landing. A separate article stated that a rumour as to severe losses in Company E 7 Bn was circulating and was ONLY proving hurtful to relatives.
June 26 contained a "Roll of Honour" - Footscray's Heavy Losses with portraits of 8 locals killed in action at the Dardanelles. The article states "The fact that Company E, 7th Battalion was in the very heart of the terrific fighting at the landing in the Dardanelles has been well known for some time but successive lists of casualties is bring home to residents the seriousnes of the losses sustained by Footscray"
While doing a search for 'Capt Layh' I came across this thread....as to the question of whether Lt Chapman received his mortal wound whilst landing, Col. Elliott, in a letter reprinted in the Argus on June 9th, 1915, states: "Practically all of the battalions had little steamers provided by the warships but the 7th Battalion, which was the [?] of the main body to land, had to row ashore. Some of the boats, particularly those belonging to Maj Jackson's boys, the Essendon boys, were fired on while the men were in the boat by machine guns, and many were killed and wounded. Maj Jackson was hit three times, I am told, but only in the arms, and no bones were broken..... Major Jackson, Lt Chapman, and Lt Heron and Lt Highway, with 30 or 40 men, were struck down as they left the boats....."
Good on you,
Grant
Good on you,
Grant
I know that there were a fair few badly wounded, that died later in the day
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.