54th East Anglian Division

[T8HANTS]

I have heard it said that the 54th East Anglian Division was thought of as the worst Division in the British order of Battle, especially by General Stopford.

There have been several good strings on the subject in the past.

It has been put forward, that this accounts for the fact that this Division remained in Palestine, and did not return to France like all the other “European” Divisions, and their poor performance also accounts for why there is no popular history written about their wartime activities.

Now I expect (and hope) that there are several pals who would want to spring to the 54th defence, because like me, they have had relatives fighting with the Division, but what I would like to know is. If there is truth to these tales, what official written evidence is there that the poor old East Anglians were not thought up to the mark, and if so who did they blame?

Why was no apparent remedial training carried out, to give the boys the “fighting spirit” they apparently lacked? Could we really afford to write off a whole Division as substandard, and yet still keep refitting it, why not just break it up and rub out the stain.

Can we look at the old Napoleonic maxim of “There are no bad troop’s only bad officers”?

Your thoughts please.

[steve fuller]

Hey T8

Ill play!!!

As in any debatable topic, theres no end of text to support & refute the claim they were the worst, but I just cant see it myself. Yes I have relatives, so im naturally defensive to them, & can only really speak of the 5th Beds, but:

Im sure Ive seen Stopford was quoted as never having commanded a combat unit, & hesitated ridiculously. Naturally he cant admit it, so has to blame his tools.

“He tells me straight and without any beating about the bush: ‘I am sure they [the Territorials] would not secure the hills with any amount of guns, water and ammunition assuming ordinary opposition, as the attacking spirit was absent; chiefly owing to the want of leadership by the Officers’…. He goes on then to ask me in so many words, not to try to attack with the 54th Division but to stick them into trenches.”(General Sir Ian Hamilton, Gallipoli Diary II page 91. He may have been "sure", shame he didnt "know" though!

Yet they took Kidney Hill in theire first combat AND HELD IT. Half their number were casualties, yet they didnt falter.

And didnt Stopford get the boot DURING the irish Division & 162 Bgde's desperate defence of the Kiretch Tepe Ridge & Kidney Hill (16th August?)

Seems to me that his opinion carried far too much weight, and for far too long. The whole Division must have been absolutely gutted after Gallipoli & prob never recovered their morale properly.

And off they trot to become Rail builders & pipe layers in Egypt. Waste of a Division IMHO.

[Steven Broomfield]

Hey T8

Ill play!!!

As in any debatable topic, theres no end of text to support & refute the claim they were the worst, but I just cant see it myself. Yes I have relatives, so im naturally defensive to them, & can only really speak of the 5th Beds, but:

Im sure Ive seen Stopford was quoted as never having commanded a combat unit, & hesitated ridiculously. Naturally he cant admit it, so has to blame his tools.

“He tells me straight and without any beating about the bush: ‘I am sure they [the Territorials] would not secure the hills with any amount of guns, water and ammunition assuming ordinary opposition, as the attacking spirit was absent; chiefly owing to the want of leadership by the Officers’…. He goes on then to ask me in so many words, not to try to attack with the 54th Division but to stick them into trenches.”(General Sir Ian Hamilton, Gallipoli Diary II page 91. He may have been "sure", shame he didnt "know" though!

Yet they took Kidney Hill in theire first combat AND HELD IT. Half their number were casualties, yet they didnt falter.

And didnt Stopford get the boot DURING the irish Division & 162 Bgde's desperate defence of the Kiretch Tepe Ridge & Kidney Hill (16th August?)

Seems to me that his opinion carried far too much weight, and for far too long. The whole Division must have been absolutely gutted after Gallipoli & prob never recovered their morale properly.

And off they trot to become Rail builders & pipe layers in Egypt. Waste of a Division IMHO. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Steven Broomfield]

I'm not sure I'd give an awful lot of credence to anything Stopford said - yes, he was trying to justify his own (sullied) reputation.

The 54th suffered heavily, and I can't imagine East Anglia was a hot-spot of recruiting, being pretty sparsely-populated, so replacing casualties must have been difficult, thus affecting where Territorial battalions could be supported.

Other divisions also stayed out east (the 53rd Welsh among them), though it has to be admitted that their British component was much more diluted than in the 54th.

The record of the Eastern New Army divisions was by no menas bad - certainly not the 18th - so recruiting stock can't be part of it.

It can hardly have been worse than the 31st, after all!

[steve fuller]

Yep, the 18th Div sure did earn their stripes didnt they?

Lt Col Brighten, Commander 5th Beds (161 Bgde, 54 Div) trained his men "what we take, we hold", explaining that their comrades who fell whilst advancing would be left to die or to the enemy of they didnt hold their new lines & retreated back over the ground theyd just advanced over, so naturally, they held fast. And advancing over a mile of open ground in your first combat, being shot to pieces all the way in, yet STILL taking the objective seems like a pretty good achievement to me, yet he still didnt see what the Bgde did.

Yea, they were criticised for not carrying on, but who can blame them? No officers left (1 company was quoted as being led by a Pte within the opening few minutes), absolutely knackered, scared to death, thirsty & covered in Turkish & their own countrymens blood ...

1 general even said "Give me a Brigade of those Yellow Devils (the Beds) & Ill have the peninsular cleared within the week". Yet he didnt see it? How come???? Mustve been penning his letter home at the time the attack started praps?

OK it was only 1 Bgde of the Div, but there were only 2 other Bgdes in the Div, so that seems to me to bode well for the others in the Div. How do you write off a whole division BEFORE they even set foot in their first theatre?

As I said, waste of a good unit ....

[CROONAERT]

It can hardly have been worse than the 31st, after all!

Apart from in their nick-name, what makes you think the 31st was a bad division, Steven?

Dave.

[Steven Broomfield]

Apart from in their nick-name, what makes you think the 31st was a bad division, Steven? 

Dave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were all Northerners!

Seriously, though, I was being 'controversial'. I'm a bit fed-up with Territorial almost being a synonym for 'not much cop' - why do the Kitchener mob get all the glory while the TF almost get ignored? Sorry to rant, but if it hadn't been for the Saturday night soldiers (hem, hem), then where would the BEF have been while the heroes from the K armies were still forming fours in UK?

Just because the 54th were territorial........and came from East Anglia. No-one called the New Model Army rubbish. Stick up for East Anglians and Territorials!!!

[CROONAERT]

They were all Northerners!....

... I'm a bit fed-up with Territorial almost being a synonym for 'not much cop'

...And from a mighty fine catchment area too, with much military heritage and tradition passing down the generations...

So were the 42nd, and the 55th and they were territorials! I've never heard many people slagging off these two divisions.

Dave.

[steve fuller]

The 54th may have been classed as yokels or whatever, but that was hardly true!! Just the Beds alone was made up from towns folk of Luton, Dunstable, Hitchin, Leighton Buzzard, etc... and how many Northampton, Essex & London troops / units were in the Div? Rather a lot from the Brigade structures Ive seen!! So hardly all farmer Giles's with red, chubby faces, weilding Hayforks were they??!!

Having read up on the 5th Bed's training, the one thing that stands out about the Beds is how unbelieveably PROUD they were. True of units all over the world of course, & pride can be a bad thing sometimes, but their "Farewell to the County" march in July 1915 was a hell of a feat IMHO.

Pride in their Regmnt, Btn, CO, themselves, their comrades, their appearance, training, fitness, etc etc - then they go t'other side of the world (as far as the boys & men of 1915 were concerned anyway), get NO acclimatisation time (as was true of many Gallipoli units), get thrown into a dreadful 1st combat on their 3rd day on the peninsular, do the job they were asked to do, hold the ground despite running out of bombs & ammo (the Bgde & the Irish Division had to throw rocks at the Turks when they were being hammered by counter attacks 16th August onwards). How much more could those poor soldiers do?

Blimey, I even read that even a whole company of Regulars (Hampshires I think it was??) refused to go forward, having witnesses the Bgde's "Charge of the Territorials" as it has been labelled, as they saw the Bgde ripped to shreds yet still plough on.

And it counted for absolutely nothing!

Stopford MUST have seen something in them he really didnt like; I'd love to know what it was that turned a CO against the troops he was supposed to lead, if anyone has come across any clues!

If nothing else, its an interesting" style of combat leadership!

[Steven Broomfield]

Stopford MUST have seen something in them he really didnt like; I'd love to know what it was that turned a CO against the troops he was supposed to lead, if anyone has come across any clues!

I've just re-read the sections in Rhodes-James' "Gallipoli". Bluntly, Stopford had retired in 1909, had never commanded large bodies in action, had been sent home from S Africa when Buller (to whom he was Military Secretary) was sacked, and was appointed only because Mahon (GOC 10th Divn) was senior to all but Stopford and Ewart. The latter was considered by Hamilton to be too tall and bulky to fit in trench warfare! Hence Stopford.

R-J then comments on the landings by the 53rd and 54th Divisions, stating that the 53rd were hampered by lacking any artillery and all but one field company and one field ambulance. Of the 54th, he states: "...it had no artillery, no signal company, no mules and no ammunition."

Stopford was as despondent about the 53rd as he was about the 54th - both were 'sucked dry' and 'incapable of attack'; indeed, at one point he felt the 53rd might not withstand a Turkish attack.

Whatever the truth of the East Anglian fighting man (and as a Cambridge boy, I am not going to allow any derogatory comment to pass my lips, while the victors of Crecy and Agincourt were largely Welshmen), the fact was that the 53rd and 54th did perform badly: but is it any surprise? many battalions had been cross-posted, command was uncertain (Inglefield, commanding the 54th, was 60 and had not apparently helf field command in action, while Lindley of the 53rd resigned his command within a week of landing), and supporting services weren't there.

I would challenge the Guards to look good in those circumstances.

And then, as we know from the reputation of the 46th Division (and, yes, I admit it, the 31st!), it was a case of 'give a dog a bad name'.

I'm certain sure there were many worse formations than the 54th Division.

[Paul Reed]

May I ask, out of interest, where all this talk of the reputation - or lack or if - of the 31st Division comes from? I am presuming you are referring to something along the lines of "31st and worst"?

[CROONAERT]

May I ask, out of interest, where all this talk of the reputation - or lack or if - of the 31st Division comes from? I am presuming you are referring to something along the lines of "31st and worst"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My referral to a "nickname" did indeed refer to the "Thirtyworst" (though what 30 Dutch sausages has to do with it, I don't know! ). Apart from this, I've not come across any reference to them being a bad division - hence my question.

Dave.

[Paul Reed]

Thanks - do you have a contemporary reference for this? I only ask, as it was always my understanding the phrase was '61st and worst', referring to the Australian's verdict on the 61st (South Midland) Division after Fromelles in July 1916?

[SMG65]

In defence of Northerners and the Territorials I'll stick my neck out and say that one of the finest Divisions was the 50th Northumbrian.

Their story is too long to even summarise here but their introduction to the Western Front is an example of what a fine fighting Division it was.

They crossed to France on 16 April 1915 and concentrated at Steenvoorde for acclimatisation to trench warfare and training. On 23 April the Battle of Gravenstafel began and the Division was thrust into the front line with no front line or fightingexperience. By the 4 May the Division had suffered over 3700 casualties but had played their part in stopping the Germans.

The Division continued to serve throughout the war with distinction and became one of the most battle hardened Divisions inthe British Army.

Not bad for a bunch of Northern Territorials.

SEAN

[Paul Reed]

Very much agree - I knew quite a few veterans of the division, and there are some fine memoirs. As a Great War commander, the 50th is a formation I would have always wanted somewhere on my flanks in a tight corner.

[CROONAERT]

it was always my understanding the phrase was '61st and worst', referring to the Australian's verdict on the 61st (South Midland) Division after Fromelles in July 1916?

Aha! Different nick-name! I'd never heard of "31st and worst" until you mentioned it. The nickname in my head is simply the "30 worst" . I've only ever come across it on occasion, usually (in my case) from members of the 5/East Lancs in referral to their townsfolk in the 11th East Lancs! However, I have come across it elsewhere and in at least one possibly currently in print and widely read publication, but can't remember which!

Dave. (I'll let you know if I find or remember it)

[Doug Lewis]

And then, as we know from the reputation of the 46th Division (and, yes, I admit it, the 31st!), it was a case of 'give a dog a bad name'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steven

Wasn't it the 137th Brigade of the same Territorial 46th Division during The Battle of the St Quentin Canal who and I quote " completed one of the finest feats of arms in British military history, when it forced the crossing of the St Quentin Canal at Riqueval."

Regards Doug

[michaeldr]

T8Hants said quote; I have heard it said that the 54th East Anglian Division was thought of as the worst Division in the British order of Battle, especially by General Stopford.

This unfortunate division was b****red about at Gallipoli and it deserves a lot of sympathy. If I were trying to get past the censor here, then I would say that it was more sinned against than sinning!

The British O.H., page 136 footnote ; ‘Lord Kitchener’s intention, indeed, was that the fifth division – the 54th (East Anglian) Division T.F. – should merely be used to supply drafts for the other four’

Well if that’s the case then what’s all the fuss about?……………..

However Hamilton had other ideas and he wanted them to be employed in an advance on Tekke Tepe. IX Corps was informed of this and told that as the last of the reserves they were not to be thrown away without the OK of GHQ

But this is exactly what IX Corps do and to quote the British O.H. again “Thus as in the case of the 53rd Division, the 54th was given no chance of settling down and finding its feet on arrival.”

General Stopford, as Carlyon says, was not asked to serve again

Remembering today all who fought at Gallipoli

Michael D.R.

[Steven Broomfield]

Steven

Wasn't it the 137th Brigade of the same Territorial 46th Division  during The Battle of the St Quentin Canal who and I quote " completed one of the finest feats of arms in British military history, when it forced the crossing of the St Quentin Canal at Riqueval."

Regards Doug

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doug

I agree. The point I was (ham-fistedly)trying to make was that divisions manged to obtain a bad reputation which followed them. The 46th got their reputation after their 'failure' (sic) at Gommecourt, but then went on to become one of the best - a true 'assault division'.

My point about the 30-worst is the same - a very unfair reputation, probably with no foundation, has followed them for ever.

Maybe we should remember that old dictum - "There is no such thing as a bad soldier, only a bad officer". The 54th on Gallipoli certainly showed that was true!

Anyway, why worry about who was worst, or best? The true pride of the BEF was that it tried hard NOT to have 'elite' divisions. They were all good - we did manage to win the bloody war, after all.

Cheers all

Steven

[Cliff. Hobson]

Doug

I agree. The point I was (ham-fistedly)trying to make was that divisions manged to obtain a bad reputation which followed them. The 46th got their reputation after their 'failure' (sic) at Gommecourt, but then went on to become one of the best - a true 'assault division'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gommecourt 1st July 1916 5th Battalion Sherwood Foresters, 46th Division.

Strength in the morning, 28 Officers, 706 other ranks, end of the day 3 officers 237 other ranks, didn't they used to sing a song about the old battalion hanging on the old barbed wire.

[rob carman]

Good morning,

In the early pages of the second volume of his “Gallipoli Diary” Hamilton says he reviewed the 54th Div during the summer of 914. He says that after his inspection and before the division landed at Suvla, its three "show" battalions had been replaced. Thus, in 162nd Brigade the 1/1st Cambs and 1/1st Herts had been replaced by the 1/10th and 1/11th London, while in the 163rd brigade the 1/4th Suffolks had been replaced by the 1/8th Hants.

I have several questions about Hamilton’s comments. All relate ultimately to the view put forward by Stopford to Hamilton that the 54th was a weak unit - a view that Hamilton seems to countenance before ultimately rejecting in favor of blaming the failure of the Suvla landings to achieve its aims on Stopford and other senior officers.

1. On what evidence would Hamilton have identified the three “show” battalions? On just his inspection or did these battalions have good pre-August 1915 reputations?

2. How much did Hamilton’s association with the Suffolks color his opinion?

3. Was his view of the show battalions confirmed by their performances in their new divisions?

4. Was the implicit expectation that the replacement units were weaker than the three original battalions justified by their reputations before, during or after their time at Suvla?

Regards,

Rob Carman.

[T8HANTS]

Hi Rob

The questions you raise are very interesting. I was under the impression that "show" Battalions were moved up through Divisions in the order of battle as a reward for being up to speed quicker than the rest of their Brigade comrades.

This implies, that speaking for the 8th Hants (Isle of Wight Rifles) they were being rewarded, and in intra Battalion competitions within 163 Brigade the did tend to win, so they could at least hold their own, but instead, ended up being denigrated with the rest of 54th Div'.

I am also under the impression (although I have nothing in print to say so), that the 8th Hants were sheduled for the 56th London Div' which became a fine Division with honours all through. (If any pal knows that they were intended for a different division please post to correct me).

Now this suggests that apart from a different calendar of slaughter, had the 8th stayed put, they would have been considered a good Battalion, in a fine Brigade of a crack Division.

Ain't the twist of fate strange.

[rob carman]

T8 and others,

What you say of show battalions seems likely. However, since I do not subscribe at all to the poor repuation given the 54th Div, I cannot agree that the 8th Hants were denigrated unfairly while the other battaliosn deserved it. None of them deserved it

What Hamilton also says of the Div but I left out is that not only were these three particular show battalions posted to other divisions, but that the better officers and men in the remaining battalions had also been diverted to other units.

While this may have been true for some other battalions in the 54th Div, it does not apply to the1/4th Norfolks nor, almost as surely, to the 1/5th. Both had internal problems with their COs that may justified some of Hamilton's concerns, though I've seen no evidence he was aware of them.

Lt Col John Robert Harvey DSO was CO of the 1/4ths. Harvey was an adventurous and in many ways an admirable man, who had served as a gentleman lancer in the 5th Lancers, had raised two squadrons of Imperial Yeomanry for the 2nd Anglo-Boer War, and who had been CO of the 1/4th Norfolks for some time by 1915. Harvey’s own account of his tenure as CO of one of the Yeomanry squadrons in South Africa leaves you feeling that he was probably not a strict disciplinarian. After an “incident” of unspecified ill discipline involving the Norfolks, senior and junior officers in the 1/4th coordinated their expression of concern about Harvey’s abilities. An official enquiry followed. Harvey was placed on "sick leave". He did not embark with his battalion and did not arrive at Suvla until the end of August Two long serving Majors were moved out of the battalion and in the words of Jock Bruce (who put me onto this story – thank you Jock) the junior officers involved "had their cards well and truly marked". The 1/4ths arrived at Suvla with a fraction of its normal complement of officers and under the command of the recently arrived Adjutant, Capt. Eustace W Montgomerie, 2nd Norfolks. (An aside: Montgomerie’s diary is most likely the primary written source for the story of female snipers on the peninsula.)

Rollo Pelly, who was wounded by a sniper almost as soon as he landed at Suvla with the 1/5th Norfolks, ultimately making him one of the few 1/5th officers at Suvla to survive the War is the source for reports that Lt Col Colonel Sir Horace G.P. Beauchamp, the CO, was not allowed to issue orders himself. They had to come in writing from his Adjutant. I don’t recall if Pelly actually calls this affair a mutiny or not. I see to remember that he uses a weighted term to characterize what happened. McCreery reports Beauchamp and his Adj were arm in arm the last time they were seen alive, a poignant vision for me.

I think there are at least three obvious factors that could have impaired the performance of these two battalions. The first is clear. Even before they landed both were plagued by internal dissent, the blame for which I would place with the units’ officers and their seniors. The second was a significant impact of Ottoman sniping that is reflected in most written accounts. After internal dissent and sniping, I would put the inability to supply the men with adequate clean water as a factor that might have impaired yet further their abilities. Both Stopford and Hamilton discuss how to address the provision of water. They knew it was going to be an issue and within a very short time available manpower in the 1/4th Battn at least, was reduced more by water borne diarrhea than by enemy action.

These factors aside, the overwhelming problem with the 54th Div was Stopford himself. Kitchener told him what was needed of him; Stopford wrote it down and showed his notes to Hamilton who seconded Kitchener’s views. Alas, Stopford was overwhelmed by his task and blamed the men for his shortcomings Stopford was prone to this. He had already described the 13th Div as “unreliable” whereas Hamilton says of them that they "fought like lions under Godley at Anzac".

Rob Carman.

[steve fuller]

Well, it seems to me that we've established the Beds, Norfolks, Hampshires, etc were all fine Btns, so Stopford is the cause of their unjustified rep' it seems to me. Far too much heirarchial squabbling & he seems to have forgotten the bit about leading his troops ...

I have read the 5th Beds diary from start to finish, evenAugust 1914 to July 1915 (training) and about Lt Col Brighten (their CO) after the war, and they NEVER stopped achieving. Seemed very important to them to be highly thought of & placed in all inter-Div (etc) competitions, their raids were so succesful that they became the procedural "norm" in Palestine, etc etc. Brighten (CMG) was even quoted as the youngest Btn CO up to 1917, & went on to command the 2nd Beds in the 1920's.

I would imagine most of the 54th's Btns could prove their worth in some way, so it appears to be down to Stopford. The boys of the Div may not have been appreciated at the time, but we certainly appreciate their feats now.

5 of my relatives served in the 5th Beds / 54th Div altogether, and Im very proud to be able to say that. Makes me realise I come from "good stock"

[Guest dwicking]

MY great grandfather ( a sergeant in the 1/10 London) wrote a short note on his time on Kiretch Tepe - basically a list of the couple of days lying wounded, followed by the dates of being in eaach hospital or ship all the way home.

These were not full strength battalions by modern understanding often about 260 men with 9 officers!

There is an interesting note attached to the War Diary file written by one of the commanders - gives a string indication that the whole exercise was not being very well directed from above.

D