74th Yeomanry Divison

[Guest with]

were trenches used at any of the Gaza battles or any campaigns in Palestine. i am trying to find information on the 74th Yomanry division who fouth there (I think?) and wondered what sought of conditions and fighting they had to endure

[RDB]

The 74th (Yeomanry) Division were an infantry division made up of dismounted yeomanry regiments - hence their emblem of a broken spur. An account of the Division's activities during the war is given in Major C H Dudley Ward's book, The 74th (Yeomanry) Division in Syria and France (published by John Murray in 1922.

[Guest Pete Wood]

Welcome to the forum, With and RDB

Trenches were certainly used at Gaza. While the Turkish fortifications were not to the same standard of those on the western Front, they gradually increased in strength/depth - which is why so many lives were lost trying to take them (between March and November 1917).

Horses were used to good effect on the flanks of Gaza. But the main (direct) assaults were made by the infantry (with almost no cover) and dismounted Yeomanry in sweltering heat. There was some support, in later battles, with some tanks from E Battalion.

[Thomas]

After the failure of the First battle of Gaza in March 1917 the situation in Palestine became static like the Western Front with Trench systems being built.

The Third battle of Gaza in October 1918 broke the stalemate and forced the Turks to retreat further in to Palestine and to form a new line of defence to the North of Gaza.

From.

Thomas McCall.

[Guest stevenbec]

It should also be remembered that it was not like the western front around Gaza.

Allied trenchers were along the Wadi Guzze (spelling) and there was a no mans land in between.

After the first day of 2nd Gaza battle trenchers were dug in front of the turks as we intended to stay but after a week all troops were returned over the Wadi Guzze.

All troops took their turn in the trenchers including the ALH regts, Camel Corps and also the 74th Yeomanry Div.

Cheers

S.B

[Nick]

There are many on this board whose knowledge on this topic would put mine to shame, but as far as I can make out there are a number of very good reasons why Trench warfare was not so "extensive" in the Palestinian theatre. But there are three very practical ones that are worth mentioning.

The first is the shortage of trees and other local sources of wood for shoring up trenches and constructing dug outs. The second was the shortage - particularly on the Turkish side - of barbed wire, which meant that some areas of defences had minimal or perhaps no wire. The third was the open terrain that would have needed to be covered. To create a defensive position along the whol;e front would have needed more manpower than the Turks had at their disposal. I suppose also that the natural defenses in areas of rugged terrain were often rocky, maiking trench consytruction difficult and not worythwhile when th natural defenses were so good.

Around Gaza the Turks also made good use of cactus hedges, which, being tall, thick and very, very prickly provided for excellent little defensive positions.

As far as conditions for the soldier were concerned well, it's the usual story of officers fairing better than the men in most instances but the extreme heat, and poor water supplies combined to make things pretty uncomfortable for all. Men and horses all went through long periods with no water, particularly during offensives.

Nick

[Guest Pete Wood]

I can say that, having dug the odd trench or two in similar terrain (1st Gulf), people don't realise that underneath a layer of sand is a rock-like substance.

Digging a trench in the desert took us much, much longer than digging the hardest ground in Europe - and was physically harder, and saps your strength.

But this has benefits; no shoring is usually required. All you need are a few cloth bags (roughly sewn) and you have all the sand you need to build up a shallow trench.

Nearly all the photgraphs I have seen of Turkish trenches show that the Turks deliberately sited their defences with regard to giving their machine guns the widest arc of fire - and least cover for attacking forces. But this often meant that the Turkish trenches were impossible to dig deeply.

If you look at photos of captured Turkish Trenches, the shoring you find (particularly around gun emplacements) is nearly always corrugated metal.

Water, as you say Nick, was the key to winning the war in the near East. That is why so many soldiers were sacrificed at Gaza in what was really a move to capture the wells at Beersheba.

Few 'Westerners' also realise how little fighting took place in the region (8th Hants were wiped out, and replaced, many times in what was effectively just 5 days of fighting from 1915-18). Most of the soldiers' time and energy was taken up building (wire) roads, a railway line (to carry supplies from Egypt) and a water pipe that stretched hundreds of miles.

In Europe, the soldiers were often able to supplement their rations with fresh food and fruit. In Palestine, and similar theatres, this was not possible; the distance from the UK meant that food parcels were impossible to deliver also. The bully literally melted in the heat, and the water was nearly always contaminated and rationed. With no water to soften the hard biscuits, let alone bathe, the soldiers died of dietry sickness and disease by the thousands.

Some Divisions, such as the 54th, never worked/fought anywhere else. Leave was almost impossible, so morale was poor. Even when leave was granted, it was too far to Blighty (UK, Australia etc), so your only option was the infested delights of Alexandria.

Add some mosquitos and flies, boots and equipment that were not designed for desert campaigns and you'll soon see why so few men returned alive; those that survived, often died very young - from the effects.

Anyway, I can see that I am drifting off the subject of trenches.....

[Annette Burgoyne]

There is a four reason why the Trench warfare was not so "extensive" in the Palestinian theatre and that was that there was less Artillery per yard of ground then there was in France & Flanders.

[Nick]

Indeed!

I read something interesting just recently about the amount of artillery per yard in the Palestinian theatre recently that I could add in here - if only I could remember where it was that I read it!

[michaeldr]

Digging a trench in the desert took us much, much longer than digging the hardest ground in Europe - and was physically harder, and saps your strength.

But this has benefits; no shoring is usually required. All you need are a few cloth bags (roughly sewn) and you have all the sand you need to build up a shallow trench.

Nearly all the photgraphs I have seen of Turkish trenches show that the Turks deliberately sited their defences with regard to giving their machine guns the widest arc of fire - and least cover for attacking forces. But this often meant that the Turkish trenches were impossible to dig deeply.

Can I add a couple of pics which may be useful and help to illustrate Pete’s points.

They are credited to the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem

and are taken from Kedar’s book ‘The Changing land between the Jordan and the Sea’

The first one shows an example of a Turkish trench at the Abu-Hureira redoubt, on their Gaza-Beersheba front. After it you will see a much more recent picture indicating the enduring quality of the trench work in these particular soil/rock conditions

Regards

Michael D.R.

[michaeldr]

Second/more recent picture

[Nick]

Michael,

What excellent photos. How pristine the trench looks in the first photograph! It's hard to make out, but it looks like there might also be a line of wire some distance in front of the trench (appearing as a darker band in the photo) - or is it just my eyes? It all looks very neat.

And as you say, how well they have lasted.

Do you know which way is North in the aerial photo?

[michaeldr]

it looks like there might also be a line of wire some distance in front of the trench (appearing as a darker band in the photo)

Nick,

You are quite right; a closer examination of the photograph [with the aid of a glass] suggests a line of earthworks topped by three, or perhaps four, parallel strands of wire.

Please also accept my apologies if you were misled into thinking that the two photographs were of exactly the same place; they are not. My intention was only to illustrate the durability of [Turkish] trenches in this particular climate/soil/rock. The second picture is of a trench system a few kilometres to the east of the redoubt.

As you appear to be interested in this site, then below is a photograph of Tell Abu-Hureira, probably taken by the German Squadron 300 sometime in 1917. North is at 10 O’clock. The Gaza to Beersheba road runs left to right across the centre of the picture and the dead strait line across the top RH corner is a Turkish field railway. Trenches are to be seen in the centre of the photograph as well as on the Tell.

As suggested by the title, Kedar’s book supplies reproductions of various aerial photographs, of the same spots, spread over about eighty years. An RAF shot of the Tell on 14 March 1945 shows that the Turks dug even more trenches before the successful allied take over on 7 Nov 1917. A view from the aprox same height/angle etc taken in 1994 shows that some Turkish trenches were still visible even then.

You will see from the first picture that, as Pete pointed out, in these conditions no shoring is required, which is just as well considering the general lack of wood available at the time. The Bedouin of the area attribute [1927] the Turkish loss of the Abu-Hureira redoubt to their punishment for “having cut down a tree of the holy place atop the mound.” The Tell and redoubt were named after a companion of the Prophet Muhammad who was believed to have been buried there.

The lack of wood in Palestine remained a problem for some time to come. On 20 Nov 1918 Gen. Money issued the following:

“Except with the consent of the Military Governor or the Deputy Military Governor, no olive tree that is not either dead or past bearing may be cut down for any purpose whatsoever.

It shall not be a defence to a charge made under this Notice that the tree or trees were cut down to fulfil a contract for the supply of wood to the Military Authorities.

An offence against this notice constitutes a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or fine not exceeding 50 Egyptian Pounds or both and may be tried by a Civil Magistrate.”

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Guest stevenbec]

There was such a lack of wood that an order was sent to the Aussies of the Camel Corps to stop chopping down the Telegraph poles.

Although there was no evidence that they had, but since soldiers of the Camel Corps always had wood for their fires it was so asumded. And since when ever a aussie camel company passed the Telegraph line there was always one missing after.

It was mentioned (else where) that a Telegraph pole could be quickly hiden within the the saddles of some 150 aussie camel soldiers in the company.

The days of putting petrol and sand together for your cooking fire was still another war away.

S.B

[Nick]

Michael - Is that the same General Money who was Lieutenant-Colonel N Money of the 2/4th Royal West Kents in July 1916? Just curious. Thanks for some excellent photos.

Flicking further back up the thread and re Annette's point about artillery, I have remembered where I read about weight of artillery fire (I'm glad because it was nagging me all weekend). In the book "Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East 1917 to 1919" Matthew Hughes (quoting from Cyril Falls' Official History) writes:

"It is interesting to note that at 68 heavy guns to 4,000 yards [the main attack frontage at Gaza], or one to every 60 yards, is exactly the proportion employed by the British on the First day of the Battle of the Somme....when we take into account the naval artillery and the enormous weight of its projectiles...this bombardment must be reckoned a heavy one by any standard"

Apparently the artillery available to XXI Corps at the end of October 1917 was 48 guns for each of the infantry divisions, 8 mountain guns and 68 heavy corps guns.

However, you are absolutely right that such weight of firepower was rarely concentrated after this because of the simple problem of moving the guns in such rugged terrain.

Nick

[michaeldr]

Michael - Is that the same General Money who was Lieutenant-Colonel N Money of the 2/4th Royal West Kents in July 1916?

Nick,

I don’t think that this can be the same officer as the initials do not seem to fit

Elsewhere his name appears in a more complete version as

Maj-Gen. A. W. Money, Chief Administrator of the Occupied Enemy Territory (South) This was on 15 Aug 1918

Thanks for your comments on the photographs, I am only sorry that Kedar’s book does not include any of the site which is of special interest to you personally.

I don’t know if you have been able to pin-point Tell Khuweilifa on a modern map, but if it helps then you should look for Tel Halif which is alongside Kibbutz Lahav, about 17 kms north of Beersheba.

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Nick]

Michael,

Thanks for that. I didn't know about the Kibbutz else I might have tried to go there in my younger days! The fighting at El Khulweife doesn't feature much in mosts texts I have come across. I don't have a good WW1 map or sketch map of the area. Most of the ones I come across focus - probably rightly - on Beersheba and Gaza. The fighting at El Khulweife however seems to have been particularly nasty.

I think I might post a thread about something else that happend at Khulweife - the chaplain of the RWK's got the MM (I think). I'd like to know more about his story.

Nick

[michaeldr]

Nick,

That sounds really interesting: I hope that you go ahead with the post so that we can all learn more about this site.

Please let me know if there is any thing else which I can help with

Regards

Michael D. R.

[Nick]

I have posted it as a new thread in "Soldiers"

Regards

Nick

[Stephen Barker]

Does anyone know anything about the Cheshire Yeomanry serving in the 74th Div. See also my question in 'Units and Formations'. I'm particularly interested in how the unit was dismounted becoming the 10th Shropshire LI.

Any comments gratefully received.

Stephen Barker

[Annette Burgoyne]

Stephen see my reply to your other thread about your great uncle.

Annette

[Stephen Barker]

Yes

Thanks again Annette.

Stephen

[Guest stevenbec]

Mate,

For the Fighting at Khuweilfe you should read the book called "A Fighting Colonel of the Camel Corps" the story of LtCol NB de Lancey Forth DSO & Bar MC by Neville de Rouen Forth.

His Bn (3rd Camel Bn) was part of the attack on the Tell on the 6th Nov 1917 and found it self alone after the British Brigade lost its way and was cut up by the Turks.

His defence during two days he held on was interesting and has a number of hand drawn maps.

If you think this is so called pommy bashing by the aussies it should be clear that de Lancy-Froth was a British officer only his Bn were aussies. I say that because even now there is still some debate over what happened to these British Bn's as they claimed the were not lost?

Enjory

S.B

[Nick]

Nothing wrong with a bit of pommie bashing.....as a long term supporter of English cricket it's just a way of life. Anyway, you know us Brits could never admit to being lost.

It certainly sounds an interesting book - thanks for the pointer. I suspect it is hard to come by but will see what I can find!

Nick

[Kate Wills]

Is there a War Diary for 74th Division?

I'd like to know what they were doing in mid January 1919.