michaeldr Posted 7 August , 2013 Share Posted 7 August , 2013 I'm transcribing the OoB for the Royal Engineers and am worried about the accuracy of the original text, as I've already spotted something amiss Can anyone confirm that the following were at Suvla 1st Fortress Company 136th (Monmouth) Army Troops Company 1/3rd (Lancs) Workshop Company 126th Army Troops Company 13th Base Park Company or have some Helles, or even an islands, unit(s) crept in by mistake? Thanks in advance for any help here Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 7 August , 2013 Share Posted 7 August , 2013 Michael I have have been compiling the RE OOB for some time now. If it is the free download from TNA you are using, then there are a considerable number of errors. 1 Fortress Coy was stationed in Gibraltar and sent home in 1915 for conversion to an a Advanced Park Coy. It was subsequently sent to France where it stayed for the rest of the war. 13th Base Park was formed from 13th Survey Company RE and sent to Egypt. 126 AT Coy was actually a Field Company raised for the 21st Division and served in France. I'll see if I can sort out 1/3 Lancs Workshop Coy for you later. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 7 August , 2013 Author Share Posted 7 August , 2013 Terry, I'm very grateful for your comments and for any help which you can give me. I am looking at The History of the Corps of Royal Engineers Vol. VI but have already noticed that in their OoB they refer to: the RND by their mid-1916 WF name (63rd Div) - incidentally, also shown under Suvla, not Helles for the VIII Corps Mining Company they use only the December 1915 RE title, they have the CO's surname slightly wrong & are a month early regarding its founding So I'm wondering what else may not be right – you suggest there could be plenty Thanks again for the assistance Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 12 August , 2013 Author Share Posted 12 August , 2013 I was slowly getting to grips with this, but something more urgent has cropped up and I may have to leave off for a while. If I may Terry, then I will ask you to cast an eagle eye over it once I'm through In the meantime....... 1 Fortress Coy was stationed in Gibraltar and sent home in 1915 for conversion to an a Advanced Park Coy. It was subsequently sent to France where it stayed for the rest of the war. This one is a puzzle as they appear everywhere in the OoB - under VIII & under IX Corps, at ANZAC & at Mudros. BUT, I cannot find them at Gallipoli in the text 13th Base Park was formed from 13th Survey Company RE and sent to Egypt. It would not be unusual for a Gallipoli bound unit to land at Egypt first, and I find that 13th Base Park arrived Gallipoli 15th May 1915, served first Helles, then Imbros, then Mudros, with small detachment remaining at Helles 126 AT Coy was actually a Field Company raised for the 21st Division and served in France. I have, so far, not been able to find this unit in the text. I'll see if I can sort out 1/3 Lancs Workshop Coy for you later. The only ref I can find so far in the text for this unit says that they 'followed' (presumably = arrived after) the 13th Base Park Co. I'll drop you a line later if I may regards Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 12 August , 2013 Share Posted 12 August , 2013 Michael Please do. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 24 August , 2013 Author Share Posted 24 August , 2013 Terry, Many thanks for your message re the 1/3rd (Lancs) Workshop Company. The penny has finally dropped as to who 136th (Monmouth) Army Troops Company were; they're better known (to me anyway) as the No. 5 Siege Company Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers. See also Brian Jarvis' article 'The Monmouth Sappers' in The Gallipiolian No. 130, Winter 2012, pages 17-22. These are the chaps who built the two water reservoirs above W Beach – per the Engineers' history “each to hold three day's supply, and a Worthington pump was installed at the pier for filling them with water brought by sea.” regards Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3rn Posted 19 May , 2017 Share Posted 19 May , 2017 I've come across 'R. Monmouth Fortress Company R.E.' in 8 Corps routine orders, Cape Helles, December 1915. Would this be No. 5 Siege Company Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 19 May , 2017 Author Share Posted 19 May , 2017 As you will see from earlier posts, there are a number of variations in the name used but I think that it is safe to say that it is the same Company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3rn Posted 20 May , 2017 Share Posted 20 May , 2017 Thank you. I've misplaced my CD copy of the RE history. Can you tell me to which division and brigade they belonged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 20 May , 2017 Author Share Posted 20 May , 2017 As you will no doubt have gathered from previous posts here the OoB in the RE History is not to be relied upon too greatly. I believe however that they were Corps Troops with VIII Corps at Helles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 19 January Author Share Posted 19 January (edited) On 24/08/2013 at 07:26, michaeldr said: The penny has finally dropped as to who 136th (Monmouth) Army Troops Company were; they're better known (to me anyway) as the No. 5 Siege Company Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers. On 19/05/2017 at 08:28, michaeldr said: As you will see from earlier posts, there are a number of variations in the name used but I think that it is safe to say that it is the same Company. CORRECTION/CAUTION: recent research has indicated that these statements are incorrect and should not be relied upon - see https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/308707-135th-coy-royal-engineers/?do=findComment&comment=3266313, also see the CWGC records which show their Gallipoli fallen as belonging to two distinct units Edited 19 January by michaeldr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now