Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Arthur Robert Hellenburgh, 1st/5th batt Norfolk Regt, KIA Gallipoli.


midshipmanrayley

Recommended Posts

Arthur Robert Hellenburgh, 1895-1915, resident of Great Yarmouth, served as private 1564 in 1st/5th battalion, Norfolk Regiment, 54th Division. Killed in action 12th August 1915 at Sulva Bay, Gallipoli.

Great Yarmouth Roll of Honour gives his rank as "private (signaller)". Unsure quite how to interpret this information or how the Roll compilers discovered it. Can any member help? Or give his attestation details? Any guidance gratefully received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mr

Three places I have looked, all give him as just Private 1564. Two variations on date of death,SDGW and MIC give 28 Aug 1915 and CWGC gives 12 Aug 1915.

He first landed at Gallipoli on 6 Aug 1915.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks sotonmate. Possibly wounded 12th and died of wounds 28th August?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 5th Norfolk, along with the rest of 163 Brigade took part in the advance that was dramatized as "All the King's Men" on the 12th August 1915, consequently casualties were heavy. However I doubt the 6th of August landing date as most of the Brigade were still aboard the Aquitania, and may not even have reached Mudros, or have trans-shipped by then. War diaries record a landing date of the 10th August for Suvla. On the 28th August the 5th Norfolk were in 'rest' camp around LaLa Baba, and no casualties are reported until the 30th,when 3 were injured by shell fire.

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks T8HANTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having recently re-read (couldn't believe it the first time) Gallipoli (Alan Moorehead) I couldn't be surprised there might have been a mix-up on dates. 20,000 troops land on the 6th August and are kept from advancing inland by merely "1500 Turks with a few howitzers and not a machine gun among them",but at least the good General Stopford had a fine sleep on board a Navy ship through it all !

The SDGW gives KIA on 28th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe "MISSING" in the attack on the `12th & body recovered & identified on 28th? Does he have a marked grave? A look at SDGW for others with similar date in that Bn may she dhed light on the situation if other soures give 12th & SDGW gives 28th. Just a possible reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you sotonmate and Loader for your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have written about the 5th Norfolks on 12 August twice now. McCrery's book does not tell the whole story.

Here's a link to my first book.

Steve

And They Loved Not Their Lives Unto Deat https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1908336501/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_sQyNvbD5JB00M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello.

The 1915 Star roll gives the 28/08/15 as date of death and the Register of Soldiers Effects states "On or since 28/08/15. Death presumed."

There are many other 1/5th men on the same page(s) also "On or since 28/08/15. Death presumed."

Mick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks Steve and Mick. Have similar problems with Herbert Hacon who also has a topic and served in 1st/5th Battalion Norfolk Regiment.

Currently roasting in Spain but will check out your link on my return. Regards John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slight deviation from the subject, but in reference to the conflicting dates of death, the vast majority of fatalities suffered by 1/5th Suffolks in the attack on the 12th August (for which IIRC only two of the bodies recovered after the war were subsequently identified and have a known grave) have a recorded date of death as 21st August (on CWGC, SDGW, and on the few death certificates I've seen). The battalion history (co-written by one of the officers who was actually present at the time of the attack, and most likely in the best position to 'know') has all the '21st' casualties as having been killed in action on the 12th.

From the 1/5th Suffolk war diary it appears evident that a roll was called over 20th/21st August, whilst the battalion was in reserve trenches, from which the strength of the battalion was recorded in the diary. It seems highly likely that the men missing-in-action on the 12th were noted during this roll call - and of these men, I could envisage those who were not witnessed / corroborated by the survivors as having definitely been killed on the 12th, subsequently had their date of death taken as the date of that first roll call (i.e. the 21st when they were perhaps first officially recorded as missing). This is just a hypothesis, of course, and there's no way of proving it either way, but it seems to me the most likely explanation for the majority of the missing-in-action casualties having their recorded date of death at a time when the battalion was not in the frontline. If this is the case, then I would strongly suspect a similar scenario for the other 3 battalions involved in the attack.

Just my humble opinion! :rolleyes:

Kind regards

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1/5th Norfolk's diary has the Aquitania arriving at Lemnos on the 6th.

Rob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slight deviation from the subject, but in reference to the conflicting dates of death, the vast majority of fatalities suffered by 1/5th Suffolks in the attack on the 12th August (for which IIRC only two of the bodies recovered after the war were subsequently identified and have a known grave) have a recorded date of death as 21st August (on CWGC, SDGW, and on the few death certificates I've seen). The battalion history (co-written by one of the officers who was actually present at the time of the attack, and most likely in the best position to 'know') has all the '21st' casualties as having been killed in action on the 12th.

From the 1/5th Suffolk war diary it appears evident that a roll was called over 20th/21st August, whilst the battalion was in reserve trenches, from which the strength of the battalion was recorded in the diary. It seems highly likely that the men missing-in-action on the 12th were noted during this roll call - and of these men, I could envisage those who were not witnessed / corroborated by the survivors as having definitely been killed on the 12th, subsequently had their date of death taken as the date of that first roll call (i.e. the 21st when they were perhaps first officially recorded as missing). This is just a hypothesis, of course, and there's no way of proving it either way, but it seems to me the most likely explanation for the majority of the missing-in-action casualties having their recorded date of death at a time when the battalion was not in the frontline. If this is the case, then I would strongly suspect a similar scenario for the other 3 battalions involved in the attack.

Just my humble opinion! :rolleyes:

Kind regards

Steve

I've heard of similar cases mentioned in the past - it explains, in some cases, why deaths are recorded whilst out of the line.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify a few things here.

The 1/5th Norfolks left Watford by train for Liverpool on 29th July 1915 embarking on the luxury liner HMT Aquitania. They had sailed from there at 2300hrs on 30th July 1915 bound for the Dardanelles. Here they remained until the 8th August when they transferred to the steam ship Osmaniah where they spent two nights in cramped conditions as the ship sailed to Imbros. Their war diary notes that the 163rd and ½ 162nd Brigades sailed along with the 54th Divisional HQ. Less 3 Officers (Off) and 157 Other Ranks (OR) who remained on the Aquitania the rest of the battalion landed unopposed at ‘A’ beach opposite Hill 10 at about 1700hrs on 10th August and moved along the shoreline towards Suvla Point to bivouac near Ghazi Baba.

As has been noted the dates are often confusing when looking at the battalion. For instance, the reason I wrote about the battalion was to dispel myths about the story and to look at two men from my village who died on 12th August 1915. These men were Corporal, 1424, Thomas Self, and Private, 1432, Cecil Ernest Bullimore.

Thomas is listed as having 'Died' on 21st August and Cecil on 28th August. Both were definitely killed on 12th August and the war diary does not record casualties on either day, in fact these are the entries.

21st August 1915

‘Same position. Were told to hold ourselves in readiness for attack at 3 p.m. but had no orders to move.’

28th August 1915

‘Arrived at Camp Lalababa at 3 a.m. First opportunity we have had of reorganizing the Battn, which we took advantage of. The men were able to have a change.’

SDGW records that between the 12th and 31st August 1915, the 1/5th Norfolks lost 11 Officers and 151 Other Ranks killed. The CWGC for the same period records 166 killed so a difference of 4. Died within SDGW means a number of things. The main being death unknown or unconfirmed, or it can mean you died of an illness or accident.

From 29th July 2015, the day they sailed for Gallipoli I will be posting a number of blogs about the battalion because even though I have written about them twice now new evidence has landed in my inbox detailing accounts reported soon after their action.

But mark my words when I say that nobody disappeared into a cloud of smoke and the mystery was solved in 1916!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks Steve, Rob and Craig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be posting a series of blogs on this from 29th July 2015 onwards so watch this space!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I meant to post this up earlier but things just kind of went a bit mad after posting these blogs up. This is Part 1 of the blogs I wrote about the 1/5th Norfolk Regiment and the myths surrounding them.

Steve

https://stevesmith1944.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/the-15th-battalion-norfolk-regiment-at-gallipoli/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve will check it out. John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...