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

Remembered Today:

help badly needed.


mick1234

Recommended Posts

The OP has not given the mans name, but the location for the the cemetry is shown using ' trench map' coordinates. The ones I have seen are from 1920. The list from CWGC posted by Mick show trench map refs and the one we are having trouble with. Why would they use two different map refs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they use two different map refs?

Don't know, unless that was the only map they had when it came to the reburial.

Or written the reference in an unconventional way.

What's odd is that the Reference begins in the same way as a British reference, ie. 62c.e, so it's safe to assume we're talking of the correct square.

The question is how 450E 650N converts to British.

If it was just 450yds E and 650 yds N of the bottom left corner of the square, that would put the body in 62c.e.13, 2000yards to the South West.

Square 62c.e is 6000 yds x 6000 yds.

Suppose they've decimalised the remaining co-ordinates, i.e 450/1000 x 6000 =2700 ydsE. and 600/1000x6000 =3900yds N

That puts the point in 62c.E Square 15, sub square B, at 200yds E (200/500x 100 =40E), and 400yds N (400/500x100 =80N

giving:

62c.E.15.B.40.80

That's in or near an old building (? A chateau) at the end of Rue du Chateau, Saulcourt.

The closest other burial would be 62c.E.15.d.0.9 which is in the adjacent woodland, about 500 yds away.

Just a wild guess.

Of course they might have used metric maps by then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Mick could look at the war diary and see if any map refs, trench maps, sketch maps are given? Might help narrow it down a bit>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the description in post #13, I arrive at the same conclusion as IPT in post #22, which would actually be in 62c.F.13

Phil

Yes. I wouldn't disagree. Also maybe 62c.F.19

The description describes the road on their right and the railway to their left with St. Emilie having been taken by the Germans presumably to their rear.

But how do we explain the CWGC Concentration returns stating that all those other bodies were found in 62c.E.14 &15?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had another look at the docs on CWGC. Lt Moore is shown as having had a cross at his original burial place? This suggests that whenever he was buried it was at a 'safe' place, away from any fighting? To put a spanner in the works the docs also show Pte. 11105 U Moore Connaught Rangers! Is Ulick a common Irish christian name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dai,

The burial returns tend show those being brought in by several exhumation parties at any one time, so can cover quite an area.

There are quite a few spurious map references. Take a look at the concentration document for James Hilton Moores. It looks like there is an exhumation squad working in the E.18 / F.19 area which has gone metric ahead of it's time.

There seems to have been quite a few recovered from 62c.F.19.a.9.9 (on this and other sheets, that suggests a concentrated burial plot.

I'm wondering if they were making their way round the trenches on the North side of St Emilie and they left the Capron Copse Line in E18?

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Phil,

62c.F.19 makes much more sense.

As you say- some interesting 'metricated' grid references- I note some big numbers in those co-ordinates, 550, 600, 800. I think they're fractions of 1000 that they've decided to divide the square into, rather than use the [a-d].[01-99]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relevant pages in the WD are missing. There is a resume but this adds nothing to location other than Brown Line. I did not find any trench maps or sketches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the grid ref in the OP a 'French Lambert conformal conic projection'. :whistle:

This post has another query on the same subject and a map which uses this system, (sadly, not for 450/650).

I tried to find a way to convert Lambert to Lat/Long and failed. There are I think 4 other variables needed for conversion which depends on the map being used.

TEW

Here is a fragment of an original map with the Lambert grid on top of the British Grid covering 62c. Sadly I cannot see how 450/650 would fit, (even taking into account the common error of putting Northings first.)

Howard

post-991-0-76140200-1442304432_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Howard even though that makes my theory kaput.

I looked for other concentration sheets for men in St. Emile and found some other similar map refs.

62c.F.24.800E.750E is ref given for a body moved from St Emilie to Templeux in 1930.

355147 Pte. Davies, C.M. And others were also moved from St Emilie and their map ref is given as 62c.F.23.600E.750

Note missing E from the end of the last one and the additional F.23/24 as opposed to the OPs ref.

Not sure if St. Emilie cemetery would contain both the above map refs?? But it seems to be the way I read the concentration forms.

If, for some reason Ulick Moore was discovered unidentified in 1930 while the others were being moved that would at least account for the late type map ref.

TEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Howard even though that makes my theory kaput.

I looked for other concentration sheets for men in St. Emile and found some other similar map refs.

62c.F.24.800E.750E is ref given for a body moved from St Emilie to Templeux in 1930.

355147 Pte. Davies, C.M. And others were also moved from St Emilie and their map ref is given as 62c.F.23.600E.750

Note missing E from the end of the last one and the additional F.23/24 as opposed to the OPs ref.

Not sure if St. Emilie cemetery would contain both the above map refs?? But it seems to be the way I read the concentration forms.

If, for some reason Ulick Moore was discovered unidentified in 1930 while the others were being moved that would at least account for the late type map ref.

TEW

Here are three maps of square E from sheet 62c. Two are marked "Sir Herbert Ellissen" and the other with Lt. Col. A.A. Messer.

Ellissen was concerned in the IWGC with cemeteries including concentration cemeteries and Messer was concerned with exhumations. The blue pencil is the number of bodies from each 500 yards square.

I post these in the hope that they may offer a clue to your problem.

Howard

post-991-0-81500600-1442351263_thumb.jpg post-991-0-53745700-1442351272_thumb.jpg

And the third.

Howard

post-991-0-00676300-1442351539_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relevant pages in the WD are missing. There is a resume but this adds nothing to location other than Brown Line. I did not find any trench maps or sketches.

The 47th Infantry Brigade HQ diary has been thieved as well.

There is a handy map in the 48th Inf Bde diary.

From the 49th Inf Bde diary for 21.03.1918:

1-50pm - O. C. 6th Connaught Rangers reported Brigade H.Q. and was ordered to man BROWN LINE from railway F.13.a.7.0 to F.19 central.

It continues to chart the movements of the 6th Connaught Rangers for the next couple of hours ( but it's getting late for me to start transcribing)

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

62c.F.24.800E.750E is ref given for a body moved from St Emilie to Templeux in 1930.

St Emilie is in 62c.E.24

F24 will be 6000yds to the east.

355147 Pte. Davies, C.M. And others were also moved from St Emilie and their map ref is given as 62c.F.23.600E.750

Note missing E from the end

I would say a misssing "N"

Not sure if St. Emilie cemetery would contain both the above map refs??

The entrance to the cemetery is 62c.E.24.c.84.40

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should my previous refs then read E.23 and E.24. The originals do state F. I said 'note the the missing E' as the first example has 800E.750E.

So 600E.750 I thought should have another E. If not then the first example is also wrong.

Are there a lot of original errors in these references?

There is a tantalising similarity of one on my examples to the entrance to the cemetery

TEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should my previous refs then read E.23 and E.24. The originals do state F. I said 'note the the missing E' as the first example has 800E.750E.

So 600E.750 I thought should have another E. If not then the first example is also wrong.

Are there a lot of original errors in these references?

There is a tantalising similarity of one on my examples to the entrance to the cemetery

TEW

As an additional negative (sorry!), I looked at the older French Bonne map refs. they are nothing close. I also looked at German map refs. of the area, again nothing close.

Most of the better French maps used the Lambert grid but many were over printed on their older Bonne maps. The confusion in these reported positions mirrors the confusion there was in cartographic circles at the time.

Howard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extracts from this concentration sheet give the attached refs as 62c F.23 & F.24 for 'where body was found'. The men in question died Sept 1918 and the Mcmaster map I'm looking at dated Aug 1918 puts 62c F.24 well behind enemy lines (things may have changed though).

post-34209-0-44491000-1442392919_thumb.j

Not sure why 2 of the above entries are crossed through and annotated 'graves in St Emilie British Cemetery'. Seems an unnecesary statement for a re-burial sheet when this applies to everyone on the sheet. Unless (and this is only a theory) the men were found in St Emilie cemetery unmarked/unidentified and given a new plot and headstone.

The normal reference for St Emilie cemetery is also attached and their typewriter seems to have an E, F problem.

post-34209-0-63442900-1442393617_thumb.j

They're stating that the cemetery is in Square F and the bodies were found in square F BUT we know the cemetery is in square E so the bodies were actually in Square E already???

Then there is also another concentration sheet I found that said:

62c.F.24.800E.750E, ref given for a body moved from St Emilie to Templeux in 1930. This actually says the body was in St Emilie but gives a way off map ref.

Seems to show they:

weren't quite up to reading maps

didn't understand the referencing system

had a bad typewriter

TEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should my previous refs then read E.23 and E.24. The originals do state F. I said 'note the the missing E' as the first example has 800E.750E.

So 600E.750 I thought should have another E. If not then the first example is also wrong.

Are there a lot of original errors in these references?

There is a tantalising similarity of one on my examples to the entrance to the cemetery

TEW

In Post #33 above, reefrence is made to James Hilton Moores. http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/236418/MOORES,%20JAMES%20HILTON

If you look at the "Concentrations" tab, an at the column with the grid references, you will see 3 that are written in this different format:

62c.F.19.550.N.350.E

" "

E.18.800.E.600.N

E.18.600.E.600.M

To me, the letters N and E suggests Northings and Eastings.

The E refers to East, not the square E.18 or whatever.

The M I think is a typo.

There isn't either a clear convention of whether to put the Easting or the Northing first as mentioned in post #36

Are there a lot of original errors in these references?

Yes there are I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry . Cross posted.

Your last posting solves the problem!

Untitled1.jpg

The concentration return has the "New format" co-ordinate, with the Old format helpfully typed in above it.

62c.F.23.600E. 750 (Presumably N)

above it is typed = b.2.5

This means 62c.F.23.600E.750N is the same spot as 62c.F.23.b.2.5

and that

62c.F.24.800N.750E = 62c.F.24.5.6

It seems as though the old subdivision of the 1000 yard square into 4 squares (a-d), followed by 0-9 or 00-99 has been replaced by a decimalised system.

(I incorrectly speculated in post #28 that it was the 6000 yard square that was subdivided. It isn't, it's the 1000 yard square.

The reason for that wrong assumption is that the co-ordinate on the original concentration return, in post #3 actually contains a typo as well- it omits the number of the 1000 yd square that the body was found in!)

Take 1000yard square 62c.F.24. and take the co-ordinate 600E.750N . These are yards from the bottom left corner.

Both are greater than 500, which means that if you subdivided the old 1000 yd square into quadrants, it would be in sub square b.

Subtract 500 from each figure, and you get 100E.250N, this would be that point's co-ordinate in subsquare b

100 as a fraction of 500 is 2 tenths, 250/500 is 5 tenths.

So 600E.750N equates to b.2.5

And 800N.750E (Should be 750E.800N) by the same method gives b.5.6 62c.F.24.b.5.6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not understanding maps, I have read this thread with some admiration for the way you guys have stuck at it, being fed a drip here and a drop there by Mick.

It was getting to the stage where i was going to suggest simply hanging a threaded needle over a map!

but.....

Lt Ulick Moore was recovered from a grave which also contained an Unknown British soldier.

Given they're together it would seem likely to be another member of the Connaught Rangers.

This Unknown is not buried in the adjacent plot but in Plot 4 Row C Grave 2.

Could that indicate a time delay during which Row C was filled and by the time he was (mis)identified as PRIVATE 11105 U A Moore, he went into Row D 1?

As an officer, isn't it likely that he would have had significant difference in uniform and effects?

Now, there were only 5 Connaught casualties that day, Private 18212 Bonner, commemorated at Roye; and Privates 8192 Gibbon and 6380 Hannon commemorated at Pozieres.

Captain Roye is buried at Roye.

Why would Moore have been initially identified as a Private? Where does 11105 come from - it's not a Service number for any of the 3 OR's.

I can't find another 11105 casualty from any unit that day. So who was Moore buried with?

To be identified as a Private, some remnant of tunic sleeve without stripes must have been present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was getting to the stage where i was going to suggest simply hanging a threaded needle over a map!

Well, I think we can confidently say where exactly in the square this unfortunate fellow's body was found.

Sadly we can't say for certain which square that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dai, that all makes sense, shame I didn't spot that the answer was in my own post!!!!

I still think though that they are also getting F and E wrong. The cemetery cannot be in 62c F anything, even though they have typed it as so. It is in 62c E.

Therefore bodies found in 62c F are actually in E????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think though that they are also getting F and E wrong. The cemetery cannot be in 62c F anything, even though they have typed it as so. It is in 62c E.

Correct.

Therefore bodies found in 62c F are actually in E????

Not sure about that. The trenches we think they were in were in F.13 & F.19 and Howard's 3rd map above (Post#38) show many graves in F.1, F.7, F.13 & F.25

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...