REJECTED: Lt. P. W. Battersby & Capt. W. W. Fitzherbert RFC: Messines Ridge British Cemetery 4.E.38 & 39

[LDT006]

8 hours ago, laughton said:

A thought came to me, perhaps a note about air activity from one of the ground units. I see the 36th AIF was in the area at the time. I will start there and see how it goes. The Aussies were very good at recording air activity.

 

 

My memory is letting me down............ I did research air battles during late July 1917 and have some of the Australian war diaries on my PC. They are indeed very good for reporting air activity and this is why I downloaded them a long time ago.

 

Extract from page 17 (summary for July 7th, 1917) from the Intelligence, Headquarters 2nd ANZAC Corps, July 1917: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1347582

 

 

This is a perfect match for Fitzherbert and Battersby, the time and location are spot on. Please note the 1 hour time difference: 11am British time = 12 (noon) German time. The location is "near (U.29.b) Pont Rouge".

They state that it was "reported" but by who? I checked the war diaries for the 36th Bn. without result. The 7th Australian Field Artillery Brigade reports 2 unknown planes falling in flames but at 5 pm. In my case it were the artillery observers who reported it. Becstar might find more.

 

Luc.

 

Edited 29 November , 2019 by LDT006

[Becstar]

 

Have had a look through some Aussie War Diaries and taken note of what may (or may not) be relevant. Who saw what happen is certainly dependent on which Division/Brigade/Battalions were close at the time, as can be seen written below, taken from the several different War Diaries (4th Infantry Brigade of the 4th Australian Division were quite close, as the Diaries reveal).  Battalion unit diaries looked at so far provide little if no information, I’ll keep looking though & add further information if found).

 

 

4th Australian Infantry Brigade, July 1917, page 22

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1007947/bundled/RCDIG1007947.pdf

 

(from 6am, 7th July to 6am, 8th July 1917)

Aircraft: Great activity throughout the day, and many combats took place. About 11am, two machines were seen to fall at approx U29.c.1.3. One we identified as ours, but the other we could not make sure of. 

At 6pm, 2 others came down in flames well behind enemy lines. Both of these we think were ours. At 11:15pm, some of our planes were heard crossing to enemy’s lines, returning at 1:30am.

 

 

4th Australian Division, General Staff,  Headquarters, Part 1, July 1917, page 29

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1015932/bundled/RCDIG1015932.pdf

 

(from 6am, 7th July to 6am, 8th July 1917)

Aircraft: Our aeroplanes were very active yesterday [in reference to 7th July 1917], and many combats took place. An enemy plane rammed one of ours which crashed at U.29.c.9.8.  About the same time an enemy plane was brought down. [There's a time reference, maybe 'from 12am', is hard to decipher the writing, maybe someone can have a look]. At 5:30pm, 5 of our planes met an enemy patrol. Two planes came down in flames of which one was ours, and one a German.

 

 

11th Australian Infantry Brigade,  Page 24

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1005624/bundled/RCDIG1005624.pdf

 

(For 24 hours ending 6am, 8 July 1917]

Aircraft: Active. Our planes flew over enemy lines on several occasions. Several encounters took place and 2 planes came down in flames and one driven down. It is not certain whether these were ours or enemy planes or where they came down as they were some distance north.

 

 

3rd Australian Division 

7 July 1917 repeats the above (11th Infantry Brigade) statement.

 

Edited 30 November , 2019 by Becstar

[laughton]

Good stuff!

 

I think it says "11 am.12 am", in line with what Luc wrote about the British-German time difference.

 

Interesting that it refers to the plane being rammed. Even though the TMC are a a bit different (minor) it has to be the same event.

 

I found some great information on the Aerodrome Forum and have asked for their assistance. They have Dostlers claim #14 as a DH4 so I am hoping they have authoritative evidence as to the change.

[LDT006]

On 30/11/2019 at 12:32, Becstar said:

 

4th Australian Division, General Staff,  Headquarters, Part 1, July 1917, page 29

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1015932/bundled/RCDIG1015932.pdf

 

(from 6am, 7th July to 6am, 8th July 1917)

Aircraft: Our aeroplanes were very active yesterday [in reference to 7th July 1917], and many combats took place. An enemy plane rammed one of ours which crashed at U.29.c.9.8.  About the same time an enemy plane was brought down. [There's a time reference, maybe 'from 12am', is hard to decipher the writing, maybe someone can have a look]. At 5:30pm, 5 of our planes met an enemy patrol. Two planes came down in flames of which one was ours, and one a German.

 

That time reference seems like "11.12 a.m." to me, so 12 minutes past 11 a.m.

 

Is there something in the Australian documents to find which German regiments were at Pont Rouge?

[Guest]

I was a little concerned  that there was a possibility that a pair of other RFC casualties for the same day  might have been misidentified-hich might lead to a lot more work.

Luckily,  there are only 11 RFC casualties for 7th July 1917-and 5 of those are  within UK.   4 are for France (including our 2)  and 2 for Belgium.  Of the other casualties, no 2 are from the same squadron-which-to my simple mind-very greatly shortens the odds on Battersby and Fitzherebert being the 2 unknowns. 

   I will have a look at the officer files for the other  Arras names this week-  my best guess is that one of the other will be the Sopwith reported in DAZ.

Working it backward from the-luckily-limited stock of names for 7th July 1917 does very much strengthen your case-but a trawl of the primary sources for other names will not do any harm.

Hope that helps

 

[laughton]

 

 

If you find something solid, the CWGC will need a COPY of the document (or pages). Some do with cameras. some not. If you need me to send you some e-dollars for that I can do that quickly. Maybe that has to be e-pounds? If you have a camera, even on your phone, that is fine as well.

 

I suspect that it will come back that there are no additional details, as unlike the ground troops, there was nobody else with them.

 

We have a lead on the German Aviation Historian who researched all these cases in the 1930's - Dr. Bock I think was his name. That is likely the key (this post)

Quote

I would not get too distracted by the seeming contradiction between the claim for a ‘Sopwith’ and the ‘adjusted’ claim for a DH4. The ‘adjustment’ to ‘DH4’ was not wartime, but in last 50 years by researcher Dr Bock, who ‘adjusted’ many of the types claimed in his ‘secondary’ listings of German victories; made with an eye to British casualty reports – well meaning, but the source of much confusion when he gets it wrong. The contemporary WW1 German documents give Dostler’s #14 as being a ‘Sopwith’. 

 

[Guest]

Cost is not a problem- The problem is that I am decidedly Luddite in my approach to modern technology(which is why Bill Gates sleeps so well-I am not a threat).  But let's see what is there. Re-reading the response from CWGC seems-to me-to suggest that we must do the plod of the files,as they suggest- I suspect it would set a bad precedent if secondary works were accepted as gospel- after all, we have had the spectacle on GWF of a popular author about the lives of subalterns on the Western Front being outed for inventing his main character.  So, plod followed by plod should get there..

     But let's see where the files take us. The stuff from Oz war diaries is good and adds contemporary colour.  

Richard- did you have anything on the concentration.exhumation descriptions? As I said, Fitzherbert had previously been badly wounded on the Somme.    

 

   I will try to see the files on Thursday

[Matlock1418]

24 minutes ago, laughton said:

Special Exhumation Report and I did not see any for this case. Here is an example of one I picked randomly, if you have not seen one of those reports before (example SPEC EXH 2023602).

Thank you for this useful SER example - not seen one of these before but now know what to look out for and perhaps ask about.

:-) M

[laughton]

Just a reference posting to items the CWGC wanted us to search:

 

History of 55 Squadron, R.A.F -  AIR 1/153/15/121/3 (A.H.B. Reference 15/121/3)

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4082063

 

Air combat reports: 55 Squadron Royal Flying Corps, July 1917

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7155849

(this one has been digitized and can be purchased for £3.50 - Trevor probably already has this document.)

 

Mike is already searching the Officer Service Records so I did not check further on those two items. How blessed we are in Canada that they no longer charge a fee for people to search and retrieve the archived information.

 

[Guest]

I have checked both items at Kew.  The air combat reports have nothing- there are only a few,not a complete set. I cannot locate an operations books for 55 Squadron-which must be the main outstanding source. If anyone knows where it is, then shout out.

    The squadron history is useful. The 2 different references to a squadron history are to the same main item- one is just a re-typed copy of the other. One file had the back-up papers for the Official History but I cannot see anything about this incident in them-they are not chronologically arranged by event.

   The good news is that the squadron history-finished c.1921, clearly states re. these 2 that their plane was seen gliding downwards from about 8000 feet near Lille-with the propeller stopped..

   Hope that helps a little

[laughton]

It has become more important to resolve this case as it comes up in another case for a New Zealand Officer recovered in the Messines area.

 

See this topic post:

 

[Perth Digger]

Richard

Did anything further come up with this case, please. 

 

Mike

[laughton]

Mike:

 

I have not done anything with it at this time but we do plan to appeal the case "when the time is right". We know that the plane designation was incorrect but we need the absolute proof. The Bertie Jeffs case taught us not to appeal until you have the proof to reject the CWGC or AHB statements, no matter how sure you are of the facts.

 

Just a week or so ago we came upon the necessary information to appeal the CWGC decision on the Bertie Jeffs case and an appeal was filed the next day. Now the CWGC has to decide if they can reject one case and accept another, when the evidence is identical in both cases. We just had to be patient until that evidence came to the surface. We knew it would eventually.

 

It took 5 years of waiting to get the "nail in the coffin" evidence for Private Montanelli, but it did eventually come to the surface. A long wait but a glorious ending!

 

Keep well,

 

Richard

[Perth Digger]

Thanks Richard.

 

Mike