Dead Man's Ridge, Anzac

[Bryn]

I was reading in a previous thread (since closed), an opinion that the Royal Marines took Dead Man's Ridge at Anzac.

Nobody from either side ever took and held Dead Man's Ridge. It was patrolled at night by both sides, and sometimes, in the very early part of the fighting, concealed Turkish snipers, but it remained a no-man's land, wedged between Pope's Hill and Quinn's Post, for the entire campaign.

[michaeldr]

Bryn,

I had avoided the other thread and am not surprised that it is now closed.

However having read your post above, I have now belatedly gone into parts of it and in particular I have used the link [provided by Andrew, I think] to the Australian O.H.

It would be useful to know upon what the RM claim was based and exactly which Marine battalion(s) is/are being referred to; speculating, I wonder if it came from the history of the RND written by Douglas Jerrold in 1923?

Making allowances that while an Anzac history will concentrate on their work and similarly, an RND history will concentrate on theirs, Jerrold has the following

From page121>

The Portsmouth Batt was called forward from revs, but by mistake, the request was not addressed to Trotman. While this was under discussion the left flank of the 16th Batt were pushed back. They and the Marines were rallied by Trotman’s staff and attempted to return.

Quote: “Nothing however, could save the position on the plateau itself but the capture even at this eleventh hour of the main Turkish trenches; and, in the belief apparently that these front line trenches had, in fact been captured elsewhere on the battle front, and were still in our hands, the Chatham Battalion was sent forward to attack those opposite the sorely pressed 16th Battalion. Almost at the same time, an ill-fated order was given, in the centre of the battle front, for the Nelson Battalion to attempt, by attacking to a flank, to protect the 13th Battalion.

The attack of the Chatham Battalion, brilliantly led by the Adjutant, Captain Richards RMLI, was extremely successful, and in the face of a very heavy, but not devastating, fire, two lines of trenches were taken and, in the first instance, held. Unfortunately, no support was now forthcoming on either flank, and after a gallant defence of some six hours, during which Quartermaster-Sergeant White and Sergeant Oakey specially distinguished themselves, the position, so finely won, had to be abandoned. With it, went our hold on the improvised trenches dug by the Australians on the edge of the plateau at this point.”

Could this be what has led to the claim in favour of the RMLI?

Regards

Michael D.R.

[6th Shropshires]

Hi Michael

Making allowances that while an Anzac history will concentrate on their work and similarly, an RND history will concentrate on theirs,

This is so true of most unit histories, I know of many instances were two Battalions have made a joint attack but nither history as meantioned the the other.

The attack of the Chatham Battalion, brilliantly led by the Adjutant, Captain Richards RMLI, was extremely successful, and in the face of a very heavy, but not devastating, fire, two lines of trenches were taken and, in the first instance, held. Unfortunately, no support was now forthcoming on either flank, and after a gallant defence of some six hours, during which Quartermaster-Sergeant White and Sergeant Oakey specially distinguished themselves, the position, so finely won, had to be abandoned.

How many times have I read of units pushing through and the flanks not being so succussful and so after holding their ground for as long as possible then having to full back.

Annette

[bluedog]

Pals

I stand to be corrected although I have walked the area several times

But my understanding is that Dead Mans ridge is about where the

car park for the Turkish 57th Regt. is (the old one with the bronze

Turkish soldier advancing )

Please correct me if I am wrong as I want to find out for my own

satisfaction.

Peter

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

The attack of the Chatham Battalion, brilliantly led by the Adjutant, Captain Richards RMLI, was extremely successful, and in the face of a very heavy, but not devastating, fire, two lines of trenches were taken and, in the first instance, held. Unfortunately, no support was now forthcoming on either flank, and after a gallant defence of some six hours, during which Quartermaster-Sergeant White and Sergeant Oakey specially distinguished themselves, the position, so finely won, had to be abandoned.

Think that could justify what i said.

The RND initially comprised eight naval battalions named after famous British naval commanders (Anson, Benbow, Collingwood, Drake, Hawke, Hood, Howe, Nelson), plus the Royal Marine Brigade of four battalions from the Royal Marine dépôts at the ports of Deal, Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth.

1st (Drake) Battalion

2nd (Hawke) Battalion

3rd (Benbow) Battalion

4th (Collingwood) Battalion

5th (Nelson) Battalion

6th (Howe) Battalion

7th (Hood) Battalion

8th (Anson) Battalion

9th (Chatham) Battalion

10th (Portsmouth) Battalion

11th (Plymouth) Battalion

12th (Deal) Battalion

[michaeldr]

Bryn & Peter,

I hope that the foll maps & war diary may be of help.

The first map below is taken from Nigel Steel’s “Gallipoli” [one of the Battleground Europe series of books published by Leo Cooper/Pen & Sword]

As Nigel Steel explains in the text [see page 137] the ‘dead men’ in the name is a reference to “the bodies of the Royal Marines who lay across it after their attempt to capture it on 3 May.”

[michaeldr]

The Chatham Battalion War Diary (NA ref; WO95/4291) refers to the area as Razor Back Hill, both in the text and on the sketch-map below.

The diary entry for the action is as foll;

“Anzac. 2nd May 1915

During the night 4th Brigade A.I.F. made an attack on a ridge to the East of Main Gully which was then in Turkish hands and dug fire and support trenches on the ridge

Anzac. 3rd May 1915

At dawn Chatham Battalion was ordered to move to the support of these trenches which were being enfiladed from the left flank and the right rear by hostile M.G. fire. Three companies (B, C, & D) advanced up the minor gullies leading off to the east of the main gully. Captain Richards the Adjt., led a charge up the steep slope of Razor Back Hill coming under M.G. and short range rifle fire from the front and both flanks. On gaining the ridge Captain Richards was killed in the act of jumping into a hostile trench. His conduct had been most gallant and efficient throughout, both in this and in previous operations and his death was a great loss to the Battalion. At one point a M.G. under Q.M.S. White and Sergeant Oakey was dragged up a very steep slope under fire and brought into action at the top and did considerable execution. Late during the forenoon the support trenches were gained and held for about 2 hours, but had to be evacuated after this period as they were closely enfiladed from the left flank, the trenches on that flank either not having been seized by our troops or having been evacuated by them. The Battalion record of casualties are not available, but are estimated at close on 300 from 29th April to 3rd May inclusive. Lieutenant A. R. Chater appointed Acting-Adjutant vice Richards killed.”

Map and War Diary text as published by Len Sellers in his magazine ‘RND’ issue No.12, March 2000.

Regards

Michael D.R.

[bluedog]

Michael

Thank you for the map

Most appreciated

Peter

[The Plummed Goose]

Dear Peter ... and the rest of course.

Please find attached a picture -taken from the valley floor of Monash around Steels post- with indications of the whereabouts of Dead Man's Ridge which indeed got its name from the bodies of Marines laying there.

cheers

eric

PS : the 57th Parking lot is more or less what is called "the chessboard".

PS : I will send by separate mail some indications on the diary sketch posted by Michael as well

N=NEK

P=POPE

CH=CHESSBOARD

DMR=DEADMANS RIDGE

BA=BLOODY ANGLE

Q=QUINNS

M=MONASH

[The Plummed Goose]

the sketch

eric

[The Plummed Goose]

Sorry but didn't get the "arrow" for the chessboard exaxtly where I wanted.

Chessboard is inbetween DMR & BA BUT not the valley, the"plateau"/flat above.

eric

[Bryn]

The Marines did not attack at the same time as the Australian and New Zealand units; they were thrown into the fight during the following day. The ridge was so named because so many of their bodies lay on it; caught mostly by MG fire from German Officers' Ridge behind them.

The immediate objective of the attack was The Chessboard; the 13th Battalion had dug and held a trench on its edge, at the head of The Bloody Angle, until they were forced out. There were no trenches on Dead Man's Ridge to be captured and / or held. It was a no-man's land for the entire campaign.

Another view of the area:

[michaeldr]

Quote: “There were no trenches on Dead Man's Ridge to be captured and / or held. It was a no-man's land for the entire campaign.”

Bryn,

Please see the following for one example of trenches on Dead Mans Ridge http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/ww1/1/page.asp?page=718

Quote: “These two battalions were entrenching under the greatest of difficulties. Between them the 13th Battalion, though it lost 200 men during the night, managed to dig a system of support and communication trenches on the summit and slope of Dead Man’s Ridge, with a front-line trench, two or three feet deep, about 100 yards ahead upon the Chessboard. By the morning it had dug a communication trench, through which, by crawling, the front line could be reached in daylight.”

[my emphasis]

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Bryn]

Thanks, Michael. You learn something every day. I must read the 13th Battalion's History again.

What is certain is that these trenches were never held, and Dead Man's Ridge / The Bloody Angle remained a gap in the Anzac front line.

During a trip to Gallipoli in 1995 (when the photo above was taken) I found very shallow remains of trenches on the ridge and wondered about them. I also found what appeared to be a couple of snipers' positions, connected by a shallow trench. Since the vegetation's grown back now, it's hard to find such things.

[michaeldr]

Bryn,

Glad that there is no longer a problem with the trenches

The only thing which some might possibly think misleading is the use of the word ‘Held.’

I am not going to fall out with either Jerrold or the writer of the Chatham Battalion war diary over this, as when they have used the word they have qualified it with a definite time span indicated in the text in each case. This use of the word ‘held’ even in respect of a limited occupation time must have more to do with early 20th century military writing style and contemporary use of the terminology, rather than anything else.

I am pleased that we have been able to sort this out and thank all concerned for the help in the matter

Regards

Michael D.R.