Battle of Fromelles 19th July 1916

[Will O'Brien]

Have been doing some research on a chap who was killed in action during this battle. I have read the info on the mother site & understand it was 'subsidiary' to what was happening on the Somme. When I see the word 'subsidiary' I start to think 'diversionary' which then leads me to 'half hearted' & poorly planned' Have I hit the mark or am I way off base? - Was there any stragic or tactical point to this action at Fromelles & if so was it successful in its objective? Thoughts & opinions please.

Also I noted that the 61st division which took part (my chap was 2nd/1st Oxford & Bucks) took heavy casulaties in this action. Seeing that this division was made up of second line Territorial units (with the greatest of respect not the top draw of the British Army) & their training had been less than efficiently organised, were these heavy casualties inevitable? The phrase 'cannonfodder' springs to mind. Again thoughts & opinions would be welcome.

Will

[Laurent]

try with this address: http://www.webmatters.net/france/ww1_fromelles.htm

[jim_davies]

Will,

The 2/4th Berks served with the 61st Division. An idea of their preparations (or lack thereof) can be gauged from their war diary, available at:

http://www.thewardrobe.org.uk/wardiary.php3

Jim

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Will

This tactic had been used earlier in the war. Four subsidiary attacks were used on 25th Sept. 1915, to draw German reserves away from Loos. Leading up to 1st July 1916, many raids were carried out on other parts of line, I guess to make Germans think attacks would fall in other places then the Somme.

The failure of the 61st Div. at Fromelles coursed ill-feeling amongst the Aussies, and this may have been well justified but most of the best British Divisions were on the Somme or holding the line around Ypres. The 60th British Brigade was move from Ypres to hold the line on the 5th Australian Div.’s left flank, may be the whole of the 20th Div. should have been moved and made the attack but then again if aunty had balls she would have been uncle, so the 20th may have done no better then the 61st.

Annette

[Will O'Brien]

Laurent/Jim

Many thanks for the links - both extremely interesting & informative

Annette

From what I've gleaned since initiating this thread I am even more convinced that those troops engaged at Fromelles were needlessly thrown away. I see repetition of mistakes previously made both in 1915 & just 3 weeks earlier on the Somme. I don't think the 61st division had any chance of succeeding in their objectives & it does not surprise me that the Australians felt they had been 'hung out to dry' at Fromelles. I would have been less than happy myself.

It seems that during the summer of 1916 it was a prerequisite of any British attack that the Germans must be entrenched in superior positions on the battlefield, that British & Dominion troops had to rely on ineffective bombardments & then charge into heavy Machine Gun fire.

Will

[Paul Reed]

Leading up to 1st July 1916, many raids were carried out on other parts of line, I guess to make Germans think attacks would fall in other places then the Somme.

The biggest of these, and very much a fore-taster for Fromelles, was at Richebourg on 30th June 1916. See for a summary of this action:

http://battlefields1418.50megs.com/boars_head.htm

[Andrew P]

Some units of the 5th Division had only half a day's experience in the front line before they were ordered to attack. Of the 4 Australian divisions then presently in France, the 5th was the most inexperienced.

There was a very detailed look at this battle in a recent book called 'Don't forget me Cobber' by Robin Corfield.

He delves into all aspects of the battle from British, Australian & German points of view. If you can lay your hands on it, I'd definately recommend it.

Cheers

Andrew

[Tim Birch]

Fromelles is a very interesting battlefield to visit.

The extent to which the Aubers-Fromelles Ridge dominates the battlefield has to be seen to be believed. There are still numerous German block houses on the ridge and they have a clear view down over the British positions.

The British lines were in low lying marshland making it difficult if not impossible to dig trenches and breastworks were required. It is easy to see why this was such a Black Spot for casualties from snipers amongst the British.

When you stand and look over the fields where the Australians attacked and see Fromelles and the menacing ridge line above you it is difficult to think of any other word than 'murder' when you realise what was expected of these men.

Tim

[Annette Burgoyne]

Tim - A large mine was sprung opposite La Cordonnerie Farm in the hope that the upturned edges of the ctater would provide cover for the Aussies, who had to dig a trench from their front line to Captured German line but it was ineffective.

I am even more convinced that those troops engaged at Fromelles were needlessly thrown away

Will - You could be right, it was not the best of places to make an attack from. I do not know now many German reserves were drawn away from the Somme ? May be one of the German Pals can give a answer to this ? If it pulled away lots of reserves, then from a military point of view it worked ?

There was a good article in Stand To a few years ago on this attack but I can't remember which issue it was in.

Annette

[Walter Kortooms]

Annette,

Do you mean Stand To nr. 50 (September 1997):

An Australian Diary - Pte. Thomas E. Keeling (p. 29-31)

Walter

[Alan Lines]

When you stand and look over the fields where the Australians attacked and see Fromelles and the menacing ridge line above you it is difficult to think of any other word than 'murder' when you realise what was expected of these men.

Like so many other places on the Western Front Tim. But apparently it was all a part of the learning curve.

[Will O'Brien]

There was a very detailed look at this battle in a recent book called 'Don't forget me Cobber' by Robin Corfield.

- Thanks for the pointer to this book Andrew, I'll keep my eye out for it.

QUOTE (Tim Birch @ Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:03:37 +0000)

When you stand and look over the fields where the Australians attacked and see Fromelles and the menacing ridge line above you it is difficult to think of any other word than 'murder' when you realise what was expected of these men.

Like so many other places on the Western Front Tim. But apparently it was all a part of the learning curve.

Alan - I know there is some truth in that but you have to admit it was one hell of a harsh learning curve if you were serving with the 61st division or the 5th Austrailian Division on the 19th July 1916

Will

[Alan Lines]

Alan - I know there is some truth in that but you have to admit it was one hell of a harsh learning curve if you were serving with the 61st division or the 5th Austrailian Division on the 19th July 1916

Will

I agree with you 100% Will. We are often told by the revisionists that the British Army and its General Staff learnt a lot and gained valuable experience from the first day of the Somme in 1916. The trouble was 20,000 men (+ thousands more seriously wounded.) never got the chance to put this new found wisdom into practise.

[Will O'Brien]

We are often told by the revisionists that the British Army and its General Staff learnt a lot and gained valuable experience from the first day of the Somme in 1916. The trouble was 20,000 men (+ thousands more seriously wounded.) never got the chance to put this new found wisdom into practise. 

Alan - I think thats spot on. A heavy price to pay indeed.

Will

[Guest paddy]

Will

Surely you have followed the trail "Hell Revisited, Forget the Myths" at the home page for this site. The one with the map of Fromelles. The one that mentions the 61st Div, but not the 5,533 men lost by 5th Div AIF in one night. Still !! that barrow has had a bit of pushing over the past weeks.

A critical factor to the 5th was their being given the "Third Trench" as THE Objective. After clearing the actual front line trenches they continued into open marshy ground. They followed orders & did not consolidate the captured trenches. Consequently they were almost encircled when the enemy re-occupied these. They may well have suffered as many casualties attacking to the rear, as they had during the assault, and from the German bombardment on "clearly registered" positions.

There has been discussion on the effectiveness of tin helmets, but some of the 5th Div were apparently still kitted out in slouch hats.

One of the supposed myths is the unofficial truce. It is well documented that a Batman went searching for his Boss and was confronted by a Bavarian Officer who sanctioned a looking the other way. Although our side could be the only beneficiary, our brass didn't think that was fitting, and stuffed that too! Despite getting such a belting the poor old 5th were left to hold the line for a fair while longer.

[Chris_Baker]

Surely you have followed the trail "Hell Revisited, Forget the Myths" at the home page for this site. The one with the map of Fromelles. The one that mentions the 61st Div, but not the 5,533 men lost by 5th Div AIF in one night.

Paddy

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

I haven't written up the July 1916 action at Fromelles yet.

The little map is clipped from a larger one about the enemy attack at Fromelles in 1914.

If you follow the photographic tour to Fromelles I think you will find the page mentions all the 257 officers and 6,823 other ranks who became casualties here on 19th July 1916 and gives more than a passing reference to the Aussies.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Annette,

Do you mean Stand To nr. 50 (September 1997):

An Australian Diary - Pte. Thomas E. Keeling (p. 29-31)

Walter, sorry it as taken a while to get back to you, no the above is not the article that I was thinking about.

My copies of Stand To are not stored in order, so today I started to sort them out and look for the Fromelles article at the same time. After looking through 20 or so, I remembered that I had a copy down staires which I was doing a drawing of the front cover, which I had started 7 years ago and last week decided to try and have ago at finishing it, anyway this little bell in my head was ringing to say that this was the copy that had the acticle in, and guess what, it was in that one, which is issue 34. The article is called The Trench, by Stan Evans and it starts on page 26.

The memory is a funny thing is it not

Annette

[Bryn_Hammond]

Perhaps 2 years ago I attended a WFA branch talk by a man whose name I did not note. Accompanying his talk with a slide show, he showed how an exceptionally dry summer had allowed a very extensive German tunnel system under the Fromelles position to be explored. The speaker explained that this was the likely reason why so many German defenders appeared BEHIND the attackers in trench positions previously thought to have been occupied and cleared.

I hope in my 'skim' of this thread I haven't missed someone referring to this talk or its content, but I wonder if anyone can provide more 'gen'?

Is this info generally/widely known?

[Will O'Brien]

Is this info generally/widely known?

Bryn - Thats a very interesting point which I've never heard before - i'd be interested in looking at that in greater detail.

Will

[Guest paddy]

G'day Chris

To understand what I am on about, please refer to my "Myths - Australians" raised on August 31 under "Other Theatres". Iain Mac might confirm that it was a spur of the moment effort, and resulted from my complaining to him that I felt Nigel Cave was dismissive of the 1st Tunnelling Co AIF in his book on Hill 60.

My "Myths" argument is that the following entry under "2nd Battle of Krithia" is incompatible with the Hell Revisited invitation to "forget the myths".

Myths

The Gallipoli Landings were not just an ANZAC affair as many modern historians would like to believe. The British and French troops were at Cape Helles and Kum Kale.

Whether intended or not, rather than helping forget perceived antagonisms, that entry can now be blamed for causing their revival, as evidenced by the consequent debate.

Of course ANZAC was not defined. If taken as the troops, the exclusion of the 2nd AIF and NZ Brigades from the troops at Cape Helles would be "inaccurate". Whether troops or location, the statement may be considered provocative.

It would be co-incidental that the Icon for Hell Re-visited was the Fromelles Map in that many of the AIF survivors of 2nd Krithia would not have survived Fromelles. I cannot re-locate the Fromelles entry now, but on 31 Aug had noted that 61 Div casualties were posted but 5th AIF were not.

That leads into the question of when was the AIF involvement recorded as part of the British Army. At 2nd Krithia & Fromelles, they fared very badly when "tacked on" to an 'external' force at the last moment.

My only regret in discussing this topic is re-acting irrationally to Malcolm's response. With hindsight a more appropriate answer might have been "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

I hereby request you, personally, to re-evaluate the wording involved. Even if you retain the view that my reaction is extreme, wrong or merely mis-guided, please consider wheher even a minor revision might remove any hint of provocation.

Thank you

Pat

[Chris_Baker]

Ah, I think I get it now. I'll revisit my page on 2nd Krithia. I wrote that about 2 years ago and haven't looked at it since.

Your comment about Australian casualties at Fromelles not being mentioned is incorrect. As I said earlier "I haven't written up the July 1916 action at Fromelles yet" so no casualties are yet mentioned. And "If you follow the photographic tour to Fromelles I think you will find the page mentions all the 257 officers and 6,823 other ranks who became casualties here on 19th July 1916 and gives more than a passing reference to the Aussies". That's been the case ever since I first created that page about a year ago.

[Guest paddy]

OK Chris THANKS.

I'll restate my PERSONAL request.

Please consider whether the reference to ANZAC, under the write-up for Second Krithia, adds anything to the rational debate on WW1.

I can but try.

ooRoo

Pat

[Chris_Baker]

I think you're right, and I removed the offending sentence yesterday. I don't think there is anything factually incorrect on that page but will be happy to be corrected if you point me at the right references.

[Guest paddy]

Chris.

A sincere thank you. It was a personal thing for me, and my original post was on the spur of the moment. A closer look at your home page might have allowed me to accept your invitation and contact you personally to air that opinion.

Some of my prejudices have surfaced on the Forum, but I have absolutely no qualification or charter to dispute the historical accuracy of your entries.

For what its worth, this site would, to me an outsider, run a close second to the AWM website for WW1 info. For its scope and interest you personally must be continually congratulated, and I hope derive a great deal of satisfaction.

Thanks again

ooRoo