n cherry Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 Anyone know how many casualties this unit suffered on 1st July 1916??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 My notes say the Bn was a reserve unit and did not take any casualties that day but they could be wrong! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Lewis Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 n cherry According to SDGW OR's were 27 killed in action and five died of wounds (cannot be sure if this was from action that day) and one officer. Regards Doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 My notes say the Bn was a reserve unit and did not take any casualties that day They went "over" at 11am and were hit heavily by machine gun fire before reaching the German wire. They sustained "over 200" casualties that day (K/W/M). Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 They went "over" at 11am and were hit heavily by machine gun fire before reaching the German wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n cherry Posted 18 May , 2006 Author Share Posted 18 May , 2006 Whilst the 1st Essex were in reserve for the 7.30 attack they went over hte top around 1100: From the war diary: 10.50am: Y Company reported that they were in position in touch with W Company. Z Company had taken up a position between X and Y Companies owing to the congestion of the trenches due to being choked with wounded and badly damaged by shell fire it had taken Companies two hours to get into positions. Orders issued to Companies to attack. Companies came under heavy artillery and MG barrage immediately they appeared over the parapet, causing heavy losses. Report received from OC X Company that our wire on his front was uncut, that further advance was impossible and that he had suffered heavy casualties. Z Company in centre was able to make better progress, one platoon under 2/Lt Chawner getting about half way across "no man's land". W Company attempted to support, but were unable to make much progress. Regretfully it does not give numbers of casualties....but thanks for 20 killed plus wounded so around 200 could be a good guess.....or starter for 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 around 200 could be a good guess.....or starter for 10. The 200 figure isn't actually a guess, Niall. It's the figure quoted in Westlake, for which ,I believe, his source is Burrows' history (but I'm unsure of Burrows' source). Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 Thanx for the info; I shall make sure I adjust my notes Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 From memory, there is a good synopsis of this action in Middlebrook. He makes the point that the Essex and Newfoundlanders had both received orders to attack around this time. As we all know the Newfounds, because of blocked trenches etc, went 'over the top' well behind the first British line and were exposed to withering German fire ... The Essex in contrast (and from memory) attacked from the front line and took (again from memory/middlebrook) around a 3rd of the Newfounds losses. Am I in the same ballpark on this action? Also .. just noted from Croon's map that the Essex were (more or less) adjacent to my blokes in 12th RIrishRif. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandsonMichael Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 Burrows, Volume 1, page 101. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 My notes say the Bn was a reserve unit and did not take any casualties that day but they could be wrong! I obviously was wrong Mea culpa S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Lewis Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 Soldiers and Officers died is seriously short of information in this case. Regards Doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 18 May , 2006 Share Posted 18 May , 2006 Soldiers and Officers died is seriously short of information in this case. CWGC has 33 OR died, 1 officer of 1st Bn. and another officer 3rd Bn. Attd. 1st Bn died, total 35. Captain Barabazon (quoted in Burrows) died, according to SDGW and CWGC, on 03/08/1916. Wonder if the month is in error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandsonMichael Posted 19 May , 2006 Share Posted 19 May , 2006 Captain Barabazon (quoted in Burrows) died, according to SDGW and CWGC, on 03/08/1916. Wonder if the month is in error? Than obviously Burrows was mistaken. Captain Brabazon must have died of wounds a month later. As the War Diary entry doesn't provide a casualty figure for July 1 1916, I presume Burrows got his information from the War Diary of the Brigade.? Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 19 May , 2006 Share Posted 19 May , 2006 Soldiers and Officers died is seriously short of information in this case. Regards Doug. What's the case in S/ODGW for 2nd July 1916? I know that in a few cases (the 11/East Lancs being a prime example) that this lists many of the 1st July dead as having died on the 2nd. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Lewis Posted 19 May , 2006 Share Posted 19 May , 2006 Dave 2nd July ORs - 1 KIA,1 DoW No Officers Regards Doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 19 May , 2006 Share Posted 19 May , 2006 Dave 2nd July ORs - 1 KIA,1 DoW No Officers Regards Doug. Oh well, forget that theory then! (as I said, it's only in a few cases). Sod-all casualties for the 3rd July too, I presume? Cheers, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Lewis Posted 19 May , 2006 Share Posted 19 May , 2006 Oh well, forget that theory then! (as I said, it's only in a few cases). Sod-all casualties for the 3rd July too, I presume? Cheers, Dave. Dave Similar to 2nd July three men, two DoW one died. No officers. Regards Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 20 May , 2006 Share Posted 20 May , 2006 CWGC has a third soldier (DoW) for the 2nd July, 1st Bn. He is listed as 2nd Bn. in SDGW. Name: GIDDINGS, LEONARD MORTON KITCHENER Initials: L M K Nationality: United Kingdom Rank: Private Regiment: Essex Regiment Unit Text: 1st Bn. Age: 17 Date of Death: 02/07/1916 Service No: 18384 Additional Information: Only son of William Kitchener Giddings and Ada Giddings, of 6, Abbeygate St., Colchester, Essex. Casuality Type: Commonwealth War Dead Grave/Memorial Reference: I. G. 1. Cemetery: GEZAINCOURT COMMUNAL CEMETERY EXTENSION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 20 May , 2006 Share Posted 20 May , 2006 We know there is a large difference in the losses reported in War diaries and subsequently taken as fact in print, there wasn't much difference to a battalion between killed, wounded, and missing, all absences created a gap in the roll call which needed filling and would have been reported as a loss. There is a huge difference between the casualties given for the 16th Middlesex as 524 all ranks and the 7 officers (I'm not counting those attached or detached) and 155 O/R's in SDGW or the 1st Lancashire Fusiliers reported as 486. Which gives 147 O/R's....I will leave it to someone else to give the SDGW number of officers killed in that battalion between 1st and 4th July 1916 which surprised me a bit. You can do this with every Battalion, and again there is no record of how many wounded were out of action for the duration or how many returned to unit within a day or week etc. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n cherry Posted 22 May , 2006 Author Share Posted 22 May , 2006 Thanks to everyone for the info.....obviously there is a difference of opinion somewhere. The fact that they went over the top on 1st July is not in doubt and Middlebrook alluded to a third of the casualties of the Newfoundlanders so 9 offficers and 209 men seems entirely plausible...even if SDGW dosn't agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now