Clearing the dead

[alliekiwi]

Hi, Grant

I have a children's book currently being considered by a publisher, and it contains that picture. So I'd rather not put it up right now, sorry.

I'm not usually cagey like this, really.

Allie

[grantmal]

Ha, ha, no worries, Allie. Good luck, hope you get the book up!

Grant

[Crunchy]

If the casualties on the beach in and around Anzac Cove were not heavy - which we agree, Chris, the evidence suggests - couldn't the Beach Party have quickly evacuated them in one/some of the empty boats? Capt Nott had already collected some of the wounded in groups, making their clearance easier.

Grant,

Thank you for the full quote. Much appreciated and it certainly refers to what occurred. It is an interesting point that I had not seen before.

With regard to you question - I agree that it was quite possible. My only query is why they would want to evacuate the dead when it was normal to bury them "in situ". I recall seeing a photograph purported to be of a British battalion (Essex Regt I think) coming ashore at W beach a couple days after the landing and the caption mentioned the graves of the dead on the edge of the beach. Just seems a strange task to evacuate the dead to the transports but then again we all learn something new.

Thanks again for the quote.

Cheers

Chris

[grantmal]

No worries, Chris. It's a good question -- why remove the dead instead of burying them somewhere nearby? Sanitation, morale... you'd have to think any problems caused by having dead men on the beach would have been solved just as easily by burying them as removing them in boats. From the wording of that quote it doesn't sound like they were under instructions to evacuate the dead. I wish I had some answers.....

Good on you,

Grant

[Bryn]

The quote does not say that the dead were evacuated. It says they were to be 'cleared away'. It does not even say that this was in fact done.

And there's a well-known photo of Australian soldiers landing later in the morning with a single dead soldier lying on the beach.

[michaeldr]

Reading on in the last article mentioned by Grant in his post #25 above

I see that on page 304 the author makes a guess at the number of casualties (which I take to be both dead and wounded)

"The casualties due to actually making good our footing were about 350, mostly from shell fire, though a good many men were shot by riflemen whilst still in the boats and before the preliminary charges actually took place."

Also worth noting is his comment on page 305 [the first part of which has already been quoted by Grant above]

"One of the trawlers landed part of the beach party, and laid four of the hauling-off buoys, the other was commandeered to go to the assistance of a party of wounded men on the beach on the extreme left, who seemed to be in a very exposed position. She brought off 14 of them, and we heard that the rest were safely brought in to the temporary dressing-station which had been set up just to the north of Ari Burnu. The situation about 6.30 a.m. was that everything was working at full speed, and the organisation had so far proved successful beyond our wildest dreams. A tremendous battle-judging by the sound-was raging somewhere over the crest of the hills, and it seemed as though our men were advancing."

However this is in contrast with the situation later in the day when he mentions on page 306

"Towards the late afternoon it became evident that things were not going very well on shore. Large batches of wounded began to come down to the beach, and were sent off in the lighters as they were emptied, in addition to the service boats which had been fitted up for the purpose."

and

"Just for a couple of hours there was a serious block of wounded on the beach a doctor at one of the clearing hospitals told me that we evacuated more than 1,700 wounded men that day, and that most of these were sent off after dark-but special efforts were made and we were clear by 3 a.m."

All in all an interesting read.

regards

Michael

Edited 5 March , 2008 by michaeldr

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

We should also remember that many of these casulties were not from the landing on the beach but were brought down from the hills to be gather on the beach for evecuation or because the dressing stations were there.

I feel the Beach master is talking about these men not just the dead/wound from the landing in particular.

Cheers

S.B

[Geoff S]

Jedd made an interesting observation:

'Rather than dismiss the original descriptions of the Landing as a myth, we may do better to examine why the 'official records' particularly CWGC lists do not 'support' the original descriptions and the opinions of yestertear.'

Yet the original descriptions of the Landing do NOT support the myth that many were killed on the beach in Anzac Cove. Except for elements of the 7th Battalion, already mentioned, which did not land in Anzac Cove anyway, no original reports or photos indicate heavy loss of life on the beach during the Landing. The myth that many Australians and New Zealanders died on the beach grew later, and had nothing to do with the original descriptions. The British, of course, did lose heavily on some of the landing beaches. Maybe aspects of the two stories became intertwined in the long years following the war.

I found this an interesting discussion guys. I thought I might share with you a famous painting done by Charles Dixon of the landing that may have reinforced some beach untruths...

(see link)

http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx...ng-at-anzac.jpg

G

[alliekiwi]

Yes, it would be interesting to know how and when that painting came to be done, Geoff. Was he there? Did he paint it from a photograph taken at the time? Did he paint it from memory?

Paintings such as this - and, may I add, films - lead people to believe certain things as being fact, when they may or may not be so.

Allie

[Crunchy]

Allie,

For the painting of the landing amid shot and shell, if IIRC the artist's name was Dixon and it was painted in 1915. Not sure if he visited the area but the the near headland in the background is far too steep for Queensland Point, the beach is too long and too wide and the initial landing occurred in darkness. According to Bean, the heights were captured as it became light enough to make out the outline of the coastline to the south from Plugge's Palteau. I think paintings like this added to the perception of a strongly contested landing.

Cheers

Chris

[303man]

I have a plaque to a RND Casaulty Killed in action 25/04/15 and buried at sea 2 days later on 27/04/15 once I establish where he was killed it will probably prove that bodies were taken off shore and buried at sea.

John Cherrington

Service Branch: Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve

Unit: Anson Bn.

Rank: Able Seaman

Death Date: 25 Apr 1915

Cause of Death: Killed in action

Burial: Chatham Naval Memorial (MR 1)

Service History: Enlisted in the York & Lancs. Regt. 31/8/14 & transferred to the RNVR at Crystal Palace 10/9/14. ; Anson Bn. 16/1/15-25/4/15 DD.

Service Number: Kitchener P/781

Notes: Buried by Rev. P.W. Clarkson 27/4/15 at sea just off Gallipoli ; Born Parkgate, Rotherham 29/11/1884. A Miner. Son of John and Sarah Ann Cherrington, of Parkgate, Rotherham, Yorkshire. Next-of-Kin: Sister, Eliza Ann Marsden, 114 Ramsden Rd, Hexthorpe, Doncaster; & Home address: 25 Turner St., Parkgate, Rotherham. ; ADM/171 = St.V.B. issued to Sister

[michaeldr]

Very interesting 303man

An Anson man killed on the 25th means that almost certainly he was at 'V' Beach that day

"At the first hint of dawn, three companies of the Dublin Fusiliers and the 4th Platoon of the Anson Battalion (Lieutenant Denholm RNVR) were disembarked from the sweepers which had brought them from Mudros, and took their places in the boats, the whole force of six hundred men being borne in six tows (each made up of a pinnace and four cutters) inline abreast. On the right of the line of tows was the River Clyde, carrying the remaining company and the headquarters staff of the Dublins, the Munster Fusiliers, half the Hampshire Regiment, and Sub-Lieut. Tisdall's 13th Platoon of the Anson Battalion, accompanied by Lieut.-Commander Smallwood, RNVR, the Second in Command of the battalion."

from Douglas Jerrold's history 'The Royal Naval Division'

Nearly all the rest of the RND were that same day engaged in the diversion off Bullair/Gulf of Xeros

with best regards

Michael

[michaeldr]

A slip of the fingers

quote: Nearly all the rest of the RND were that same day engaged in the diversion off Bullair/Gulf of Xeros

the above should of course read 'Nearly all the rest of the Naval Battalions of the RND were that same day engaged in the diversion off Bullair/Gulf of Xeros"

The RM were very active on the 25 April 1915, e.g. at 'Y' Beach

Michael

[elle72]

I am so glad to have found this forum as this question has been bugging me for a while now but being a very proud Aussie I haven't really wanted to consider that the Gallipoli legend I have grown up with isn't exactly correct.

I was taught that the landing at Anzac Cove was an absolute bloodbath, with our soldiers being mercilessly shot down on the beach.

I started to wonder about this though because in every photograph I have found of Anzac Cove on the day of the landing there are never any bodies on the beach.....at first I thought 'oh well, maybe they have been recovered and buried' but these were photographs taken on the same morning and I think there was alot more going on than digging graves this early in the piece.....

Then I found a photograph (mentioned previously in this thread) that shows troops landing about 2 hours after the first landing. The body of one dead soldier lies on the beach and the caption in the book I have is along the lines 'body of Australian engineer one of the first killed lies on the beach' (sorry Im not at home so I cant remember the exact wording)

Now, if they HAD recovered the bodies killed in the first wave, why leave this one body there? .....but, if they HAD NOT recovered bodies by then (keeping in mind this photograph is taken only 2 hours later) then where are the other bodies that are supposed to be lying all over the beach.....

My theory is this......not that many men (infact hardly any) were killed onshore. I think a great number drowned immediately upon leaving their boats. They were either shot and then drowned before reaching the shore, or their packs were too heavy and the water too deep when they disembarked and they drowned horribly in this way. Its almost too awful to think about. But this fact is reported in almost all survivor accounts. Why didn't those bodies wash ashore? I think that in many cases, the heavy packs trapped the men's bodies on the bottom and kept them there.

I have also read another report where the last two boats coming in to land, every soldier was hit before they could even leave the boat and these two boats were swung back around still in tow without ever landing.

Crunchy I would be interested to hear about your research into the subject.

[Bryn]

Grant, I noticed you'd posted,

"According to www.anzacs.net cemetery database, none of the men buried at Ari Burnu cemetery were killed on April 25th."

That's true of identified burials, but there are 37 totally unidentified, and therefore unmarked, burials in the cemetery.

[Crunchy]

I think a great number drowned immediately upon leaving their boats. They were either shot and then drowned before reaching the shore, or their packs were too heavy and the water too deep when they disembarked and they drowned horribly in this way.

Crunchy I would be interested to hear about your research into the subject.

Aussie Ricochet,

I doubt very much that most were drowned. Having waded out about 40 metres into the sea at Anzac Cove, I discovered to my surprise that the seabed shelves very gradually and the sea was between my waist and chest at that point. Thus when the troops at the rear of the boats jumped out they would not have been in deep water. Furthermore the boats did not draw more water than the height of a man, in fact the one in the AWM is not half the height of a man.

In my interviews with Loutit of the 10th Battalion, he told the following story each time I saw him: they were all concerned prior to leaving the destroyer that if any man fell out of a boat the weight of his equipment would take him to the bottom. On the way in, the steam pinnacle or destroyer towing his line boats was traveling too fast and Loutit's boat overturned. What amazed him was that they floated due to the air trapped in their packs which acted like life preservers - they were able to get back in the boat and make their way to shore without losing a man. I would have doubted this due to the weight of ammunition, etc but Loutit raised the issue each time I spoke with him as it made such an impression on him. He would finish the story off with "Don't believe all that rot about men drowning."

We also need to remember that it was dark when the 3rd Brigade came ashore, just prior to nautical dawn. The sun was 12 degrees below the horizon at the Turk's back, with hills behind them, so they would have been firing into darkness. They would not have been aimed shots as they could not have easily seen their targets. I am told by a specialist in this area that nautical dawn is still dark. The Australians may have just been able to make out the outline of the hills but no more. Plugge's Plateau and the heights covering the Cove were cleared in about 20 minutes according to Bean and the small party of Turks there withdrew rapidly inland.

There was a Turkish platoon or less, in three separate areas, defending the area around Anzac Cove. I can find no evidence of Turkish machine guns being at the Cove other than in Bean and accounts of some participants; forget Facey's account (A Fortunate Life) as he didn't arrive until 9th May. It makes no military sense to cover a small beach which the Turks didn't believe the British would land at with such a scarce resource. The 27th Regiment had one MG Company of 4 guns and this was with the 1st and 3rd battalions in reserve at Maidos (Ecebat) on the 25th April. While Peter Williams has one MG on top of Plugge's that is a very poor use of an MG due to the fact it would have been plunging fire, the least effective use of MG fire, and the Cove and area immediately north of Ari Burnu would have been in dead ground or defilade to any MG up on the ridge While I thought an MG might have been at the Fisherman's Hut and at Gaba Tepe I am advised from Pals in Turkey that there were no Turkish MG's in the Anzac area.

We should consider that raw and inexperienced troops in their first actions exaggerate the amount of fire received and the number of troops they are fighting against. We just have to consider the Germans at Mons, who believed the British troops they were confronting had many more machines guns than the two per battalion that were actually employed. It is not until they are more experienced under fire and have some basis of comparison that more accurate accounts are made. My own experience in action bears this out even with troops who have undertaken considerable and realistic training prior to deploying on operations. The Anzacs had not been exposed to the more modern live fire exercises designed to give troops some "battle exposure" by exposing them to the effects of live fire and enemy weapon recognition. The 25th April was their first exposure.

I believe the casualties on the beach were not as great as the popular view portrays.

Regards

Chris

[alliekiwi]

Well, considering my 'supposed' family photo turned up on a NZ Post stamp in April, I may as well put it up.

This shows the Auckland Infantry Battalion landing on April 25th. According to the official history of the Auckland Regiment, they boarded the boats at 8.30, but I'm not certain what time they came ashore. However, they were the first NZers to land as far as I am aware.

If you note their stance as they come onto the beach, I think this supports the fact that there was little MG fire. Also... no bodies.

Allie

[Crunchy]

Allie,

Thanks for this. Your photo clearly shows the gently sloping seabed.

Regards

Chris

[grantmal]

Chris,

Any chance you can you elaborate on your advice from Turkey? I'm very keen to find out the disposition of Turkish forces at Anzac on April 25th, particularly those north of Anzac Cove.

A couple of of contentious issues:

Were the Turks at Anzac able to produce a rate of rifle fire equal to the British at Mons? (Training, weapons etc.)

Did the Germans at Mons have as many combat veterans among them as the Australians did at Anzac?

Unfortunately the letters and diaries from the 3rd Field Ambulance which mention the machine guns (2) at the Landing were written by men under fire for the first time........ which could be seen to back up your argument. From what I have read, the idea, among inexperienced soldiers, that heavy fire must be coming from machine guns was as widespread as the idea that gaping wounds must have been made by explosive bullets.

Interestingly though, one of the 3rd Field Ambulance men wounded at the dawn Landing told his son, years after the war -- and he was adamant on this point -- that he was hit by a machine gun, and this was a man who'd been two years in France and won a Military Medal at Villers Bretonneux.

Good on you,

Grant

[Bryn]

Auckland started landing about 9 am, so even if there had been machine guns covering the cove during the initial landing (and I don't believe there were), they would have been long gone by then.

[grantmal]

Allie,

The mystery photo! Thanks for posting it -- it's a beauty.

But.... from the look of the shadows the sun would appear to be nearly directly overhead, which would indicate it was taken around or just after midday.

Having seen a few photos from Lemnos which claim to have been taken at Anzac, is there any way we can confirm this is from April 25th?

Sorry to be so negative....

Thanks,

Grant

[alliekiwi]

Grant, a copy of the photo (which was used by NZ Post) is held by the Alexander Turnbull Library in Wellington. When I saw the stamp in April, I contacted NZ Post about it, who in turn put me onto the ATL. The ATL confirmed that that their records say it is the Auckland Infantry landing on April 25th. The NZ Defence force state on their website:

The 50c Gallipoli 1915 stamp features a photograph of the Auckland Infantry Battalion landing at what would become known as ANZAC Cove.

My copy of the photo has an inscription which supports this on the back written in very faded fountain pen .

Edit

Fred Waite's The New Zealanders at Gallipoli (pg. 80) states:

The landing of the Auckland Battalion was completed at 12 noon.

So that could account for it the shadows, do you think?

Allie

[grantmal]

Thanks Allie, yes a 12 o'clock landing could definitely account for the shadows.

I don't think it's unhealthy to be sceptical about photographs purported to be of the Landing, particularly those without discernible landscape features. For example -- the Australian War Memorial has two versions of the same photograph -- one captioned "A practice landing at Lemnos" (A03224);

and the other "Australian troops landing under fire near Gaba Tepe, the black blotch in the right foreground is a dead body" (A01860);

I also know of a bloke who claimed to have taken this picture on North Beach....

Good on you,

Grant

[elle72]

Allie, fantastic photo! Thanks for posting it.

Chris, thanks for the info......I get your point. Im sure if I was asked to run across a beach with just one machine gun firing at me it would be the most single most terrifying episode of my life too! The actual adrenalin at the time, combined with the echo from the cliffs and men yelling, etc. would have added to the heightened feeling I am sure.

I note that in Wes Olsen's book 'Gallipoli: the Western Australian Story' he mentions a Captain Reg Everett who was 2IC of the 11th Btn A Company. Everett claimed his boat (Number 3) started to sink and grounded about 20 yards from shore. They cut it loose and it tipped over and the soldiers tumbled 'head over heels into the water in their eagerness to get out and come to the top with their bayonets fixed' Everett reports there were no casualties in his boat.

However Olsen then goes on to mention that the men in the northern tows made a mad scramble to get out as they were under fire. Those at the front of the boat jumped out into shallow water, those in the stern jumped out into water up to their necks (Stretcher Bearer Herbert Eascott was one of these who managed to just keep his head above water) but he does mention that some landed in deeper water and drowned......it might have helped if you were a bit taller in this case I reckon

In Peter Pederson's book 'The Anzacs' he writes that the Turks had seen the outlines of ships on the horizon at 2am and had moved 200 men of No. 4 company up into the trenches...these men were all that opposed the landing in the first instance and they were ordered not to fire until the boats had grounded but it doesn't mention how many machine guns they had other than the one at Fisherman's Hut which was further north.

From his account, it appears the first wave of the landing took much less fire than that of the second. He writes that the second wave were engaged all the way in with heavy fire and shrapnel. All the rowers in some boats were hit and had to be pushed overboard to allow others to take over.

The 3rd wave had it even worse, at 4.45am they were hit by shrapnel from about 600 yards out. They headed almost straight for Fishermans Hut and its machine gun. Pederson reports that in the first four boats less than 40 men out of 140 were unscathed. A passing steamboat luckily towed the last two boats back to Anzac Cove.

In Olsen's book he mentions a soldier called Wally Goodlet of the 11th Btn who made it onshore and was climbing the cliffs to get inland. He looked back and saw that three boats had failed to reach shore. They were piled high with dead and were drifting slowly out to sea.....I wonder if this is the boats from the 3rd wave?

Anyway, looking at all this it appears many men hit were still in their boats which would account for not so many dead on the beach itself. Is there any evidence that those who were killed in the boats were taken back to the ships and buried at sea?

Other things to factor in could include the changing sea bed over time. In the coastal town where I grew up you could never dive off the jetty head first after the winter storms because you couldn't be 100% sure if the sea bed would be higher or lower and that was just from year to year. I appreciate Loutit's view point also (after all he was actually there!) but its possible that you would be concentrating more on what is happening in front of you then what on what is happening behind you in deeper water.

I guess we'll never know for sure. In the end, the Gallipoli stories I grew up with might not be 100% correct but it doesn't change the fact that every man who fought at Gallipoli, whether during the initial landing or afterwards, suffered, struggled and fought to survive and I should remember that the next time I am standing in a queue at the supermarket complaining about how slow the cashier is

Cheers Elle

[grantmal]

Bryn,

There's a point I definitely overlooked. Thanks for that!

Grant