Clearing the dead

[Bryn]

There are only 11 Anzac soldiers officially recorded as having died of wounds at sea on 25th April. There are a further 5 who may have died at sea, but this is not explicitly stated.

The next thing to consider would be how many of those killed on 25th April have no known grave, as any who may have drowned, or who were picked up in drifting boats and buried at sea, would probably be included in this figure. I have to say though, that most of these 'no known graves' would have died on land. Even in Plugge's Plateau cemetery (and Plugge's was captured in the initial rush from the beach) there are unknown burials, and some soldiers known to have been killed on this plateau nevertheless have no known grave. And that's just off the beach. Most men who were killed further inland, on Pine Ridge and Baby 700, in Wire Gully and on Mortar Ridge, in the Valley of Despair, on Battleship Hill, Sniper's Ridge, and the 400 Plateau, as well as in the gullies and hills inland from Fisherman's Hut, all of which areas were overrun by the Turkish reinforcements, have no known grave.

723 Anzacs (according to my figures) who were killed on 25th April 1915 have no known grave: 581 AIF; 142 NZEF.

Amongst others, the Canterbury Battalion, NZEF, cleared the dead from the boats at Fisherman's Hut and buried them:

"THE 7th Bn. BOATS OFF FISHERMAN'S HUT.

After the confusion of the Landing and the first day's fighting, the Canterbury Bn. was gradually assembled to guard the left flank from the sea up Walker's Ridge. Australian packs were strewn about the beach in this neighbourhood. As late as three days afterwards one or two individual Australians entered our lines at this point from the foothills in the north in which they had apparently lain since the 25th. On the morning of the 26th it was reported that arms were being waved from time to time in the derelict boats off Fisherman's Hut. These boats had carried the unfortunate detachments of the 7th Bn. A Canterbury party under Sergt. Irvine was sent out the same day, but found that the boats contained by this time only dead. Some of these were buried that day. Another party on the 28th, attempting to continue the work, was fired on and suffered casualties. The last of these dead were buried on the 30th. One or two of them, I noticed at the time with perhaps unjustified surprise, had carried Bibles in their packs. No shot, for some reason or other, was fired at us either when going out or in the course of burial, but we were sniped at fairly heavily during our return. No damage was done."

[stewart, H. 'Some Contacts: The A.I.F. at Anzac', in Reveille, 1 May 1933, p12].

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bryn

G'day mate

I found this letter from Captain J. Armstrong of the HMS London quite revealing and in its own way very supportive of your comments. Apart from what is being said being important, in your case, it is what was not said that makes the point.

SECRET H.S.40/368.

H.M.S. "London".

28th April, 1915.

Report of operations on 25th, 26th and 27th April, 1915.

Sir,

In accordance with your order I have the honour to report that the ship under my command arrived, in company with you, at rendezvous about five miles West of Kaba Tape at 1.0 A.M, on 25th.

Boats were hoisted out and troops of which about 500 were on board this ship, were disembarked.

After steaming about three miles to the Eastward the troops were sent ashore arriving on the beach at about 4.15 A.M., rather to the northward of position intended, and were received with rifle fire from the Turkish trenches while they were disembarking.

At about 4.50 A.M, guns opened fire on the boats and beach from Kaba Tape which were replied to from ships on the right.

At 9.30 A.M. about five salvoes of heavy guns opened fire on ships and transports but without doing any damage and the transports were then ordered to shift further out.

During the day heavy shrapnel fire was opened on the boats and beach and "LONDON" opened fire with 6" shrapnel on some of the enemy's positions to the northward at 6.15 p.m.

The Beach Party was landed at about 3.30 p.m., by Trawler No. 49.

At 4.50 a.m., on 26th the ships closed in and were firing at the enemy's positions at intervals during the day. The enemy shelled our boats and the beach very heavily during the day with shrapnel.

During the night searchlights were shown on a position to the northward of our line and about 4.30 a.m. on the 27th some heavy gone opened fire on ships and transports, the transports again moving further out.

During the day we opened fire at frequent intervals, The enemy's shrapnel was heavy both on the boats and beach and they also fired towards the ships.

The behaviour of the Officers and Men who manned the boats was very Praise-worthy. They were very cool under heavy rifle and shrapnel fire and did their work in a thorough manner under very trying circumstances. They all behaved so well that is difficult to pick out individual names but Stoker Petty Officer James Getson, Official Number 295438 after being wounded in the back continued working his engines until again wounded in the right arm which incapacitated him. Midshipman E. Oloff de Wet then took his place and worked the engines of the Picket Boat for some hours until a relief was sent.

"London" had the special duty of conveying wounded from the shore to transports and from three to four thousand were taken off during the three days. One Hospital Ship and five transports were filled up with wounded and sent away.

Nothing mentioned here about beaches filled with the dead. Plenty of wounded to be evacuated. Shortages of stretchers. Bravery. All that a good report should contain with nothing left out. The omission of the dead in this letter clearly adds weight to your story.

Cheers

Bill

Australian Light Horse Studies Centre

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/

[Bryn]

Thanks Bill, very interesting. I agree that it's often what's not said, when all else is remarked upon, that proves a point.

In the two photos Grant has placed it seems obvious that this is not Anzac Cove, though it could at a pinch be Ari Burnu, although I feel it's too wide. That would make the land far in the distance Nibrunesi Point. All brigades carried out training at Lemnos, practicing disembarking and landing, so it's likely to be there, in Mudros Harbour which, on the Portianos (western) side, has beaches that look like that.

[Crunchy]

Bill,

Interesting that this letter contradicts the quote in Grant's posts 1 & 8 that the Beach party landed two hours after the covering force, ie 6:30am, and had cleared the beach of dead and wounded by 7am. This in itself indicates that there were not many dead and wounded on the beach.

This letter says that the Beach party landed at 3:30pm, some 11 hours after the first troops came ashore. Thus, if this is so, there was no clearance of the dead from the beach that morning.

Grant,

What was the source of your quote?

Cheers

Chris

[Crunchy]

Grant,

Interesting questions.

In relation to the first, a Pal in Turkey advises, that the orbat of the 9th Division shows only two of its three Regiments, the 25th and the 27th, had machine gun companies; the 26th Regiment did not have one. There

were no other machine gun units attached at either regimental, divisional or corps levels. He also writes that "In his original book, Sefik (Sefik Akar Commander 27th Regiment) clearly states that his machine gun company was bivouacked close to the camp of the 1st and 3rd battalions of his regiment, on a hill above the town of Maidos, now Eceabat." I also noted that the book Gallipoli 1915: Day One Plus ,which is based on Sefik's account, mentions the machine gun company of the 27th Regiment being told to follow the 3rd Battalion, 27th Regiment in the move from Maidos to Kape Tepe on the morning of the 25th. The Pal also writes that the Ottoman lieutenant in command at the Fisherman's Hut makes no mention of machine guns n his account of the action in that area. While this does not specifically state an MG wasn't there, it fits in with the orbat of the 9th Division, Sefik Akar's account and the quote below which speaks of the deficiency of machine guns in the Ottoman Army. The quote may explain why there was no machine gun company in the 26th Regiment.

Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War by Edward J Erickson. The author has based his history on research of extensive Turkish sources. What emerges throughout the initial chapters of the book is the relative unpreparedness of the Ottomans for a modern war, particularly the shortage of machine guns, artillery and artillery ammunition. On p 8 after describing the shortage of field guns in 1914 he writes The machine gun situation was much worse. Each Turkish Infantry Regiment was authorized four machine guns. Some regiments were short and the army needed two hundred to equip the regiment force to standard. At battalion and company level, there were simply no machine guns and the army estimated that it needed several thousand more to fill all requirements.

A 9th Division order dated 7th April, which I have courtesy of Chris Henschke, outlines the arrangements for the defence down to the allotment of machine guns and Mantelli (?) and Nordenfelt quick firing guns. There is no mention of machine guns allotted to the Kapa Tepe zone, although Mantelli (?) and Nordenfelts are mentioned being at Kapa Tepe itself. If you PM me your email I will send you a copy of it.

In relation to the second question regarding the training of the Turks: I don't know, although I doubt they were trained to achieving the rate of fire of the BEF. Nonetheless bolt action, magazine fed rifles in the hands of trained men can produce a good rate of fire. Also, if there were machine guns at the Fisherman's Hut they would have been firing at long range (1100 yards at least) and thus not that easy to hear.

As for combat veterans - I doubt the Germans had any at Mons, as other than the odd colonial conflict in Africa the German Army had last been to war in 1871. As for Australian combat veterans, I also doubt that we had that many. While a number had seen previous service in the British Army, this does not necessarily mean they had seen combat. Any that had served in the South African War would have been in their early 30's by 1915 and I understand that much younger men comprised the bulk of the battalions. The presence of a few South African veterans would not have stopped the inexperienced men from claiming there were machine guns.

If the 3 Fd Amb veteran was hit by two or three bullets in very quick succession, probably so. If he was hit by one bullet I wonder how he could tell whether it was from a rifle or a machine gun? At the entry point one really can't tell the difference as they are similar or the same calibre and travel at roughly the same velocity. It would be interesting to look up his service record if we have his name.

Sorry, I can't be more specific and I hope this helps answer some of your concerns.

Cheers

Chris

[Crunchy]

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.

Elle,

With regard to the Turks being able to see the outline of ships at 2am: the moon was "waxing gibbous with 77% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated" and on the morning of the 25th April 1915 the moon set at 2:57am, after which it was dark.

Peter Pedersen is a meticulous researcher and IMO one of our finest military historians. The 200 men of No 4 Company covered the area from just south of Anzac Cove to the Agyhl Dere and this is the force Peter is referring to, not just the troops covering Anzac Cove. We discussed this when he was writing the chapter on the Landing. If you look at David Cameron's 25th April 1915: The Day the Anzac legend was born map 2.1 he shows the dispositions of Faik's company in detail: a platoon (No 2 platoon) covering the Cove itself, with one section on Ari Burnu (the northern headland of the Cove), one section on Hell Spit (the southern headland) and one section on Plugge's Plateau. The sections on the two headlands had a much better field of fire than the section on Plugge's. I don't think David is correct in placing a machine gun atop Plugge's for the reasons I gave in my earlier post - poor fields of fire due to plunging fire and dead ground, not a sensible place to put a machine gun - and the information contained in Turkish sources. There was also a section from No 3 Platoon (Faik's reserve platoon) about 750 metres south of Hell Spit. He shows No 1 Platoon at the Fisherman's Hut (1200 yards north of the Cove).

Thus the immediate force facing the boats as they came ashore were three sections (about 65 men at most if they were at full strength), of which two had good fields of fire. The section of No 3 Platoon south of the Cove would only have been able to engage the right flank of the 2nd and 3rd waves.

Cheers

Chris

[Crunchy]

In the two photos Grant has placed it seems obvious that this is not Anzac Cove, though it could at a pinch be Ari Burnu, although I feel it's too wide. That would make the land far in the distance Nibrunesi Point. All brigades carried out training at Lemnos, practicing disembarking and landing, so it's likely to be there, in Mudros Harbour which, on the Portianos (western) side, has beaches that look like that.

Bryn,

I am inclined to agree that these two photo's were not taken at Anzac Cove. The beach is too wide and the ships are too close inshore. They were forced to weigh anchor and move further out to sea to avoid the Turkish shelling in the morning.

Cheers

Chris

[Bryn]

Regarding the depth of water and degree of shoaling at Anzac Cove. Referring to approx. 8-9am on 25 April 1915, there's an interesting observation made by Medical Officer Colonel P. Clennell Fenwick, C.M.G., T.D., D.A.D.M.S., N.Z.E.F.:

"Between 8 and 9 Major Hughes ordered the staff to get into the boats, and we clambered over the barges and took our seats. In the front boat were Colonels Chaytor, Braithwaite, Manders, Captain Beck and myself, my faithful orderly, Johnson, and others.

We were frightfully hampered with our kit - overcoat, glasses, map-case, haversack, water-bottle, fuel, and in addition I and my orderly carried bulging Red Cross haversacks. It was a certainty that if the boat was sunk we would drown. Some thoughtful person had put in a mallet and some pointed pieces of wood - to stop bullet holes if necessary. After a long wait, a steam picket boat, in charge of a fat, rosy-faced midshipman, took our string of boats in tow. Our boat grounded about fifty feet from shore, and we leaped over and struggled ashore. Captain Beck helped me struggle up to the cliffside."

[Fenwick, Lieutenant Colonel P. C. F. 'Reminiscences of Gallipoli', in Reveille, 31 March 1932, p39].

[grantmal]

Chris,

Thanks very much for your detailed and informative post. I'll post about the machine guns later, but for now will concentrate on the beach party....

Regarding the 'beach party' quote, I've added a bit more than originally posted in Post #25:

Naval Review, Vol. 9, p664; "Experiences on Anzac Beach":

"The duties of Beach Master -- here in after called BM -- and a naval beach party -- BP -- as laid down in the drill book, read very well on paper but in practice they are many and varied.

My experience was in the early days of Anzac beach at Gallipoli, and here naval officers and ratings were divided as follows: --

The idea was that the beach should be divided into four sections and each section leader was responsible to his Assistant BM for beaching boats, etc, in his part of the beach. On arrival on the beach approximately 2 hours after the landing of the covering force, the Assistant Beach Master of the right section was recalled to his ship and his place taken by the left section Lieutenant Commander. The Gunner of the left section was wounded and his place was not filled -- thus immediately upsetting the organisation. Boat loads of troops were swarming ashore and proceeding as quickly as possible to the trenches, but it was found that the first duty of the Beach Party was to clear the bodies away and then to load the wounded. All boats available were utilised for this purpose, picket boats, drifters and trawlers being commandeered for towing them to the transports, where incidentally there were few facilities to look after the wounded."

The operations report of HMS London, as quoted by Bill above, mentions "the beach party was landed at about 3.30 p.m. by Trawler No. 49".

The trawler 448, "manned by Queen Elizabeth" [Naval Review; Vol 4, p184] "went alongside Queen, embarked the beach party and all their stores, and proceeded inshore with whaler in tow" at 11.30 a.m.

Commander Dix in "Impressions of the Landing and 14 Weeks Work on the Beach" [Naval Review Vol.4, p305] writes that "[o]ne 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 into 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."

According to DAG Woodward, writing from GHQ on August 6th 1915 and referring to the evacuation of wounded from Anzac Cove on April 25th, "...no promise was made to Colonel Howse that he would be given stretcher bearers, but he was informed that if the CCS needed help he could call upon the MLC to provide men from the beach fatigue parties."

Above are at least three conflicting accounts of when beach parties landed -- two hours after the covering force, 11.30 a.m., and 3.30 p.m. -- but at least two of these parties were on different ships. According to Dix beach party numbers were "100 men from 8 different ships" [Naval Review Vol.4, p298], yet the BM quoted above gives a figure of 6 Officers, 4 Petty Officers, and 24 Able Seaman. Perhaps there were different/seperate beach parties, or some portions of the beach party were held in reserve?

Good on you,

Grant

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Grant

G'day mate

Just to clarify something - my post was made without reference to your posts. It is more of an accident for me that the information conflicted with that presented by you. I was illustrating the point that the beaches were not littered with the dead by reference to someone in a very good position to observe the situation and actively participated in the evacuation of the wounded. The reference to the Beach Party was a bonus I never even considered. However, now the genie is out of the bottle, it is one of those wonderful things about history - just when you thought that things were nicely nailed down and your understanding of the situation is as good as it gets, something like this comes along from left field and blind sides you. Happens all the time. It is nature's way of letting me know that nothing in history is certain. Indeed, the past is so unpredictable because it changes all the time.

Cheers

Bill

[Crunchy]

Grant,

Thank you for the detail. I agree with you, it really does confuse the situation. Just considering though, the original frontage of the beach was to be about 1600 yards, which is quite extensive, so your view that sections could have been allotted different sectors of the beach may be right on the mark. Once the frontage was considerably reduced at Anzac Cove, this may explain the timings above and confirm your view that sections could have landed at different times.

Very interesting post - thanks again.

Cheers

Chris

[phil andrade]

By doing a quick search on the AWM site, it shows 749 Australians killed on 25/4/15.

Cheers,

Tim L.

That seems rather a high figure. I suspect that in the years after the war, it became the practice to ascribe date of death, if there was doubt, to the 25th April, since that was the "headline date" that people associate with Gallipoli. It must have been virtually impossible, in the confusion of the fighting, to know where, and when, many of the men died. Even in the Second World War, the British were unable to clarify the casualties of D-Day with confidence, and produced a total of several thousand for the first few days. I know for a fact that an uncle of a friend of mine died of wounds on June 7th, 1944, but on his gravestone at Bayeux Military Cemetery, his date of death is inscribed as June 6th. My guess is that the Gallipoli fighting was, if anyhting, more imprecise in its record of fatalities.

I submit this post with some diffidence, because my knowledge of Gallipoli is pretty meagre, but am I right in stating that the figure in Tim's post equates to about one tenth of the all the Australian fatalities in the entire campaign? Bearing in mind the intensity of the combat in the days and weeks - and months - after the initial landings, it does seem rather more than one might have imagined. Perhaps there were many "missing", and it was the practice to allocate them as victims of the first day.

Forgive me if I'm talking crap - you guys have forgotten more about this than I'll ever know!

Phil.

[Bryn]

I'd say that figure wouldn't be far off the mark, with a difference of maybe fifty either way being possible. Dates of death were not ascribed in the years after the war. If they were uncertain, they were generally decided on by courts of inquiry during the war, which consisted of officers of the unit concerned, who examined all available evidence as to how and when the soldier in question had died. Usually, if a date still could not be ascertained, a 'date range' was entered.

[phil andrade]

I'd say that figure wouldn't be far off the mark, with a difference of maybe fifty either way being possible. Dates of death were not ascribed in the years after the war. If they were uncertain, they were generally decided on by courts of inquiry during the war, which consisted of officers of the unit concerned, who examined all available evidence as to how and when the soldier in question had died. Usually, if a date still could not be ascertained, a 'date range' was entered.

A surprise for me, I must confess. I suppose that the casualties on the actual beaches were relativley light, but that the fighting inland became murderous. If we allow for NZ losses that day, it seems that very close to one thousand ANZACS died on April 25th 1915, and I would guess that Brtish losses were significantly heavier after the massacre at Helles. Two thousand plus deaths in all - a bad day.

Phil.

[grantmal]

Pte 299 Willie Whitford, A Co., 1st Battalion, in a letter reprinted in the Sunday Times, August 15th 1915, claimed some bodies were removed from the beach and taken out to a transport: "I was told off to help to naval men (from the Queen) to man a boat. Our boys left their transports on destroyers, and we were towed behind until the destroyer could go no further towards the shore. We then took a boat load off her, and rowed for the shore. I was at the tiller. Before we had time to land we had a volley poured into us, and some of our fellows were hit and a couple killed.... When we could go no further the boys jumped into the water and waded for the shore..... After the boys had left us we filled our boat with dead and wounded and then sought temporary safety from the shrapnel and bullets which all the time were flying round us and hitting our men right and left. We landed our precious cargo on board a transport, and then followed up another destroyer, and so worked with no rest till noon."

Good on you,

Grant

[grantmal]

Another claim that some bodies were removed from the beach on April 25th was made by Charles Taylor, a member of the hold party on the Clan McGillivray, in a letter written May 2nd as the ship sailed for Malta: "On Monday morning [April 26] 12 poor fellows, some of whom died here, and others brought back from the shore (my italics), were unceremoniously committed to the deep..."

[Crunchy]

Pte 299 Willie Whitford, A Co., 1st Battalion, in a letter reprinted in the Sunday Times, August 15th 1915, claimed some bodies were removed from the beach and taken out to a transport: "I was told off to help to naval men (from the Queen) to man a boat. Our boys left their transports on destroyers, and we were towed behind until the destroyer could go no further towards the shore. We then took a boat load off her, and rowed for the shore. I was at the tiller. Before we had time to land we had a volley poured into us, and some of our fellows were hit and a couple killed.... When we could go no further the boys jumped into the water and waded for the shore..... After the boys had left us we filled our boat with dead and wounded and then sought temporary safety from the shrapnel and bullets which all the time were flying round us and hitting our men right and left. We landed our precious cargo on board a transport, and then followed up another destroyer, and so worked with no rest till noon."

Good on you,

Grant

Hi Grant,

This is an interesting letter, particularly the section about the landing and him working in the boats all day, which is very odd for a rifleman.

The initial landing was made by the 3rd Brigade after which the 2nd Brigade began landing after the heights. Bean and others also record the Turks withdrew rapidly once the 3rd Brigade came ashore and had gone from the area around the cove before 0500. The first elements of the 2nd Brigade are recorded as landing at 0530, half an hour after the heights had been secured and there is no record of them landing against enemy troops, except the group at the Fisherman's Hut 1200 m north of the Cove. (Bean Vol 1 pages 362-363) The Battalions of the 2nd Brigade, with the exception of a portion of the 7th at the Fisherman's Hut, are recorded forming up on the beach and in Shrapnel Gully before marching off towards Bolton's Ridge.

The 1st Battalion war diary records the battalion commencing disembarkation at 0615 and at " 0740. Landed without loss." That is well after the 3rd Brigade had cleared the heights above Anzac Cove and were establishing their line along Second Ridge .

The History of the First Battalion AIF 1914- 1919, p27 says. "When we were near enough to the coast, we transferred ourselves to the ships's boats and rowed ashore landing without much difficulty on what was to become known as Anzac Beach, and to the north of it. The Battalion then assembled just to the north of Anzac Beach, where the northern point of the cove, Ari Burnu, sheltered us from the Gaba tepe fire. Several casualties had been suffered from shrapnel fire."

There is no possibility that " a volley" could have been poured into them as there were no Turks in the area when the 1st battalion landed.

His service records have on them a letter from the RSL writtenon his behalf in May 1967 making application for his Gallipoli medallion and lapel badge statin he served on Gallipoli from "25 April 1915 to June 1915 (when wounded)"

His records are sketchy. Clearly he sailed with the Battalion as he enlisted in August 1914 and is recorded transferring from B Coy to Sigs 2/1/15 and then to A Coy 9/3/15 but on three pages (4, 6 and 8) he is recorded as joining 1st Battalion on Gallipoli on 10th May 1915, some 15 days after the landing.

All of the above is somewhat at odds with Whitford's account of the landing of the 1st battalion and him being there.

As for him claiming to be wounded. On two pages (6 and 8) he is recorded as being sent to hospital N.Y.D. on 7th June 1915. On page 38, which discusses his medical condition, records on 14/6/15 Landed Malta ex "Canada" Neuralgia and Rheumatism. On 1/8/15 his condition is "not yet diagnosed" while on page 21 he is discharged as no longer fit for service owing to shell shock. No mention of being wounded.

I am pretty sure we can discount Whitford's account as unreliable. Much the same as Facey's account of his service on Gallipoli. In his Book A Fortunate Life he claimed to have landed under heavy machine gun on 25th April when his service record shows he actually joined the battalion on Gallipoli 12 days after the landing and while Facey's claims some to have sustained some pretty horrific wounds on two separate occasions and being evacuated after the second lot his service record shows no indication of him being wounded but being evacuated with a "weak heart".

In my many years as a soldier I knew quite a few Diggers who never let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially on active service. My experience of researching has taught me to be very skeptical about first hand accounts. As Bill Billet, himself a Royal Marine and then a soldier for many years says 'they can also vary in their degree of accuracy, which is why they must be verified against official records and other evidence". Wise words.

Cheers

Chris

[grantmal]

Chris,

Although Whitford doesn't say exactly when he was told off to help on the boats, I presumed he was part of some fatigue party charged with assisting the Navy at the Landing, and the incident he referred to was the landing of the 3rd Brigade. I've just gone into the State library and copied the complete letter, as I only had a transcript of a portion at home, and there is nothing to indicate which brigade Whitford helped ashore. That he was detached from his battalion I inferred from the following: "My work was dangerous, and it did not even allow me the advantage of using my rifle...... For the next couple of days I was carrying cargoes of ammunition and food to our chaps, and when things were steadier I was allowed to rejoin the Regiment."

I appreciate your advice about checking the veracity of claims made in first-hand accounts. I agree, without further investigation Whitford's account remains problematic, which is why I wrote that Whitford 'claimed' etc. I'm not too sure about your comparison of Whitford's account with Facey's, though. One obvious difference is that Whitford wrote just weeks after events, while Facey wrote decades later. Why would Facey's unreliability condemn Whitford?

Whitford's letter does contain some inconsistencies, and it seems often when he uses 'we' he is referring to the Corps, and different formations with in it, rather than himself and one or two mates, but when he recalls his own personal experiences there is, to me anyway, a ring of authenticity. His rather honest portrayal of his breakdown on the morning of May 19, whilst answering some of your questions about the reasons behind his evacuation, is an example.

"That morning at 3.15 found five mates and myself on observation and sniping duty at No. 3 post firing line. ... At the time of the attack my watch had just ended, and I had been relieved. I can't explain the first events -- they were so sudden. All I know is that I had just commenced rubbing my bayonet with an oily rag to take the dew off it when I heard a shout at my side and my mate had sprung to his feet. Instinctively I did the same, and I saw crowds of dark figures lining the parapet, and flashing bayonets in the semidarkness. Well you can guess the rest. It was a fight for life with us. There was little time for pulling triggers -- it was a bayonet fight, and the best man was the winner..... There were six of us, strong and full of life that early morning when I came off duty. One hour later there remain only two of us. Three of my mates were stabbed to death, and one was wounded..... I got a couple of nasty cuts on my head from a bayonet, but they promise to leave only slight marks..... I think of that one night by day and dream of it by night. One man's face whom I bayoneted is ever before me, and the look he gave me made me really regret my actions. His look was so calm and brave. He didn't cry out -- he just kind of sighed and dropped..... All I remember is suddenly (it must have been about four o'clock) dropping down, and afterwards I was told that the knock on the head made me get shaky, and that I was taken from the trenches crying! What do you think of that? All that I can say to account for it is that I must have been completely beaten."

Regarding the date Whitford rejoined the battalion, he says in his letter: "As I told you before in one of my letters, I am again in the company, and only do a little signalling. It was my own wish to rejoin my old comrades in the ranks, but sad to say, so few remain now, and I feel a bit of a stranger among so many reinforcements." Was he working as a signaller -- perhaps attached to Brigade -- after initially going ashore? I am sure you are well aware of the limitations of some service records when it comes to documenting an individual's movements in the immediate aftermath of the Landing.

Good on you,

Grant

[grantmal]

Another claim that dead from the Anzac landing were taken out to ships was made in the Naval Review, Vol.3, August 1915, by a British seaman in charge of a picket boat:

".... My own orders had ceased with clearing the destroyers. However one set to make oneself as useful as possible. This consisted principally in going inshore, rounding up empty boats that had just landed their troops, forming a tow and taking them alongside the nearest destroyer or trawler (the latter had now appeared from nowhere) and rushing them to the beach again. About 11 AM we commenced landing stores, wireless plant, stretcher parties, doctors, etc. Long ere this, one had return trips to transports and hospital ships (when the latter turned up) with dead and wounded (my emphasis). The casualties were necessarily heavy, but not in comparison to the feat accomplished."

Good on you,

Grant

[phil andrade]

IIRC over 50% of the Australians killed at Gallipoli have no known grave.

Regards

Chris

Chris, any idea of the proportion who were lost altogether ? By this I mean what percentage were recovered but not identified, and what proportion were not found at all ? I note from Middlebrook's book on the Somme that roughly one half of the British dead there have no known grave, approx. equally divided between those buried as "unknowns" and those whose bodies were not recovered for burial by the CWGC, and were in a sense lost altogether. I would be interested in comparing the two battlefields in this respect.

Phil

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I have to agree, many soldiers recorded as evac to hosp later are shown discharged with shell shock.

Many show that the soldiers was buried or effected by a shell or bomb but not as such to show a wound.

So the soldier is not recorded as wounded in action but may have an entery as concussion & or shell shock.

Thats doesn't prove one way or the other about this man, but also the records do not tell us all about the soldier.

S.B

[grantmal]

Resurrecting this thread with a recently acquired photograph (sorry about watermarks)....

I reckon this is the Casualty Clearing Station in Anzac Cove, mid-morning on April 25th.

ADMS Howse's war diary [AWM4 26/18/2] reads: "Two officers and 20 men of 1st ACCS with first equipment landed at 10 AM and immediately occupied a small area 30' x 30' on southern portion of beach, which was the only space available for the purpose. This had been prepared by cutting away a portion of the cliff. Three officers and 45 men with nursing equipment landed at 10.30 a.m. and joined first party.... Detailed bearer subdivisions of No.1 and No.2 Field Ambulances and then arranged casualty clearing station to deal with a large number of wounded which had been collected from beach and adjoining gullies."

On the right is the cut-away dressing station (with canvas awning?); in the middle dead men lie under a white (tarp/tent?)- note their bare feet (see earlier post in which a 3rd Field Ambulanceman claimed the uniforms of the dead collected on North Beach were captured by the Turks); in the foreground dead lying on stretchers, waiting to be stripped.

[grantmal]

[Guest Almili]

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

Hello 303 man

John Cherrington was my great uncle. I visited Chatham only last year. I didn't know about the plaques until I saw one on the Antiques Road Show some months ago. Would it be possible for you to send me a photo of the plaque? My email address is anewell@scslc.org.uk

Thank you

Alison

[stevenbecker]

Grant,

Sorry mate your point is?

All field Amb and other medical units would have started bringing in the wounded and dead during the day.

These dead could be from the beach but just as likely around the cliffs where fighting had been going on, of cause did they arrive at the CCS dead or wounded and later died?

Confused more then surprised.

S.B