Part 11

Paragraph 17 states that on the evening of the 21st the Fifth Army Commander decided to “withdraw the divisions of that Corps (the III.) behind the Crozat Canal.... These different withdrawals were carried out successfully during the night.... Instances of great bravery occurred in the destruction of the bridges.”

Paragraph 18: “On the morning of the 22nd March the ground was again enveloped in thick mist, under cover of which the enemy renewed his attacks in great strength all along the line. Fighting was again very heavy, and short-range fire from guns, rifles and machine-guns caused enormous losses to the enemy’s troops. The weight of his attack, however, combined with the impossibility of observing beforehand and engaging with artillery the massing of his troops, enabled him to press forward.”

Paragraph 19: “In the south the enemy advanced during the morning as far as the line of the canal at Jussy” (area of 18th Division), “and a fierce struggle commenced for the passage of the canal, his troops bringing up trench mortars and machine guns, and endeavouring to cross on rafts under cover of their fire. At 1 p.m. he succeeded in effecting a crossing at Quessy, and made progress during the afternoon in the direction of Vouel. His further advance in this sector, however, was delayed by the gallant resistance of troops of the 58th Division, under command of Major-General A. B. E. Cator, at Tergnier, and it was not until evening, after many costly attempts and much sanguinary fighting, that the enemy gained possession of this village.”

On 23rd March the 173rd Brigade had again very heavy fighting about Noureuil. The despatch, paragraph 25, refers to “the most resolute resistance offered to the enemy’s advance” by the III. Corps and “many gallant actions performed.” The fighting 21st to 23rd March is now the “Battle of St. Quentin.”

On the 24th the III. Corps, and certain French troops which had come to its aid, were pushed back to the south and west of Chauny by the huge forces of the enemy (see paragraph 32). That night the remnants of the 173rd brigade were ordered to rejoin the remainder of the Division on the south side of the Oise.

While the British were being pushed back on the north bank, the 174th and 175th Brigades kept extending to their left along the south bank and held the river line, until their frontage was about twelve miles. This task was of absolutely vital importance. Several hostile attempts to cross were defeated.

Mr. Sparrow in his _Fifth Army_ does not give details regarding the work of the 58th, but on p. 85 he speaks of their resistance at Tergnier on the 22nd, and in a note there occurs this sentence: “What could have been more valuable to the Allied cause than was this prolonged resistance at a most critical time and place?” On p. 283 there is another note which mentions that the right of the Division was not attacked, “their left had fought magnificently.”

The Division was taken north early in April, and was immediately to the south of Villers Bretonneux when that village was captured by the enemy on 24th April. They were heavily engaged on that and the two succeeding days during which the village and certain other positions were recaptured. The Division again had serious losses.

In the telegraphic despatch of 13th September, 1918, as to the work of various divisions, Sir Douglas Haig said: “The 58th Division, which held the right of the British line on March 21st, attacked on August 8th, north of the Somme, and captured Sailly Laurette. In five days of severe fighting the Division captured many prisoners and guns, and performed very gallant service on the left flank of our advance south of the Somme. On the 24th August it again attacked in the sector north of the Somme, and once more did gallant work, overcoming strong hostile resistance at Maricourt and Marrières Wood.”

The despatch of 21st December, 1918, shows, paragraph 16, that the 58th was in the III. Corps, Fourth Army, when it was employed in the attack on 8th August. That date and succeeding days are dealt with in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the written despatch. In paragraph 15 Sir Douglas Haig remarked that: “A strong local attack launched by the enemy on the 6th August, south of Morlancourt, led to severe fighting, and undoubtedly rendered the task of the III. Corps more difficult.”

On the 8th the 58th took Sailly Laurette, but were held up at Chipilly Spur. With some assistance this was cleared on the 9th. On the 10th a further advance was made by the III. Corps. The fighting 8th-11th August is now designated “The Battle of Amiens.”

Paragraph 21 deals with the attack by the III. Corps on 22nd August, the 47th, 12th and 18th of that Corps and the 3rd Australian and 38th Divisions being employed in the first line of attacking troops. The 58th reinforced the 47th in the afternoon. Albert was taken and the left of the Fourth Army brought forward.

Paragraph 22 describes the fighting on 23rd and 24th August when further progress was made. “Divisions which in the worst days of the March retreat had proved themselves superior to every hardship, difficulty and danger, once more rose to the occasion with the most magnificent spirit; over the same ground that had witnessed their stubborn greatness in defence they moved forward to the attack with a persistent vigour and relentless determination which neither the extreme difficulty of the ground, nor the obstinate resistance of the enemy, could diminish or withstand.”

The fighting 21st-23rd August is now “The Battle of Albert, 1918.”

On the 24th the 58th had a stiff fight but they and the 47th secured their objectives.

Paragraph 23 said: “During the next five days our troops followed up their advantage hotly, and in spite of increasing resistance from the German rearguards, realised a further deep advance. The enemy clung to his positions in the latter stages of this period with much tenacity. His infantry delivered many counter-attacks, and the progress of our troops was only won by hard and determined fighting.” On 28th August, “the 12th Division and 58th Division (Major-General F. W. Ramsay) captured Hardecourt and the spur south of it, overcoming strong resistance.”

On the 25th the 58th were heavily engaged at Billon Wood which was held strongly. On the 28th they took Marrières Wood.

Paragraph 24 deals with the fighting for Mont St. Quentin and the capture of Peronne, in support of which operations the 58th, 47th and other divisions attacked on 31st August, and “by successful fighting on this and the following day, captured Bouchavesnes, Rancourt and Frégicourt, with several hundred prisoners.” This is now the “Second Battle of Bapaume.”

Paragraph 30 described the Battle of Havrincourt and Epéhy, 12th-18th September, and as to 18th September, the “Battle of Epéhy,” said, “On the extreme right, and in the left centre about Epéhy the enemy’s resistance was very determined and in these sectors troops of the 6th, 12th, 18th and 58th Divisions had severe fighting. Before nightfall, however, the last centres of resistance in Epéhy were reduced, and both in this area and on our right about Gricourt local actions during the succeeding days secured for us the remainder of the positions required for an attack on the main Hindenburg defences.”

On the 18th September the 58th took Peizières and made further progress during the next 48 hours.

On 24th September the Division, now weakened by the heavy tasks it had carried through during eight weeks’ fighting, left the III. Corps and moved north to join the First Army. It had no more hard fighting. In October, headquarters of that Corps were transferred to the Fifth Army in Flanders where times were less strenuous.

Major-General Montgomery’s _Story of the Fourth Army_ (Hodder and Stoughton) contains many flattering references to the work of the Division in August and September, 1918.

59TH (NORTH MIDLAND) DIVISION

SECOND LINE

This Division was employed in Ireland at the time of the Dublin rebellion of April 1916, and, but for that outbreak, might have gone abroad earlier than it did. It sailed in February 1917, was taken to the district east of Amiens and assisted to press the enemy when he retreated in March of that year. When the retreat was over they occupied the line near Havrincourt Wood; at that time they formed part of the III. Corps, Fourth Army. On 13th April, the 59th and other troops made an advance when ground near Gricourt was taken and consolidated.

In the autumn of 1917 the Division was in the Ypres salient, and was employed as part of the V. Corps about the Wieltje-Gravenstafel road, east of St. Julien, in the attack of 26th September, now called the “Battle of Polygon Wood,” a stage in the Third Battle of Ypres, when, at the cost of heavy losses various strong points were captured and the line advanced. A quotation as to this from the despatch of 25th December, 1917, paragraph 52, has already been given under the 58th Division, see also map opposite p. 123 of Messrs. Dent’s edition of _Sir Douglas Haig’s Despatches_.

The map opposite p. 163 of the same edition shows that the 59th was at Cantaing, south-west of Cambrai, when the enemy made their great counter-attack on 30th November, 1917, but it was not so severely pressed at that point as on the immediate left of the Division.

The Division was heavily involved in the great German offensive—the “Battle of St. Quentin”—which commenced on 21st March, 1918, and had very severe losses. The map opposite p. 186 of the edition above referred to shows that the Division was occupying the line about Bullecourt in the area of the Third Army on the 21st and a break-through took place between Bullecourt and Lagnicourt, the latter place being in the area of the 6th Division on the immediate right of the 59th. This part of the line was evidently one of those selected by the enemy for a special effort, five divisions attacking the 59th and a portion of the 34th on its left. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gives an excellent account of this part of the great battle; he states that the 178th and 176th brigades were in the front line. These were destroyed but the 177th in support beat off three very heavy attacks and held out till assistance came from a division in reserve, the 40th. The 177th Brigade remained with the 40th Division and saw further intense fighting during the next few days—the “First Battle of Bapaume.” Sir Arthur, vol. v., p. 77, puts the losses of the Division in the March battle at 5765.

The Division was taken to Flanders and was involved in the “Battles of the Lys,” in April. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in the volume above referred to, draws attention to the excellent work of the 178th (Sherwood Forester) Brigade, when attached to other divisions about 12th to 14th April, but as a whole the Division was still suffering from the grievous losses sustained three weeks before; that period being obviously insufficient to assimilate the new drafts which formed such a large proportion of the total strength.

In consequence of the very heavy casualties it had suffered in the March battle and on the Lys the Division was reduced to a cadre basis (see note to despatch of 21st December, 1918, paragraph 1, Dent’s edition), but it recuperated in time to take part in the final British offensive.

In the despatch of 21st December, 1918, paragraph 45, it is stated that on 17th October, 1918, the 57th and 59th Divisions of the XI. Corps were on the outskirts of Lille. On the 18th Lille “was clear of the enemy,” and our line was carried far to the east. “Thereafter our troops pressed forward steadily.”

60TH (2ND LONDON) DIVISION

SECOND LINE

The 60th Division went to France in June 1916. Their first experience at the front was in the Arras district. They were there initiated in trench warfare by the 51st Division, before the latter moved south to take part in the great conflict on the Somme.

After about six months in the line on the Western Front the 60th were, in January 1917, sent to Salonika. There they saw some hard fighting in May. In June they joined the Egyptian Expeditionary Force for service in Palestine. In that country, as will be seen from the extracts given below, they earned great distinction.

Sir E. Allenby’s despatch of 16th December, 1917, recounting the operations which culminated in the surrender of Jerusalem, shows that the Division bore a most important and honourable share of the heavy task that fell to his troops.

The attack was to commence with the capture of Beersheba, situated on the eastern or left flank of the Turkish position, on 31st October, 1917. The despatch says, paragraph 8: “As a preliminary to the main attack, in order to enable field guns to be brought within effective range for wire-cutting, the enemy’s advanced works at 1070 were to be taken. This was successfully accomplished at 8.45 a.m., after a short preliminary bombardment by London troops, with small loss, 90 prisoners being taken.... The final assault was ordered for 12.15 p.m.; it was successful all along the front attacked.”

Beersheba was taken at 7 p.m. on the 31st, the Australian Light Horse and Yeomanry doing very well. The despatch states: “The Turks at Beersheba were undoubtedly taken completely by surprise, a surprise from which the dash of London troops and Yeomanry, finely supported by their artillery, never gave them time to recover. The charge by the Australian Light Horse completed their defeat.” About 2000 prisoners and 13 guns were taken and 500 Turkish corpses buried. The enemy’s left flank was laid bare.

Paragraph 11: On 6th November the Kauwukah system of trenches was attacked. Yeomanry first stormed the works on the left; “soon after noon the London and Irish troops commenced their attack. It was completely successful in capturing all its objectives and the whole of the Rushdi system in addition.... This attack was a fine performance, the troops advancing eight or nine miles during the day and capturing a series of very strong works covering a front of about seven miles, the greater part of which had been held and strengthened by the enemy for over six months. Some 600 prisoners and some guns and machine guns were captured. Our casualties were comparatively slight.”

Paragraph 12: On the 7th November “the London troops, after a severe engagement at Tel el Sheria, which they captured by a bayonet charge, at 4 a.m. on the 7th, subsequently repulsing several counter-attacks, pushed forward their line about a mile to the north.” The operations of 27th October to 7th November are now the “Third Battle of Gaza.”

For some weeks the strain on the troops was very great, much heavy marching on a short supply of water having to be undertaken in addition to constant fighting, which during the last half of November became much more intense. Aided by reinforcements and by the mountainous nature of the country the enemy put up a great effort to bring the advance to a standstill, but in this he failed.

The assault on the positions defending Jerusalem was fixed for 8th December, the 60th being again employed. The despatch draws attention to “the mere physical difficulties of the advance across steep and rocky hillsides and deep valleys,” artillery support being difficult, indeed sometimes impossible, while “the opposition encountered was considerable.” The weather was most unfavourable, rain falling heavily on the 7th and three following days.

The first objectives were carried soon after dawn and the troops pressed on. “By about noon London troops had already advanced over two miles, and were swinging north-east to gain the Nablus-Jerusalem road,” “throwing back their right to form a defensive flank, facing east towards Jerusalem, from the western outskirts of which considerable rifle and artillery fire was being experienced.... By nightfall ... all the enemy’s prepared defences west and north-west of Jerusalem had been captured.... The London troops and Yeomanry had displayed great endurance in difficult conditions. The London troops, especially, after a night march in heavy rain to reach their positions of deployment, had made an advance of three to four miles in difficult hills in the face of stubborn opposition.”

On the 9th the advance was resumed, the London troops and Yeomanry driving back rearguards. At noon the city was surrendered. The Army had taken over 12,000 prisoners and 100 guns between 31st October and 9th December. (See also under 52nd, 53rd and 54th Divisions.)

Sir E. Allenby’s despatch of 18th September, 1918, shows that after the surrender of Jerusalem, he desired to drive back the enemy further from its precincts.

Paragraph 5: While the XX. Corps, which included the 53rd and 60th Divisions, was making preparations to do this the Turks attacked during the night of 26th-27th December. “By 1.30 a.m. the 60th Division was engaged on its whole front.

“Between 1.30 a.m. and 8 a.m. on the 27th the outposts of the 60th Division on the ridge north of Beit Hanninah repelled four determined attacks, but the heaviest fighting took place to the east of the Jerusalem-Nablus road. Repeated attacks were made against Tel el Ful; a conspicuous hill from which Jerusalem and the intervening ground can be overlooked. The attacks were made by picked bodies of troops and were pressed with great determination. At only one point did the enemy succeed in reaching the main line of defence. He was driven out at once by the local reserves. In all these attacks he lost heavily.”

After a lull the enemy attacked the front of the 60th Division at 12.55 p.m. “in unexpected strength,” but again “local counter-attacks were successful in restoring the line—this proved to be the final effort.”

On the 28th December, General Allenby ordered an advance. The battle was of a very obstinate character and lasted into the evening of the 29th. On the 28th the 60th captured several strong positions by 1 p.m., further positions by 5.30 p.m. and continued their advance till 9.15 p.m. On the 29th they resumed their forward movement, meeting heavy rifle and machine-gun fire near Bireh. About 4.15 p.m., “the left of the attack stormed the Tahuneh ridge.” “Simultaneously with this attack the right of the 60th Division had stormed Shab Saleh in face of heavy machine-gun fire; subsequently capturing the ridge east of Bireh. At 9 p.m. the advance was continued.”

“The Turkish attempt to recapture Jerusalem had thus ended in crushing defeat. He had employed fresh troops who had not participated in the recent retreat from Beersheba and Gaza and had escaped its demoralising effects. The determination and gallantry with which his attack was carried out only served to increase his losses.”

Another quotation as to this battle has been given under the 53rd Division, which was also in the XX. Corps. The operations 17th-24th November, 1917, are now the “Battle of Nebi Samwil,” and those 26th to 30th December, the “Defence of Jerusalem.”

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the despatch deal with the advance to and capture of Jericho and give a detailed description of the immense difficulties which the troops had to surmount.

“The 60th Division had taken over the line east of Jerusalem some time previously. Opposed to it were some 5000 rifles, while to the north another 2000 rifles were in a position from which to act against the left flank of the 60th Division as it advanced.

“The chief obstacle to the advance lay in the difficulty of the ground rather than any opposition the enemy might offer.”

Between the line of the 60th and their objectives lay a succession of ridges some of which were precipitous.

The advance on Jericho began on 19th February, 1918. On that day the Division captured several strong positions “in face of considerable opposition.”

That night the enemy attacked and was repulsed “after a sharp struggle.”

On the 20th further positions were taken, “the enemy resisting with stubbornness.... The right brigade met with great opposition. Moreover, the ground over which the attack had to take place proved the most rugged and difficult yet met with in this country.... The left brigade advanced four miles over difficult country, the enemy fighting a rearguard action from ridge to ridge.”

By the evening of the 20th “the 60th Division had reached a line four miles west of the cliffs overlooking Jericho.”

On the 21st the advance was resumed, the Division reaching a line which overlooked Jericho. At 8.20 a.m. mounted troops rode into the town.

Paragraph 8 describes a further advance, 8th to 12th March, in which the XX. Corps “had to drive the enemy from ridge to ridge.” On the 9th the right brigade of the 60th Division, which had crossed the Wadi el Auja, north of Jericho, in the dark, and “had subsequently met with determined resistance,” seized a position astride the Beisan-Jericho road. Other troops on their left also made good progress and by the 11th “a line had been captured with great natural facilities for defence.”

Paragraph 11 and 12 deal with a raid on Amman. The troops employed were the 60th Division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, the Imperial Camel Brigade, etc., the whole under the General Officer Commanding 60th Division. Heavy rains made the crossing of the Jordan a task of almost insuperable difficulty and also made progress very slow when the eastern bank was reached. On 24th March the 60th Division drove the enemy from a position which blocked the road to Es Salt, captured three guns and pursued him for four miles. On the 25th they occupied Es Salt. The mounted troops effected the destruction of portions of the railway. There was heavy fighting on the 29th and 30th March, the Turks having been reinforced; thereafter the Commander-in-Chief ordered a withdrawal and this was carried out by the evening of 2nd April. Troops were left on the east side of the Jordan to form a bridgehead. Over 900 prisoners were taken in this raid.

On 30th April operations east of the Jordan were again undertaken. “The 60th Division captured the advanced works of the Shunet Nimrin position but were unable to make further progress in face of the stubborn resistance offered by the enemy.” On 2nd May there was another attack but the Turks were found to be in great strength. “The 60th Division was unable to make any substantial progress, in spite of determined efforts.” About 1000 prisoners were taken in this operation. On 4th May the force was withdrawn.

Paragraph 15 of the despatch refers to the reorganisation of the Palestine Army consequent on the departure of the 52nd and 74th Divisions for France, and it states that 24 British battalions were also withdrawn from the remaining divisions and sent to France. The 60th contributed its share of these, while the remainder of the Division continued to set a very high standard of efficient work in the field to the troops brought to Palestine from Mesopotamia and India, to take the place of those who had left for the western front. The 2/20th joined the famous 62nd Division in August 1918.

In the despatch of 31st October, 1918, as to the final overthrow of the Turks in Palestine, paragraph 9 shows that the break-through by the infantry was entrusted to Sir E. Bulfin’s XXI. Corps, to which the 60th Division was attached, it having been moved from the right to the left of the line. At 4.30 a.m. on 19th September, the XXI. Corps attacked and, within 36 hours, “the greater part of the VIII. Turkish Army had been overwhelmed.”

The 60th Division attacked in the coastal sector, then moved inland to leave “the coast route clear for the Desert Mounted Corps.”

After the 20th the infantry had heavy marching but no severe fighting. The operations 19th-25th September are now “The Battles of Megiddo.”