Hi Sharon I have not yet seen a book on this but there is the following website that might assist http://users.bigpond.net.au/dlaurie/2-15/ Best wishes Jan Herivel Sydney

Hi all I have found a fact sheet at the National Archives Australia website which contains details of records for various coastal fortifications. perhaps if someone can access these, they might provide some answers http://www.naa.gov.au/Publications/fact_sheets/fs24.html Jan Herivel Sydney

Hi everyone I have watched the debate on the Scratchley forts unfurl with interest but would like to add the following: If you disagree with what someone says violently, please do it privately. If you do not want to take the research or advice of others, then quite frankly do not join mailing lists!!! Most people answer queries because they wish to help - please respect their right to do so and do not use denigrating language. This is a valuable shared pool of knowledge, that has assisted many researchers in the past. More research is probably needed to answer this vexed question. Perhaps army records or the military museum at Fort Scratchley (NEWCASTLE) can assist Best wishes Jan Sydney -----Original Message----- From: William MOPPETT [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 8 February 2003 5:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Scratchely forts My memory is adversely affected by Vaquez disease, but I vaguely recollect there was a general staff officer named McKenzie-Smith. If this be thee I defer to your authority on Army lore On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 01:33 PM, Graham & Vera McKenzie-Smith wrote: > Although you are right about Scratchley's role in the construction of a > range of "forts" in NSW, this is beside the point. Rubbish ! This IS the point. The name comes from the lt Col/knight of that name. > When your father was > discharged he was obviously on the strength of HQ of Scratchely > Battery, > Coastal Artillery which as others have pointed out was at Newcastle. My understanding of "on the strength of.." is apparently different to yours. I find it improbable that the HQ of coastal defence would be located at Newcastle. I am as certain as can be he never went near the Newcastle 'fort', but if you mean the military paper work was done there for his demobbing, I cant argue from knowledge > By that time any resemblance between the "forts" constructed by > Scratchley > in the previous century and the manned coastal defences was > coincidental. Apart from Bare Island which is nearly original, including some interesting period pieces, all Scratchely Forts have been further-developed with evolving technology. The 'fort' to which dad was attached sported 6 inch 'naval' guns, although the bombardment which failed to sink the burning 'patrol boat' on the evening of the Nip attack were smaller pieces at Green Pt & Georges head, directly in the line of the boom. > > Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at > Sydney > is a mystery but it is not unusual. I seek to uncover the facts, and discount opinions, particularly where I suspect vested interests. I suppose most officers & men amongst his patents are, like my father, deceased. Thank you for your opinion. All share the view that Fort Scratchely exclusively applies to the N'cle estab. and that it was HQ of Coastal defense. However this reminds me of a convict Ann Thornley, who arrived in NSW with an infant daughter. All my relatives without exception insisted she was born in Bolton, Lancs. Trouble was her daughter's age in the colonial records was wrong. Finaly in exasperation one proponent sent the court records of her trial and CF99/5616, documenting the completion of her sentance, which declared her native place to be Bury ! There she declared, doesnt that prove she wasnt born there ? Sure enough there was another Ann born at Bury, and with a daughter who exactly matched the Colonial records. Clearly everyone else was wrong and had accepted at face value a conclusion from a singular but erroneous source. I never heard dad refer to the establishment except as "the Fort". His discharge record is the first time I saw the name SCRATCHELY. Ann Thornley was my GGG grandfather; Thomas LISSON's mistress ! It is not apparent that Scratchely built the establishment at Newcastle, and I am sure you will not insist that it wasnt updated to meet WWII requirements. If you were the OC at the fort, you should declare this interest which would establish your authority beyond challenge. If the army had another appelalion, say Fort Bloggs I would lay more weight to the opinion that Scratchely applied exclusively to the Newcastle estab. I try to rate opinions, from guesswork or rumour to established 'fact' based upon convincing evidence. Your loose logic and erroneous suppositions undermine your credibility. It may, as you say be true that the paperwork for my father's discharge was done at the HQ of Coastal Artillery, which may have been at Newcastle. If you know this to be the case, please tell me how you know. Slagging me for challenging other respondents for unsupported fiats will be seen for what it is. I am sure they are trying to be helpfull, for which I offer gratitude, but I find the lack of argument, including pooh-poohing my query if South Head enjoyed the appelation Fort Scratchely somewhat challenging. Your assertion that there is no connection between Lt. Col Sir William SCRATCHERLY and the coastal defence forts for which he was responsible is plain idiocy. I dont wish to be unkind, but where did you get the idea that I implied the Army had never modified or updated Scratchely's fortifications ? I thank you for your observation "Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at Sydney is a mystery but it is not unusual." Here I assume you speak from peculiar army proceedures. If you paid any attention to my query, I would like to determine the facts, and ignore what you term "the obvious" (fiction ?) In my philosophy, a proposition may be true or false. I dont agree that the obvious is necessarily untrue. Please do not elabourate on why you hold this opinion ! I want to know why SCRATCHELY appears in my dad's discharge. It may have something to do with the Newcastle estab. but frankly I am unconvinced. Cheers William Moppett

Hi everyone I have watched the debate on the Scratchley forts unfurl with interest but would like to add the following: If you disagree with what someone says violently, please do it privately. If you do not want to take the research or advice of others, then quite frankly do not join mailing lists!!! Most people answer queries because they wish to help - please respect their right to do so and do not use denigrating language. This is a valuable shared pool of knowledge, that has assisted many researchers in the past. More research is probably needed to answer this vexed question. Perhaps army records or the military museum at Fort Scratchley (NEWCASTLE) can assist Best wishes Jan Sydney -----Original Message----- From: William MOPPETT [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 8 February 2003 5:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Scratchely forts My memory is adversely affected by Vaquez disease, but I vaguely recollect there was a general staff officer named McKenzie-Smith. If this be thee I defer to your authority on Army lore On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 01:33 PM, Graham & Vera McKenzie-Smith wrote: > Although you are right about Scratchley's role in the construction of a > range of "forts" in NSW, this is beside the point. Rubbish ! This IS the point. The name comes from the lt Col/knight of that name. > When your father was > discharged he was obviously on the strength of HQ of Scratchely > Battery, > Coastal Artillery which as others have pointed out was at Newcastle. My understanding of "on the strength of.." is apparently different to yours. I find it improbable that the HQ of coastal defence would be located at Newcastle. I am as certain as can be he never went near the Newcastle 'fort', but if you mean the military paper work was done there for his demobbing, I cant argue from knowledge > By that time any resemblance between the "forts" constructed by > Scratchley > in the previous century and the manned coastal defences was > coincidental. Apart from Bare Island which is nearly original, including some interesting period pieces, all Scratchely Forts have been further-developed with evolving technology. The 'fort' to which dad was attached sported 6 inch 'naval' guns, although the bombardment which failed to sink the burning 'patrol boat' on the evening of the Nip attack were smaller pieces at Green Pt & Georges head, directly in the line of the boom. > > Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at > Sydney > is a mystery but it is not unusual. I seek to uncover the facts, and discount opinions, particularly where I suspect vested interests. I suppose most officers & men amongst his patents are, like my father, deceased. Thank you for your opinion. All share the view that Fort Scratchely exclusively applies to the N'cle estab. and that it was HQ of Coastal defense. However this reminds me of a convict Ann Thornley, who arrived in NSW with an infant daughter. All my relatives without exception insisted she was born in Bolton, Lancs. Trouble was her daughter's age in the colonial records was wrong. Finaly in exasperation one proponent sent the court records of her trial and CF99/5616, documenting the completion of her sentance, which declared her native place to be Bury ! There she declared, doesnt that prove she wasnt born there ? Sure enough there was another Ann born at Bury, and with a daughter who exactly matched the Colonial records. Clearly everyone else was wrong and had accepted at face value a conclusion from a singular but erroneous source. I never heard dad refer to the establishment except as "the Fort". His discharge record is the first time I saw the name SCRATCHELY. Ann Thornley was my GGG grandfather; Thomas LISSON's mistress ! It is not apparent that Scratchely built the establishment at Newcastle, and I am sure you will not insist that it wasnt updated to meet WWII requirements. If you were the OC at the fort, you should declare this interest which would establish your authority beyond challenge. If the army had another appelalion, say Fort Bloggs I would lay more weight to the opinion that Scratchely applied exclusively to the Newcastle estab. I try to rate opinions, from guesswork or rumour to established 'fact' based upon convincing evidence. Your loose logic and erroneous suppositions undermine your credibility. It may, as you say be true that the paperwork for my father's discharge was done at the HQ of Coastal Artillery, which may have been at Newcastle. If you know this to be the case, please tell me how you know. Slagging me for challenging other respondents for unsupported fiats will be seen for what it is. I am sure they are trying to be helpfull, for which I offer gratitude, but I find the lack of argument, including pooh-poohing my query if South Head enjoyed the appelation Fort Scratchely somewhat challenging. Your assertion that there is no connection between Lt. Col Sir William SCRATCHERLY and the coastal defence forts for which he was responsible is plain idiocy. I dont wish to be unkind, but where did you get the idea that I implied the Army had never modified or updated Scratchely's fortifications ? I thank you for your observation "Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at Sydney is a mystery but it is not unusual." Here I assume you speak from peculiar army proceedures. If you paid any attention to my query, I would like to determine the facts, and ignore what you term "the obvious" (fiction ?) In my philosophy, a proposition may be true or false. I dont agree that the obvious is necessarily untrue. Please do not elabourate on why you hold this opinion ! I want to know why SCRATCHELY appears in my dad's discharge. It may have something to do with the Newcastle estab. but frankly I am unconvinced. Cheers William Moppett

Hi all, Does anyone have a copy of this book? I've just learned that Trooper Tom Morris of the NSW Lancers was supposed to be awarded a VC during the Boer War. There's mention of it at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pbtyc/ILN_1899-1900/Trooper_Morris_ VC.html#top However, a review of "The Featherbed Soldiers" by Neil Smith and Cameron Simpson says that it coveres "the non-award of a VC to Trooper Tom Morris." I was wondering why he didn't receive it? Cheers Jan

Thank you. You have established your authority by the obvious knowledge you display. I have only dad's discharge record, not as yet a full service record. Dad's place of work was off limits to civilians, and whilst at Toowoomba he functioned as a censor, so he was aware of the need to avoid disclosing information which potentialy could have assisted an enemy. I understand his quarters were located in tunnels, well removed from, but connected to the 6 inch magazines, and guns. He gave anecdotal evidence of the lookout who spotted the Nip sub, who was a patient. The gunfire clearly intended to sink the 'patrol boat' which burned in clear view of our Vaucluse home, came from Green Point & George's Head. Green Point was then Laings Point, and the boom was oversighted by these pieces. We assumed the burning patrol boat was considered some threat to the boom, although I suspect it was a pretext to practice firing at a very visible target. Cheers William Moppett

Hello All A.I.R. stands for Australian Infantry Regiment. There were 98 Infantry Regiments and 23 Light Horse Regiments split up over 224 training areas. The system was designed by Lord Kitchener to overcome the fragmented military system that was in existance at federation. They were originally compulsory trained, at the age of 12, by cadet units and when aged 18 were passed into the "Active" battalions and regiments where they received a short annual training for a further seven years. This system started in 1911. Members of the old militia army had been permitted to complete the three years for which they had enlisted but the only new members allowed into the army from 1911 was the young draft of 18 year old boys. Of the old militia only the officers and non-commissioned officers were allowed to re-engage in the new army. Sources....The Story of ANZAC...C E W Bean Australian Army Badges...J K Cossum Regards........Tom Patterson

Sharon They published a history in 1983 "Gunners in the Jungle" by Cliff Whitelocke. ISBN 0 9592123 0 2 Published bt 2/15 Field Regiment Association and their address in 1983 was Secretary W Cook, 4 Winston St, Eastwood 2120. Good luck Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sharon McBride" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: 2/15 Field Regiment > Hi All, > Can anyone tell me if there is a 2/15 Field Regiment Association or if a > regimental history has been written. > Thanks, > Sharon > > Sharon McBride > Perth, Western Australia > > mailto:[email protected] > Research Interests > http://members.iinet.net.au/~mcbride/ > > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > Replies to queries on AUS-MILITARY should generally be sent to the list as well as the sender > Please use the "reply to all" function of your mail program >

Two points on the unbelievable outburst on Scratchely forts. 1. The WW11 site quite clearly states that the unit on discharge is the last official posting "not the place where they may have been waiting for discharge". An example, my father taken POW Apr 1941, escaped to switzerland Dec 1943, RTA Nov 1944, Discharged Mar 1945 in Sydney, Unit on discharge 2/3rd Anti Tank Regt, a unit he had not seen since 8 Apr 1943. 2. Only one "fort" was named Scratchely fort and if not still manned by the Army there is/was a active history group there. Robert Duggan

This has been a very interesting and informative discussion on historical defence installations around Australia. I work at Albany History Collection (formerly Albany Local Studies) and have a close working relationship with "The Forts" as The Princess Royal Forts are known as. I delve into their archives regularly to assist others, and once an 'old timer' asked me for info on Fort Scratchely - this was the first time I'd heard it referred to as this. Julia Mitchell Albany, WA.

Greetings William Let us establish the facts upon which to base a discussion. Scratchley was responsible for building a number of defence installations (not all coastal forts) and initially came to Australia to review the defences of Melbourne in 1860. He returned in 1877 and for a time was defence advisor to the colonial governments of Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas & SA. He also designed the pre federation forts at Thursday Island and Albany that were built and manned by all colonies as the first co-operative defence projects. He left Australia in 1883. Each of the defence installations had a name, including Green Hill Fort (Thursday Is), Kissing Point Fort (Townsville) Fort Lytton (Brisbane), South Head Fort, Georges Head Fort and Bare Island Fort (Sydney), Fort Queenscliffe and Fort Nepean (Melbourne), Fort Glanville and Fort Largs (Adelaide) and Fort Princess Royal (Albany). To commemorate his signature role in the development of coastal defence in Australia the fort built at Signal Hill, Newcastle was named Fort Scrtachley and was manned continuously from 1883 to WW2. Obviously the various fortifications that Scratchley designed were changed over the 60 years from 1883 to 1943 as new guns were installed and only elements of Scratchley's designs remained by WW2. Bare Island is the most intact as its role of defending the entrance to Botany Bay was taken over by the guns at Banks, Malabar and Henry Btys. The history of Hornby Bty includes references to the WW2 guns being built over old fortifications in 1939 and some of these were refurbished and bought back into use. For example the first aid post was located in a refurbished emplacement behind no 1 gun. At the height of WW2 Sydney was protected by 9.2"guns at Banks Bty (Cape Banks) and North Bty (North Head) and 6"guns at Malabar Bty (Malabar), Signal & Hornby Btys (South Head) and Middle Bty (Middle Head). QF 6 pdr twins were installed at Green Point (Watsons Bay), Casemate (Georges Head) and Obelisk (Middle Head). Two 18 pdrs were at Henry Head to cover the entrance to Botany bay and a QF 12 Pdr was at Shelly Beach to cover Manly Beach against landings. Prior to the commissioning of the 6 pdr twins in late 1942 the inner harbour was covered by 3 pdr Hotchkiss guns at Inner Middle Head, Green Point and Casemate and after then they were moved to Bare Island and Cronulla. This whole defence structure was controlled by the Fire Command at Dover Heights with the admin HQ at Vauclause and was known as Sydney Coastal Defences. In Newcastle were 9.2"guns at Wallace Bty (Stockton), 6"guns at Park and Scratchley Btys (Newcastle) and at Tomaree Bty (Port Stephens). These were all commanded from Fort Scratchley and known as Newcastle Coastal Defences. I am sure that if any of these details are wrong, someone will correct me and I can supply you with the refences. So overall the only defence installation that carried the name Scratchley in WW2 was the area still known as Fort Scratchley at Newcastle. So the posting listed at discharge for your father was Bty HQ, Scratchely Bty, Coastal Defences. Do you have his full Service Record or just the refernce on the Nominal Roll website. If you can get the full Service Record from Australian Archives you will have a fuller understanding of his other postings during WW2 and this may provide a clue to the South Head / Newcastle mystery. I would be happy to review any other entries in his Sevice Record to interpret the sometimes confusing army abreviations. I, like you, always seek to expand knowledge of this very important part of our miltary heritage and would be happy to contibute to a reasoned debate that accepts the facts and respects the rational opinions of other participants in the debate. Cheers Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "William MOPPETT" <[email protected]> To: "Graham & Vera McKenzie-Smith" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: Re: Scratchely forts > My memory is adversely affected by Vaquez disease, but I vaguely > recollect there was a general staff officer named McKenzie-Smith. > If this be thee I defer to your authority on Army lore > On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 01:33 PM, Graham & Vera > McKenzie-Smith wrote: > > Although you are right about Scratchley's role in the construction of a > > range of "forts" in NSW, this is beside the point. > Rubbish ! > This IS the point. > The name comes from the lt Col/knight of that name. > > When your father was > > discharged he was obviously on the strength of HQ of Scratchely > > Battery, > > Coastal Artillery which as others have pointed out was at Newcastle. > My understanding of "on the strength of.." is apparently different to > yours. > I find it improbable that the HQ of coastal defence would be located at > Newcastle. > I am as certain as can be he never went near the Newcastle 'fort', but > if you mean the military paper work was done there for his demobbing, I > cant argue from knowledge > > By that time any resemblance between the "forts" constructed by > > Scratchley > > in the previous century and the manned coastal defences was > > coincidental. > Apart from Bare Island which is nearly original, including some > interesting period pieces, all Scratchely Forts have been > further-developed with evolving technology. > The 'fort' to which dad was attached sported 6 inch 'naval' guns, > although the bombardment which failed to sink the burning 'patrol boat' > on the evening of the Nip attack were smaller pieces at Green Pt & > Georges head, directly in the line of the boom. > > > > Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at > > Sydney > > is a mystery but it is not unusual. > I seek to uncover the facts, and discount opinions, particularly where > I suspect vested interests. > I suppose most officers & men amongst his patents are, like my father, > deceased. > Thank you for your opinion. > All share the view that Fort Scratchely exclusively applies to the > N'cle estab. and that it was HQ of Coastal defense. > However this reminds me of a convict Ann Thornley, who arrived in NSW > with an infant daughter. > All my relatives without exception insisted she was born in Bolton, > Lancs. > Trouble was her daughter's age in the colonial records was wrong. > Finaly in exasperation one proponent sent the court records of her > trial and CF99/5616, documenting the completion of her sentance, which > declared her native place to be Bury ! > There she declared, doesnt that prove she wasnt born there ? > Sure enough there was another Ann born at Bury, and with a daughter who > exactly matched the Colonial records. > Clearly everyone else was wrong and had accepted at face value a > conclusion from a singular but erroneous source. > I never heard dad refer to the establishment except as "the Fort". > His discharge record is the first time I saw the name SCRATCHELY. > Ann Thornley was my GGG grandfather; Thomas LISSON's mistress ! > > It is not apparent that Scratchely built the establishment at > Newcastle, and I am sure you will not insist that it wasnt updated to > meet WWII requirements. > If you were the OC at the fort, you should declare this interest which > would establish your authority beyond challenge. > If the army had another appelalion, say Fort Bloggs I would lay more > weight to the opinion that Scratchely applied exclusively to the > Newcastle estab. > > I try to rate opinions, from guesswork or rumour to established 'fact' > based upon convincing evidence. > Your loose logic and erroneous suppositions undermine your credibility. > It may, as you say be true that the paperwork for my father's discharge > was done at the HQ of Coastal Artillery, which may have been at > Newcastle. > If you know this to be the case, please tell me how you know. > Slagging me for challenging other respondents for unsupported fiats > will be seen for what it is. > I am sure they are trying to be helpfull, for which I offer gratitude, > but I find the lack of argument, including pooh-poohing my query if > South Head enjoyed the appelation Fort Scratchely somewhat challenging. > Your assertion that there is no connection between Lt. Col Sir William > SCRATCHERLY and the coastal defence forts for which he was responsible > is plain idiocy. > I dont wish to be unkind, but where did you get the idea that I > implied the Army had never modified or updated Scratchely's > fortifications ? > > I thank you for your observation "Why he was on the strength of > Scratchely Bty while being located at Sydney is a mystery but it is not > unusual." > Here I assume you speak from peculiar army proceedures. > > If you paid any attention to my query, I would like to determine the > facts, and ignore what you term "the obvious" (fiction ?) > In my philosophy, a proposition may be true or false. > I dont agree that the obvious is necessarily untrue. > Please do not elabourate on why you hold this opinion ! > > I want to know why SCRATCHELY appears in my dad's discharge. > It may have something to do with the Newcastle estab. but frankly I am > unconvinced. > > Cheers > William Moppett >

I believe the East Indies were in fact India; cf. the Honourable East India Company. The Army Hospital similar to the one at Chelsea in London was known as the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. Since 1991 it has been home to the Irish Museum of Modern Art. As for the reason the Regiment was stationed in Ireland; there was no separate Irish state at that time and the 'British Army' had been in Ireland since it emerged in its modern form after the Restoration of 1660, Dublin was as much a 'Home' posting as Aldershot. Regards, Donnacha ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Boyd" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 5:07 AM Subject: Re: 26th Regiment of Foot > Gail > My understanding of the term "east Indies" meant what is now Indonesia. > > However, if my high school geography is any good from 40 years ago, Britain > was never in Indonesia, as it was a Dutch Colony. > > I am not even sure if they had settled in Singapore by 1828. > > Fife is an Shire in Scotland, while Dublin is in Ireland. They did have an > Army Hospital - similar to the one at Chelsea in London, so he may have been > ill before discharge. > > The other reason might have been that the Regiment was stationed in Ireland > as that is the time of the potato famine. > Mike Boyd > Brisbane > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter and Gail Gilmore <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: 26th Regiment of Foot > > > > Don't know if anybody on this list will be able to help, but perhaps you > > could refer me on to another email address. I have checked the Regiment > > website but there is no email address that I could find to write to for > > answers. > > I am interested in James SCOTT a sargeant with the 26th Foot. > > He enlisted on 9 February 1826 at Cupar, Fife. I have a copy of his Army > > records and have a few questions. > > He served in the East Indies from 9 September 1828 to 31 December 1828. > > Where precisely would this have been? > > He was promoted to Sergeant on 18 December 1838. However at his marriage > in > > Glasgow in 1837, he is shown as Sergeant. Would it be possible he as in > an > > acting position at this time? > > He was discharged in May 1848, apparently in Dublin. Was it the practice > > then for the soldiers to return to their home town? > > Thank you very much for your time, > > Gail > > Qld Aust

Gail My understanding of the term "east Indies" meant what is now Indonesia. However, if my high school geography is any good from 40 years ago, Britain was never in Indonesia, as it was a Dutch Colony. I am not even sure if they had settled in Singapore by 1828. Fife is an Shire in Scotland, while Dublin is in Ireland. They did have an Army Hospital - similar to the one at Chelsea in London, so he may have been ill before discharge. The other reason might have been that the Regiment was stationed in Ireland as that is the time of the potato famine. Mike Boyd Brisbane ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter and Gail Gilmore <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 12:46 PM Subject: Re: 26th Regiment of Foot > Don't know if anybody on this list will be able to help, but perhaps you > could refer me on to another email address. I have checked the Regiment > website but there is no email address that I could find to write to for > answers. > I am interested in James SCOTT a sargeant with the 26th Foot. > He enlisted on 9 February 1826 at Cupar, Fife. I have a copy of his Army > records and have a few questions. > He served in the East Indies from 9 September 1828 to 31 December 1828. > Where precisely would this have been? > He was promoted to Sergeant on 18 December 1838. However at his marriage in > Glasgow in 1837, he is shown as Sergeant. Would it be possible he as in an > acting position at this time? > He was discharged in May 1848, apparently in Dublin. Was it the practice > then for the soldiers to return to their home town? > Thank you very much for your time, > Gail > Qld Aust > > > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > First AIF Order of Battle 1914-1918 > http://www.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/index.html >

My memory is adversely affected by Vaquez disease, but I vaguely recollect there was a general staff officer named McKenzie-Smith. If this be thee I defer to your authority on Army lore On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 01:33 PM, Graham & Vera McKenzie-Smith wrote: > Although you are right about Scratchley's role in the construction of a > range of "forts" in NSW, this is beside the point. Rubbish ! This IS the point. The name comes from the lt Col/knight of that name. > When your father was > discharged he was obviously on the strength of HQ of Scratchely > Battery, > Coastal Artillery which as others have pointed out was at Newcastle. My understanding of "on the strength of.." is apparently different to yours. I find it improbable that the HQ of coastal defence would be located at Newcastle. I am as certain as can be he never went near the Newcastle 'fort', but if you mean the military paper work was done there for his demobbing, I cant argue from knowledge > By that time any resemblance between the "forts" constructed by > Scratchley > in the previous century and the manned coastal defences was > coincidental. Apart from Bare Island which is nearly original, including some interesting period pieces, all Scratchely Forts have been further-developed with evolving technology. The 'fort' to which dad was attached sported 6 inch 'naval' guns, although the bombardment which failed to sink the burning 'patrol boat' on the evening of the Nip attack were smaller pieces at Green Pt & Georges head, directly in the line of the boom. > > Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at > Sydney > is a mystery but it is not unusual. I seek to uncover the facts, and discount opinions, particularly where I suspect vested interests. I suppose most officers & men amongst his patents are, like my father, deceased. Thank you for your opinion. All share the view that Fort Scratchely exclusively applies to the N'cle estab. and that it was HQ of Coastal defense. However this reminds me of a convict Ann Thornley, who arrived in NSW with an infant daughter. All my relatives without exception insisted she was born in Bolton, Lancs. Trouble was her daughter's age in the colonial records was wrong. Finaly in exasperation one proponent sent the court records of her trial and CF99/5616, documenting the completion of her sentance, which declared her native place to be Bury ! There she declared, doesnt that prove she wasnt born there ? Sure enough there was another Ann born at Bury, and with a daughter who exactly matched the Colonial records. Clearly everyone else was wrong and had accepted at face value a conclusion from a singular but erroneous source. I never heard dad refer to the establishment except as "the Fort". His discharge record is the first time I saw the name SCRATCHELY. Ann Thornley was my GGG grandfather; Thomas LISSON's mistress ! It is not apparent that Scratchely built the establishment at Newcastle, and I am sure you will not insist that it wasnt updated to meet WWII requirements. If you were the OC at the fort, you should declare this interest which would establish your authority beyond challenge. If the army had another appelalion, say Fort Bloggs I would lay more weight to the opinion that Scratchely applied exclusively to the Newcastle estab. I try to rate opinions, from guesswork or rumour to established 'fact' based upon convincing evidence. Your loose logic and erroneous suppositions undermine your credibility. It may, as you say be true that the paperwork for my father's discharge was done at the HQ of Coastal Artillery, which may have been at Newcastle. If you know this to be the case, please tell me how you know. Slagging me for challenging other respondents for unsupported fiats will be seen for what it is. I am sure they are trying to be helpfull, for which I offer gratitude, but I find the lack of argument, including pooh-poohing my query if South Head enjoyed the appelation Fort Scratchely somewhat challenging. Your assertion that there is no connection between Lt. Col Sir William SCRATCHERLY and the coastal defence forts for which he was responsible is plain idiocy. I dont wish to be unkind, but where did you get the idea that I implied the Army had never modified or updated Scratchely's fortifications ? I thank you for your observation "Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at Sydney is a mystery but it is not unusual." Here I assume you speak from peculiar army proceedures. If you paid any attention to my query, I would like to determine the facts, and ignore what you term "the obvious" (fiction ?) In my philosophy, a proposition may be true or false. I dont agree that the obvious is necessarily untrue. Please do not elabourate on why you hold this opinion ! I want to know why SCRATCHELY appears in my dad's discharge. It may have something to do with the Newcastle estab. but frankly I am unconvinced. Cheers William Moppett

Don't know if anybody on this list will be able to help, but perhaps you could refer me on to another email address. I have checked the Regiment website but there is no email address that I could find to write to for answers. I am interested in James SCOTT a sargeant with the 26th Foot. He enlisted on 9 February 1826 at Cupar, Fife. I have a copy of his Army records and have a few questions. He served in the East Indies from 9 September 1828 to 31 December 1828. Where precisely would this have been? He was promoted to Sergeant on 18 December 1838. However at his marriage in Glasgow in 1837, he is shown as Sergeant. Would it be possible he as in an acting position at this time? He was discharged in May 1848, apparently in Dublin. Was it the practice then for the soldiers to return to their home town? Thank you very much for your time, Gail Qld Aust

William Although you are right about Scratchley's role in the construction of a range of "forts" in NSW, this is beside the point. When your father was discharged he was obviously on the strength of HQ of Scratchely Battery, Coastal Artillery which as pthers have pointed out was at Newcastle. By that time any resemblance between the "forts" constructed by Scratchley in the previous century and the manned coastal defences was coincidental. Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at Sydney is a mystery but it is not unusual. You can either accept the facts or continue to ignore the obvious. Cheers Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "William MOPPETT" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:08 PM Subject: Scratchely forts > Dad was medical officer at "the fort" South Head for the latter part of > the war. > > Sir Peter Scratchely designed 'forts' up and down the coast, to specs > of William Jervois. > I dont know if he designed the Newcastle fort, but he certainly was the > designer of Bare Island fort at the entrance of Botany bay. > > "Bare Island is nationally significant as an almost completely intact > example of late nineteenth century coastal defence technology. It was > designed by Sir Peter Scratchley to a specification by William Jervois > and represents one of the more substantial and impressive of the many > fortifications they built around Australasia. " > > Unlike the South Head heavy battery, which was serviced by extensive > tunneling in the sandstone cliffs, as protection for magazines in case > of return fire from heavy naval guns of an invasion force, Bare Island > relied entirely on earthworks. > There are many similar emplacements all round Sydney harbour, some > pre-dating the withdrawl of garrisons from Blighty. > Both North Head & Middle Head had similar installations, which may > indeed be Scratchely forts. > There is a scandal attached to Bare Island, which was taken back during > the war, but sported mainly searchlights and light artillery. > Because of its coal the Hunter port was important from colonies > earliest days, and the steelworks certainly merited protection during > the war. > The guns of Newcastle were fired at the Nip sub, after the attack on > Sydney harbour. > > I frankly dont understand in the light of military history why you > insist that the Scratchely name should apply exclusively to the > Newcastle fort, and not to other forts designed by him. > > William Moppett > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > Anzac Research > http://anzacresearch.tripod.com/index.htm >

Hi All, Can anyone tell me if there is a 2/15 Field Regiment Association or if a regimental history has been written. Thanks, Sharon Sharon McBride Perth, Western Australia mailto:[email protected] Research Interests http://members.iinet.net.au/~mcbride/

Dad was medical officer at "the fort" South Head for the latter part of the war. Sir Peter Scratchely designed 'forts' up and down the coast, to specs of William Jervois. I dont know if he designed the Newcastle fort, but he certainly was the designer of Bare Island fort at the entrance of Botany bay. "Bare Island is nationally significant as an almost completely intact example of late nineteenth century coastal defence technology. It was designed by Sir Peter Scratchley to a specification by William Jervois and represents one of the more substantial and impressive of the many fortifications they built around Australasia. " Unlike the South Head heavy battery, which was serviced by extensive tunneling in the sandstone cliffs, as protection for magazines in case of return fire from heavy naval guns of an invasion force, Bare Island relied entirely on earthworks. There are many similar emplacements all round Sydney harbour, some pre-dating the withdrawl of garrisons from Blighty. Both North Head & Middle Head had similar installations, which may indeed be Scratchely forts. There is a scandal attached to Bare Island, which was taken back during the war, but sported mainly searchlights and light artillery. Because of its coal the Hunter port was important from colonies earliest days, and the steelworks certainly merited protection during the war. The guns of Newcastle were fired at the Nip sub, after the attack on Sydney harbour. I frankly dont understand in the light of military history why you insist that the Scratchely name should apply exclusively to the Newcastle fort, and not to other forts designed by him. William Moppett

Dear William, Just an enquiry re Bare Island. Do you have any info on a Charles Goodall who worked on Bare Island? He was an artificer in the army. Regards, Annie Lotocki ----- Original Message ----- From: "William MOPPETT" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Scratchely forts > Dad was medical officer at "the fort" South Head for the latter part of > the war. > > Sir Peter Scratchely designed 'forts' up and down the coast, to specs > of William Jervois. > I dont know if he designed the Newcastle fort, but he certainly was the > designer of Bare Island fort at the entrance of Botany bay. > > "Bare Island is nationally significant as an almost completely intact > example of late nineteenth century coastal defence technology. It was > designed by Sir Peter Scratchley to a specification by William Jervois > and represents one of the more substantial and impressive of the many > fortifications they built around Australasia. " > > Unlike the South Head heavy battery, which was serviced by extensive > tunneling in the sandstone cliffs, as protection for magazines in case > of return fire from heavy naval guns of an invasion force, Bare Island > relied entirely on earthworks. > There are many similar emplacements all round Sydney harbour, some > pre-dating the withdrawl of garrisons from Blighty. > Both North Head & Middle Head had similar installations, which may > indeed be Scratchely forts. > There is a scandal attached to Bare Island, which was taken back during > the war, but sported mainly searchlights and light artillery. > Because of its coal the Hunter port was important from colonies > earliest days, and the steelworks certainly merited protection during > the war. > The guns of Newcastle were fired at the Nip sub, after the attack on > Sydney harbour. > > I frankly dont understand in the light of military history why you > insist that the Scratchely name should apply exclusively to the > Newcastle fort, and not to other forts designed by him. > > William Moppett > > > ==== AUS-MILITARY Mailing List ==== > Anzac Research > http://anzacresearch.tripod.com/index.htm >

There is Fort Scratchley in Newcastle guarding the enterance to New Castle Harbour. It is an old fort I do not know if it was maned in WW2. It is now a museum. You should find it in the phone book. Elizabeth Roberts ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: AUS-MILITARY-D Digest V03 #26