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

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 >