Capt F Coxen

His last journal entry was May 1915 - what happened after that date? The following is his military career:

   After May 6^th, the first recorded event impacting Fred was his field promotion to 2^nd Lieutenant, which took place on August 21^st, 1915. Although significant, it does not reveal what happened during the three months between his last entry and his promotion; questions without answers remain. 

   Within the box of documents, I found and opened Fred’s “Officer’s Record of Services – Army book 439”. Studying its contents, I found a notation on the pages titled, “Service”, stating he left France on September 1, 1915 and returned to England.  Under the column marked “At Home”, he had written, (AA[1] Drilling), September 2, 1915 to November 27, 1917. (Figure 10)  This notation disclosed complexities within his simple statement “AA drilling”, which were previously undiscerned . Reviewing other military communiqués, I discovered that the Royal Field Artillery sent Fred to the Mersey Defence District on May 13, 1916. He was to perform inspections on the Anti-Aircraft Gun Detachments in Liverpool. (Figure 10) 

 I questioned what transpired in the eight months prior to his deployment to the Mersey Defence District. One plausible explanation would be that he was being trained on anti-aircraft guns, which would be logical, considering his previous experience had been with field artillery. Anti-aircraft training would also offer credence to his qualifications for inspecting the AA batteries.

   An RFA dispatch dated 6.6.16 from S. W. Lane, Colonel Commanding 2a Reserve Brigade R.F.A. to Headquarters No.3 District - Mersey Defence District, questioned why the inspection was taking longer than expected, and requested to be informed if Fred was not going to return. The communiqué is divided into four sections.

     The first section is the original request from Colonel S.W. Lane, while the second section is a response from Headquarters Western Command, by Harry Cooper, Colonel Commanding No.3 District, referencing telegram 2259 G of 10.5.16, regarding a speedy response to the original request. In the third section is marked “Confidential” to Garrison Commander, Mersey Garrison, Liverpool; referencing to attached letter dated 7th June, 1916, from Officer Commanding No.3 District – please say if Lieutenant F Coxen can now be returned to his unit; C.S. Hope – Johnstone, Major, General Staff, Western Command. Section four is a return response: If the establishment submitted in this office number as above of June 1916, your C.R.W.C.54318/37 (G).K.1045g of May 27th 1916 is authorized it is desired to recommend 2/Lieut.F.Coxen for the appointment of Adjutant and Quartermaster with the temporary rank of Captain. 2. He is now well acquainted with the details of the Liverpool A.A. Command, and it would be a pity to replace him by another officer who would have to learn the work all over again. (sd) R.F. Edwards, Brigadier-General, Commanding Mersey Defences; Liverpool, 9-6-16. Fred remained with the Defense District until November 30, 1916, at which time he returned to the RFA. 

   I discovered a great deal of military correspondence regarding Fred’s request for additional duty pay, for the period he held the temporary rank of Captain. His claim was eventually settled, as stated in the letter written by the major commanding Liverpool A. A. Defences. (Figure 11) The communiqué also presented insight to Fred’s next assignment, “Captain Coxen was recommended for the appointment to Adjutant in May last, and carried out the duties whilst the Establishment was under consideration and issued, and until relieved, 30^th November 1916, on assuming command of the 47^th A.A. Company, R.G.A.  He was given command of the 47^th as verified by a letter he wrote and signed as “Commander 47^th AA Company, RGA, dated January 17, 1917. (Figure 19)

   Referring back to his service record, I noticed that he remained in England until November 11, 1917. Then on November 28, 1917, he was redeployed to France and assigned to an AA Battery. Prior to his departure, Fred posed for a photograph wearing his captain’s uniform, which he would not wear again for two years.  For upon his arrival in France, he reverted back to his rank of 2^nd Lieutenant and assigned an AA Battery.

   Rummaging through the box of documents, I noticed a small piece of brown paper with a handwritten message. In the upper left-hand corner, the paper was stamped; “N ANTI-AIRCRAFT BATTERY” and directly below it was Fred’s signature “F Coxen RFA” “N” Battery. The handwritten message congratulated Fred for the downing of a bird (aeroplane), however headquarters couldn’t verify if the craft was downed solely by N-battery, or a section of Q-battery, so they divided the kill between the two batteries.  N-battery was part of the HQ, 3^rd Army group, which according to sources on the “Great War Forum,” was assigned to defend Paris. (Figure 12) The fact that the paper was a congratulatory note from headquarters, and sent to Fred, indicates that Fred was “N” Battery’s commander.

   Referring back to his service record, Fred remained in France until May 18, 1918, at which time he returned to England.

   A military record shows in November of 1918 he was seconded for service with the newly-formed Royal Air Force[2], and assigned to the 253 Squadron, RAF Bembridge. He is listed as an Observer Officer, placed in charge of the payroll department. I have no doubt that Fred was sent to the RAF because of his prior payroll experience while Adjutant of the Mersey Defence District.

   A communiqué from Captain D. Dustin, Officer Commanding 74^th Wing, RAF Calshot was discovered, recommending Fred for a promotion to the temporary rank of Lieutenant. Another memo referenced that Fred was promoted to the permanent rank of Lieutenant – retroactive to July 1, 1917. (Figure 13)   

   During the period that Fred operated the payroll department for the RAF, the RFA sent a message requesting his return to his RFA unit forthwith. Within the same communiqué, the RAF requested he remain with them for an additional two weeks, reasoning that with a heavy work load and complicated payroll system, his skill level was required until a replacement could be trained. (Figure 14) Therefore on August 7, 1919, the Officer Commanding, RAF Navigation School, Calshot, drafted a letter cancelling Fred’s orders to report to his RFA unit. (Figure 15)

   I speculated as to whether he learned to fly during the time spent with the RAF? I found nothing within his records indicating he received flight training; however, I have a photograph showing Fred in an aviator’s suit. I posted the photo on the “Great War Forum” website; a member identified the suit as a standard RAF issue Sitcom Suit, made from proofed khaki twill, which was rubberized and lined with mohair.(Figure 16)

   It was evident while serving with the RAF, Fred wore an officer’s uniform with an Observer’s Half Wing, located above the left top pocket of his uniform jacket. His uniform would be congruent with his Navigator’s training, and the reason he had the aviator’s flight suit. Never the less this latest discovery contradicts family lore, and ruins a good story. (Figure 17)

   Prior to my in-depth research, it was believed that a cherished, wooden picture frame, containing photographs of both Fred and his wife, perhaps crafted from the remains of a WWI aeroplane propeller. However, an assumption was made that the propeller came from an aircraft flown by Fred. It now appears that if the frame was made from an aeroplane propeller, it would not have been from an aircraft flown by Fred.

   Discovered among his personal items was a photograph of a Short 184 seaplane serial number N9111. It is unknown if Fred flew or was a navigator on this type of aircraft; whatever the case, it is an interesting photograph. (Figure 18) November 11^th, 1918 Fred received, “The King’s Message to the Royal Air Force”. (Figure 20)

  His official military record shows that he transferred back to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers as Captain, on the 26^th of February, 1920, at which time he left the service and returned to his civilian occupation of electrician.

   The exact reason he ended his journal on May 6^th, 1915 will remain unknown.

Figure 12

Figure 15

Figure 19

Figure 11

Figure 18

Figure 10

Figure 13

Figure 16

Figure 14

Figure 20

Figure 17

.

---

[1] AA: stands for anti-aircraft

[2] Originally British aero-squadrons were named the Royal Flying Corps, but in 1918 the RFC amalgamated with the Royal Naval Air Service and changed to the Royal Air Force.

Names mentioned in the journal

I compiled a list of names of soldiers mentioned in my grandfather's journal - perhaps it might help those searching for relatives.

Lieutenant Marshall – wounded

Colonel Sharpe

General Finley – killed in action

Lieutenant Richie

Grogan – telephonest died of wounds

Smith - telephonest

Mr. Wood – young officer kia 8 days after arriving

Mr. Donahue –

Major Baird

Major Madocks – wounded Sept 14, 1914 kia

Taylor & Farmer – wounded Nov 21, 1914

George Hodge – Corporal killed in action

Bruce – Gordon Highlanders

Major Johnson – killed in action

Collins – main character within the journal

George Millington – major character in journal and survived

                                the war and retired as Sergeant Major

Percy / George Bramwell – killed in action

Hayman – killed in action

Frank W Taylor – corporal reported wounded 8/12/14 kia

After the Journal Ends

Fred Coxen's military career after the last journal entry

The last journal entry was on May 6^th, 1915. I wondered what could have happened to alter his regiment of recording his daily experiences, perhaps the answer might be among his numerous military documents, which may contain bits of information necessary for reassembling the one-hundred year old puzzle.

   After May 6^th, the first recorded event impacting Fred was his field promotion to 2^nd Lieutenant, which took place on August 21^st, 1915. Although significant, it does not articulate what happened during the three months between his last entry and his promotion; questions without answers.  

   Within the box of documents, I found and opened Fred’s “Officer’s Record of Services – Army book 439”. Studying its contents, I found a notation on the pages titled, “Service”, stating he left France on September 1, 1915 and return to England.  Under the column marked “At Home”, he had written, (AA[1] Drilling), September 2, 1915 to November 27, 1917. I then realized there must be complexities within his simple statement “AA drilling”, which were not obvious. Reviewing other military communiqués, I discovered that the Royal Field Artillery sent Fred to the Mersey Defence District on May 13, 1916. He was to perform inspections on the Anti-Aircraft Gun Detachments in Liverpool.  I questioned, what transpired in the eight months prior to his deployment to the Mersey Defence District? One plausible explanation would be that he was being trained on anti-aircraft guns, which would be logical, considering his previous experience had been with field artillery. Anti-aircraft training would also offer credence to his qualifications for inspecting the AA batteries.

   An RFA dispatch to the Mersey Defence District, questioned why the inspection was taking longer than expected, and requested that they be informed if Fred wasn’t going to return. In the bottom section of the same document, the Mersey Defence District, recommended that 2^nd Lieutenant F. Coxen be considered for appointment to Adjutant and Quartermaster, along with the temporary rank of Captain – until a replacement could be found.  Fred remained with the Defense District until November 30, 1916, at which time he returned to the RFA.  

   I discovered a great deal of military correspondence regarding Fred’s request for additional duty pay, for the period he held the temporary rank of Captain. His claim was eventually settled, as stated in the letter written by the Major commanding Liverpool A. A. Defences. The communiqué also presented insight to Fred’s next assignment, “Captain Coxen was recommended for the appointment to Adjutant in May last, and carried out the duties whilst the Establishment was under consideration and issued, and until relieved, 30^th November 1916, on assuming command of the 47^th A.A. Company, R.G.A.  However, I found no further details validating his command of the 47^th AA Company.

   Referring back to his service record, I noticed that he remained in England until November 11, 1917. Then on November 28, 1917 he was redeployed to France and assigned to an AA Battery.  Prior to his departure, Fred posed for a photograph wearing his captain’s uniform, which he would not wear again for two years.  Upon his arrival in France he reverted back to his rank of 2^nd Lieutenant and assigned an AA Battery.

   Rummaging through the box of documents, I noticed a small piece of brown paper with a hand written message. In the upper left-hand corner, the paper was stamped, “N ANTI-AIRCRAFT BATTERY” and directly below it was Fred’s signature “F Coxen RFA” “N” Battery. The handwritten message congratulated Fred for the downing of a bird (aeroplane), however headquarters couldn’t verify if was downed solely by N-battery, or a section of Q-battery, so they divided the kill between the two batteries.  N-battery was part of the HQ, 3^rd Army group, which according to sources on the “Great War Forum” was assigned to defend Paris. The fact that the paper was a congratulatory note from headquarters, and sent to Fred, indicates that Fred was “N” Battery’s commander.

   Referring back to his service record, Fred remained in France until May 18, 1918, at which time he returned to England.

   A military record shows in November of 1918 he was seconded for service with the newly formed Royal Air Force, and assigned to the 253 Squadron, R.A.F. Bembridge. He is listed as an Observer Officer and was placed in charge of the payroll department. I have no doubt that Fred was sent to the RAF because of his prior payroll experience while Adjutant of the Mersey Defence District.

   I discovered a communiqué from, Captain D. Durston, Officer Commanding 74^th Wing RAF Calshot, recommending Fred for a promotion to the temporary rank of Lieutenant, while another memo referenced that Fred was promoted to the permanent rank of Lieutenant – retroactive to July 1, 1917.    

   While operating the payroll department for the Royal Air Force, the Royal Field Artillery sent a message requesting Fred’s return to his RFA unit forthwith. Within the same communiqué, the Royal Air Force requested he remain with them for an additional two weeks, reasoning that their heavy work load, and complicated payroll system required his skills until a new person could be trained. Then on August 7, 1919 the Officer Commanding, R.A.F. Navigation School, Calshot, drafted a letter cancelling Fred’s orders to report to his RFA unit. 

   I wonder if during his time with the RAF he learned to fly. I found nothing within his records indicating that he did receive flight training, however, I have a photograph showing Fred in an aviator’s uniform. Posting this photo on the “Great War Forum”, a member of the forum posted the following:

It's a standard RAF issue Sidcot Suit (from the inventor, Australian RNAS aviator Flight Sub Lieutenant Sidney Cotton) made from proofed khaki twill over a rubberised muslin inter-lining and a mohair liner.  However, he may not have been going to fly in the immediate future, as he's wearing ordinary shoes, rather than an airman's fur-lined 'fug' boots, though sometimes airmen flew without the boots if the flight was to be short and/or at low level.

I hope this helps you.[2]

While attached to the Royal Air Force, he wore the uniform of an officer and through the sharp eyes of another GWR member, he identified that Fred was an “Observer” and would have worn a flying uniform like the one in the photograph.

Gareth

Is he 39776 Bombardier later Captain Frederick Coxen? If so the rear of his Medal Index Card advises he was at RAF Navigator's School (24 July 1919) and he also has a post war address of 253 Squadron at Benbridge (Isle of Wight). He will almost certainly have full service papers. If he discharged prior to 1922 they will be at the NA, post 1922 the records are still with the RAF. This tells you more: http://www.nationala...yalairforce.htm. I see your other posts on the forum about him. In the one by himself he is wearing at RAF Observer's Half Wing. This is consistent him being trained as a Navigator. He would have worn a suit similar to that shown here when flying, though not necessarily a pilot.  Rgds Tim D [3]

There is also family lore that the picture of him in his RFA captain’s uniform, which was taken in 1917, along with a photograph of his wife, were each placed in picture frames made from the wooden propeller of a plane he flew – that is the rumor and I have the frames with the photographs.

   Among his personal items was a photograph of seaplane, the N9111, also known as a Short 184. It is unknown if he flew or was a navigator on this type of aircraft, whatever the case, it is an interesting photograph.

  His official military record shows that he transferred back to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers as Captain on the 26^th of February 1920, at which time he left the service and returned to his civilian occupation of electrician.

   The exact reason he ended his journal on May 6^th, 1915 will remain unknown.

---

[1] AA: stands for anti-aircraft

[2] www.1914-1918.inviionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic  December 30, 2012

[3] www.1914-1918.inviionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic  December 30, 2012 

crucifixion of a Canadian sergeant by the German Army in France:

Until recently I wasn't aware of the controversy surrounding the story of a Canadian soldier being crucified during the Second Battle of Ypres. It came to my attention through a historian that read my book, "The Great Promise". They questioned the journal entry from my grandfather's WWI journal that describes this event, and the Canadian's reprisal as written:

At daylight we were at it again, the first thing that met my gaze was a shell dropped just the other side of the hedge, among what was left of a Canadian Battery Wagon Line, most of the men had been killed when the Germans broke through the previous week they bayoneted them whilst they slept. Hung the Ferrier to a tree, and crucified a Sergeant of the Canadian Scottish to a barn door with bayonets. This wagon line had about a dozen horses left of 200 – the guns were captured by the enemy, but were afterwards regained by a magnificent charge by the Canadian infantry. These are fine fellows and splendid fighters and hated the cursed Germans like fury for their murderous ways of waging war. A couple of days previous the Canadian Scottish were ordered to retire, but refused to do so. [They] charged the enemy on their own, it was a mad thing to do and they lost over 500 men, but captured some trenches and captured 100 prisoners or more, not one of these prisoners were brought down. We were fighting as they – no quarter and the Canadians gave none. Just in rear of our guns, there was a Prussian Guardsman ( a fine fellow, fully 6’ 3” in height and big with it) pinned to a tree with a bayonet and a post card stuck on his forehead with the words, “Canada does not forget”. The by word of the Canadians were, “will give’em   crucify”. The happenings around of this period would fill a book with horrors of this description, and of the splendid fighting of the Canadians and the Indian troops who were with us.

Second Battle of Ypres

Allied force casualties: 70,000 killed, wounded or missing

German casualties: 35,000 killed, wounded or missing

The Second Battle of Ypres could be considered as a resumption of the first battle, since weather conditions and the coming of winter had curtailed the continuation of fighting. Although sporadic fighting continued throughout the winter, neither side launched a major offensive.

   The German Army was planning a major attack when the weather improved in April. This would be the only major German offensive on the Western Front in 1915. Some historians believe that the primary reason for this offensive was to distract the Allied army’s attention away from the Eastern Front.

   Perhaps the Second Battle of Ypres is best remembered for the introduction of the German Army’s newest weapon, chlorine gas, than for any strategic achievements. Chlorine gas is heavier than air, so it flows along the ground following the contour of the land. Upon reaching a low area, such as a trench, it descends into the trench filling it with gas.

   The gas was first used on the Eastern Front during the winter of 1915. It proved to be of limited success because the sub-zero temperatures impacted the dissipation of the gas. This problem didn’t exist with the warm April temperatures of the Western Front, making the results strikingly different.

   Since The Hague Treaty of 1899 prohibited the use of projectiles containing poisonous gas, the Germans calculated that they were not in violation if they delivered the gas via cylinders. On April 22, 1915, the enemy soldiers strategically staged, then opened, the valves on fifty-seven hundred canisters of gas. The canisters were positioned so that the wind would carry the gas towards the Allied lines.

   The enemy initiated the attack by launching a massive bombardment of the Allied trenches. During the shelling, the gas was released with the wind carrying it towards its intended target. Since it was common for an attack to be preceded by heavy shelling, the Allied forces were in their trenches waiting to repel the anticipated attack. The bombardment produced dark, heavy clouds of smoke that prevented the Allies from spotting the approaching gas until it was too late.

   The Allied troops were expecting to see waves of enemy soldiers crossing the battlefield. Instead they saw a low, greenish-yellow mist rolling towards them. The gas cloud permeated four miles of trenches, affecting some ten thousand soldiers. It took only about ten minutes for half of the exposed troops to die.

   The German Army hadn’t gauged the potential effectiveness of the gas. As a result, they neglected to have sufficient reserve troops in place to fully take advantage of the wide opening in the Allied line. Although they capture a significant quantity of land, they lost most of it when the allies launched a counterattack.

   Attempting to capitalize on the successful, introductory release of the gas, the Germans repeated the process two days later. On April 24, chlorine gas was used against the unsuspecting Canadian troops. Fortunately, the quick-thinking Canadians used urine-soaked handkerchiefs to cover their mouths and noses, lessening the impact of the gas.

   With the resulting success of the April 22^nd gas release, the advancing Germans expected to witness the annihilation of extensive numbers of Canadian troops, instead they encountered a defiant Canadian force standing its ground. Fierce fighting ensued, causing heavy losses on both sides.

   By the end of May, after staging several persistent attacks, the enemy had gained additional high ground. As a result, it forced the allied forces to consolidate their positions closer to the city of Ypres. After many attempts to capture the city had failed, the enemy retaliated with an unrelenting bombardment. By the end of the war, the entire city of Ypres was reduced to piles of rubble.

   The Second Battle of Ypres cost the lives of sixty-nine thousand Allied soldiers and thirty-five thousand German troops. The significant contrast in the number of Allied deaths can be directly attributed to the Germans’ use of chlorine gas.

April 28 - 29

April 28^th

Went into action on the edge of a wood on the left of Ypres, this seemed more quiet than the place we had vacated. In the afternoon we ran our wire to a point for observing just over the canal. Everywhere about here was a scene of desolation, half starved cattle roaming about, pigs, and all sorts of farm commodities; many lying about dead. The French Infantry held this front and just in rear of the trenches were 4 of their Howitzers, which showed how far the enemy had advanced. We stopped to observe some big shell bursting near, a kind we had never seen before and promptly named it “Black Jack” on account of the great volume of black smoke they gave off. While we were watching one burst directly over the heads of a few Frenchman, they scattered and I didn’t think any were harmed. We went back, shells of large caliber were continually passing right over the guns, but only one burst near, about 20 yards from where I had made my dugout, at the foot of a large tree – it did no harm.

The night passed uneventful, except for the continual shelling and during night, two batteries of French 7.5’s took up position about 50 yards in our rear.

April 29^th

Was impossible to fire from observation, as we could not get to observing point and the wire was broken in many places by the continual shelling. We fired by map and wireless from aeroplane – hostile aeroplanes were very active and one must have spotted us for they gave it to us warm in the afternoon and evening. The officers had made a bivouac beneath a large tree, a few yards on my left. A few shell, and they were real coal-boxes, burst very near. They moved over to the left and lucky they did, a few minutes later a shell hit the tree and snapped it off like a match. Other shells followed and we had to leave the guns for a while. When it was over, we went back, the officers huts had been blown to pieces, two coats that hung on a tree were absolutely in ribbons, almost everything there was irrevocably ruined. One of them had been sitting on a box of biscuits; this box was blown yards away and not even a biscuit that was inside remained. The tin box was like a piece of twisted tin. Everything was almost unrecognizable.

Dowling one of the servants got both arms badly splintered - continually shelling roads to our rear and right all night.

What History Doesn't Teach Us

As the centennial of WWI draws closer, I wonder why bother with documenting history, at lease history of wars. Great scholars dissect every political and military decision made that caused war, how the battles were fought, and how it ended.  Over man's existence we've gathered great volumes of data, but we learn nothing from it.

History has proven numerous times that one society can not rule the world. Some have conquered vast quantities of land as well as the residing population, but in the end they fail to keep it. Yet, through out history a person rises to power, convinces himself along with his followers, that he can lead them to victory over those that oppose him.

Kaiser  Wilhelm, thought that he could take over Europe, convinced his people that he could, in the end he fell from power, left millions of his citizens dead, destroyed their economy, all on a belief that he could succeed where all others had failed.

I often wonder why would people follow someone like that? What a great salesman! Would you follow someone that said they can go to war, defeat other countries, knowing that history demonstrates it will cost the lives of millions of people - sons and daughters, bankrupt the country, but ignore all that and say Hell yes, lets do it. Then twenty years later fall for the same shell game.

At times I think aggression is part of man's makeup, why else would he continue to do the same thing over and over. Perhaps it is a way to control population growth. Without war to thin out the population, think of how many millions or billions of people would be on this earth.

I've said my piece