Gun emplacements on aer photographs

[johnshep]

Can anyone provide me with any pointers with regard to identifying gun emplacements from aer photographs with particular reference to Turkish emplacements at Gallipoli. I have read the Turks were at pains to disguise their emplacements by use of camouflage, yet aer photo interpreters at the time were able to spot them. Any clues?

John

[ianjonesncl]

John

The initial starting point is to look at the organisation of the units and type of guns you at looking for. I found this post which gives some details and an order of battle.

Turkish Artillery at Gallipoli

From this it can be determined that looking at a divisional frontage you can expect to find 5 batteries in that area. Working this through, by determining the type of gun, its range it can start to narrow down the areas to look at. Looking at the terrain may start to focus attention to particular areas.

Turkish Artillery http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=109440

Looking at the gun area you need to think about how the guns are deployed, I believe in WW1 it was straight line. Due to limitations in communications and survey, the guns will be close together, The chances are you are looking for 6 bushes in a line with a thin narrow line coming out of then ie a gun barrel.

It is also worth thinking about ammo supply. There may be tracks which lead to these bushes which just end there – good sign of a gun emplacement. Or a track going behind bushes, another potential sign. As well as ammunition supply, guns firing produce salvage. Either ammunition boxes, or with QF guns, shells cases. Salvage can be difficult to disguise from the air.

Having been around Gallipoli Peninsular, in many areas the number of roads and tracks available for the movement of ammunition is limited. Consequently a combination of looking at supply routes , potential gun areas, and gun ranges should produce likely gun areas. Look at these areas for the tell tale signs and hopefully you will identify the gun emplacements.

Nowadays this is what is called Terrain Anaysis and Doctrinal Templating. I am sure the soldiers of a centuary ago figured this out.

[johnshep]

Thanks very much Ian. Armed with that information I will take another look at the rather limited coverage in my possession and see if I can spot anything. Now you mention it, I am sure I read somewhere that the Turks were rather over-elaborate with their camouflage and that they attempted to disguise positions with piles of brushwood that seemed rather out of place. It had not occurred to me to look for 4 or 6 in a row. The other pointers you mentioned should certainly help narrow things down.

John

[ianjonesncl]

John

One other though is about terrain and the weapon system being used.

Thinking about the ground around Helles, guns could be used and consequent you may be looking at them being deployed from 1/3 to 2/3 of their range from the target area. As you get up towards the areas around Lone Pine, howitzers may need to be used to effectively lob shells over the ridges. With howitzers, as the range increases the elevation decreases and consequently the howitzers become crested ie the trajectory is insufficient tp clear any obstacles in the path of the shell. Consequently you may find them deployed further forward.

[johnshep]

Thanks again Ian

The aer photos I am working on unfortunately have large expanses of scrub and it is mostly in these areas that the post war maps indicate there were gun emplacements. This makes it very difficult to spot the tell-tale signs you have outlined and apart from identifying one or two 'possibles' I have been unable to track down the majority of the emplacements that should be there. I have found what appear to be two or three small rectangular enclosures - with the eye of faith bounded on three sides rather than four - but they are widely dispersed and not grouped together. Could these be abandoned emplacements do you think?

John

[Robert Dunlop]

The other general pointer was changes over time. This could only be judged by comparing photographs of the same area. Bear in mind too that the photography was supplemented by aerial observation as well. Observers would sketch locations on their maps that could then be reviewed with the photographs.

Robert

[Terry_Reeves]

Thales

These documents at the NA will be useful to you:

AIR 10/320 Notes on the Interpretation of Aeroplane Photographs 1918

AIR 10/1001 Notes on Aerial Photography. Part II. The interpretation of aeroplane photographs in Mesopotamia 1918

AIR 1/516/16/4/13 Printed Instructions. "Notes on the Interpretation of Aeroplane Photographs" 1918 Feb.

AIR 1/2113/207/53/631 Various photographs and illustration of interpretation. 1918 Feb.

AIR 1/2413/303/16 H.Q. General Staff `Notes on the interpretation of aeroplane photographs'. 1917 Mar.

AIR 20/6466 PERSONAL (Code 57): Treatise on the study and interpretation of aerial photographs Oct 1916 by Lt E Pepin presented by F C Happold 1916-1950

AIR 20/6466 PHOTOGRAPHY and CINEMATOGRAPHY (Code 58): Treatise on the study and interpretation of aerial photographs Oct 1916 by Lt E Pepin 1916-1950

AIR 34 Air Ministry: Central Interpretation Unit, predecessors and related bodies: Reports and Photographs 1916-1952

AIR 34/735 Album of aerial photographs of defence works on the Western Front, issued Feb. 1918 with, attached, `Notes on the interpretation of aeroplane photographs ...' (Confidential SS 445, 1916) 1916; 1918 Feb.

There were a number of techniques employed in interpretation, including looking at shadows, possible routes into a location, and so on.

TR

[ianjonesncl]

Thanks again Ian

The aer photos I am working on unfortunately have large expanses of scrub and it is mostly in these areas that the post war maps indicate there were gun emplacements. This makes it very difficult to spot the tell-tale signs you have outlined and apart from identifying one or two 'possibles' I have been unable to track down the majority of the emplacements that should be there. I have found what appear to be two or three small rectangular enclosures - with the eye of faith bounded on three sides rather than four - but they are widely dispersed and not grouped together. Could these be abandoned emplacements do you think?

John

John

Have a look at this one:

http://civilianmilit...AtGallipoli.jpg

Three sides - not 4. You need to get the gun in and out as well as supply ammunition. I think you may have found your emplacements. I am not sure how mobile the Turkish Artillery was, but rotating around emplacements would also reduce their vunverability to counter battery fire. They could also be dummies !!!

The other aspect is when deploying guns is understanding what the tell tale signs are for revealing their position. So dispersed, irregular positions , if possible, good track discipline, careful sighting of ammunition and recovery of salvage will all make the observers / photo analysts task difficult.

[ianjonesncl]

The other general pointer was changes over time. This could only be judged by comparing photographs of the same area. Bear in mind too that the photography was supplemented by aerial observation as well. Observers would sketch locations on their maps that could then be reviewed with the photographs.

Robert

Robert

Two good points.

The ability to have multiple sources helps confirm or deny (modern speak) if there are guns there.

[johnshep]

Just a word of thanks for all those very helpful contributions and suggestions. I will certainly have a browse through some of the files at TNA as aer photography and its development over the years is one of my interests.

I have found some of the emplacements and also tracks that appear freshly made but lead apparently nowhere. However, I am well short of the number of emplacements that should be there according to the Turkish OH, so much more to do.

John