German machine-guns

[michaeldr]

In 'Gallipoli 1915 - Through Turkish Eyes' by the academic Mr. Haluk Oral (translated from the Turkish by Amy Spangler & edited by Bill Sellers [Eceabat on the GWF] published in 2007 by Türkiye Iş Bankasi Kültür Yayinlari – ISBN 978 9944 88 217 0) the author quotes from a document written by General Fahrettin Altay in 1935, summarising the 'Suvla landings and other operations.'

On page 332 the entry relates to the evening of 7th August 1915 and includes:

"A German machine-gun battalion made up of twelve machine-guns was assigned to the 9th Division."

What happened to this German battalion and its 12 machine-guns?

The 9th Division had been under the command of Hans Kannengiesser Pasha. He had, however, been wounded in the chest, relieved of command and evacuated from the front shortly before this time, and (perhaps unsurprisingly therefore) as far as I can tell his book makes no reference to this 'German machine-gun battalion.'

Edward E Erickson in his 'Gallipoli - The Ottoman Campaign' gives the OoB for the 9th Division at this time as:

25th Regiment, 26th Regiment, 64th Regiment and 2nd Artillery Regiment

He makes no mention of a 'German machine-gun battalion'

(NB: nor is such a unit mentioned by Erickson under 'Willmer Gp.')

[also note that Kannengiesser in his book refers to his command as being made up of

"...two infantry regiments 25 and 64, with my battery..." (see page 204)]

In the British Official History, Vol.II, see page 283 (8 Aug.), footnote 2:

Willmer had reported in writing at 6 am. "...Machine-gun detachment from the fleet has arrived and has been put into position..."

Liman von Sanders in his '5 Years in Turkey' (page 90 of the 2000 edition) also mentions

"In the great Anafarta landing our fleet could give us no assistance except through the machine-gun detachment........they were first used on the Ismail Tepe."

I understand that most probably Fahrettin's use of the word 'battalion' was inexact here and that these men and their guns may have been reinforcements supplied by the Navy. I further understand that they may have been split up amongst several Turkish units. Indeed they may even have been split up amongst units other than the 9th Division.

See also OH Sketch No.25: 'Suvla 7pm 8th August Arrival of the Turkish reinforcements' (between pages 280 & 281)

On the line Anafarta Sagir - Ismail Oglu Tepe are shown two positions each of two machine-guns.

Were these machine-guns all German? That is to say, did the Turkish forces under Willmer's command – Brusa (or Broussa) Gendarmerie (300 men), dismounted cavalry (250 men), pioneers (100 men) & 31st Regiment (450 men) - have no machine-guns of their own?

[Just to confuse matters, the southern end of this line shows five symbols very similar to those used for the 2 X 2 machine-guns. These however, I think may possibly indicate the 5 mountain-guns which Willmer had at his disposal (?)]

Can anyone clarify any of this and confirm, with references, where the 12 German machine-guns were operational at this time?

And for how long did they remain at the front before returning to the fleet?

Thanks for your interest

Michael

[bob lembke]

On page 332 the entry relates to the evening of 7th August 1915 and includes:

"A German machine-gun battalion made up of twelve machine-guns was assigned to the 9th Division."

What happened to this German battalion and its 12 machine-guns?

The 9th Division had been under the command of Hans Kannengiesser Pasha. He had, however, been wounded in the chest, relieved of command and evacuated from the front shortly before this time, and (perhaps unsurprisingly therefore) as far as I can tell his book makes no reference to this 'German machine-gun battalion.'

Thanks for your interest

Michael

Michael;

I have or have read a great deal of the little on this topic. However, it is organized (or not) so that it would be a bit of work to pull out. Let me first dig thru my brain pan (like in "dust bin") and see what I can dig out that may answer your question(s).

There never was a battalion-sized German unit at Gallipoli. There were three company-sized German or Austrian units at Gallipoli. My father's volunteer Pionier=Kompagnie arrived at Gallipoli in or about June. They had very serious losses from disease and my father arrived several month's later, with others, as one of several reenforcements. They worked mostly in assisting the Turks with their mining activity; my father was at ANZAC.

About mid-November or a bit later two Austrian batteries arrived; first a battery of the Austrian 24 cm Motor=Moersern, which was sent to ANZAC (my father saw them there), and a bit later an Austrian 15 cm howitzer battery, which was sent to the tip of the penninsula.

Additionally, re: German MG units. At the beginning of the war German MG companies had 6 MG per coy, and at the beginning I don't think that there were any German MG battalions in the German Army. At the beginning of the war the MG co. in each Jaeger battalion had 12 MGs. After a year or two German MG companies generally began to have 12 guns per co., and they started to form some MG battalions. They often (or always had three companies, but were generally not called Bataillon, but Abteilung, which is a German term for artillery battalion.

So the idea of "a German MG battalion with 12 MGs" does not make a lot of sense either.

The first naval MG detachment was sent to Gallipoli about May 2 and got there about May 3, and were sent to the Helles front. It was about 40 men with 8 MGs from the Goeben and Breslau parked at Istanbul. After stiff fighting they lost many men and all of their guns lost or damaged, but then the Turks presented them with 13 Vickers that they had captured in a counter-attack, and they were back in business. A while later this detachment was replaced with a somewhat larger detachment with 12 MGs. Not sure of the date, but it might not have been as late as August. But your sources suggest that a naval detachment might also have been sent to Sulva Bay.

The Turks themselves had few MGs, especially at first; I seem to recall only 4 per division, but possibly it was 4 per regiment. Erickson probably states this. At this time the Germans were not able to bring more than a few weapons smuggled thru Romania; they got a few MGs thru cast into blocks of concrete and marked "for the Berlin-Baghdad Railway".

I hope that this is useful, if you have further questions I couple poke about a bit on this (presently my Gallipoli work has been put aside for a couple of years).

But I am 100% sure that there was no, literally, "German machine gun battalion" at Gallipoli. At this date there might not have been one in Germany itself. No German unit that size ever was at Gallipoli.

Bob Lembke

[michaeldr]

Bob,

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

I agree that Fahrettin's use of the word 'battalion' is very probably a mistake, however we have not only him, but also Liman and Willmer, who all say that German machine-guns arrived at the front at that time. My question is, how were they distributed?

Fahrettin says they were with the 9th Division. At this time the 9th were at Kodjadschemendagh (Sari Bahir).

On the other hand, Willmer and Liman both seem to indicate that at this time the German machine-guns came into action further north, on the Suvla front.

If there were 12 German machine-guns as Fahrettin says, then how many (if any) went to join the 9th Division at Anzac, and how many were with Willmer at Suvla. Was the original plan to have then with the 9th, but then this plan was changed at the last minute and they were diverted to Suvla. If so, how many were diverted? And do we know exactly to where?

regards

Michael

[bob lembke]

Michael;

I will look about and see about the later naval MG detachment, and when it was deployed. I believe that it had 12 MGs. Klaus Wolf's Gallipoli 1915 has a section of text on the landing parties, I will look at it and see what it says. (Lt.-Col. Wolf worked in the Turkish and German Foreign Ministry Archives. The German Army archives were destroyed, but the Foreign Ministry transmitted the Army communications to Berlin with their large short-wave station at Istanbul, and they kept copies.) He includes quotes from MG detachment commander(s). May take about a day. I have never seen any of the German sources give detailed info in their deployment. I would be very surprised at any German Army machine gunners at Gallipoli, despite the occasional reports of same in the Allied sources. (Allies sometimes mistook Turkish officers for Germans.) Another source on the naval detachments was Doenitz's (the WW II U-boat commander) book on the Goeben and Breslau; he was an officer on one of them, but did not go to Gallipoli himself. The commander of one of the naval MG detachments was badly wounded and captured; I do not know if there any allied records of his interrogoration.

For years I have read all the German, Austrian and French sources that I can find on Gallipoli, and even taken a very painful cut at a Turkish source. Incidentally, a very valuable source on the Central Powers' side is Pomiankowski, the Austrian head of military mission to Turkey; he was there for years, knew everyone, and had Turkish.

Bob

[akifemre]

Bob,

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

I agree that Fahrettin's use of the word 'battalion' is very probably a mistake, however we have not only him, but also Liman and Willmer, who all say that German machine-guns arrived at the front at that time. My question is, how were they distributed?

Fahrettin says they were with the 9th Division. At this time the 9th were at Kodjadschemendagh (Sari Bahir).

On the other hand, Willmer and Liman both seem to indicate that at this time the German machine-guns came into action further north, on the Suvla front.

If there were 12 German machine-guns as Fahrettin says, then how many (if any) went to join the 9th Division at Anzac, and how many were with Willmer at Suvla. Was the original plan to have then with the 9th, but then this plan was changed at the last minute and they were diverted to Suvla. If so, how many were diverted? And do we know exactly to where?

regards

Michael

Dear Michaeldr,

I am trying to answer your question according to Turkish Offical History.

Yes. On 7 August 1915 , 9. Ottoman Division had 12 MG. This division defended Kocaçimentepe (Hill 971)under the command of Lt. Colonel Cemil Bey with 4. Division. After H.Kannengiesser wounded on 7 August at 8 a.m. , Cemil took over all of the Ottoman troops that deployed in ChunukBair-Hill Q(BesimTepe)-Kocaçimentepe line. (4. And 9. Division) At the 7 August evening , 12 MG which had came from navy, deployed in Chunuk Bair. (p. 351)

According to Cemil Bey's report which send to Northern Group Commander on 7 August at 17.30 , Anafartalar Commander had wanted reinforcements continuously. He wrote:

As we have no reinforcement, it will be sent only four MG from 12 MG which had been brought this dusk. ( They were brought from navy by a German officer and a non-comissioned officer without soldiers) (p.355)

Gallipoli Campaign Turkish Official History: (Birinci Dünya Harbinde Türk Harbi, Çanakkale Cephesi Harekatı, V:5 Book 3)

Best wishes

Tuncay

www.geliboluyuanlamak.com (Understanding Gallipoli)

[michaeldr]

Tuncay,

Very many thanks for those details.

So, eight machine-guns remained with the 9th Division at Anzac, while four machine-guns were sent north to Suvla in response to their request for reinforcements. These latter could well be the four shown on the British Official History map Sketch No.25: 'Suvla 7pm 8th August Arrival of the Turkish reinforcements' shown in the first post above.

You also say that the Turkish History states that the machine-guns arrived from the fleet without their gun crews, but only accompanied by 1 German officers and 1 NCO.

Since no German gun crews were involved, I take it that these machine-guns remained with the Turkish army and did not return to the fleet: is this correct?

Thank you again for your help here

and best regards

Michael

[akifemre]

Exactly right Michael.

Thanks to you to bring on this issue. We revised our knowledge.

Best regards.

Tuncay

[Robert Dunlop]

Nice work, Tuncay. Thanks.

Robert

[bob lembke]

Merhaba, Tubcay;

I have been working with some Australians, who have great interest in the question of Turkish machine guns. I have the memory that usually the typical Turkish division in April 1915 had one company of four MGs in its structure, but I cannot recall where I read that, I have thought that for a long time. Some Australians state that each infantry regiment in a division had one company of four MGs. Is one or the other correct? Or is it more complicated? I frequently warn students of Gallipoli did not have that many MGs, and that Turkey lost a lot of equipment in the Balkan Wars.

Can you clarify this question? I think that many people would be interested.

Tesekkur ederim,

Bob

[bob lembke]

I had promised to read Klaus Wolf's section on the German MG landing teams (when I last was reading it I was in the middle of this section, which included direct quotes from one or more commanders of the naval landing parties), but I have (badly) misplaced it. (There are several thousand books about here, imperfectly organized.) Memory is that he found the quotes in a book from one of the German staff officers who wrote about their experiences at Gallipoli, Prigge, or was there also a Mehlmann? Sorry, I will continue looking. Unfortunately when I worked with these materials, several years ago, I was focused on my father's pioneer company, not the naval MGs.

Bob

[michaeldr]

Exactly right Michael.

Thanks to you to bring on this issue. We revised our knowledge.

Best regards.

Tuncay

Tuncay,

Again, many thanks for your prompt reply

and for all your help here

best regards

Michael

[akifemre]

Merhaba, Tubcay;

I have been working with some Australians, who have great interest in the question of Turkish machine guns. I have the memory that usually the typical Turkish division in April 1915 had one company of four MGs in its structure, but I cannot recall where I read that, I have thought that for a long time. Some Australians state that each infantry regiment in a division had one company of four MGs. Is one or the other correct? Or is it more complicated? I frequently warn students of Gallipoli did not have that many MGs, and that Turkey lost a lot of equipment in the Balkan Wars.

Can you clarify this question? I think that many people would be interested.

Tesekkur ederim,

Bob

Dear Bob,

Every ottoman regiment (not division) must have one MG company. This is true on table. But the distribution of the MG's to regiments were not equal. I would like to present you the number of Ottoman Divisons' MGs before 25 April 1915 (18 March 1915) according to Turkish official history.

9. Division.................................. 8

19. Division................................. 4

11.Division.................................. 4

7. Division ................................... 8

5. Division ................................... 6

Reference: Gallipoli Campaign Turkish Official History- Birinci Dünya Harbinde Türk Harbi, Volume 5, Book 1, Table:15

Extra information: There were no any MG in Ottoman Troops who defended coastal areas on 25 April 1915. 27. Regiment's MG company deployed in Eceabat ( app. 10 km far from Kabatepe) 25. Regiment's MGs deployed in Serafim Farm (app. 15 km far from V Beach)

Ben de teşekkür ederim )

Best wishes from İstanbul.

Tuncay

www.geliboluyuanlamak.com

Edited 14 August , 2011 by mahmutsabri

[bluedog]

Tuncay

As a regular visitor to the Peninsula , I do have some information from a respected

historian in Eceabat regarding Turkish Machine Guns at the Landing at Gaba Tepe and

Cape Helles.

Regarding Cape Helles , V Beach and W Beach I always refer to an extract from the

Turkish General Staff History , Page 102.

For the ANZAC landing at Gaba Tepe I use the report of Lt. Col.Sefik Aker who produced

a small book in 1935 called : "The Dardanelles - The Ari Burnu Battles and the 27th. Regiment"

May be worth having a look if you have not already done so.

Regards

Peter

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I record from Turkish sourses;

9th Division Col Halil Sami Bey - Col Hans Kannengiesser (G) WIA 7-8-15 - LtCol Pötrich (G) - LtCol Sabri Bey - LtCol Nasuhi Bey

1-3/25th Regt- 25th MG Co

1-3/26th Regt

1-3/27th Regt- 27th MG Co

So only two Regts had a MG Company (each of 4 MGs)

5th Division Col Hasan Basri Bey - LtCol Wilmer (G) - Col Küçük Refet Bey - Col Ali Fuat (Cebesoy) - LtCol Sitki Bey

1-4/13th Regt - 13th MG Co

1-4/14th Regt - 14th MG Co

1-4/15th Regt - 15th MG Co

7th Division Col Remzi Bey - Col Halil Bey - Col Kazim Bey - LtCol Nasuhi Bey

1-3/19th Regt - 19th MG Co

1-3/20th Regt

1-3/21st Regt- 21st MG Co

11th Divison Col Rafet Bey (1915) - LtCol Abdürrezzak Bey - Col Refet Bey - LtCol Kazim Bey - LtCol Hasan Mümtaz Bey

1-3/33rd Regt - 33rd MG Co

1-3/126th Regt - 126th MG Co

1-3/127th Regt - 127th MG Co

19th Division LtCol Mustafa Kemal Bey 1915 - LtCol Sefik (Aker) Bey 1915-17 - Col Sedat Bey - Col Sabit Bey

1-3/57th Regt - 57th MG Co

1-3/72nd Regt (arab) -72nd MG Co

1-3/77th Regt (arab)

S.B

[michaeldr]

Gentlemen,

There is an existing thread which discusses the disposition of Turkish machine-guns at the original landings (25th April 1915). This already has 22 pages of opinions and information: see

May I suggest that any discussion about the 25th April 1915 should be continued there on that that thread, so that valuable insights already recorded are not overlooked or forgotten.

Thank you for your interest

Michael

[michaeldr]

It has been brought to my attention that our GWF Pal, Steve Becker, has borrowed our idea and run this thread on another forum: there it has garnered this very interesting reply

Quote:

from turcoscot on 14 Aug 2011, 04:35

Hello Steve,

The diary of (then) Major Izzettin Calislar, who was Chief of Staff of the Anafartalar Group, has a couple of entries.

For August 9, 1915: "Around midafternoon (ikindi) the German naval officers arrived. We selected positions for machine guns in our sector, in No. 9 and N0. 12 trenches facing Sahinsirt and Sazlidere"

For August 11, 1915: "A naval machine gun company arrived".

For August 12, 1915: " The naval machine guns are harrassing the enemy's Agildere operation and rendering it difficult by causing casualties".

The reference is "On Yillik Savas: Org. Izzettin Calislar'in Not Defterlerinden Balkan, Birinci Dunya ve Istiklal Savaslari", Is Bankasi yayinlari, pgs. 128-129 [Ten Years of War: The Balkan War, First World War and War of Independence from the Notebooks of Lt. General Izzettin Calislar]

See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=180977&sid=d881a4904e5ea417b7b8da0de6d70985

My thanks to SB & to turcoscot

Michael

[michaeldr]

Two more posts from SB's thread on the Axis History Forum

the first is from jwsleser on Yesterday, 04:04

The Turkish officials (vol. V Çanakkale part 3) mentions German machineguns on 7 August (page 400).

Küçük Anafartanin batisi – Ismailoğlutepe hattinda 31 nci Alayin 2 nci Taburuyla Bursa Jandarma Taburu, dört Alman makineli tüfeği ve 40 ath bulunuyor

On the west Small Anafarta – Ismailoğlutepe line was the 2/31 Regiment, the Bursa Jandarma Battalion, 4 German MGs and 40 riders (mounted troops) present.

This is part of the force under Wilmer. On Kroki 49 (7 Aug), it shows the 4 German MGs with the Bursa Jandarma, but has the 2/81 instead of the 2/31. As the 81st wasn’t present at Anafarta, this is a typo.

I have not found a mention of German MGs in the text after that. Five German MGs are shown on Kurulus 12 (21 August: 3 with the 127th Regiment, 2 with the Bursa Jandarma). Kurulus 13 (end of August) also shows 5 German MGs, all with the 127th Regiment.

Jeff

... ... ... ... ... ...

And the second is from Tosun Saral on Yesterday, 18:19

Maj. Gen.Cemil Conk " Çanakkale Hatıraları" (Memories of Gallipoli)

Lt. Col. Cemil Bey commanded the 36th Inf. Regt. at Kerevizdere fights.

He commanded the 4th Div. After Kannangiesser was wounded by a MG bullet at the chest, he was made the commander of 9th Div. where he fouıght the Conkbayiri battle. After the civil reforms of Turkish Republic he got the surname /familyname "Conk"

About Turkish MGs at Gallipoli

"On August 7th 1915 at 11:10 I received a 6 articled order from Esat Pasha the commander of North Group. In the last article he was stating that "today towrds noon 12 MGs will be coming to Bigali. The officers and the crew are Germans. They are ordered to serve under your order at your region. Contact with them and order them their positions which you wish"

I immediately send an officer to Bigali for that MGs"

"At 14:30 the MGs arrived. The German officer commanding the group told me that only he himself and a NCO could use the guns. I gave this officer with 4 MGs to the order of 24th Regt and NCO with 4 MGs to the order of 14th Regt. The rest I wanted to send to Wilmer Bey at Anafartalar. ButI couldnt find a way to send them. For that reason I left them behind."

[trajan]

For August 11, 1915: "A naval machine gun company arrived".

For August 12, 1915: " The naval machine guns are harrassing the enemy's Agildere operation and rendering it difficult by causing casualties".

Michael

A naval issue KS 98 bayonet was found at Gallipoli - see http://www.sacktrick...0asienkorps.htm

It was issued in Kiel and so probably from a sailor from the SMS Goeben.

Trajan

EDIT: just back-checked and I see on post 4 Bob Lemke's note - 'Another source on the naval detachments was Doenitz's (the WW II U-boat commander) book on the Goeben and Breslau; he was an officer on one of them, but did not go to Gallipoli himself. ... The commander of one of the naval MG detachments [from the Goeben] was badly wounded and captured'. Nice to have artefactual (i.e., archaeological) information (this bayonet) to support that!

[michaeldr]

Trajan,

Thanks for that.

Someone else has written to me to remind me that the museum in Buyukanafarta has a German button found at Ismailoglu Tepe, as well as a German Butcher-Blade bayonet.

regards

Michael

[trajan]

Thanks!

BUT when I did my edit I was split-screening - the cricket one side, the GWF the other. So a mistake there... Bob's quote on post 4 did NOT specify that the naval MG detachments were from the SMS Goeben. But the bayonet - "Found in Turkish trench Gallipoli 1915" - would seem to confirm that one of the SMS Goeben's detachments was involved. As you might imagine, I do see German and UK/Commonweath bayonets for sale here with the guarantee 'used at Gallipoli' - and with issue dates post-1915...!!! BTW, there is also a popular Turkish DVD by Kanal D (Tuncay will probably know it) which repeatedly shows Vickers MG's 'in use at Gallipoli' by Turkish soldiers... Must watch it again but I suspect these are post-war propaganda shots.

Trajan

[bob lembke]

Thanks!

BUT when I did my edit I was split-screening - the cricket one side, the GWF the other. So a mistake there... Bob's quote on post 4 did NOT specify that the naval MG detachments were from the SMS Goeben. But the bayonet - "Found in Turkish trench Gallipoli 1915" - would seem to confirm that one of the SMS Goeben's detachments was involved. As you might imagine, I do see German and UK/Commonweath bayonets for sale here with the guarantee 'used at Gallipoli' - and with issue dates post-1915...!!! BTW, there is also a popular Turkish DVD by Kanal D (Tuncay will probably know it) which repeatedly shows Vickers MG's 'in use at Gallipoli' by Turkish soldiers... Must watch it again but I suspect these are post-war propaganda shots.

Trajan

Trajan;

But the naval landing MG parties were from the Goeben and the Breslau, possibly more from the light cruiser, as it was in drydock or at least major overhaul.

I elsewhere also mentioned that after stiff fighting the first German naval party of 44 men, an officer, and 8 Maxims (this from memory) had lost a lot of the men in fighting, and all the MGs lost or disabled in the fighting. But then the Turks presented them with 11 or 13 Vickers they had taken from the Brits in a counter-attack, and they were back in business. I think that the Maxim and Vickers were rather alike, and German troops were often cross-trained on enemy weapons. I also read that for some reason (perhaps being in the Med and being prepared for landings, "show the flag"), the sailors of the German ships had especially complete infantry training. Donitz reported that there was especially keen competition to get an assignment on one of these naval detachments.

Bob

[trajan]

Thanks Bob,

I do like the artefactual evidence - the bayonet - that sailors from S MS Goben were probably involved at Gallipoli. I was somewhat criticised on another thread / post re: a review of a new book on Gallipoli by asking about what there was in it regarding the participation in that battle of men from the Central powers. For me, as an archaeologist, I like to see the way that artefacts can elaborate on and illuminate the historical (i.e., written) record.

Cheers,

Trajan

[bob lembke]

Thanks Bob,

I do like the artefactual evidence - the bayonet - that sailors from S MS Goben were probably involved at Gallipoli. I was somewhat criticised on another thread / post re: a review of a new book on Gallipoli by asking about what there was in it regarding the participation in that battle of men from the Central powers. For me, as an archaeologist, I like to see the way that artefacts can elaborate on and illuminate the historical (i.e., written) record.

Cheers,

Trajan

See my post # 2 above. That is the extent of German units at Gallipoli. There were, of course, many German officers, either commanding or on the staff of Turkish units. Every German officer also had a Turkish rank one notch up on the pecking order from his German rank.

You are an archeologist? I had a friend who did about 20 summer seasons "digging", not in the field, but in the basement of the national museum at Ankara, dealing with mis-diagnosed or ignored artifacts. Her especial focus was King Midas' furniture. I may PM you. (My mailbox is usually full.)

Bob

[akifemre]

Dear Gentlemen,

While I searched another Gallipoli Campaign issue, I found an interesting picture by change. It is again from Axis history. At the end of the page you can see it.

"Dardanelles-Arıburnu, German Machine Gunners from the crew of SMS Breslau."

http://forum.axishis...122465&start=30

Best regards.

Tuncay

[michaeldr]

Tuncay,

That is a fascinating photograph; many thanks for the link

regards

Michael