Position on Kiretch Tepe Sirt

[michaeldr]

Essentially they make an excellent argument that it is one of the great untruths of Gallipoli that map and terrain intelligence was poor.

Martin,

I accept that towards the end of the campaign the surveying improved and as a consequence so did the maps which were then produced. However, this was a long drawn out process, which commenced from a very low starting point indeed.

In 'Grasping Gallipoli' the authors comment that the one-inch map was based on an old survey, and they further remark that in many respects it was inferior to the original from which it was derived (French 1854). However they also give that "Maps are always out of date. What is important is how quickly and how accurately they are updated, or supplemented by the necessary additional information such as charts, visual reconnaissance and air photos."

In respect of the latter, the air photos, the Gallipoli campaign got off to a very slow start; see 'Grasping Gallipoli' page 179 - "Given that only fifty-five photos had been taken by the end of October over the Gallipoli Peninsula by the Ark Royal's seaplanes, most of these taken of the Anzac area, it is unlikely that many, if any, were taken before the initial landings."

[my emphasis]

As I said at the beginning, to my mind this was a very, very, long drawn out process, which ironically reached its peak just as withdrawal began to be discussed.

regards

Michael

[Guest]

Essentially they make an excellent argument that it is one of the great untruths of Gallipoli that map and terrain intelligence was poor.

Martin,

I accept that towards the end of the campaign the surveying improved and as a consequence so did the maps which were then produced. However, this was a long drawn out process, which commenced from a very low starting point indeed.

In 'Grasping Gallipoli' the authors comment that the one-inch map was based on an old survey, and they further remark that in many respects it was inferior to the original from which it was derived (French 1854). However they also give that "Maps are always out of date. What is important is how quickly and how accurately they are updated, or supplemented by the necessary additional information such as charts, visual reconnaissance and air photos."

In respect of the latter, the air photos, the Gallipoli campaign got off to a very slow start; see 'Grasping Gallipoli' page 179 - "Given that only fifty-five photos had been taken by the end of October over the Gallipoli Peninsula by the Ark Royal's seaplanes, most of these taken of the Anzac area, it is unlikely that many, if any, were taken before the initial landings."

[my emphasis]

As I said at the beginning, to my mind this was a very, very, long drawn out process, which ironically reached its peak just as withdrawal began to be discussed.

regards

Michael

Michael - I understand and accept all of the above

If you look at the British 1:10,000 series for Suvla there are at least 3 updates (Sep, Oct, Nov) with what can only be aer photo inputs regardless of the limited number of photos. Note on p.188 a Flt Lt Butler took 700 exposures between 4th April and the end of June and on p.193 & 194 on 25th June ".....He [Flt Lt Butler] pieces together the photos together to form a map, which is sent to Army Corp HQ. Trench reconnaisance is now done this way exculsively. Its value is so great that a regularly equipped photographic section attached to each Sqn or other unit appears to be indicated." Also on p. 196 we read that aer photos over Suvla were taken as early as 6th Aug and on p.197 "No.2 Wing took over 1,500 photos between 26 Aug and 19 Nov..." etc ......so there was enough material in the end and the maps would have been corrected accordingly.

Sketch maps are characteristically drawn in a rather 'shaky' manner - the 1: 10,000 Trench maps are not. They have all been redrawn between editions (line thickness varies, traversing appears, and trench systems 'grow' and even shrink in some areas as some trenches are filled and errors are corrected) so they are not just later dated reproductions of an earlier map. There was at least some new material input. and from the above we know much of it would be aer photos. Reading the section on map production gives one a real idea of just how busy they were. Despite the maps post-dating the action by the Essex Bns most of the trenches are still likely to be in the same position in Sep, Oct, Nov. We also have to remember that entrenching on Kiretch Tepe is significantly harder than on the softer Suvla Plain, so realigning a trench is much more difficult.

My point is that given the available material, I would put greater faith in the trench maps (based on aer-photos) rather than the trench sketches when trying to pinpoint to location on today's terrain. The sea level and the spot heights are constants in 1854, 1915 and 2010 (aside from tectonics). Interpolating with modern technology is easy. There is no evidence from the War Diaries (very detailed by the way) that the trench in question was abandone and filled in or realigned (other than the straightening by the Essex which was aeffectively a new trench). I still think walking the 90m contour would get us there. I would start from Jephson's post and descend on the trench alignment to 90m and then walk the contour.

Regards MG.

P.S. As an aside on all this surveying and accuracy it was also possible in 1915 with 'sticks and string' surveying. Two lifetimes ago as a young subaltern in the Queen's Gurkha Engineers we surveyed three routes (each over 8km) for water pipelines in the Himalayas with nothing more that a 30m tape, a bamboo pole with a piece of white tape at 6' (my eye level) an Army Prismatic Compass and a tiny hand held level. The work was for the Gurkha Welfare Trust, diverting stream water to villages along circuitous mountainous routes to provide running water for the villages in our recruitment areas. Pretty rough, but it was accurate and it worked.....and 3 villages have had running water for 20 years now. The technology was available to the Romans. I know our classically trained Royal Engineer forbears could do something similar in 1915 (even under fire and from the bottom of a trench looking uphill), so I have greater faith in the accuracy of these maps than most. MG

[michaeldr]

Martin,

Many thanks for reminding me of the book's later refs to aerial photography; your "Note on p.188 a Flt Lt Butler took 700 exposures between 4th April and the end of June and on p.193 & 194 on 25th June ".....He [Flt Lt Butler] pieces together the photos together to form a map, which is sent to Army Corp HQ. Trench reconnaisance is now done this way exculsively. Its value is so great that a regularly equipped photographic section attached to each Sqn or other unit appears to be indicated."

The authors suggest that Butler probably commenced a week or so later than the 4th April, and he was wounded in June. It was not until August that photographic section [for which Hogg expressed his above wish] actually arrived. 'The War in the Air' Vol. II, gives Gerrard's arrival as 'the last days of August' and even then Lan-Davies describes how they had to beg and borrow the equipment.

I certainly agree your "I would put greater faith in the trench maps (based on aer-photos) rather than the trench sketches when trying to pinpoint to location on today's terrain." My point however, relates not our examination of the maps today, but rather to what was available on the peninsula at crucial points in the campaign. I still feel that, while it is irrefutable that progress was made in the mapping department during the campaign, it nevertheless reached its peak too late to be of any definite and positive consequence.

regards

Michael

[Neil2]

Martin, Michael - I've never found a reference to the front line changing so it seems an aerial taken in December would show the August position accurately. Martin - the 90m contour reference...does that come from a war diary? Apologies if I've missed that in an earlier post...

[Gully Ravine]

Keith - thanks for those photos. And that sketch from Andy is great, a rare view from the ground. I was starting to think Jephson's must have been a little way down off the ridge top. The ridge top itself would have been horribly exposed after all. Keith - the map you've put on has much more detail in the contours and looks very like an area I was eyeing up for Lone Tree Gully on the satellite images on Google Earth. More squinting needed. Not far off the other position though, is it?

I've often wondered about the big step/bulge out at the south end of the Kiretch Tepe trench line - not exactly a "straightened" line, is it? I suppose the lay of the land and cover must have dictated final positions but also wonder if the advance of the 4th Essex on August 18 to straighten the line (a possible overshoot) accounts for it. These are a couple of extracts from letters published in September 1915 in The Burnham on Crouch newspaper from 4th Essex soldiers from Burnham: "Our biggest casualties occurred when we did an advance to take up a hitherto unoccupied position. We were ordered to go 300 yards, I understand, but actually went about 1,400, under a heavy fire. We are continually losing men here, most of these from shrapnel bursts as this whole part of the peninsular is under fire. Shrapnel is whizzing about as I write." Private E.G. Outen wrote to a friend in Burnham: "I dare say you will see it in the papers before long about the 1/4th Essex making that advance. Well, it‟s quite right; we did it and that's the end of it. We made the Turks run – in fact cleared them right out of that spot." It made the Burnham papers anyway!

Not sure if the first soldier's information on distances is correct but they clearly went a lot further than they thought the plan dictated - led, I think, by an Australian scout on their left flank, probably attached to D Company and Captain Tyler.

Neil.

By overlaying the trench map I have on Google Earth, I estimate that Lone Tree Road is around 40 19 34N, 26 15 30E (in red) and that Lone Tree Gully is around 40 19 45N, 26 15 54E (in blue). There are other features just a little north that also seem to fit, but the countours don't match quite as well. Still working on it ... from the alternative map in the previous post, Lone Tree Gully looks to go up the gully that is darker green and in a more notherly direction on the GE image.

Keith

[Neil2]

Keith - that's the spot, I'm sure of it. It's the only place with a good contour fit. I agree on both Lone Tree Road and Lone Tree Gully - but flying over on GE the "gully" looks pretty flat. Hargrave's sketch shows a deep cleft between high walls. I put the flatness down to GE though?

Trying another experiment, I drew lines on GE back from the final trench line (around the 90m contour mark) to try to establish the start point of the 4th Essex advance on August 18, which established the front line final position. First I tried 1400 yards (from testimony of a 4th Essex man in a letter home, not too reliable I think.) That takes the starting position of the 4th Essex well back beyond this point. But 1000 yards (the official estimate) places the start point of their advance bang at the western end of your blue line (Lone Tree Gully.) If correct, this would be the position the 7th Essex took up and where the line was before it was ordered to be straightened.

Finally I put a line going forward to try to find the spot where Capt Tyler was killed - or the line of it, anyway. This was said to be some 400 yards forward of the British trenches. I don't know how to upload a GE map but here is the url: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110698779977390156793.000495d3964d409e569fc&ll=40.328788,26.264588&spn=0.005987,0.013894&t=f&z=17&ecpose=40.32379037,26.2556059,485.13,53.873,67.232,0

Neil

[lynedmonds]

Neil

Neither link works for me - I'll try a different PC tomorrow. I'm tempted to rely on GE. The area does look quite flat - probably because it is. Some areas farther East along the ridge (e.g. north of Kidney Hill) also look flat and they are. One 'meadow' we went across could almost have been a grass runway it was so flat.

So, we are either in the wrong place, or possibly Hargreaves' references are to the 'other' Lone Tree Gully?

Keith

[Neil2]

I think it's the right place - nothing else like that formation anywhere as far as I can make out. Yes, maybe Hargrave's sketched the other one. Or there is that other defile-looking possibility just to the north...

[Guest]

Martin, Michael - I've never found a reference to the front line changing so it seems an aerial taken in December would show the August position accurately. Martin - the 90m contour reference...does that come from a war diary? Apologies if I've missed that in an earlier post...

Neil2. Apologies. For 90m read 190m (from the original post) Purely a typo. I have done the calcs on the 190m NOT the 90 m contour. My typo error but does not affect the conclusion. MG

[Neil2]

Ah! I'm surprised though - 90 seems to make sense to me. 190m would be as high or higher than Jephson's, wouldn't it?

[Guest]

Ah! I'm surprised though - 90 seems to make sense to me. 190m would be as high or higher than Jephson's, wouldn't it?

No. See post number 3 for heights. Note Scimitar Hill (Hill 70) and Imail Oglu Tepe (112m) are around 100m high (330 ft). They are mere blips on the plain compared to Kiretch Tepe. I think the contour references and heights were all in metres not feet.

[Neil2]

Ah. I'm getting that WFA disc for Christmas - might be able to make it out better then. Cheers Martin.

[Guest]

The 190 figure came from your original post. I didn't check it as I assumed it was correct???? MG

[Neil2]

I shall check it again. Believe it correct as stated in war diary but still surprised now I know the ridge a bit better. 190 must be the raZor back itself .

Neil

[michaeldr]

Looking at the 1/20,000 map (Anafarta Sagir) the three highest points on the ridge are each shown as individual contours within that darker one signifying 200 metres; thus suggesting heights of 210 metres at least for these three points. (Though, when looking at the Turkish map it appears to give 190 for Jephsons)

There is also an interesting note in the bottom left hand corner of that (British) map regarding heights and the veracity of the information which they have given up to this point.

Quote:

"NOTE: Numbers printed thus (here 971 is shown within a frame) are heights given incorrectly in feet on the 1/40,000 maps, which have come into use as names for the summits in question."

[The underlining is as the original]

Regards

Michael

[Guest]

Looking at the 1/20,000 map (Anafarta Sagir) the three highest points on the ridge are each shown as individual contours within that darker one signifying 200 metres; thus suggesting heights of 210 metres at least for these three points. (Though, when looking at the Turkish map it appears to give 190 for Jephsons) Regards

Michael

In that case I am talking rubbish (wouldn't be the first time!) looking back I counted the countour lines down to 90 (NOT 190) so ignore my latest posts. If the Diary said 90 then the grid I suggested should be OK (roughly half way down the hill) . If the Dairy says 190 that means a position very close to Jephson's Post which aslo means my grid is completely wrong. Clear as mud? MG

[Neil2]

Martin - have checked the 7th Essex war diary again - it definitely states "190 contour." So it's pretty close to Jephson's Post.

Circumstantial evidence now - and not sure what it's worth. But when the 4th Essex moved up ahead of the 7th, a Captain Tyler was killed. In Burrows, it states that a party went out and retrieved his body which was said to be "400 yards from their trenches." A short way further on from the scene of this fight, a night patrol later heard the Turks talking. So Tyler must have died fairly close to the eventual Turkish front line. If he was killed 400 yards beyond the eventual British front line (or something like it), it must have happened at a place where there was a 400 yard gap between the opposing trenches. That means it was high up, because if you go much lower down the slope there wasn't (I think) a 400 yard gap to be had in No Man's Land. Tyler was with the left-most platoon of the 4th Essex too - so he'd be north rather than south.

My theory about this is that resistance was stiffer at the north end (as we now know the Turks were worried about the ammo dumps up there) than at the southern end of the advance. The 4th Essex were being placed platoon by platoon and the first platoon to be placed (Tyler's I believe) was - as it turned out - placed well forward of Jephson's Post, and almost at the Turkish positions. Which was probably why there was a fight. The line was subsequently established due south of Jephson's Post - and i think in "straightening the line" that must have been the original intention.

I expect one battalion could have stretched down from 190 to...well, I don't know where really.

Neil.

[Neil2]

Slightly different point - the Turkish ref given by Michael for Jephson's Post is 190 whereas high points on ridge could be 210. Is it possible that Jephson's Post was in fact a fair way down the side? Or do we mistrust the contours, either Turk or British?

[Guest]

Slightly different point - the Turkish ref given by Michael for Jephson's Post is 190 whereas high points on ridge could be 210. Is it possible that Jephson's Post was in fact a fair way down the side? Or do we mistrust the contours, either Turk or British?

I note that there are contours on the middle image on Michael's post number 39 - the dotted and dashed lines. Also the scale is 1:3,600 (centre top) which very strongly suggests to me that this sketch was made from overlaying the paper on a scaled contoured map. If this is so, maybe we can rely on this. I also note that Jephson's post is shown as being on the very top. From a tactical point of view I would imagine that there would have been something on the high point as it is what tacticians today would call "vital ground" i.e. ground if taken by the enemy would make the other areas untenable. Maybe splitting hairs but if the sketch map is indeed made by overlaying a scale map, the locations of these trenches can be accurately gauged and plotted on GE.

[Neil2]

Yes - point taken. Think you're right Martin.Though I can't make out any of the contour numbers - if there are any. Any idea what diference might be between each one? Interesting too that the parallel contours in the higher part immediately below Jephson's Post would seem to correspond to the description of the gullied ground that made the 4th Essex incapable of maintaining lateral connection during their eastwards advance. Lower down the contours run all over the place.

Neil.

[Guest]

Yes - point taken. Think you're right Martin.Though I can't make out any of the contour numbers - if there are any. Any idea what diference might be between each one? Interesting too that the parallel contours in the higher part immediately below Jephson's Post would seem to correspond to the description of the gullied ground that made the 4th Essex incapable of maintaining lateral connection during their eastwards advance. Lower down the contours run all over the place.

Neil.

We know the spot height figure, so using this as a starting point the first contour has to be the 210m contour........The contour touching the "J" in Jephson's Post has to be the 210m......so the contour between the circled 6 and circled 7 has to be the 200m ....... and the contour below the circled 7 has to be the 190m contour........... It is extremely unlikely that the contours are spaced at anything other than 10m.

[Neil2]

Very high up then - thanks Martin. That makes sense for the left flank of the advance I think.

I think I'll be very heavily shot down over this next bit - and expect to be! I don't know how to overlay but I scaled a GE image and this sketch as closely as possible, had both side by side on screen, and rotated the GE one until the striated contours at the top were parallel. The contours running across both matched all the way down until the squirly ones appear - so I reasoned it was a decent match for scale. I then measured between Jephson's Post on the two images and applied the distance in between to other points on the two maps. I was surprised how far east the lower end went. And how far down. And then there started to appear to my eye a very seductive fit between Lone Tree Gully and the new road running up the ridge. The Grave Yard even fitted over that small wood in the crook of the road's elbow (why IS that bend there, going round a patch of trees?) I know the sketch might not be spot on. It would put everything south of Marble Arch south of the new road too. But I begin to wonder whether Lone Tree Road/Gully wasn't an existing track in 1915 (used by the Turkish gendarmerie up there, maybe?) and that the new road follows the line of it. This might be why Lone Tree Gully is so hard to find - it's now under the road. It is very very striking how Lone Tree Gully, Dublin Street and the continuation of Munster Street follow that bend round - with the small wood in the bend on the position of The Grave Yard. Tomorrow I buy some tracing paper...

Has anyone ever driven up that road? Could it be described as a "gully?"

Neil.

[Gully Ravine]

I have tried to overlay a trench map on to Google Earth, overlay on top of that the sketch from earlier in this thread and then remove the first trench map, The image here is the result - the sketch on GE. I can get a reasonably close alignment of Lone Tree Gully and the Grave Yard, but the scale of the sketch and trench map do differ and, so far, I have not achieved a perfect fit. Close, and I guess within the limits of the technology available then and now, but not exact. I'm not sure which road you refer to - the track I have driven on many occasions is to the south of the area we are looking at - and does lead to the Gendarmerie memorial, passing south of Kidney Hill (in this image, the track is in the bottom right hand corner, above the word 'Google'.

Keith

[Neil2]

Keith - have PM'd you for advice on how to upload a 100K image that's bigger than a thumbnail.

The Luddite.

[AndyR]

Hi all,

I'd like to suggest a position for Lone Tree Gully which is a little further East than shown on Keith's #55 & #73.

The small map in Keith's #48 seems to show Azmak Dere going down the centre of the map with Lone Tree Gully going off to the right from a diamond shaped depression. There is also another gully running parallel and just North of Lone Tree.

I suggested in my post #10 that I thought that some of the trench lines could be distinguished on the satellite maps.

With the caveat that mine is very much an amateur eye, I think I can see the Turkish trench lines as marked in blue (I've put the lines just East of the white lines visible on the maps so that they can still be seen - hopefully anyway in 100KB!).

The line marked seems to match the Dec line quite well - an exception is the "nobbly knee" lump in the Turkish trench line but this lump appears on the sketch in Michael's #19.

I've also marked what I think are Bond Street (BS), Jephson's Post (JP - consistent with the position of Jephson's Post given in Keith's #31), and some trench lines (1, 2, 3 and at the bottom right near the Turkish lines).

However I accept that some of these are very speculative, and that there are other similar "marks" which I have chosen to ignore.

AndyR

I have then overlayed the trench sketch of Michael's #39, and the overlay seems to correspond for Jephson's Post and the various features I've picked out.

E.g. the "trenches" in oval marked "3", the parallel trench lines up the slope at "1" with the upside down U shaped trench, the "2" marks the trench wiggling out towards the Turkish line with the small trench at its head.

This would put Lone Tree Gully (LTG) where I've marked it, with the "diamond shaped depression" from Keith's map in the circle at bottom left.

I can imagine that the shape of LTG even seems to match Michael's sketch and that the dark line across the sandy depression is the trench continuing.

Trench positions are consistent with my #13 which shows lone tree gully wiggling up the slope from the sandy patch at the bottom centre. This would put the grave yard (GY) on the "hill" where I have circled

I feel fairly confident about all this but await being shot down!

AndyR