Gas at Gallipoli

[Joe Sweeney]

Was gas ever used at Gallipoli?

I've come across primary documents of a request for gas respirators in May 1915 based on intellignece of potential Turkish capability to manufacture.

The War Office replied-also in May 1915-- that 50000 respirators were sent and that another 50000 helmets would follow.

So was the threat real and has anyone come across an indication that these were actually issued on the Pennisula?

Joe Sweeney

[michaeldr]

Joe,

I feel certain that this has cropped-up before but the search engine here is not too keen on words of just three letters

Gas helmets were issued. There is a good description in ‘Solo Saga’ by Reginald Gale which is held by the Admiralty Library, Great Scotland Yard, London [ref A2021. Ca3376] This was reproduced in Len Sellers magazine ‘RND’ Issue No.15 December 2000

“On 1st July [1915] we were still standing by and consequently could only leave camp after permission and one or two at a time. It was about this time that we were issued with gas helmets and given instruction and drill with them. They were really bags made of flannel which pulled completely over the head and tucked inside the tunic. There was a mica panel and mouth piece with an external rubber tube.”

Gale was with the RND Divisional Engineers – Signals, at Helles at this time

Most historians feel sure that gas was never used on Gallipoli

Regards

Michael D.R.

Edited 17 December , 2004 by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

Joe,

The foll was RD’s post on a related thread

Robert Dunlop Posted: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:39:47 +0000

QUOTE (michaeldr @ Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:21:33 +0000)

If get a response from Dr. Sheffy then can you please oblige and let me have details

Michael

As requested, the following reply was received from Dr Sheffy:

'The EEF used chemical shells against Ottoman forces during the Palestine Campaign on two occasions: on the 2nd Battle of Gaza, 19 April 1917 (about

1,600 shells of asphyxiating and tear gases) and on the 3rd Battle of Gaza,

30 October-4 November 1917, (about 10,000 shells, mostly containing deadly

gas).

Palestine was only one of four Middle Eastern fronts, in which British

forces were equipped with chemical weapons. On Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia

they never used them. In Salonika they did, even before employing gas in

Palestine. The story of the decision-making process (combining political,

ethical and military aspects) which ultimately led to the use of chemical

weapons in the Middle East, makes a fascinating reading.'

I believe that Dr Sheffy is preparing articles for publication.

[Paul Reed]

I am pretty sure there is an article on the use of gas in a copy of the 'Gallipolean' (journal of Gallipoli association) in the 70s or 80s. I have these stored away at present, but if I can find it, I will mail you a copy Joe.

[Robert Dunlop]

Garden, a company commander from the Special Brigade, transferred to Mudros and Egypt, along with 3000 cylinders containing chlorine. The conditions on Gallipoli were totally unsuited to chlorine gas cloud attacks. The gas was heavier than air and would have 'flowed' down the gulleys and ravines. There was a great fear that the Turks, who enjoyed the advantage of the high ground, would launch attacks down onto the allies. Garden ended up rejoining the Special Brigade again.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

Sorry, I should have added that Foulkes mentions the Ottoman Army being supplied with gas by the Germans. So the threat was real (or there was a real threat, depending on whether Foulkes' sources were correct).

Robert

[Joe Sweeney]

Everyone thanks.

For some reason I had never associated Gallipoli with gas or the threat of its use.

The request for the respirators and helmets came as a bit of a surprise.

Joe Sweeney

[bkristof]

Everyone thanks.

For some reason I had never associated Gallipoli with gas or the threat of its use.

The request for the respirators and helmets came as a bit of a surprise.

Joe Sweeney

Joe,

for the use of Chlorine gas in Flasks, not in shell Gallipoli wasn't a good place.

It is at the coastline and the wind mostly blows from the sea to the land, so direstion Johny Turk... And i never saw Turkish gas masks. So i think the Ottoman empire didn't want to invest in gas masks. I never saw a mask on picture or even not a container for some gas protection.

Maybe the tried a few things, like paul thinks, but i doubt that there were real gas attacks as part of an offensive.

And I recall that a few books on the topic said that the German didn't supplied the Turks with gas shells because they didn't trust them enough.

This is my little contribution.

By the way, if anyone should have a picture of a Turk with gas protection... I am VERY interested to see it.

greets,

bk

[RodB]

Frederick Gibbon in 42nd Division history does not mention gasmasks on Gallipoli, he mentions the issue of the "strange new" box respirator in France later.

There is a brief mention of the Turks releasing what appears to be an "aromatic" lacrimatory gas, which did not affect the lungs, into a British mine gallery near the Gridiron, on 25/11/1915.

[Captain Dave]

The NZ official history also makes mention of flannel type gas masks issued due to a percieved gas threat. No use was made of them though.

[DrB]

The Turks used "Tear Gas" on several occasions, but its effects were minimal. The Allies, for reasons stated above, did not use gas.

Respirators were issued in limited quantities to the Allies for contingencies. There was never a complete issue, so many "Tommys" and polius had no protection.

The British did intend to attempt to use poisonous gas, but by the time the special gas detail and their equipment had arrived, the evacuation had been planned so the idea was scrubbed. The crew and cyclinders were sent back to the Western Front.

This is from "Facing Armageddon" but I don't recall the chapter or page.

DrB

[baby700]

I wonder what evidence you have about Turks using 'tear gas'.

Are you sure that you not confound the effect of the some obus impact with a special tear gas? In their first experience, many allied soldiers believed also that the Turks using tear gas. That's not true. This is the greenish yellow smoke of the obus (from Turkish howitzers).

[Terry_Reeves]

The British did not use gas during the Gallipoli campaign. As mentioned above, a detachment of the Special Brigade was sent, but then returned home. Asquith specfically forbade the use of gas in this theatre on the grounds that the Turks had not used it. His letter on the subject can be found at the National Archive.

Terry Reeves

[DrB]

baby700....I used the wrong source. See pg. 140 and 142 for Turkish use of tear gas in "Gully Ravine" by Stephen Chambers.

RodB mentions its use in a mine tunnel, so it could not have been from a shell. The Surrey Yeomanry and Munster Fusiliers both report tear gas being used.

Apparently the hypo type mask was issued in small quantites, but neither the Allies nor the Turks employed the poisonous stuff.

DrB

[baby700]

DrB... I checked the Chambers book. So:

1. The quote in page 140 from Frederick Gibbon's 'The 42nd Division (14-18) is: 'injected through a hole in one of the galleries an aromatic gas, which affected the eyes, but not the lungs."

. This is fantaisist. The Turks had no such an equipment, even after 27 novembre (date of the first German tecnical package reached to the peninsula)

. There was no underground gallery system in Helles sector such as in Anzac. Only mine tunnels (or deep dugouts). The most active part of this system was between Fusilier and Kecidere (branch of the Zigindere (Gully Ravine), hold by the Turks).

. To use gas, poisonous or lachrymogene, underground or above the ground was not possible, because the distance between the trenches in that sector was only 50-60 metres.

. Also in such a windy and especially changeable windy conditions like Gallipoli, even if the distance between the two sides was sufficient enough to use the gas; it would'nt be rational.

. We have the full list of all the equipment of 5th Turkish army in Peninsula. You can check vol:10 of Turkish Official History (Logistics). There is no any sort of gas, cylinders, etc.

. I checked also the records of 42nd Turkish Division (Yes, it is a coincidence that the Turkish division is also 42nd. Just come to the place). Ther's no such an incident.

2. Other quotes in page 142, by 1/Sussex Yeomanry and Royal Munsters Fusiliers clearly show that is a shell effect in open air.

3. The British did not also use poisonous gas in Gallipoli; yet it was their intention to do so. In the same page of the book, the author clearly said that a special British team of gas embarked for Alexandria in novembre, with 6000 gas-filled cylinders, to be used at Gallipoli. But the evacuation plan was already underway, they abandoned this idea.

4. The same effect of the shell impact, mistakenly beleived tear-gas was also hit Turkish soldiers during the Allied diversion attack in 6 august to Lone Pine. Almost whole 47th. Turkish Regiment in deep trench system, positioning under heavy wooden bars, was badly touched with the gas, coming from the mass bombardement of the Allied howitzers. Many become unconscious, before the attack of Australians.

5. We don't discuss yet, how the Allied howitzers appears suddenly in 6th august, in North Beach and in the very side of the redcross tents!

6. In the attach. looking today from the first line Turkish trench to Fusilier Bluff.

[DrB]

baby700....I won't argue....I was only relating what I read in Chamber's book. Fiction or truth? Who really knows for sure.

DrB

[Guest Tosun Saral]

baby700....I won't argue....I was only relating what I read in Chamber's book. Fiction or truth? Who really knows for sure.

DrB

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Friends,

"Turks are clean fighters" those are not my words but the words of our dear enemies. During the war British high command wanted to give the soldiers on the front gas masks. The soldiers protested "The Turks are clean fighters. They don't use gas. The famous Britische Orientalist and Turk-friend Aubrey Herbert wrote in his famous book "Mons, Anzac & Kut ANZAC, 1915" . Monday, August 16th, 1915. No. 2 Outpost. It's curious the way the men speak of the Turks here. They still can't be amde to wear gas helmets, because they say the Turks are clean fighters and won't use gas. . . ."

Yes the Turks are clean fighters but are British? They killed, bayoneted 16 Turkish soldiers in March 16th 1920 in Istanbul while sleeping in their beds when they witout a warning captured the city after the Armistrace.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...ghters%22&hl=tr

[yellow]

In war my friend there are always atrocities committed by both sides. There are no exceptions.

Steve.

[The Plummed Goose]

Tencere, dibin kara !

Seninki benden kara !

eric

[The Plummed Goose]

and freely translated ...

the pot reproaches the kettle it is black.

eric

[Bryn]

Gas in tunnels at Gallipoli was not uncommon; it formed there as the result of mines being fired and either not breaking into the enemy's underground works or through to the surface. Several Australian soldiers, including two officers, were overcome and killed by the gas from an Australian mine explosion in Tunnel C2 opposite Johnston's Jolly, Anzac, on 29 October 1915.

Don't get me started on the "clean fighting Turk" myth!

[Robert Dunlop]

'Fumes that had a tearing effect' might be a better way to describe what happened. 'Gas', in the context of WW1, implies the deliberate use of chemical warfare.

Robert

[bob lembke]

Foulkes, the UK CO of gas efforts, did send some men, and 6000 cylinders (I think, from memory) to Egypt, but they were never used. The very idea of a gas release from cylinders from the Allied positions, given the Gallipoli layout, is rediculous. See Richter's excellent Chemical Soldiers.

Intentions aside, I can hardly imagine that the Turkish industrial base could have made an effective gas. The Germans were hardly able to get any supplies or munitions to the Turks and the small German forces (a company of volunteer pioneers and a few machine gunners, mostly from the Goeben and Breslau) on Gallipoli. The Turkish-produced shells were quite unlikely to explode on impact. When the Serbs were defeated, late in 1915, some materiel got through, although the Serbs had effectively wrecked the railroad, and the reliable German artillery ammunition and two batteries of heavy guns that arrived changed the situation significantly. Sending an exotic and questionable weapon such as gas to Gallipoli (which must be windy, and which wind must mostly blow from the Allied positions to the Turks) would have been a fool's errand, compared to supplying more effective artillery ammunition and conventional aid. Materiel from Germany had to be dragged long distances overland until early in 1916.

Bob Lembke

PS Any information about the volunteer Pionier company serving there will earn my eternal gratitude. My father served in it, and I know little.

PPS Eric, my computer is running again, and you will hear from me.

[Eceabat]

While not having a lot to add as far as whether gas was used by either side on the Peninsula, as a resident here I would say something about the prevailing winds.

Generally, the wind is from the north, with either a bit of east or west in it. On the Dardanelles side of the strait it comes barrelling down as if through a wind tunnel. The Poyraz as it is known locally, is especially strong in the winter but can also be powerful in the spring and autumn. We have just had five days of high winds here (up to 75 kilometres per hour) and it was very strong on the straits side, but also powerful at both Helles and in the ANZAC/Suvla area. In all cases, the wind was blowing from the Turkish positions towards the Allied lines. However, it can be still in the ANZAC area when the Poyraz is blowing at moderate strength.

Up on Second Ridge in the ANZAC sector, where the front lines lay, there is usually a breeze, if not a strong wind, almost all the time, and almost always from the Turkish side of the lines. (Very refreshing in summer if you come out of one of the deep and airless gullies).

The other main though less common wind, the Lodos, blows from the south, ie towards the Turkish lines, and ususally brings with it a rise in temperatures and, in the cooler months, quite often rain.

Not being a gas expert my opinion may not be worth much, but with the closeness of the lines, especially at ANZAC, I would have though that any use of gas could go badly wrong very easily. Rear area bombardment could have worked, but this would have ruled out the use of cannister released gases.

OK, so much for the report from the Eceabat met office.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Tosun Saral]

In war my friend there are always atrocities committed by both sides. There are no exceptions.

Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Friend Steve, In war OK ! But in peace if you kill someone it is murder. Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth "All the perfumes of Arabia can not clean this little hand."