Gas at Gallipoli

[bob lembke]

Bryn's interesting account vividly displays the toxic nature of the fumes from a confined explosion of conventional explosives. I have studied in depth the use of high-caliber siege guns (305 mm and 420 mm) against fortifications in 1914 and 1915 (a vocation of my grand-father at the time, spreading happiness in Belgium and Russia), sometimes causing the explosion of underground magazines, and the gasses from the shells (up to 2550 lbs) and the magazines could be deadly, and there even were reports of men shriveled and turned black.

It is good that we have seemed to nipped in the bud the invention of another "urban rumor" about Gallipoli.

[michaeldr]

If I remember correctly, Robert Dunlop tipped me off about this here on the GWF

see http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/278

'The Chemical Dimension of the Gallipoli Campaign: Introducing Chemical Warfare to the Middle East' by Yigal Sheffy

A very well researched and comprehensive article by a respected authority in the field

edit: I now see that Sheffy's work has already been mentioned previously in this thread, though some years ago now, so another reminder is not out of place.

Edited 3 January , 2015 by michaeldr

[Waddell]

HULL Stewart Allan 245 Spr 1 FCE (744) WIA 6-8-15 gas reported wounded with L/Cpl Guest from explosion while att 2 FCE digging suport tunnels/trenches to Lone Pine (G) RTA MU enteric relist 16R/2 FCE (R245) Tos 1 FCE 8-16 to 2 FCE 12-16 to 16 FCE in UK 4-17 to 1st Army Troops Co AE (ATC) 10-17 WIA 10-4-18 neck shrapnel reported 1 kiled and 9 wounded when shelled with 134 FC RE placed under command 25 Div around Ploegsteert to 2/Cpl 8-18 F&B shown as 1 LH FSE N/R

Steve and others,

Just returning to this post as it is an area of interest. I note Sapper Stewart Allan Hull of 1 FCE mentioned above being gasses whilst digging support tunnels/trenches to Lone Pine. I came across a mention in McNicoll's Royal Australian Engineers history of a technique used in Anzac "devised by officers of the 12th Battalion", to build saps and trenches without exposing themselves (P.34).

From the text-

"That of tunnelling from one rifle pit to another and afterwards breaking down the roof"

"On the appropriate day the roof would be removed from below, leaving the trench, properly traversed and provided with fire bays, ready for use. The absence of a parapet was a drawback, but this very absence served to give better concealment from ground observation".

The book only mentions 'breaking down the roof''. Has anyone come across mention of this in other sources?

And is it possible that the roof were collapsed with ammonal? This being another source of gas poisoning in the cramped trenches they were working in? Along with the tunnelling and laying of mines.

Any thoughts?

Steve,

Sapper James Hircoll (863/333) was another of 1 FCE gassed at Gallipoli a short time after Sapper Hull.

Scott

[stevenbecker]

Mate.

Yes due to the exposure to fire digging trenches across no mans land at Lone Pine it was decided to extend the assault ports by going under ground, then across the top.

Due to the need to bring supplies and reinforcements across to Lone Pine, this was done as quickly as possible.

The mining war on Anzac is an unrecorded area of study.

Cheers

S.B

[Guest]

A few British battalion war diaries mention gas bombs or shells fired by the Turks at Suvla Bay which proved to be ineffective. They appear to have been of the lachrymatory type. Also used at Hill 60 against the 29th Indian Infantry Brigade. Only very sporadic use in very small quantities on only a few days throughout the whole campaign. Gas helmets had been issued and were used.

 

From memory about ten diaries mention some form of gas shells or bombs. Some may have been phosphorus shells which failed to ignite. When in contact with water some gave off poisonous fumes. There were detailed instructions on how to deal with them. 

 

I have seen no evidence of asphyxiating gas being used. MG

 

 

Edited 23 February , 2017 by Guest
Additional detail. Spelling.

[Guest]

Mate,

 

From what I can read from Turkish sources, most of the shells they fired into the Allied positions during our stay there, were older types.

 

Most of the shells and guns were well passed there use by dates, but due to the lack of any thing else they fired what ever they had.

 

These poor quality shells did not always work and some didn't function as they should, problems with age, storage and poor quality of fillings and poor handling by the Ottomans cause all types of problems with this.

 

Some of these guns I list;

 

12cm Haubitze L/11.6 Krupp M. 1892 (72 howitzers)
7.5cm Feldkanone L/27 Krupp M 1873
87mm Feldkanone L/24 Krupp M 1873
7.5cm Gebirgskanone M 1873
7cm Gebirgsgeschütz M 1890
7.5cm Feldkanone L/30 Krupp M 03 (648 guns)
7.5cm Feldkanone L/30 Krupp M 10 (88 guns - 40 of a lighter model for horse artillery)
7.5cm Gebirgskanone L/14 Krupp M 05 (146 guns)
7.5cm Gebirgskanone L/16 Rheinmetall M 10 (1 battery for test)
7.5cm Gebirgskanone L/16.7 Schneider M.P.D. (108 guns)
15cm Haubitze L/14 Krupp [1905] (18 howitzers)
10.5cm Belagerungskanone L/30 Krupp [1905] (18 guns)

 

They also captured a large number of guns during the Balkan war (most British or French) and some were used on this front.

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Edited 24 February , 2017 by stevebecker