Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI - Part 2


ss002d6252

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

This thread is to carry on from the locked one

 

Please continue discussion on the new points raised however please be polite and keep it so it doesn't get locked or censured. Let's leave any personal disputes behind.

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

 

Thank you for reopening this.

 

Michael posts an interesting document and adds to our study here.

 

Of cause, That could be why the writer often quoted by Gilly and Michael to Naval MG's at Gallipoli?

 

But wait they already do, like those added (auto weapons) mentioned in the Ottoman 9th Div order of battle, only they just don't call them MGs in 1914/15?

 

But your right, they don't say they are still MGs by 1914, unlike the document dated 1907, when there was little to no MG's (maxim types) in the Ottoman Army?

 

Most Armies during that time (1900), still add trouble as to where there automadtic weapons fitted in, some were placed with Artillery units, while others were put into the Infantry.

 

Interesting they (Ottomans) had a name like MG Bn in 1907, with no MG's in it, and only a few Automandtic weapons there.

 

Clearly this had changed by 1914 as the Ottomans had no MG Bn's?

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness gracious, open for business at last! Thanks.

 

Well if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck???????????

 

I am not overly concerned on the Nordenfelts and what one chooses to call them, although if I was on the receiving end of multiple rounds aimed into my landing boat I might have some colourful language for them, and it would not be rapid rifle fire! Pom Poms, automatic guns, machine guns - whatever. The descriptions I have read of witnesses who landed of the ensuing carnage at V Beach is incredibly compelling, and they had both!!!

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to ss002d6252 for re-opening this subject

 

My posting of the portion of the chart, was indeed as stated, related to the earlier (2008-2013) discussion of Nordenfeldts and whether or not they were machine-guns. My interest in them is in trying to establish where at Gallipoli (not the Bosphorus) they all were.

 

I have, myself, no doubt that those on the receiving end correctly identified what exactly it was that was firing at then on the morning of the 25th April 1915. The emphatic assertion of Captain Geddes in his report not only well illustrates how old this controversy is, but it also carries weight, having been made by a seasoned professional soldier. If I remember correctly one of Geddes' sergeants also found a relevant ammunition box.

 

Likewise, the correct identification of the pom-poms by Lt-Col (later Maj-Gen) W de L Williams, lends weight to his report of maxim fire, especially when one realises how much closer the “hole in the fort” was. The timing of both reports, the pom-pom fire and that of the 'maxim' firing from the fort, is given as 06:35 a.m. Williams' report of MG fire was also confirmed by the RNAS machine-gunners in the bows of the River Clyde.

 

It is very much to be regretted that during the recent work at the fort of Sedd el Bahr, a proper international archaeological examination of the remains was not carried out. It could have been Turkish led with participants or observers from Britain and France; alas, that moment has however now passed.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

 

Sorry my mistake, I hope I see where your going.

 

If so then yes, I also can agree, that the auto weapons attached to the Ottoman 9th Div during the landings, both at Ari Bunu and on the Helles beaches, could they believe these to be a type of MG and not auto weapons. Either by us and the Ottomans.

 

Interesting question

 

I'll have to check that.

 

But from what I can read clearly by 1914 they did not think that MG's were Auto weapons, as they were not shown as such in the Ottoman 9th Div order of battle.

 

But that may not tell the full story, as possibly they or the older officers, may still have believed that, which may mean the weapons drawn from the Navy may have been these Auto weapons and not MG's?

 

Could that be the addition of these weapons to the 9th Div pre the landing?

 

S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

This may seem like an unnecessary recap, however I feel that it is worth making these points again under the circumstances of a 'part II thread'

 

 

Anything written today about events which took place over one hundred years ago is, one way or another, in the form of a translation.

 

Few of us here, myself included, understand Turkish and very few of our Turkish historians can read directly from any surviving original documents written before the introduction of the Latin alphabet in the 1920s.

 

It is not just a Turkish problem however. We, the British and Anzacs, also have a difficulty interpreting the form of English used by historians educated in Victorian times:

e.g. Brig-Gen Aspinall-Oglander was born in 1878 and already in the army before the old queen died. We therefore struggle with what he meant when he referred to “old-pattern maxim guns

 

Let us remind ourselves of his footnote on page 221 of the British OH which reads:-

“An article by a Turkish officer in the 'Turkish Military Review' October 1926, admits that the Turks had four old-pattern maxim guns at V, but states that two of them were knocked out by the naval bombardment before the troops landed. They also had two pom-poms at V. The article does not admit that there were any machine guns at W; but Br-General Hare is certain that two were firing on the beach from the right flank when he landed.”

 

The only things clear from this are:-

he was not mistaking machine-guns for pom-pom

that whatever they were, there were four of them

he referred to 'maxim' and not to either Maxim-Nordenfeldt or Nordenfeldt.

 

It must surely be significant that the number four mentioned by the Turkish officer in 1926 also coincides with the other information which we have. Captain Geddes' sketch indicates the 3 separate positions of three machine-guns. The position of a fourth was identified by the RNAS machine-gunners in the bows of the River Clyde, as being in the ruins of a tower of Sedd el Bahr fort. It was also spotted there by HMS Albion which pounded the position.

 

The statement by the Turkish officer appears to contradict what we have been told was standard Ottoman army practice regarding the holding of such a weapon in reserve behind the front line.

 

It has also been mentioned that immediately before the landings on the 25th April 1915 there was a rotation of Turkish forces at V Beach, which implies that any machine-guns would have gone back with the first, and not been available to their successors. But this does not agree with the Turkish officer in his 1926 article.

 

The preparations made by the Ottoman Turks for the landings, which after mid-March were now fully expected, included all sorts of things which deviated from whatever might have then been their recognised procedures and rules. The admirable flexibility which came up with an idea such as burying the heads of torpedoes to act as land mines, would see no problem in also deciding not to stick by their rule book and to keep a number of machine-guns in position covering the landing site(s).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Michael, a great piece of analytical research. As 'historians in arms', be it amateur or professional, what we must keep reminding ourselves is that history is not linear. Its twists and turns will try a derail us at every bend and test our capacity to think outside the square.  The often quoted statement that the Ottoman Army had a shortage of machine guns has never been disputed.

 

But what is disputed, is the fact that numerous reports that British and Anzac troops landed under machine gun fire are now claimed to be false. If such claims are to be taken seriously then the question we should all be working together to solve is, where did these imaginary machine guns come from? In this scenario let's all put our orders of battle to one side for a moment, because the simplest answer is, anywhere they could find them. If that includes bringing obsolescent machine guns back into service, or removing them from ships as a matter of urgency, as was common practice in both worlds wars then what is so shocking about this suggestion.

 

Let's hope version II of this thread concentrates on solving the questions we already have, not throwing more into the mix to confuse the issue.

 

Perhaps by working together, instead of against each other, we can grow our knowledge of this event in history and get to the bottom of this issue.

 

It is ridiculous to think that by simply claiming there was a shortage of these weapons it is enough to annul a multitude of MEF and Royal Navy accounts of enemy machine gun fire at the combined landings.

 

Rockturner

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, michaeldr said:

This may seem like an unnecessary recap, however I feel that it is worth making these points again under the circumstances of a 'part II thread'

 

 

Anything written today about events which took place over one hundred years ago is, one way or another, in the form of a translation.

 

Few of us here, myself included, understand Turkish and very few of our Turkish historians can read directly from any surviving original documents written before the introduction of the Latin alphabet in the 1920s.

 

It is not just a Turkish problem however. We, the British and Anzacs, also have a difficulty interpreting the form of English used by historians educated in Victorian times:

e.g. Brig-Gen Aspinall-Oglander was born in 1878 and already in the army before the old queen died. We therefore struggle with what he meant when he referred to “old-pattern maxim guns

 

Let us remind ourselves of his footnote on page 221 of the British OH which reads:-

“An article by a Turkish officer in the 'Turkish Military Review' October 1926, admits that the Turks had four old-pattern maxim guns at V, but states that two of them were knocked out by the naval bombardment before the troops landed. They also had two pom-poms at V. The article does not admit that there were any machine guns at W; but Br-General Hare is certain that two were firing on the beach from the right flank when he landed.”

 

The only things clear from this are:-

he was not mistaking machine-guns for pom-pom

that whatever they were, there were four of them

he referred to 'maxim' and not to either Maxim-Nordenfeldt or Nordenfeldt.

 

It must surely be significant that the number four mentioned by the Turkish officer in 1926 also coincides with the other information which we have. Captain Geddes' sketch indicates the 3 separate positions of three machine-guns. The position of a fourth was identified by the RNAS machine-gunners in the bows of the River Clyde, as being in the ruins of a tower of Sedd el Bahr fort. It was also spotted there by HMS Albion which pounded the position.

 

The statement by the Turkish officer appears to contradict what we have been told was standard Ottoman army practice regarding the holding of such a weapon in reserve behind the front line.

 

It has also been mentioned that immediately before the landings on the 25th April 1915 there was a rotation of Turkish forces at V Beach, which implies that any machine-guns would have gone back with the first, and not been available to their successors. But this does not agree with the Turkish officer in his 1926 article.

 

The preparations made by the Ottoman Turks for the landings, which after mid-March were now fully expected, included all sorts of things which deviated from whatever might have then been their recognised procedures and rules. The admirable flexibility which came up with an idea such as burying the heads of torpedoes to act as land mines, would see no problem in also deciding not to stick by their rule book and to keep a number of machine-guns in position covering the landing site(s).

 

Amen to that. Succinctly put. The case for mg's at V Beach is rather well documented from all sides.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

With regards to Imperial German Navy machine guns, this is an extract (see pp. 112,113) from a first-hand account by a German medical officer titled 'With the machine guns of the Mediterranean division on the Gallipoli front'. The full chapter can be found in Vor 20 Jahren / Von den Dardanellen zu Sues / mit Marineärzten im Weltkrieg durch die Türkei published in 1935 by the editors of a German medical journal. The book has an introduction by Admiral Souchon. 

 

Quote

When the fighting began there were present only a few German heavy artillery units, commanded by officers of the military mission, and naval artillery, as well as the headquarters of Marshal Liman von Sanders and some other German command posts. In early May, naval command sent at first a small machine gun unit comprising 30 men with 8 guns, then more German units were gradually deployed, and in particular, from November, when the route through Serbia opened. The naval landing unit was always at significant locations, brought into action at moments of imminent jeopardy, although it was not prepared for trench warfare lasting months, and at first it had no medical support. Later, when the machine gun unit was divided in order to be deployed across various sections of the front, the medical and first-aid personnel were also reinforced. When the route through Serbia was opened, the army also received more doctors, resulting in much better medical support and hygiene.

 

(This is followed by descriptions of water sources, waste disposal, burials and decomposition rates, disease and pests, etc.)

 

Does anyone have references to a German source that suggests naval machine guns were deployed before May 1915?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

No there are not.

 

The documents related to this German MG unit are well known and much has been written from German sources and the committment of Boltz and his men.

 

While there losses to this and other groups sent during there fighting is still on completly confirmed here are some names to check out?

 

Boltz Wilhelm    ObLtzS to Kapt Naval    OC - first MG det - Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli 44 men 8 MGs Operation at Morto Bay - Firat nehri üzerindeki deniz birliklerinin komutani (Commander of naval units over the Firat (Euphrates) River) Mesopotamia    1914-1918    WIA 8-5-15 
Brückers Peter    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    KIA 28-6-15 during the heavy fighting on the southern front at Kirthe
Buchmüller Ernst     Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    possibly WIA 8-8-15 DoW 10-8-15 
Carls Rolf    LtzS to Kapt-Lt Naval    SMS Breslau - Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli to Midilli Gemisinin topçu subayi (Artillery officer of the (Breslau) Midilli Gem) to U 9 & U 124 7-18    1914-1916    (1885 - KIA 24-5-45) during the Spanish Civil War later WWII Adm Kreigsmarine to Marine kommand Nord 1943 KIA 24-5-45 in air raid at Bad Oldsloe
Dank Matthias    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    KIA 8-8-15 at Ismailoglu Tepe
De Brignis    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-16    
Hecht Wilfried    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    KIA 12-12-15 buried on Kilia Tepe
Hildebrant or Hildebrandt Oskar    LtzS Naval    SMS Breslau - Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    KIA 8-8-15 at Kocaçimen Tepe
Hiltmann    LtzS Naval Dr    RMO Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli    1915-    
Kaufhold Hinrich    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    KIA 8-11-15 buried on Kilia Tepe
Kottwitz von    Kapt (Maj) Naval    Turkish cruiser "Hamidiye" 1914 to Gelibolu'daki Deniz Çikarma Birligi komutani (Naval Units Commander (Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung) at Gallipoli)    1914-1916     RTG sick 10-15
Kraft Werner    LtzS Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli    1915-    (died 6-11-15 of typhus) grave at Tarabya Istanbul 
Krülls    ObLtzS Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli (replaced Boltz WIA)     1915-    
Müller    Ensign to LtzS Naval    SMS Goeben - Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung - Çanakkale'de makinali tüfek bölük komutani (Machine gun unit in Canakkale)    1915-    
Niemand    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-16    
Peters Wilhelm    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    reported PoW 4-6-15 by British at Gully Ravine escaped died 7-9-15 reason not stated
Pohl    LtzS Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Ariburnu/Suvla    1915-    
Rabenau Götz Friedrich von    Ensign to LtzS Naval    SMS Goeben - 2ic under Boltz - Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli Çanakkale'de Yedek taburlarin 2. Subayi (Reserve battalion in Canakkale 2 subunit) f    1915-    (born 1891 - ) WIA chest shot & PoW 4-6-15 at Gully Ravine
Rathert Christian    Chief Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    DoD 17-10-15 from typhus buried on Kilia Tepe
Reinicke Emil    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    KIA 29-12-15 buried on Kilia Tepe reported Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung lost 32 KIA & between 50 to 60 died from illness (not confirmed)
Rohde Hans    Kapt (Maj) Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli (replaced Kottwitz sick 10-15)  önce Geliboluda Çikarma Birlikleri komutani sonra Deniz kuvvetleri Komutanliginda Amiral subayi (before the Geliboluda Dispatch Units commander then the Navy Command Commander)    1914-16    later military attache in Ankara)
Schafföner    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung     1915-16    
Schmidt Hans Martin    LtzS Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at South Group at Gallipoli Çanakkale'de Güney gurubunda Makinali tüfek bölük komutani (In the Southern group in Çanakkale the machine gun division commander)    1915-    
Schubert    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung (under Boltz)  at Gallipoli     1915-    
Seckendorf     Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    
Skora Emille    Matrosen Naval     Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    possibly PoW 4-6-15 at Gully Ravine reported 8 KIA and two MGs lost
Thomsen Von    ObLtzS Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli - Çanakkale'de Yedek taburlarin komutani (Reserve battalions commander in Çanakkale)    1915-    
Wodrig Franz    LtzS Naval    SMS Breslau - Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Ariburnu/Suvla Ariburnunda makinali tüfek bölük komutani (Machine gun unit in Ariburnu)    1915-    
Zoen Richard    Sig Naval    Wls telegrapher Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli     1915-    possibly PoW 4-6-15 at Gully Ravine reported 8 KIA and two MGs lost
 

Cheers


S.B

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 13/08/2019 at 23:38, michaeldr said:

My posting of the portion of the chart, was indeed as stated, related to the earlier (2008-2013) discussion of Nordenfeldts and whether or not they were machine-guns. My interest in them is in trying to establish where at Gallipoli (not the Bosphorus) they all were.

 

Michael, while trawling the Hunter-Weston papers, I came across this handwritten note in Hunter-Weston's private war diary. It dates to early May 1915 (perhaps 6 May). As you're collecting pom-pom references, I thought I'd post it here:

 

Admiral Wemyss has aboard HMS Euryalus his flagship, a Pom-pom (one inch bore automatic cannon) and a Hotchkiss gun firing a shell a little smaller, to be delivered to Mrs Hunter-Weston of Hunterston, West Kilbride! They will be nice trophies for Hunterston. They were taken by my men when they disembarked. They were placed by the Turks, with others, in cleverly placed positions covering two different beaches. They killed a terrific lot of our men while they were disembarking and while they were advancing from the Coast over the barbed wire to take the enemy's entrenchments. I am also sending home through the Ordnance depart.[ment] some old stone Turkish cannon balls and two Turkish rifles & bayonets that I took from dead Turks the first day I landed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, b3rn said:

a Pom-pom (one inch bore automatic cannon) and a Hotchkiss gun firing a shell a little smaller

 

Great detail, Bern

Many thanks indeed

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at this a little more closely, Hunter-Weston was not as precise as he might have been.
The Turkish Pom-poms had a bore larger than 1-inch: they were actually 37mm

 

1957155564_TurkishOrganizationchart19APRIL1915PomPomsandNordenfeldts.jpg.f15bedd60188818c06c1f93f07bacc7d.jpg


What did have a 1-inch (actually 25mm) were the Nordenfeldts
One would like to be able to presume that a British Major General knew the difference, but........
Has anyone ever seen either of these guns at Hunterston and can say specifically what it was the H-W trophied?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2019 at 00:38, b3rn said:

a Pom-pom (one inch bore automatic cannon) and a Hotchkiss gun firing a shell a little smaller

 

What could H-W mean by  "a Hotchkiss gun firing a shell a little smaller" ?

The only Hotchkiss guns which I have seen in the vicinity of Gallipoli were on display at the Çanakkale Naval Museum

Could this be the type of thing which H-W was talking about?

 

P1040183.JPG.c1e36e27fd7589a34439be89b7dfb8c9.JPGP1040184.JPG.ea67e93b50ca001970c0f9c56947611a.JPG

 

Has anyone heard of this sort of gun being used at Helles "in cleverly placed positions covering two different beaches"?

 

Edited by michaeldr
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

Has anyone heard of this sort of gun being used at Helles "in cleverly placed positions covering two different beaches"?

 

P1040186.JPG

P1040187.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith_history_buff

With regard to the shells, what would be the differences between a shell from a 37mm pom-pom and a five barrel Hotchkiss, in terms of shell dimensions and weight?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith_history_buff

Some preliminary, and superficial, research would indicate both pieces have a munition which is 37mm in diameter, with a shell weighing 1lb. A Russian wargaming website detailing the 37mm Hotchkiss multi-barrel cannon states, after translation into English:

 

Quote

 The length of the brass sleeve is 95 mm

 

A similar dimension to the 37 x 94 of the pom-pom?

Source:
https://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Navy:37-мм_револьверное_орудие_Hotchkiss

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎16‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 18:55, michaeldr said:

 

Has anyone heard of this sort of gun being used at Helles "in cleverly placed positions covering two different beaches"?

 

 

Michael

 

I haven't been able to find a reference to a Turkish Hotchkiss at Helles in the artillery war diaries, but there are several references to Turkish Hotchkiss guns at Anzac. Kurija Dere 1:20,000 map squares 80 X7 and 68 X8 are two, but the calibre of the incoming shells does not appear to be given. Australian batteries fired on these positions several times as well as A/69th Brigade RFA. The Australians were using 3 pounder Hotchkiss guns, one of which was loaned to the New Zealand Artillery at one point.

 

Kind regards

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Alan,

Many thanks for checking up on this 

The Mitchell Report notes that the Turks had 4.7-cm L/30 QF shielded Hotchkiss guns in some of their Minefield Batteries and for coastal defence. Perhaps these were later transferred to the Ottoman artillery once the land campaign started on the peninisula

However, 4.7-cm is much nearer to 2'' than 1'' and I do not think that H-W was refering to this type of Hotchkiss. In fact I understand that the 4.7cm is the quivalent of the 3-pounder which you mention the Anzacs using

 

best regards

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

From the first officer out of the River Clyde:

 

I desire to bring the conduct of the following men to the notice of the commanding officer.
1 No. - Pte Bowater “Z” Coy. 1st Rl Munster Fus. who on several occasions under very heavy fire from snipers and machine guns displayed conspicuous bravery in running along the beach in order to reconnoitre for cover for the remainder of the men who were suffering heavily from snipers. 
Owing to him it was discovered that by moving more to the right it was possible to obtain cover from the snipers on both flanks.
2. No. - Sgt Ryan “Z” Coy. 1st Rl Munster Fus. who by a splendid example of coolness & personal valour encouraged his men & led a reconnoitre party round the fort to locate the snipers in the village. 
Dictated to me by Capt. E. L. H. Henderson 1RMF.
25th April 1915.    
[?] Wilson[?] Capt. 
Adjt[?] 1st Rl Munster Fus."

 

HENDERSON, Captain Eric Lockhart Hume, OC 'Z' Company, 1st Battalion, The Royal Munster Fusiliers.

Born 31 May 1881, Dublin, Ireland.

Served in South Africa (Anglo-Boer) War.

Appointed 2nd Lieutenant in Royal Munster Fusiliers 8 March 1901.

Captain 23 July 1913.

MiD for Gallipoli.

 

HENDERSON_River_Clyde2.jpg

Edited by Bryn
Omitted 'to' following 'Dictated'.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Bryn. Good to see you back showing more evidence! Plenty of it around. Just got to dig.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that link, Michael. A lot of useful information there. Dare I say it, but it would seem to *me* that Captain Eric Lockhart Hume Henderson, being a career soldier in the regular army and with service in the Boer War, just *might* have recognised the sound of a machine gun. I doubt he mentioned machine guns just to make the exit from the River Clyde sound harder than it was.

Ian - you're right of course. Plenty of eye-witness statements still 'out there' in addition to all those already found.

Edited by Bryn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
stevebecker

Mates,

 

I notice the Offical History shows some 34 MGs with the 5th Army before the landings.

 

"At the beginning of the year 1915 there were 65,725 rifles of different diameters and types [Mauser, martini rifle, modified martini rifle, Schneider], 1291 carbines, 1468 swords, 3814
revolvers and 34 machine guns in the hands of the Fifth Army.

 

This had me looking where these 34 MGs were within the 5th Army at Gallipoli?

 

3rd Corps (7th 9th 19th Div) 

 

19th MG Co (2x MG's Aug 1915) 

21st MG Co (4x MG's Aug 1915)

25th MG Co (4xMgs)

27th MG Co (4xMgs)

57th MG Co  (4xMGs)

72nd MG Co (4xHotchkiss MGs 1915)

 

5th Div

13th MG Co (4xMGs)

14th MG Co (4xMgs)

15th MG Co  (4xMGs)

 

That makes the 34 Mgs mentioned in records

 

The list does not include the units of the 15th Corps on the Kum Kale side

 

Also some MGs Companies had not the full number of Mgs in their units

 

So did extra Mgs arrive between the formation of the 5th Army around March 1915 and the landings late April.

 

Thats always been the question.

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Link to post
Share on other sites
gilly100

Steve

 

And then there is the largely ignored German contribution.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...