TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI - Part 2

[Rockturner]

Steve,

If you would like to verify my research feel free to check Colonel F A Rayfield's Papers at the IWM. Rayfield like Captain Mitchell (Mitchell Report) investigated the campaign after the war, and it is from his work I quoted the numbers of machine guns on the various ships.  Academics Robin Prior and Rhys Crawley referenced Rayfield's Papers in their books so I guess that's good enough for me.

 

Next is the book, The Ottoman Steam Navy 1828 - 1923 by Bernd Langenseipen and Ahmet Guleryuz. You should be able to purchase a cheaper copy for around US $100.00 including post.

 

Or maybe you you check with John Walter, military arms expert and author of over 80 books.

 

Perhaps also you could visit the Bundisarchivs in Freiberg Germany. Otherwise you could pay someone to do your research, like I had to, if you would like check my information concerning the six machine guns on the Barbaros Hayreddin and the German personnel manning these weapons. It would have been nice to continue this research and find out more about the elusive Torgut Reis, but unfortunately I don't have a Bitcoin machine in my back shed. However, once Covid is under control we may see some more information come to light during 2021 when archives get back to business.

 

Finally as for stripping rapid fire weapons off Turkish naval vessels I quote from my article p.41.

Admiral von Usedom expressed his true feelings about the Turkish fleet to the Kaiser;

"I think that in the Turkish fleet only the two German ships, Goeben and Breslau have any appreciable fighting value, while the others are dummies". 

 

That may help you understand why prior to the 25 April Landings, which the Turks knew was inevitable, it was necessary to strip weapons off ships sitting idle in port and deploy them where they could do the most damage. And that location had to be at the southern end of the peninsula.

 

As for 'assuming the obvious being fraught with danger', that avenue can also be a two way street.

 

Murray

 

 

 

[gilly100]

Bravo Muzz

 

You have dipped into areas of research few others have bothered with, with more yet to come once COVID gets sorted.

 

It would have been a pretty pathetic command that would not have sought all available machine guns from all available sources, including what you have raised. It will be interesting if anything comes up on Torgut Reis, which may be problematic.

 

Knowing the time, money and effort you have put into all this, and with further info still to be found where others choose not to tread, time will eventually tell. Rifles and faith just does not cut it at numerous landing beaches.

 

Ian

[Guest]

Murray,

 

 

 

Mate I was just letting all know that the details were incorrect, but let me give you the source for these details for that details

 

See web site Barbaros Hayreddin shipwreck  which lists the weapons on the SMS Kurfast Freidrich Wilhelm and includes the MGs and landing guns.

 

Sorry I have found no details on the Torgut Reis and any MG's on her

 

So you may check the details by Colonel F A Rayfield's Papers at the IWM, but did you double check what he wrote, where there 12 MGs or 8 ?

 

But I surpose my details from the site may also be incorrect, so who is right, as I don't know his sources either?

 

As for the book "The Ottoman Steam Navy"  I have gone threw that book, but no where could I find the number of MG's on the ships, again I may have missed it so if you can give me the ref page where he gives the MGs that may help?

 

I was not going to bag the rest of your articale, but your sources need to be double checked and put into context.

 

See page 46 you quote a Southern detachment (28 Battalions and 16 MGs) attack 4 May and give the MGs were from Naval ships (8 from the two German ships and 2 from the Barbaros. What made you think the 16 MGs were from the Navy? The attack was by Army troops, so would not Army MGs be part? a check of the Army lists for that attack shows the Army Regts and there MGs, clearly none of the MGs were from the Navy, they were all Army?

 

That's what I mean context, you make the same mistake with POW records, you seam to trust all PoW reports, but I digress.

 

Why we can agree the Ottoman navy was in a poor state, all German sources agree, and with the first operation into the Black Sea proved that, but that does not mean the Ottoman Navy was hopeless, the Navy was still on operations during the Dardenelles fighting, so would you strip all weapons from these ships.

 

None of your sources say they did that, while numbers of weapons were sent, before the landing and after, (Sources by the Germans and Ottoman prove that) but not in the numbers you and others like to believe they did. No where do you prove that.?

 

Mate you bring up a number of interesting points, and yes you have presented that with what you believe is correct, but I don't agree with your concussions of that information?

 

Cheers

S.B

[Rockturner]

Steve,

The bulk of my large library and reference material is packed in readiness for a house move.

I spent six months researching that article for the 'Gallipolian' and as I am not prone to making mistakes the figures are not no going to magically change, so I suggest you just move on and wait and see what else may be discovered in the coming year.

Murray

[WhiteStarLine]

36 minutes ago, Rockturner said:

I am not prone to making mistakes

Sorry to be flippant, but ...

36 minutes ago, Rockturner said:

figures are not no going to

 

[Guest]

Murray,

 

Yes sorry, like I said I was just passing on the latest details I found on MG's, not to open a discussion on the articale you wrote.

 

I don't know if its enough for you to correct it?

 

Stay safe

 

S.B