Gas, Turks and Gallipoli - 1915

[Guest]

Did the Turks use gas at Gallipoli during the 1915 campaign? 

 

Oral family history has always espoused the view that my grandfather-in-law was "gassed by the Turks."  However, his war service record held by the NAA tells a different story.

 

The battalions of the 29th Indian Infantry Brigade and the 7th Australian Infantry Brigade had entries in their WD's and unit history's that mentioned a "gas" attack on the 28th September and 9th October 1915 in the Apex and Hill 60 area.  For example, the 28th Battalion unit history has the following:

 

"Up to this time poison gas had been unknown in the Dardanelles campaign, although all ranks were supplied with a small respirator which covered the nose and mouth and was secured with tapes that tied behind the head. It was understood that the British had, in reserve, effective means of retaliation should the Turk resort to it. However, on the 28th September, the enemy, who had been rather aggressive all day with shrapnel, bomb, and rifle fire, in the afternoon loosed a broomstick bomb, which burst in the air above the Apex and emitted a whitish vapour. This vapour drifted down into the trenches and had a decided lachrymatory effect on those with whom it came into contact. It passed off in a few minutes, and no further bombs of that nature arrived. The incident was important enough to warrant a report being made to Divisional Headquarters. As a similar occurrence at Hill 60 was noted within a few days, some attention was given to anti-gas measures. The result was the issue of certain instructions and a new respirator (P.H.) which, made of cloth and provided with goggles, was worn over the head and gave the wearer the appearance of either a partly equipped diver or member of the Spanish Inquisition. This article was to be carried on the person at all times." (source: The Project Gutenberg eBook, The 28th: A Record of War Service in the Australian Imperial Force, 1915-19, Vol. I, by Herbert Brayley Collett)

 

During their research, has anyone come across other references to the use of gas by the Turks, either at Suvla Bay, Cape Hells or the Anzac theatre of operations?  Just interested to see what info is out there. 

 

[Guest]

Mate,

 

No the Ottomans and Germans use no gas at Gallipoli/Helles.

 

While gas has been recorded in a small number of accounts, they all refer to the effects in the Tunneling and the use of explosives under ground?

 

As to the effects of shells, there was after the first reports of gas on the western Front a scare that went around all troops that any effects from shells could be gas, when it was not, this went on for so time and as such were at time reported as gas?

 

I think we have talked about this before, a check may find the old discussions.

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Edited 28 September , 2020 by stevebecker

[emrezmen]

Hello,

The first field manual on gas warfare (based on original German one) in Ottoman Army was issued in 1916. See:  

 

Gaz Muharebesi ve Gazlardan Korunma (Neferata mahsustur)  - Gas Warfare and Protection from Gas (Other ranks use only)

 

The following year, further three regulations were published with the remarks "Confidential" and "Not to be taken to the frontline":

 

Gaz Muharebesi ve Gazlardan Korunma (Neferata mahsustur) v2 - Gas Warfare and Protection from Gas (Other ranks use only)

Gaz Muharebe ve Müdafaası - Gas Warfare and Defense

 

Muharebe Gazları ve Vesâit Tedâbir-i Tahaffuziye ile Gaz Hastalığının Mebhâsü'l-Emrâz ve Tedavisi - Gases in Battle, Protection Methods and Science and Treatment of Gas Poisoning

 

I have never come across any reference to gas use in Ottoman war diaries and other documents. Also, administrations & logistics volume of Turkish official history does not have anything on gas for 1915. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, no gas unit was present among Germans served at Gallipoli.

 

Regards
Emre

 

 

 

Edited 14 October , 2020 by emrezmen
Additional images

[Guest]

Hi Emre,

 

Many thanks for your post.  It is certainly good to receive the perspective and data from a Turkish researcher, since most of my research is from Australian sources, which does not present a very balanced view.

 

I was always skeptical of the use of gas at Gallipoli.  But my mother-in-law was adamant that it was used, without any basis.  It wasn't until I reviewed my grandfather-in-law's service record that I could refute the family theory that he was gassed.  

 

Again, thanks for your reference material.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jay (Sydney, Australia).

[Guest]

Mate,

 

Without checking your GF records, we should be careful about the wording of Gas or its not recorded.

 

Large numbers of soldiers in France were gassed, but also many are not shown as gas.

 

Its been a while since I looked at this, but soldiers could be entered with a number of resportary illness from the effects of gas, but not recorded as gas.

 

I've only looked at ALH soldiers in France both in the LH or other units and found numbers with units gassed but there reports shown a number of illness other then gas, this happens also when a few days after the gas attack the soldier reports with these illness, he is recorded with the illness not that gas caused it?

 

Sorry its makes being certain about things hard to times?

 

MY GF was for many years suffering from Lung problems but since he served in Palestine and not France he like many could not get a a pension from the Govt.

 

In fact post war most old soldiers could not get any where with the Vet Affairs of that day.

 

Things have changed a lot now days and are very good, at lest to me with TPI pension

 

Cheers

 

S.B

 

 

Edited 14 October , 2020 by stevebecker

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

 

I totally agree with your assessment and comments.  I guess we'll never know for certain, but I am still skeptical of the claim of my GF in law being gassed, given that so many men from his Bn had enteric fever in the weeks prior to his sickness.  As you know, the sanitary conditions at Gallipoli for both the Allies and Turks were horrendous.    

 

During the tunnel battles with the Turks on 18 November 1915, two 26th Bn men succumbed to the effects of 'gas' fumes while in the mines.  Both their war service records have "gas mine poisoning."  I have documentary evidence, such as letters, which reveal that it was the fumes from the cordite that overwhelmed the men, not from any gas bombs used by the Turks.

 

My GF in law contracted enteric fever at Gallipoli.  In civilian life, he contracted TB due to his compromised immune system.  I guess it was easy back in those days to blame the Turks for his illness.

 

Anyway, it was good to receive Emre's research material to bring some balance to my research.  

 

Regards,

 

Jay.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, stevebecker said:

 

 

In fact post war most old soldiers could not get any where with the Vet Affairs of that day.

 

 

 

 

Yes, my GF in law had the same problem in receiving his war pension from the Govt in 1930's.   According to his repat records, he could not continue working with the NSW Railways due to health reasons (he was in his 40's) and subsequently applied for his pension. 

 

Initially being denied, since it was claimed by the Govt that his TB was not due to the war, he took the matter to an arbitration court.  They found in his favour.   I was both sad and disgusted by his treatment.  This poor soldier volunteered for the Army, and this was the thanks he received.  

Edited 14 October , 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

Mate,

 

yes sorry I was thinking of France where I surposed he went after Gallipoli, Which I must be wrong?

 

S.B

[green_acorn]

Gents,

 

Be careful in making assumptions about the use of gas at Gallipoli. They are not talking about the use of poisonous/fatal gas, such as those later used on the Western Front.  At the AWM I have read, but unfortunately due to a HD failure, no longer have copies of the Australian reports from Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, that both sides used "lachrymatory" gases, generally in the underground sap tunnels they were digging towards each other.  

 

Lachrymatory gases are a tear gas, which is often distributed as a fine "whitish" powder, or pellets/tablets of it are heated over a stove in an enclosed room during training.  In a confined space, even tear gas for a prolonged period of time would probably be deadly, or may have damaged the soldiers mucous membrane.

 

 

Cheers,

Chris

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, green_acorn said:

Gents,

 

Be careful in making assumptions about the use of gas at Gallipoli. They are not talking about the use of poisonous/fatal gas, such as those later used on the Western Front.  At the AWM I have read, but unfortunately due to a HD failure, no longer have copies of the Australian reports from Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, that both sides used "lachrymatory" gases, generally in the underground sap tunnels they were digging towards each other.  

 

Lachrymatory gases are a tear gas, which is often distributed as a fine "whitish" powder, or pellets/tablets of it are heated over a stove in an enclosed room during training.  In a confined space, even tear gas for a prolonged period of time would probably be deadly, or may have damaged the soldiers mucous membrane.

 

 

Cheers,

Chris

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for your input.  

 

The lachrymatory effects of the bombs thrown by the Ottomans on 28 September 1915 at the Apex is documented in the 28th Bn's unit history (above).   

 

I agree that we need to be careful with the use of the term "gas".  I think the phrase, "use of chemical weapons" is more apt.  The authors of the 26th Bn men's war service records, I guess, struggled to properly explain how the men in the tunnels were affected by the fumes that were prevalent there.  "Gas mine poisoning" was the best they could come up with.  But documentary evidence from the Captain of A Coy, 26th Bn, and another man from No.1 Platoon, states that it was the cordite fumes that overwhelmed the men.  

 

Anyway, who can tell?  These things occurred more than 105 years ago and all we have are letters, diaries etc, to determine what happened.   

 

But we also need to be mindful of the evidence presented by Emre.  I always value a balanced view from both sides of the war.  

 

Ciao.

[green_acorn]

Jay,

 

I acknowledge Emre's post and the first Ottoman gas manual.  Noting in your post from the 28AIB history that troops already had the "first generation" gas masks, don't so easily discount the use of tear (lachrymatory) gas, being delivered as a "... broomstick bomb, which burst in the air above the Apex and emitted a whitish vapour". Probably similar to this British gas bomb. The French (Aug 14) and Germans (Oct 14) had both used tear gas on the Western Front by this time.  

 

Prior to 28 Sep 15, clearly GHQ MEF had ordered the issue of the rudimentary gas masks in anticipation that it could be used at Gallipoli by the Ottoman Army.  Indeed the MEF may have deployed to Gallipoli in April with the masks given the prior use of gas in 1914 and the first mass use by the Germans in January and the increasing frequency of gas attacks on the Western Front. It is most unlikely that the MEF underwent gas "awareness" training prior to 25 April, nor anytime thereafter whilst on Gallipoli.

 

That the unit history notes that "It was understood that the British had, in reserve, effective means of retaliation should the Turk resort to it", indicates that the War Office had probably provided GHQ MEF with a stockpile of lachrymatory gas for retaliatory use. That GHQ ordered the issue of the "PH" gas masks a few days later, after the use of gas on Hill 60, also indicates that the War Office had already supplied the MEF with sufficient PH hoods to have them "on hand" in store ready for issue, in the event of a (lachrymatory) gas attack, not weeks away in the UK.

 

However, this does not mean that many of the officers and soldiers below Division would have had an understanding of what lachrymatory gases were, nor more importantly the effects they may experience when the gas was first used. I don't dispute the issue of cordite fumes in the confined spaces during tunnelling and counter-tunnelling operations, but having experienced tear gas myself during training, the description of the "broomstick bomb, which burst in the air above the Apex and emitted a whitish vapour" most certainly appears to be a tear gas attack. 

 

Therefore, I am with the family oral history of your Grandfather-in-Law on this one. No matter how hard it is to recant to the missus!

 

 

Cheers,

Chris

[michaeldr]

As far as I am aware, the best paper on this subject is The Chemical Dimension of the Gallipoli Campaign: Introducing Chemical Warfare to the Middle East by Yigal Sheffy

see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/0968344505wh317oa

[Guest]

Thanks Chris.  Your arguments are certainly compelling, but I am not ready to admit that my mother in law was correct.    I require further data on the movements and locations of my GF in law at Gallipoli.  He left the Peninsula before the move to Russell's Top on 5 November 1915 and the ensuing tunnelling work, and I can only hazard a guess that he may have been on fatigue duty at the Apex when the broomstick "chemical weapon" was used during late September 1915.  But that is unlikely as the 28th Bn had their own fatigue parties. 

 

In all likelihood, my GF in law would have been asked to perform fatigue work (I believe he was in the No.2 Beach Party of the 26th Bn) specifically for the 26th Bn, 7th Aus Inf Bde, or the NZ&A Div HQ.  More likely the latter since that was near No.2 Post, which happened to be near the 2nd / 1st East Anglian Field Ambulance where he was admitted on 20 October 1915 for influenza (and evacuated per the Nevasa the following day).  I would need to peruse the WD's of the 26th, 7th Aus Inf Bde, the NZ&A or the A&NZ Army Corps intelligence unit to find references to the use of broomstick bombs and the attendant "whitish vapour" near No.2 Post, prior to 20 October 1915.  rgds.

 

 

 

Edited 15 October , 2020 by Guest

[alantwo]

Following on from Chris' comments, the Allies did look into the use of, and precautions against, gas at Suvla and Anzac. The images below are from 9th Corps General Staff Headquarters WD, via Ancestry and may be of interest.

 

Regards

Alan

 

 

[alantwo]

I haven't seen anything to suggest that gas was used by either side but the extracts below may be of interest. They are from The Times newspaper casualty lists and include one death. These would have appeared 2-4 weeks after the event.

 

Regards

Alan

 

The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Jul 21, 1915; pg. 4; Issue 40912.

 

 

The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Nov 23, 1915; pg. 12; Issue 41019.

 

 

The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Nov 30, 1915; pg. 12; Issue 41025.

 

 

 

The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 08, 1915; pg. 8; Issue 41032.

 

 

The Times (London, England), Friday, Dec 10, 1915; pg. 10; Issue 41034.

 

 

The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 15, 1915; pg. 5; Issue 41038.

 

 

The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 22, 1915; pg. 8; Issue 41044.

 

 

The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jan 04, 1916; pg. 6; Issue 41054.

 

[Guest]

Thanks Alan.  Those newspaper extracts were interesting, especially the use of the term "gas poisoning".  It begs the question as to the nature of the work these guys performed at the Peninsula.  Were they in tunnels or mines, or was a chemical weapon used against them in the front line trenches?  Further research is required here.

 

As highlighted by Alan and Chris, the British "had, in reserve, effective means of retaliation should the Turk resort to it."  My question is, where were these stored?

 

Not wishing to be contentious, and I always welcome intelligent discourse from various viewpoints, I suspect the chemical weapons may, and I strongly emphasise the word may, have been kept between No.2 and 3 posts.  The following extract is of interest:

 

Between No.2 and No.3 Outposts and the sea, a major base came into being following the August Offensive (similar to those at Anzac Cove and North Beach).  The HQ of the New Zealand and Australian Division was located here and was surrounded by draught animals and all manner of stores and equipment.  There were also a number of field ambulances and a British casualty clearing station.  The seaward slopes of the spurs were soon crowded with all types of dugouts and it was not long before the base drew the attention of the Turkish artillery.  (source: page 204, Gallipoli - The Battlefield Guide by Mat McLachlan).

 

Now, not wishing to draw any strong assumptions about the highlighted text, the British chemical weapons could have been stored here, perhaps in a safer location near the dugouts on the slopes.

 

Chris highlighted the effects of tear gas: "even tear gas for a prolonged period of time would probably be deadly, or may have damaged the soldiers mucous membrane."

 

Given the conditions, storage area, experience in handling these weapons and safety measures in place where these chemical weapons were kept, could it possible that some of them were leaking, and the vapours drifted to the men in their dugouts, thus compromising their immune systems?  The high incidence of disease such as enteric fever at No.2 Post is interesting.  The WD of the 2nd / 1st East Anglian Field Ambulance, October 1915 at No.2 Post (copy held by Ancestry) states thus:

 

"A great deal of sickness continues amongst the troops, with unabated virulence..."

 

Now, not wishing to draw conclusions since this requires a review of all relevant WD's to determine if the Ottomans had used a chemical broomstick bomb at No.2 Post, it is strongly compelling that a leakage of the British "chemical weapons" over a period of time may have been the trigger for the high incidence of disease at this location.   The men would not have known they were being subjected to continuous exposure of the chemicals.   

 

But again, one could argue that disease was prevalent in other areas of the Peninsula, and due to other factors.  

Edited 16 October , 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

Mate,

 

The gassing by the Aussie Engineers (by Alan's newspapers)  relate to actions in Tunnels, this is where most of the gassing comes from in AIF units, helping the Engineers either digging or in the fighting around.

 

S.B

[Guest]

thanks Steve.

[alantwo]

7 hours ago, stevebecker said:

Mate,

 

The gassing by the Aussie Engineers (by Alan's newspapers)  relate to actions in Tunnels, this is where most of the gassing comes from in AIF units, helping the Engineers either digging or in the fighting around.

 

S.B

 

Steve

 

Would this have been a type of Lachrymatory gas mentioned by Chris and would/could it have been say pumped into the tunnels by each side?

 

Alan

[Waddell]

Alan,

 

The gas and concussion injuries experienced by the sappers of the Field Company Engineers was a by product of explosions in confined spaces.

 

Have a look through this old thread at Bryn and Steve Beckers contributions-

 

Scott

[alantwo]

2 hours ago, Waddell said:

The gas and concussion injuries experienced by the sappers of the Field Company Engineers was a by product of explosions in confined spaces.

 

Have a look through this old thread at Bryn and Steve Beckers contributions-

 

Thanks Scott, that's appreciated.

 

Alan

[Guest]

On 27/09/2020 at 13:16, jay26thBn said:

Oral family history has always espoused the view that my grandfather-in-law was "gassed by the Turks."  However, his war service record held by the NAA tells a different story.

 

 

 

My GF-in-law was in one of the Beach Parties at Anzac, and may have been working (eg carrying rations/ammunition/medical supplies to the front lines) in the area when the following incident occurred.  

7 October 1915

- Intelligence summary, 2nd Australian Division, General section- At 2050 three bombs burst in the vicinity of BROWNS DIP and emitted a gas, which appeared to have no effect on the lungs, but caused great irritation of the eyes.  Is described as pungent, sickly and sweet, and to possess an "oniony' smell. Bomb is cylindrical and about 3" in diameter. Base of one and fragments of case have been obtained and are under examination. Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, General Staff, Headquarters War Diary, October 1915, item no 1/25/7, Part 2, page 26.

- At 2100, FOO [Forward Observation Officer] reported gas being used on BROWN'S DIP and to some extent on the lines of the 22nd Battalion.  All men were warned to be prepared for gas.  This did not eventuate, although Battalion commanders were of opinion that gas bombs had been used, it appeared only to be gas arising from a bomb failing to explode. 1st Australian Artillery Brigade, Headquarters, War Diary, October 1915, item no. 13/29/11, page 6.

 

- 2100 - A report was circulated that enemy were using gas.  It was afterwards discovered that inflammable bombs which the Turks had thrown into LONE PINE, failing to ignite, had given off a dense smoke which caused men to cough, and made the eyes smart.  Hence the report regarding gas. 12th Australian Infantry Battalion, 3rd Australian Infantry Brigade, War Diary, October 1915, page 3, item 23/29/8.

- 2100: Report that enemy is using chlorine gas at trenches of 22nd Battalion. Assistant Director of Medical Services, 2nd Australian Division, War Diary, October 1915, item no. 26/19/2, page 3.

- 2105: 1st Australian Division, Artillery Daily Report: Enemy reported to be using gas in LONE PINE and on our right - Report not substantiated, but probably had origin from acrid fumes from bombs, which were being fired during and after the ruse which was carried out on the right.  General Staff, Headquarters 1st Australian Division, October 1915, War Diary, item 1/42/9, part 3, page 69.

8 October 1915

- Investigation showed that the gas in question emanated from a bomb which burst on a bank above a cul-de-sac trench.  Some men in dugouts in this trench were so far affected that one vomited and all suffered considerable lachrymation.  12 hours afterwards this lachrymatory effect was still marked and a sweetish smell, like that of Nitrate of Amyl, was apparent.  The bomb was supposed to have been an explosive bomb, with somewhat unusual explosion products. Assistant Director of Medical Services, 2nd Australian Division, War Diary, October 1915, item no. 26/19/2, page 3.

[Bryn]

A number of men died from gas, and many more were poisoned by it at Anzac. But it wasn't the enemy's use of gas:

'If a mine, when fired, did not break through satisfactorily to the open air or to the enemy's workings, the poisonous gases left by the explosion remained in the tunnel, endangering the life of anyone who entered it. For example, on Oct. 29, in order to make sure that a working party might safely enter Tunnel C2, in which a mine had just been fired, Lieut. F.D.A. Bowra... went down the rope ladder in the shaft leading to it. He had warned Lieut. E.T. Bazeley (of Nagambie, Vic.) of the 22nd Bn. that there might be danger from poisonous gases, and as he did not return Bazeley and a man named Currington (of Annandale, NSW) went down with a rope. They found Bowra collapsed, but before they could rescue him both were overcome. Bazeley had barely strength to climb the ladder; Currington began to climb and fell back. Major Newcombe and Lieut. Thom were summoned from the 4th Coy.'s H.Q., and Thom, refusing to be tied to the rope, went down, but collapsed before he could save Bowra. ...Thom, Bowra, Currington, and two other men of the 22nd, Pte W.B.S. Good (of Wonthaggi, Vic.) and Pte. G. Stelling (of Essendon, Vic.) died...' (Bean Vol. 2 p201n, 823n quoted).

[Bryn]

Interestingly, a supply of gas masks did reach Anzac:

The first photo shows Captain (then WO) Richard William Dewson DCM MC. WO Dewson was evacuated wounded from Anzac in the first days of September 1915 and did not rejoin his unit there, so the photo must have been taken prior to that. He was returned to Australia but re-enlisted, rose to the rank of captain, and was killed in action in France on 27 May 1918)

The second photo shows a gas mask parade of New Zealand soldiers at Gallipoli.

 

 

[seaJane]

For what it's worth, I contributed an answer on preparations (but not actual use) to another thread on gas at Gallipoli:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/289798-gas-in-gallipoli/?tab=comments#comment-2999952

Best wishes,

seaJane