Armament of the "SMS Breslau / Midilli"

[michaeldr]

Quote: You mentioned: "Baikosh-Battery", which sounds similar to the "Beikusch-Battery"
described on the map below, but was apparently on the European side of the Dardanelles. 

Please note that on the Gallipoli battlefields it is not unknown for different places to have similar or even the same name. For example, at Suvla there are is an 'Azmak' which runs into the north of the Salt Lake, and there is also a different 'Asmak' further south which formed the boundary between Suvla and Anzac.

Quote from my previous post:- 
The Mitchell Report has the following on p.446
SECTION II.—POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT OF COAST DEFENCES. 
(A) Period, 18th March, 1915, to Evacuation of Gallipoli Peninsula (January, 1916). 
5. The principal developments under (a) to (d) during the period of our occupation of the Gallipoli Peninsula were :—
… … … 
(c) (i) … (ii) … (iii) …
(iv) Baikosh Battery (No. 53a), two 10.5 cm. Q.F., May, 1915, for action against Helles. 

See the description given here https://epdf.tips/the-troad-oxford-university-press-academic-monograph-reprints.html  - “West of Çakal Tepe the ridge stretches 3 km. to In Tepe. This is what in part or whole is called Baykus (Kukumagu) Tepe. On the 1:50,000 map `Baikosh Tepe' is marked on the southern slope, which the villagers of Halileli in fact call Dede Bayiri; but the placing of names on these maps is always imprecise.” That latter phrase is worth particular note!
Please see the map https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-RN2-P04.jpg  and the crop where the places mentioned (Chakal Tepe, In Tepe & Dede Bair) are all shown

Edit to  add

quote:- On the 1:50,000 map `Baikosh Tepe' is marked on the southern slope, which the villagers of Halileli in fact call Dede Bayiri; but the placing of names on these maps is always imprecise.”

Dede Bair will be the spur beneath the words The Achilleum which has heights 57, 55 & 53 marked on it

Edited 23 September , 2023 by michaeldr

[Holger Kotthaus]

5 hours ago, michaeldr said:

Quote: You mentioned: "Baikosh-Battery", which sounds similar to the "Beikusch-Battery"
described on the map below, but was apparently on the European side of the Dardanelles. 

Please note that on the Gallipoli battlefields it is not unknown for different places to have similar or even the same name. For example, at Suvla there are is an 'Azmak' which runs into the north of the Salt Lake, and there is also a different 'Asmak' further south which formed the boundary between Suvla and Anzac.

Quote from my previous post:- 
The Mitchell Report has the following on p.446
SECTION II.—POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT OF COAST DEFENCES. 
(A) Period, 18th March, 1915, to Evacuation of Gallipoli Peninsula (January, 1916). 
5. The principal developments under (a) to (d) during the period of our occupation of the Gallipoli Peninsula were :—
… … … 
(c) (i) … (ii) … (iii) …
(iv) Baikosh Battery (No. 53a), two 10.5 cm. Q.F., May, 1915, for action against Helles.
See the description given here https://epdf.tips/the-troad-oxford-university-press-academic-monograph-reprints.html  - “West of Çakal Tepe the ridge stretches 3 km. to In Tepe. This is what in part or whole is called Baykus (Kukumagu) Tepe. On the 1:50,000 map `Baikosh Tepe' is marked on the southern slope, which the villagers of Halileli in fact call Dede Bayiri; but the placing of names on these maps is always imprecise.” That latter phrase is worth particular note!
Please see the map https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-RN2-P04.jpg  and the crop where the places mentioned (Chakal Tepe, In Tepe & Dede Bair) are all shown

Edit to  add

quote:- On the 1:50,000 map `Baikosh Tepe' is marked on the southern slope, which the villagers of Halileli in fact call Dede Bayiri; but the placing of names on these maps is always imprecise.”

Dede Bair will be the spur beneath the words The Achilleum which has heights 57, 55 & 53 marked on it

Michael,

yes understand; - I didn't take the different years (installation differences from 1915 and 1916) enough into account.

I will download more documents to compare both years in a better way.

Thanks again for your detailed explanations.

Regards Holger

[Holger Kotthaus]

Thanks to the reference from 'michaeldr', further photo-documents could be viewed.

"The "SMS Breslau"/Midilli on 24 June 1917 during a mining operation in the Black Sea"

This photo is a bit confusing. At this time, summer 1917 the re-armament of the
Breslau should have already been completed. This can also be seen very clearly on
the starboard side with the three 15-cm Krupp QF L/45 guns, based on the contour
of the protective shields. Only the positioning at the rear is not clear. In my opinion,
two guns can be seen; - and they have different sizes?!

Assuming that there is one 15-cm gun at the bow, and (for balance reasons alone)
another six 15-cm guns were installed on both the starboard and port sides, then
only one 15-cm gun would be left at the stern to reach the total number of eight.

But, In my opinion at the rear, two guns can be seen; - and they are different
sizes?! A larger one on the port side (15-cm?), and a smaller one (10.5-cm?) on
the starboard side. If that were the case, there are eight 15-cm and one 10.5-cm
gun; - which I don't believe.

Furthermore, the (one or two) gun(s) are located on the aft deck superstructure,
and not at the level of the mine rails, which again contradicts the photo on page 1.

This may also have been the reason why the author Erich Gröner had the last
15 cm gun placed on the hut aft deck superstructure in his side view from the
"SMS Breslau"?

Original Source:
The Ottoman Steam Navy 1828-1923, Edited & Translated by James Cooper, page 53
https://archive.org/details/learnislampdfenglishbooktheottomansteamnavy18281923/page/n3/mode/2up

As `The Treasure´ has already perfectly formulated:  "The changes to Breslau armament are complicated"

 

"The "SMS Breslau"/Midilli Summer 1915, being rearmed from 10.5 cm to 15 cm, rear view."

The photo also shows the stern section of the small cruiser Breslau. The source
mentioned the summer of 1915, after the mine hit in February of the same year.

Here a 15 cm Krupp QF L/45 is currently being placed and assembled in the middle
of the rear position by using a crane. The contour of the larger protective shield can
also be seen here. Here too, the contour of the larger protective shield of the 15 cm
Gun can be seen compared to that of the 10.5 cm Gun.

On the left side, in the background, a 10.5 cm gun can be seen on the hat aft deck
superstructure. The purely constructive question here is that I don't first remove guns
that should be removed before I bring in new ones?

Or is this a reference to the asymmetrical placement of the guns that 'The Tresasure'
already mentioned on page 1?

Original Source:
The Ottoman Steam Navy 1828-1923, Edited & Translated by James Cooper, page 105
https://archive.org/details/learnislampdfenglishbooktheottomansteamnavy18281923/page/n3/mode/2up

Regards Holger

 

Edited 23 September , 2023 by Holger Kotthaus

[The Treasurer]

On 23/09/2023 at 18:53, Holger Kotthaus said:

Thanks to the reference from 'michaeldr', further photo-documents could be viewed.

"The "SMS Breslau"/Midilli on 24 June 1917 during a mining operation in the Black Sea"

This photo is a bit confusing. At this time, summer 1917 the re-armament of the
Breslau should have already been completed. This can also be seen very clearly on
the starboard side with the three 15-cm Krupp QF L/45 guns, based on the contour
of the protective shields. Only the positioning at the rear is not clear. In my opinion,
two guns can be seen; - and they have different sizes?!

Assuming that there is one 15-cm gun at the bow, and (for balance reasons alone)
another six 15-cm guns were installed on both the starboard and port sides, then
only one 15-cm gun would be left at the stern to reach the total number of eight.

But, In my opinion at the rear, two guns can be seen; - and they are different
sizes?! A larger one on the port side (15-cm?), and a smaller one (10.5-cm?) on
the starboard side. If that were the case, there are eight 15-cm and one 10.5-cm
gun; - which I don't believe.

Furthermore, the (one or two) gun(s) are located on the aft deck superstructure,
and not at the level of the mine rails, which again contradicts the photo on page 1.

This may also have been the reason why the author Erich Gröner had the last
15 cm gun placed on the hut aft deck superstructure in his side view from the
"SMS Breslau"?

Original Source:
The Ottoman Steam Navy 1828-1923, Edited & Translated by James Cooper, page 53
https://archive.org/details/learnislampdfenglishbooktheottomansteamnavy18281923/page/n3/mode/2up

As `The Treasure´ has already perfectly formulated:  "The changes to Breslau armament are complicated"

 

"The "SMS Breslau"/Midilli Summer 1915, being rearmed from 10.5 cm to 15 cm, rear view."

The photo also shows the stern section of the small cruiser Breslau. The source
mentioned the summer of 1915, after the mine hit in February of the same year.

Here a 15 cm Krupp QF L/45 is currently being placed and assembled in the middle
of the rear position by using a crane. The contour of the larger protective shield can
also be seen here. Here too, the contour of the larger protective shield of the 15 cm
Gun can be seen compared to that of the 10.5 cm Gun.

On the left side, in the background, a 10.5 cm gun can be seen on the hat aft deck
superstructure. The purely constructive question here is that I don't first remove guns
that should be removed before I bring in new ones?

Or is this a reference to the asymmetrical placement of the guns that 'The Tresasure'
already mentioned on page 1?

Original Source:
The Ottoman Steam Navy 1828-1923, Edited & Translated by James Cooper, page 105
https://archive.org/details/learnislampdfenglishbooktheottomansteamnavy18281923/page/n3/mode/2up

Regards Holger

 

Holger

Very interesting and useful photos, so well found!

With regards to the top picture of the fully re-armed Breslau, the installation at the back is actually a large base rangefinder, although I can see how you would confuse it for two guns - I think it is a 3m stereoscopic RF - the operator would sit in the middle. It has a cover to protect the delicate instrumentation from the elements.

The picture of the stern 15cm being fitted is very useful. As you say, you can clearly see the Port no.6 gun is still installed above it at this point - the starboard having been previously removed.

Edited 24 September , 2023 by The Treasurer
amend apparent rangefinder size

[Holger Kotthaus]

34 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Holger

Very interesting and useful photos, so well found!

With regards to the top picture of the fully re-armed Breslau, the installation at the back is actually a large base rangefinder, although I can see how you would confuse it for two guns - I think it is a 5m stereoscopic RF - the operator would sit in the middle. It has a cover to protect the delicate instrumentation from the elements.

The picture of the stern 15cm being fitted is very useful. As you say, you can clearly see the Port no.6 gun is still installed above it at this point - the starboard having been previously removed.

The Treasurer,

I had already thought about that, but since there was already a standard rangefinder
underneath the headlights, I discarded this idea.

But the continuous tarpaulin supports your comment.

Is there any evidence in the sources for your legitimate doubts or comments?

This means that all small cruisers that previously had 10.5 cm guns were also
retrofitted with an (additional) rangefinder when they were converted to 15 cm?

Regards Holger

 

[The Treasurer]

41 minutes ago, Holger Kotthaus said:

The Treasurer,

I had already thought about that, but since there was already a standard rangefinder
underneath the headlights, I discarded this idea.

But the continuous tarpaulin supports your comment.

Is there any evidence in the sources for your legitimate doubts or comments?

This means that all small cruisers that previously had 10.5 cm guns were also
retrofitted with an (additional) rangefinder when they were converted to 15 cm?

Regards Holger

 

Holger

Light cruisers carried two fire control positions, one forward and one aft. The aft control position would take control when the forward control was out of arc, or if it was disabled. Each position was supported by a rangefinder, but on some light cruisers three rangefinders were carried, two forward (bridge and conning tower) and one aft - the exact placement varied from ship to ship.

 

These are shown on contemporary plans of 15cm rearmed cruisers.

 

Improved fire control came in with the 15cm gun refits on the light cruisers in late war period. Rangefinders were normally 3m (5m and 8m were also available, but the latter was only ever used on capital ships). Based on the man standing next to the rangefinder I thought this looked about 5m, but, assuming he is 1.6m or so tall, actually it looks like the normal 3m used for 15cm gun batteries.

[Holger Kotthaus]

10 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

Holger

Light cruisers carried two fire control positions, one forward and one aft. The aft control position would take control when the forward control was out of arc, or if it was disabled. Each position was supported by a rangefinder, but on some light cruisers three rangefinders were carried, two forward (bridge and conning tower) and one aft - the exact placement varied from ship to ship.

These are shown on contemporary plans of 15cm rearmed cruisers.

Improved fire control came in with the 15cm gun refits on the light cruisers in late war period. Rangefinders were normally 3m (5m and 8m were also available, but the latter was only ever used on capital ships). Based on the man standing next to the rangefinder I thought this looked about 5m, but, assuming he is 1.6m or so tall, actually it looks like the normal 3m used for 15cm gun batteries.

Mark,

Thanks for reply and extensive expleantions.

Basically I agree with you and I'm not convinced about a ninth or two different
guns at the rear. Your explanation of a range finder is also supported by the fact
that no gun protection shield can be seen under the tarpaulin.

BUT . . .

According to BROOKS, all German battlecruisers (!) during the `Battle of Skagerrak´
had Zeiss Devices-Rangefinders with a 3 m base length. BROOKS notes
furthermore that the German 3 m Devices-Rangefinders were as accurate at 20,000
yds (18,288 m) as the British 9 ft devices at 15-16,000 yds (13,716-14,630 m).

Source: DREADNOUGT Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland  
`The Question of Fire Control´, John BROOKS 2005
https://www.routledge.com/Dreadnought-Gunnery-and-the-Battle-of-Jutland-The-Question-of-Fire-Control/Brooks/p/book/9780415407885

And with a maximum range of 17,279 yds (15,800 m) in 27° height, a Device-
Rangefinder with a basic length of 3 m for the 15 cm SK L/45 on M.P.L C/14,
would actually be too much.

As explained above: The 3 m base units were used for 28 cm and 30 cm guns (!)
in 1916. Therefore, it can be assumed with 'almost certainty' that in 1916 there were
no devices rangefinders with 5 m base length were available for the "SMS Breslau".

Regards Holger

 

[Holger Kotthaus]

Comparison of small cruiser 10.5 cm with 15 cm & devices rangefinders

Since I always follow references, I tried to find further comparative evidence about
the devices rangefinders on small German cruisers; - especially the "SMS Breslau"

A few other small German cruisers were also re-armed from 10.5 to 15 cm during
the war, and in the course of this they probably also received an enlarged range of
equipment? (devices rangefinders).

I wasn't able to find a direct photo comparison of one and the same small Cruiser,
before: 10.5 cm; - after: 15 cm. However, there are several comparative graphics:
(The designers at “shipbucket.com” are well known for their precise detailing.)

"SMS Regensburg" in 1916 with 10.5 cm: http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2178/file
"SMS Regensburg" in 1918 with 15 cm: http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2179/file

"SMS Stralsund" in 1915 with 10.5 cm http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2181/file
"SMS Stralsund" in 1917 with 15 cm http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2182/file

However, the Breslau can only be found with the early 10.5 cm - variant.
Maybe they had the same problem as us?
"SMS Breslau" in 1914 http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2157/file

Regards Holger

 

[The Treasurer]

3 hours ago, Holger Kotthaus said:

Comparison of small cruiser 10.5 cm with 15 cm & devices rangefinders

Since I always follow references, I tried to find further comparative evidence about
the devices rangefinders on small German cruisers; - especially the "SMS Breslau"

A few other small German cruisers were also re-armed from 10.5 to 15 cm during
the war, and in the course of this they probably also received an enlarged range of
equipment? (devices rangefinders).

I wasn't able to find a direct photo comparison of one and the same small Cruiser,
before: 10.5 cm; - after: 15 cm. However, there are several comparative graphics:
(The designers at “shipbucket.com” are well known for their precise detailing.)

"SMS Regensburg" in 1916 with 10.5 cm: http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2178/file
"SMS Regensburg" in 1918 with 15 cm: http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2179/file

"SMS Stralsund" in 1915 with 10.5 cm http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2181/file
"SMS Stralsund" in 1917 with 15 cm http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2182/file

However, the Breslau can only be found with the early 10.5 cm - variant.
Maybe they had the same problem as us?
"SMS Breslau" in 1914 http://shipbucket.com/drawings/2157/file

Regards Holger

 

Holger

The Dreadnought Project have a nice set of original builders plans, which are a very helpful reference if you want to check details. Even builder plans are not perfect though - they show what was planned and reality can be different. The best authority is always original photos. Here is the plan of the SMS Dresden clearly showing the 3m rangefinder forward (this is the new 1918 cruiser, not the one sunk in 1915). The aft control is shown with a small base rangefinder (BG for BasisGerät on the plan) - something better may have been fitted. Note that early plans also often don't show rangefinders (the earliest rangefinders used by the Kaiserliche Marine were of the small 1.5m type). :

 

http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Dresden_ii_1918/obere_ansicht_100dpi.jpg

 

 

Edited 27 September , 2023 by The Treasurer
clarified

[Holger Kotthaus]

20 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

Holger

The Dreadnought Project have a nice set of original builders plans, which are a very helpful reference if you want to check details. Even builder plans are not perfect though - they show what was planned and reality can be different. The best authority is always original photos. Here is the plan of the SMS Dresden clearly showing the 3m rangefinder forward (this is the new 1918 cruiser, not the one sunk in 1915). The aft control is shown with a small base rangefinder (BG for BasisGerät on the plan) - something better may have been fitted. Note that early plans also often don't show rangefinders (the earliest rangefinders used by the Kaiserliche Marine were of the small 1.5m type). :

http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Dresden_ii_1918/obere_ansicht_100dpi.jpg

Yes, the Dreadnought Project offers a wide range of detailed original construction
drawings. The deck view / elevation of the "SMS Dresden II" shows the last, and
therefore most modern, light cruiser of the Imperial Navy. An optical rangefinder can
also be seen on the armored command post near the bow. The proportions suggest
a 3 m basic device. With great certainty, however, not on a 5 m basic device.

As far as I was able to determine from various German sources, there were 3 m
and 5 m basic devices as optical rangefinders on German light Cruisers,
battleships and battlecruisers at the beginning of the war up until the Battle of
Skagerrak (31. May 1916). It was only from this date that, based on experience,
a very serious further development took place on British and German ships. As
the last German development, the "SMS Bayern" and "SMS Bayern" were then
equipped with a rangefinder with a base length of 8 m.

 

I don't want to expand the topic unnecessarily, but as you've already noticed:
The best authority is always original photos, as: "The normative power of the fact".
That's why I tried to follow up on the photo-documentary evidence again, below.

The "SMS Breslau"/Midilli on 24 June 1917 during a mining operation in the Black Sea

Original Source, page 53
https://archive.org/details/learnislampdfenglishbooktheottomansteamnavy18281923/page/n3/mode/2up

 

 

Here only as a comparison of the proportions. Although the following should be noted:

• Photos come from the 1920s, i.e. after the First World War
• It's not the "SMS Breslau"/Midilli, but the "SMS Goeben"/Yavuz Sultan Selim
• Probably not the original position on one of the rear turrets

The GOEBEN Yesterday & Today in photos

Edited 28 September , 2023 by Holger Kotthaus
eddit minor details

[Holger Kotthaus]

Original Sources:
page 289: https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/warship_international_fall_1969-35.jpeg
page 297: https://stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/warship_international_fall_1969-43.jpeg

In: The GOEBEN Yesterday & Today in photos; - by stefsap
https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/sms-goeben-yavuz-sultan-selim-battlecruiser/

Regards Holger

 

Edited 28 September , 2023 by Holger Kotthaus

[Holger Kotthaus]

TWO ADDITIONAL 10.5 cm BRESLAU-GUNS NEAR BAGHDAD?

Since the main topic is thematically wide-ranging, we have to change location again,
into the direction of Baghdad on the Tigris and the upper reaches of the Euphrates.

 

I. - Two 10.5 cm Guns were lost on Tigris-River at Baghdad on 11. March 1917

Original Source, page 56 (Typo; - Baghdad was occupied already on 11. March 1917)
https://archive.org/details/learnislampdfenglishbooktheottomansteamnavy18281923/page/n3/mode/2up

Does anyone know of any other British or Turkish sources that confirm this?

Regards Holger

 

Edited 30 September , 2023 by Holger Kotthaus

[Holger Kotthaus]

23 hours ago, Holger Kotthaus said:

TWO ADDITIONAL 10.5 cm BRESLAU-GUNS NEAR BAGHDAD?

Since the main topic is thematically wide-ranging, we have to change location again,
into the direction of Baghdad on the Tigris and the upper reaches of the Euphrates.

Original Source, page 56 (Typo; - Baghdad was occupied already on 11. March 1917)

https://archive.org/details/learnislampdfenglishbooktheottomansteamnavy18281923/page/n3/mode/2up

Does anyone know of any other British or Turkish sources that confirm this?

Regards Holger

 

There is confirmation from a Turkish source of the presence or loss of two
10.5 cm guns on barges during the retreat from Baghdad in Spring 1917.

 

"TURKISH NAVAL OPERATION IN 1917 - J. IRAQ FRONT:
The British attack targeting Baghdad started in the Tigris region at the beginning of
February 1917. While the  gunboat "Sehnanpakand" and the barge "Haydar" were
busy with the enemy's land forces. The gunboat "Doğan" and and further steam-
boats also received the task of carrying supplies from Mehdi. Enemy planes attacked
the ships gathered in Mahdi for this purpose and injured several boats. Kutulamare
fell into enemy hands on 24. February 1917.

On 27. February enemy gunboats were 11 kilometers east of Aziziye. While the
Turkish forces continued to retreat, on 28. February four enemy gunboats carrying
150 mm guns forced the flotilla into battle near Aziziye and, after a few hours of
battle, destroyed the mines and mobile workshop barges of the Selmanpak and
the gunboat "Doğan" and the barge "Haydar".

As a result of the attacks of the British, which continued for two and a half months, it
was decided to bring reinforcement forces from the Iranian front in order to improve
the Turkish situation in the Tigris section, and on the other hand, mines were laid in
some parts of the Tigris. Meanwhile, the Office of the Commander-in-Chief was
ordering to erect obstacles in the Tigris by sinking ships.

Following the continuation of the withdrawal, the British entered Baghdad on 11.
March. The 13th and 18th Corps arrived in Samarra. The Euphrates flotilla, which
passed the Nağra and Hindiye waterfalls with great difficulty, joined the Euphrates
Group in Fallujah on March 17. This flotilla, "Ganimet" and steamboats no. 2, and
105 mm. It consisted of two pontoons carrying two cannons. While the Euphrates
Group was retreating to Remadiye two days later, the said flotilla inflicted heavy
losses on two enemy cavalry divisions.

When the flotilla ran out of coal, it was towed by the ships' personnel and British
prisoners and reached the Euphrates Group in Remadiye on 21. March. Meanwhile,
the Basra Commodore was located in Hit. On 27. March the Euphrates flotilla
withdrew to El'uze, having run out of artillery ammunition, and the Turkish forces
were 10 kilometers north of Samarra in late April."

Source: Page 375 / 376 (translated by copy & past.)
Turkey in the First World War; - Naval operations
Birinci Dünya Harbinde Türk Harbi, Deniz Harekâtı C.8
https://www.msb.gov.tr/Content/Upload/Docs/askeritariharsiv/112-Birinci_Dunya_Harbinde_Turk_Deniz_Harekati.pdf

Holger

Edited 1 October , 2023 by Holger Kotthaus

[Wigeon]

German map showing Harabkale Battery. Map is undated, possibly c1916 ? Image sourced from US National Archives online collection of German Naval Records .Catalogued as Item 0811 page 0038. 

[Holger Kotthaus]

On 28/01/2024 at 00:57, Wigeon said:

German map showing Harabkale Battery. Map is undated, possibly c1916 ? Image sourced from US National Archives online collection of German Naval Records .Catalogued as Item 0811 page 0038. 

 

 

Hello Wigeon,

Thank you for your reference.

 

I tried to get more information using your keyword, but I couldn't get any further

Captured German and Related Records on Microfilm: https://www.archives.gov/research/captured-german-records

 

Regarding the time period for this map, Turkish sources (see below) state that the “Harapkale Battery”

was only installed in October 1916. If this information is correct, it would mean that this battery cannot

yet appear on a map from 1915. This would also confirm your suspicion.

 

This statement is supported by the fact that the British-French troops would not have left these guns

undamaged after their withdrawal at the beginning of 1916 if the battery had been already installed in 1915.

 

 

If we only talk about the 10.5-cm Q.F. Guns L/45 of the "SMS Breslau" / Medillie, according to the  "Mitchel-Report" only five guns

in two Batteries of the Small Cruiser were used in the Dardanelles fortifications stationary on original naval central mounts.

Original Source: CONFIDENTIAL Report of the committee appointed to investigate the attacks delivered on and the enemy defenses of the

Dardanelles straits 1919, Admiralty Naval Staff Gunnery Disvision April 1921; - "Mitchell Report" (with very special thanks to a GWF member)

 

Further Sources:

Fedayeen of the Bosphorus PART 1 & 2 - Turkish Artillery in the Battles of the Dardanelles

DBY Publications, Istanbul 2018. https://www.dby.com.tr/bogazin-fedaileri-2-kitap

(The author & field researcher,Bayram Akgün was so friendly to send a pdf version for better translation.)

 

 

Two 10,5-cm Q.F. L/45 Guns as “Harapkale Battery”

POSITIONS: European (Rumelian) Site – Outer Defenses – North-East of the old "Fort Sed ul Bahr"

DESIGNATIONS: No. 7 Battery – “Harapkale Battery”, (near locations Harap Kale, Harap Tabya and Harap Tepe)

INSTALLATION: From October 1916 – 1920

According to Turkish sources, both photos below show the “Harapkale Battery” with 10.5-cm Q.F. L/45 Guns.

A gun barrel from this battery was still on display on the edge of Seddülbahir Village Square in 2014.

 

 

Three 10,5-cm Q.F. L/45 Guns as “Suandere-North-Battery“

POSITIONS: European (Rumelian) Site – Intermediate Defense - North of Suandere-Bay and Valley at Soganli Mansabi

DESIGNATIONS: (Numbering was changed in 1915) No. 17 Battery – Part of the Minefield-Defences as "Suandere-North-Battery"

INSTALLATION: From 25. April 1915 – 1918 removed

 

 

Here we see the positions of both Batteries with together five 10,5-cm Q.F. L/45 Guns between 1915-918

 

Regards Holger

 

Edited 1 February by Holger Kotthaus

[Wigeon]

A few more images of a Gun barge from the KTB of Euphrat-Flus-Abt 1-15 Feb 1918, NARA Roll T1022-308, courtesy US National Archives.

[stevenbecker]

Interesting,

The man Nöldeke     ObLt    Euphrates Kampf gruppe 1918 (Tigris-Euphrates Flotila Det) shown in that document is also shown as;

Noldicke    ObLtzS Marine    A. nordetappenleiter (northern stage leader) Etappen dienst (Stage Service) batterie dschemal pascha (battery jemal pasha) (Tigris-Euphrates Flotila Det) 1918
 

In another document.

Of cause I may have made a mistake, are they two men, or the same?

Also I notice Cappeln is mentioned, but other documents show;

Waltzer    Kapt-Lt Marine    Commander (Euphrates Stamm Dett) 1917-18

So when Cappeln left (if he did) is unknown and who Kapt-Lt Waltzer is not known

Cheers

[Holger Kotthaus]

11 hours ago, Wigeon said:

A few more images of a Gun barge from the KTB of Euphrat-Flus-Abt 1-15 Feb 1918, NARA Roll T1022-308, courtesy US National Archives.

Thanks for the reminder; - I overlooked the 2nd and 3rd pages in the post from 28. January 2024.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, stevenbecker said:

The man Nöldeke     ObLt    Euphrates Kampf gruppe 1918 (Tigris-Euphrates Flotila Det) shown in that document is also shown as;

Noldicke    ObLtzS Marine    A. nordetappenleiter (northern stage leader) Etappen dienst (Stage Service) batterie dschemal pascha (battery jemal pasha) (Tigris-Euphrates Flotila Det) 1918
 

In another document.

Of cause I may have made a mistake, are they two men, or the same?

Also I notice Cappeln is mentioned, but other documents show;

Waltzer    Kapt-Lt Marine    Commander (Euphrates Stamm Dett) 1917-18

So when Cappeln left (if he did) is unknown and who Kapt-Lt Waltzer is not known

 

Were the German ranks mentioned previously also on the “SMS Breslau“ or “SMS Goeben“?

Regards Holger

[stevenbecker]

Unknown

Ranks and details are as shown in both documents, 

Unless more can be found in German records, like the Militär-Wochenblatt or the Staatsanzeiger 

Cheers

[Holger Kotthaus]

9 hours ago, stevenbecker said:

Unknown

Ranks and details are as shown in both documents, 

Unless more can be found in German records, like the Militär-Wochenblatt or the Staatsanzeiger 

Cheers

Thanks for reply and additionally references.  I'll look into the matter and post here.

There is probably a list somewhere of which crews from the “SMS Breslau” stayed on board and who were assigned to the SoKo.

Because I have only been dealing with this theater of war for 6 months, a lot of things are still new to me and it will take some time until I have worked through the topic.

 

Regards Holger