New Video - Gallipoli: Anzac Landing

[michaeldr]

A joint effort by Battle Guide and The Gallipoli Association

 

 

It is hoped that this will be just the first in a series of new videos
explaining what happened to our forefathers and showing us the ground over which they fought.

[WhiteStarLine]

Just finished watching this Michael, a fitting end to my ANZAC Day.  It is superb and the use of (I assume) drones to highlight some of the approaches, terrain and present the Turkish and Australian use of ground made the campaign very clear.

Well done to all who collaborated.

Cheers, Bill 

[emrezmen]

Good job overall, with commendable use of GE and aerial footage. However, there are a couple of inaccuracies regarding the Turkish side that need correction.

5:30, the 19th Division, being the army reserve, had nothing to do with the coastal defence during the initial hours of the landing. All units at landing places were part of the 9th Division under Colonel Halil Sami, who unfortunately did not get a mention in this part of the documentary.

8:58, Faik was a captain, not a lieutenant. Moreover, the officer in the picture is not Faik but Captain Cevdet, Şefik's aide!

[michaeldr]

Thanks Bill & Emre,
your comments are much appreciated and have been drawn to the attention of those involved in this project.
regards, Michael

[Krithia]

On 25/04/2024 at 14:19, emrezmen said:

Good job overall, with commendable use of GE and aerial footage. However, there are a couple of inaccuracies regarding the Turkish side that need correction.

5:30, the 19th Division, being the army reserve, had nothing to do with the coastal defence during the initial hours of the landing. All units at landing places were part of the 9th Division under Colonel Halil Sami, who unfortunately did not get a mention in this part of the documentary.

8:58, Faik was a captain, not a lieutenant. Moreover, the officer in the picture is not Faik but Captain Cevdet, Şefik's aide!

Thanks Emre. The 19th Division section could be a little clearer. It was implying that the 19th Div and the 27th Regiment were in the area, but then goes on to say that a single battalion of the 9th Div was defending this section of coastline, which is correct. Unfortunately short docu's like this cannot mention every individual, but maybe in the next one :-)

Edited 27 April by Krithia

[michaeldr]

Not yet seven weeks since the launch and over 100,000 views already: well done Battle Guide and the Gallipoli Association!

[michaeldr]

On 25/04/2024 at 13:57, WhiteStarLine said:

It is superb and the use of (I assume) drones to highlight some of the approaches, terrain and present the Turkish and Australian use of ground made the campaign very clear.

Well done to all who collaborated.

You're not alone there Bill -  Gürsel Göncü has just had his review of the video published by the premier Turkish history journal, Tarih

 

Of particular note 
“The head of the project is historian-writer Stephen Chambers, one of the most important experts on the Dardanelles battles. The director of the actual field shoots is one of the 3 world-class experts that come to mind when it comes to topography in this regard: Bill Sellars (the other 2 people are Şahin Aldoğan and Francine Saint-Roman Roussanne).” 

Stephen & Bill are both members of this forum [respectively Krithia & Eceabat].

 

Well done all concerned! 

[gilly100]

So very selective on the landing accounts, especially where 7Bn AIF officers and men gave similar accounts of heavy machine gun and rifle fire opposition, including Royal Navy accounts. What of Weatherill DCM of 10Bn along with his officer dismantling an enemy mg on McLagans' Ridge? And I suppose we forget the other guns and mgs at Pine Ridge, members of 9, 6 and 5Bn recorded? Tulloch of 11Bn gets a mention, but not his recollection of mg fire from No1 Outpost as he scaled Walker's Ridge. A travesty.

 

Ian

[Fedelmar]

I did post this some time ago.  It appears I need to share it again for this thread.

An interesting document has surfaced at the AWM written by Major General Ewen Sinclair-MacLagan.   The document discussed the Gallipoli landing on 25th April 1915.
https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/volunteers-find-new-document

The Major General was an interesting man.  These are a few links.
https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/exhibitions/dawn/plan/maclagan
https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/sinclairmaclagan-ewen-george-8438
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174674

http://www.memorial.act.gov.au/search/person/sinclair-maclagan-ewen-george

[Eceabat]

So Ian, the GA doco is a travesty. Then I suppose that every other documentary ever made on the subject of the landing on April 25 also falls into the same category, as I can't recall any dwelling extensively on the issue of machine guns. And before you shoot the messenger, Serpil and I only helped shoot the footage, not write the script. However, I am not sure you could fit the whole machine gun debate into a 25 minute documentary, let alone one that also had a few other subjects to cover, like the rest of the landing. 

Cheers

Bill

[aconnolly]

I feel this is an excellent addition to the modern collection of resources.  It in fact would make a very good teaching aid for those new to the campaign by impressively leading the viewer through the complexities of 25th April in a way that makes considerable sense.  As Bill says, to look in detail at the Turkish defences would need a lot more time.  

At last we have a documentary that puts into context the oft-repeated and always inaccurate statement that we landed on the wrong beach when in fact we simply did not land on enough of the intended landing area, but as demonstrated, the Cove was always part of the plan.  

Michael - thank you for sharing this and Bill thank you for bringing it to fruition.

Andrew

[Krithia]

In the words of Jimmy Somerville "Its a travesty!", a little like the MG debate ;-)

 

[gilly100]

Fair point Bill on yours and Serpil's good efforts with the drone footage contribution, with the narration no doubt outside your control. The latter is a re-written history that remains far from proven, but which is very important. Spent years looking into all this (as we should) and came up with plenty that no-one wants to genuinely comment on and properly rebut from the no mg argument side. And that is a travesty. Those that were there who wrote of their ordeals or who were interviewed deserve better. Seriously, was every one of them mistaken or lying? Cheers - Ian

[gilly100]

4 hours ago, Krithia said:

In the words of Jimmy Somerville "Its a travesty!", a little like the MG debate ;-)

 

But you were/are unable to rebut many of the cases we put up. That indeed is part of the travesty.

Ian

[Fedelmar]

Apologies everyone, I should have put up the direct link to the transcription of the notes by Major General Sinclair-Maclagan ...
Such a bonus to locate it and well done the Australian War Memorial for locating it given that it was tucked away since 1934 so it is well worth a read.

https://www.awm.gov.au/sites/default/files/awm255-166-transcribed-version.pdf