TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[gilly100]

From a letter by 270 Pte William Britt, B Company, 11th Battalion AIF. Landing from a destroyer.

"Our first warning was a sharp crack and a flash from the hills in front of us and the ping of a bullet overheard by another and then a score. One of our comrades was hit and died after wishing us good luck. We scrambled into the boats, about 50 in each boat and started to pull for the shore. By this time the bullets were splashing all round the boat and a great many of our fellows were hit, some fatally. We had to row 600 yards in the face of murderous fire, machine gun and rifle fire and not a man flinched. We could see the flashes from the hills in front but not a Turk could we see....

The boat grounded 30 yards from the beach... Well I waded to the shore (by this time they had our range and men were dropping all round me. They had measured the range previously of course.) I got a bullet through the cap as I stepped out of the water..."

Britt had three mates killed by him on the beach, one of whom was 299 Cpl Harold Danes of B Coy also. Note that Danes is one of many 11Bn men recorded by CWGC as KIA on 2 May 1915.

Britt was wounded later in the day after 5pm and was evacuated to Egypt. He served briefly again at Gallipoli before serving with the 51st Bn in France. Wounded at Mouquet Farm and later commissioned, he was KIA on 10 June 1918.

Another interesting account.

Ian

[gilly100]

This from Capt John L Whitham OC C Company 12Bn AIF, later CMG and DSO.

"The first men ashore rushed the first steep hill in front, under fire, and cleared the first ridge with the bayonet. The fire increased every minute, rifles, machine guns and shrapnel, plenty of poor fellows never reached the shore...."

And so the list grows.

Ian

[Guest]

Pte 204 Thomas Noonan of Ballyguy, Co. Limerick, 13th Battalion AIF, tells of capturing 2 machine guns on 25th April.

Click

Service Record

CWGC

Europeana 1914-1918

Mike

[gilly100]

Hi Mike

From what I know on 13Bn, which was part of the 4th Brigade, they arrived off Anzac around 4.30pm on 25 April, several companys landing on the beach around 9.30pm that night, then D Coy and one other platoon followed on the early morning of 26 April. This in their war diary.

There was a party of 1 officer and 48 men from reos for 13bn aboard the Suffolk who may well have landed on the morning of 25 April as a beach party, similar to the 80 odd men under an officer that did from the 16th Bn around 6am on 25 April. This noted in 11Bn Routine Orders on 10 April at Lemnos in regards to troops onboard that particular ship.

In fairness to the argument I would have to suggest that this account is likely not accurate, although I remain convinced there were Turk mgs opposing the early assault at Anzac on 25 April. The wealth of evidence from men of the 3rd Brigade and men of the 2nd Brigade up on 400 Plateau still resonates with me. Will keep posting as they pop up, as they surely will.

Cheers

Ian

[bob lembke]

I responded to this thread years ago. A basic answer to Chris Best's question, the first post in this astonishing thread.

As my father fought at Gallipoli, I have studied it from the Turkish/German side, but have also read a number of English/Commonwealth/French first person accounts. I have read everything I can lay my hands on from the Central Powers side, none of the languages are a problem, except of course the Turkish, of which I only have a few words. (I spent three days trying to translate three pages of Modern Turkish, an extremely painful and largely unsuccessful experience, largely due to the Turkish innovation of constructing words with not only pre-fixes, and suf-fixes, but also in-fixes, making the conventional use of a dictionary extremely difficult.)

The basic point is that the Turks had very few machine guns, for a number of reasons, including the losses in the Balkan Wars, and the virtual impossibility of getting war materiel thru from the Central Powers. And it is known that some of the few machine guns that the Turks did possess were held in reserve, not near the front lines. The narratives seem to mention machine guns at every turn, even women and peasants with machine guns, or "machine gun parts" (??), and the Turks simply did not possess nearly so many MGs. They only had a few, a handful per division.

But I will not address the question of were they at Point X, or Gully Y, I don't know.

I can also mention that the Allied narratives mention many curious things, sea monsters eating men swimming on the beach, the Egyptians using dinosaurs to build the pyramids, etc. If the men were experienced fighters, they had never fought against an organized army with so few MGs; if inexperienced, they could easily mistake withering rifle fire for MG fire. The Turks at least had great quantities of good small arms ammo, due to the reorganization of the Turkish arms industry by about 1500 German experts and arms craftsmen who had been smuggled in as bank clerks and male nurses with false papers. And the Turks were extremely good, steady soldiers; my father rated them as the best soldiers he ran into during the war, except the men of the best German storm units; my father later fought in two of the three best storm formations in the German Army. (I mean "good" or "best" in the sense of spirit, of eagerness to fight and if necessary to die, not in the sense of excellence of technical training.) Incidentally, the Allied narratives almost never mention that an estimated 95% of fired Turkish shells failed to explode, due to an inability of the then Turkish arms industry to make a fuse that actually worked at the other end.

So, when considering this question, do consider that the Turks simply could not have had more than a few MGs at the landing beaches. Additionally, some "many MG enthusiasts" claim that the German sailors with MGs were already at the beaches with their MGs at the time of the landings; that absolutely is not true, the German Naval MG detachment, 45 men with six MGs, was only organized and dispatched from Istanbul when the news of the landings of the 25th reached Istanbul. See the excellent book by then Lieutenant Doenitz (of WW II fame), who was an officer on the Breslau, the German light cruiser. That MG detachment were almost entirely killed or wounded within days, and quickly lost all of their MGs. Later the Turks captured 13 Vickers in one engagement and gave them to the German sailors to employ.

[gilly100]

Bob

I found Murray Ewen's article in The Gallipolian interesting in that he is the only person to bring in machine guns being stripped from the previously unmentioned ships Barbarossa Heyreddin and Torgut Reis prior to 25 April. Von Sanders himself mentions up to 24 mgs coming from the Turk German fleet, potentially indicating they came from the abovementioned ships and not the Breslau or Goeben. One Turk POW gave a statement that mgs came from Barbarosa, which is not mentioned or claimed anywhere else in the Turk or German Gallipoli narrative. This in itself gives cause for further research.

Add to this the fact that Sefik Aker mentioned preparing mg positions at Fishermans Hut, Ari Burnu and 400 plateau, prior to 25 April, while not proving conclusively mg presence on 25 April, is nevertheless a little more than coincidental that these positions were exactly where numerous triangulating Allied accounts declare there was mg fire recorded. Add in evidence from Cpl Weatherill of 10Bn who claimed to Bean he and his scout officer, Talbot Smith drove Turks from an mg on MacLagan's Ridge, dismantling the tripod mounted weapon and throwing it into the scrub. Add in two accounts of spare parts for mgs being found at Shepherds Hut behind Fishermans Hut, and more in tents on 400 plateau, the case becomes stronger. One mg on 400 plateau was briefly captured before being lost in a Turk counterattack on 25 April evening. All from decorated soldiers who clearly performed very well that day. Then add in the Hotchkiss guns on Pine Ridge that no one wants to discuss.

Then try reading the newly translated Turk OH, written more than 50 years after the event and take in its overtly patriotic style and clearly overstating the number of mgs they faced from the Brits at V Beach in particular, then doubt comes in as to the veracity of this part of their landing narrative. One mention of four 37mm pom poms at V Beach, two immediately out of action to naval fire and the other two only getting off a few rounds before failing leaving it to only rifle fire, followed in another paragraph that there were only two pom poms present and destroyed by naval fire, brings doubt to their order of battle. The Brit accounts on V Beach in particular give great corroborating detail to the placement of pom poms, mgs and rifles.

To bring in sea monsters and pyramid theories to trounce Allied witness accounts of mg presence is a bit rich. And to assume that every witness account is mistaken or fabricating just doesn't wash with me at least.

The fact that the German contribution at Gallipoli appears rather downplayed in the Turk narrative is also worthy of consideration, something I thought that you might have comment on given your fathers service there. Still no memorial for them at Gallipoli, despite the fact that the one that was built by German marines was destroyed. I would ask why? Much more to this than what has been gleaned thus far.

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Ian,

I am still surprised by your use of;

"Murray Ewen's article in The Gallipolian interesting in that he is the only person to bring in machine guns being stripped from the previously unmentioned ships Barbarossa Heyreddin and Torgut Reis prior to 25 April. Von Sanders himself mentions up to 24 mgs coming from the Turk German fleet, potentially indicating they came from the abovementioned ships and not the Breslau or Goeben".

This does not prove that one of these so called MGs ended up on the Beaches at Anzac or else where.

Also why would Von Sanders place these very valuble MGs, that the Turkish Army had so little of, away in an area that was shown as very unlikely we would land, and not at a more possible area like Helles and the Gaba Tepe beach.

But if you read the Turkish/German accounts more closely you will see that the extra MGs Von Sanders is talking about were placed in reserve near his HQ and not deployed.

Also if you read;

"fact that Sefik Aker mentioned preparing mg positions at Fishermans Hut, Ari Burnu and 400 plateau, prior to 25 April, while not proving conclusively mg presence on 25 April"

He is refering to his own or the Regt MG Company guns, that he was digging MG positions along with reserve or altenate MG positions was standard practice in all Armies. that does not mean MG were in those positions as Aker clearly gives in his account, as Akers MG company was not deployed until after the first landing.

But we have gone throw this before and is not new, I am still hope full some Turkish account may help you, but as yet no account shows any MGs on the Anzac beaches.

Where these MGs you and other show there, clearly not all the guns they (our accounts) are giving were there, so far I have around 9 or more MG s given in our accounts, that's a lot of very valuble and scarce Turkish MGs to be left all over the battlefield to be over run?

You also seam to forget what was happening in the Ottoman Empire at that time, the 3rd Army had just been destroyed and needed rebuilding. Russian forces along with Kurdish rebels had the City of Van and troops were needed there, as is shown by most of the Mesopotian Army sent there when the British landed.

Egypt operations had failed and the British were about to land in the Narrows. So with so much happening why would you place these MG in a place that was on the unlikely landing area list?

Sorry this is no answer, but there may not be one yet?

S.B

[gilly100]

Steve

I don't disagree Aker had his mg coy in reserve and brought these 4 guns up to Third Ridge later in the morning. But I also think if naval maxims had been made avaliable to the 9th Div just prior to 25 April landings, then these would have been made available to 9th Div as one POW intel report said in black and white. When you have a Turk officer recalling machine guns of the fleet causing great casualties on the beaches, then I can only assume that you must think this chap is mistaken or lying like all the Allied witness accounts. Aker was also convinced a landing would take place at Ari Burnu, so that is one good officer that predicted correctly, setting his defences accordingly to the terrain there.

Is Weatherill DCM lying about his encounter on MacLagan's Ridge? Is Talbot Smith's recommendation false? Could our blokes be so hopeless as to mistake an mg strapped to a mule for a mountain gun? Could our blokes not recognize parts for mgs? For me its just not possible that all of them are wrong on every count. Quite frankly it's absurd to think so. And that goes for the Brits at Helles.

I'd love to know what you think of the Turk OH narrative of the landings. I found some of it bordering on ridiculous in its claims, some of which I have previously posted earlier, and to which there has been no comment, as usual. Just deafening silence.

Scrutinise heavily anything Brit or Australian, but just believe instantly anything the Turks have recorded. Hardly balanced I think.

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Mate,

Yes. hope fully more will come, I just picked up the book you mentioned by Mesut Uyar, so I am reading this now along with Erickson "Order to die" birthday and Christmas presants, so some more to check out.

What concerns me about your use of "Murray Ewen's article in The Gallipolian: and 24 extra MGs is its seams almost impossible that these were sent any where near the front.

If you look at some other formations

3rd Army 1914

11th Corps (22273 men 16 Mgs 94 guns) in three Divisions

10th Corps (28000 men 20 Mgs 56 guns) in three Divisions

9th Corps (21 000 men 23 Mgs 58 guns) in three Divisions

3rd Corps at Gallipoli

7th Div - 6 MGs in two Regt Mg Cos

9th Div - possibly 8 Mgs in two Regt Mg Cos

19th Div - possibly 8 Mgs in two Regt Mg Cos

possibly 22 Mgs

So if these guns (24 mentioned by Murray Ewan) were made available you would think some comment was made of it?

The extra MG companies sent down to Von Sanders from other formations out side the 5th Armies area are mentioned, as he held them under his personal command, so why send these extra Naval Mgs to the 9th Div and place them in the most out of the way area of all possible invasion beaches.

But that's my hang up with Murray Ewans account?

I agree why were these man reporting MGs when no one else are saying they were there?

Did the men have something to gain - "More steering deeds that won the Empire"

Possibly not

But its one of these mysteries that may never be answered

[gilly100]

Steve

I see it as, given the shortfall in mgs amongst the Ottoman army and given the close co operation with 9th Div and DFC as well as machine guns stored in ships armories not being used to full effect, it would make perfect sense to allocate these weapons to operations on land. As alluded to by Murray Ewen, they were likely older pattern Maxims and therefore more expendable than those tripod mounted, 7.65mm on strength with the Ottoman army. The one intel report mentions 9th Div being allocated mgs from specifically the ship 'Barbaros', evidence that has hitherto been unknown until Murray discovered it, including all the authors who argue against mgs being used early on 25 April. So that was missed by them, including Turk scholars.That brings into play other ships, not previously considered, supplying machine guns to 9th Div other than the well known Goeben and Breslau. There were also German marines assigned to both Barbaros Hayrettin and Torgut Reis and both these ships are recorded as having between 10 and 12 mgs in their armories. Exactly what model and calibre they were is debatable, but Murray does theorize on this. No, not proven yet, but it certainly raises rightful questioning on this no mg argument.

I also find the Turk penchant for minimal recording of German involvement at Gallipoli, the destruction of their only Gallipoli sited memorial, and in some cases, the criticism that where the Germans did fight, that they did not perform well, much in keeping with the line that victory at Gallipoli was a purely Ottoman Turk affair. Only my thoughts of course. You may be correct in saying we may well never know. That is precisely why some people are still digging.

Have you read the translated Turk OH at Gallipoli yet?

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Mate,

I think your correct, when he is saying that Ex MGs came from a war ship, were not the modern Maxim but some other type?

I thinking not of the old Maxims here but the more possible weapons that are confirmed at all the landing beaches, that of the Nordenfelt's both types 1" and 37mm Pom pom.

These are mentioned in all accounts at Helles and Gaba Tepe and are shown on the Orbat for the 9th Div.

Your right the down playing of non Turkish sources is as old as the Empire, you only have to look at what they are writing on the two Arab Regts at Anzac, which fail to show how much they helped the early battles there.

But why not record these so called extra Mgs at Anzac or else where?

"Have you read the translated Turk OH at Gallipoli yet"

Sorry mate no I only read they were now out there, from Mesut's book, have you seen where to pick up these volumes?

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Steve

If you google Macquarie University Gallipoli Centenary Project you will find the two translated volumes fully downloadable and a valuable resource courtesy of the project under Harvey Broadbent's directorship. Quite a few pages to read through, but of course being in English it's now possible to know what was written.

I think it was rifle calibre maxims taken from numerous warships, as well as four 37mm Krupp anti aircraft pom poms. The Turk OH can't seem to decide on four or two at V Beach, which is why I challenged that part of their history.

Given your knowledge on all things Ottoman I think you will find this resource valuable. You might even find a few more holes than I did!

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Gilly,

Thanks mate.

I notice an interesting comment in Mesut's book page 80

When he talks about Kemal trying to build up his Regts in March 1915, and trying to build a MG Company for his 77th Regt.

"However neither MGs nor trained MG gunners could be found to activate the MG Company"

Clearly these Naval types, what ever they were, they not let to the 19th Div behind the front.

It still worries me that an MG Company 4x MGs per would be deployed without being added to the ORbat of the 9th or 19th Div.

Of cause you are talking about the 11 Nordenfefts shown on the 9th Div Orbat and where they were deployed.

Your right still not all are accounted for, so could of one or more be at the Fishermans hut and other places mentioned by our (allied) accounts?

All ways possible and the Allied soldiers mistook them for Maxims?

Cheers

S.B

[Bryn]

Nobody yet has proved the many allied eye-witness accounts of machine guns wrong. Until that happens, what they said they saw and heard is much more convincing than anything else.

Murray Ewen offered a possibility for their source in his article in The Gallipolian, which clearly many in this discussion have not even read and have certainly not disputed, except to give us personal opinion.

The landing beaches were not 'the most out of the way area of all possible invasion beaches.' That is a convenient falsity used to attempt to discredit the idea that mgs could possibly have been where many witnesses say they were.

[Guest]

Bryn,

Wrong

"Murray Ewen offered a possibility for their source in his article in The Gallipolian"

Is his option that these so called missing Mgs ended up on the Beaches at Anzac and Helles, not fact they did?

Turkish Accounts, all first hand say they didn't, at lest not in the form of MGs, but possibly other weapons like the pom pom and such. These are not a personal opition but facts as per the known Turkish records. Ewen can say such and such but he has no evidence they were any where near the beaches in the form of a MG.

Wrong

"The landing beaches were not 'the most out of the way area of all possible invasion beaches"

The major landing beaches given in Turkish and German accounts all place the Aribunu area as a secondary or not likely area for a landing, all accounts show the major beaches to be around Helles and possibly at Gabatepe. So that is where the major units and weapons were placed.

Other then Aker and some other Turkish officers only believed Aribunu would possibly be a landing beach, Von Sanders and other rank Turkish officers all had the eyes else where.

Your right

"Nobody yet has proved the many allied eye-witness accounts of machine guns wrong"

Its far to late now to disprove these many accounts, when in many case they appear to be far from the truth, while others are more then possible.

Its like disproving a negative

When we have two eye witness, that are say different things, who is telling the truth or guilding the lilly?

The landing at Fishermans Hut is interesting, check the known records where we have a first hand account by the Turkish Platoon commander, who gives a very good account of what he did that morning with the men he had, then look at the aussie accounts around that area which say many other things including Mgs or parts, Who is telling the truth or not?

These are facts in the known records, both Turkish and German, and not my personal option, you can think these Allied accounts are all correct and say the Turkish records are lies but they can also say the same for our accounts.

Of all the Mgs over ran by our men that morning not one shows up as captured in any Australian or British record (Bn to Div to Corps) of being captured, so if such and such captured a MG where did it go, still at the bottom of some ridge where it was dropped?

Our accounts by soldiers that saw or heard Mg fire is also option not fact, only accounts by soldiers who did over run a MG should be taken seriously and looked closely at.

One given by Gilly

"From a letter by 270 Pte William Britt, B Company, 11th Battalion AIF. Landing from a destroyer.

"Our first warning was a sharp crack and a flash from the hills in front of us and the ping of a bullet overheard by another and then a score. One of our comrades was hit and died after wishing us good luck. We scrambled into the boats, about 50 in each boat and started to pull for the shore. By this time the bullets were splashing all round the boat and a great many of our fellows were hit, some fatally. We had to row 600 yards in the face of murderous fire, machine gun and rifle fire and not a man flinched. We could see the flashes from the hills in front but not a Turk could we see...."

This is not prove positive that MGs were firing on us, only an option of what he believe he was seeing. And many other accounts follow the same line so are not fact.

If you can find my old articale of the fighting at Magdhaba, where I wrote account by the LH Regts of being fired on by MG fire from one end of the Battlefield to the other, but on the captured of the Madghaba position only one dismantled MG was found. So did this gun travel the battlefield or did the sound of its fire travel, so that all heard it and believed they were under its fire, the mind can play some tricks under preasure and the sight of a bullet striking the ground near you can turn into MG bullets and not the rifle bullet it was?

But is that fact or my personal option?

S.B

[Bryn]

Let's play your way, Steve:

Right

"Murray Ewen offered a possibility for their source in his article in The Gallipolian"

He did.

Anything else you read into my statement above is your problem, as I didn't write it.

And:

You choose not to believe eye-witness accounts. That's up to you, however that's not proving them wrong. Meanwhile 'Sefik Aker's account' is not his own account. He was not an eye-witness.

And:

Where did the over-run MG go? 'still at the bottom of some ridge where it was dropped?' Sarcastic comments won't get me, Steve. All it shows is you don't get it. It's not for me to account for your missing captured MGs; that is, the ones that you insist must have been accounted for in paperwork or they weren't there. It's up to you to prove the eye-witness accounts were wrong. You haven't done that. And it's not, as you suggest, one witness says yes and another says no. It's actually many say yes and none say no.

[gilly100]

Steve

So what of Weatherill of 10Bn dismantling a tripod mounted mg on MacLagan's Ridge, and Harrison and Thomas of 9Bn sighting an mg and SAA strapped to a dead mule near the Cup, and Derham of 5Bn recording carrying out a captured Turk mg from near the Hotchkiss gun emplacements on Pine Ridge?

They can only be fabricating I suppose?

I find it unreasonable to think every man who recorded mg presence was mistaken or lying given the sheer scale of records. Same applies to Helles. The quest must continue.

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Mates,

I am not saying that, read what I said

"only accounts by soldiers who did over run a MG should be taken seriously and looked closely at"

What I am saying is these accounts should be taken more seriously not those who say they saw or heard Mgs.

But please don't say that all these personal accounts of taking MGs are all correct?

As I sated most of these can never be proved or disproved, how can you or me say that "Derham of 5Bn recording carrying out a captured Turk mg from near the Hotchkiss gun emplacements on Pine Ridge?"

And not say what he was seeing were parts of the three Mountain guns of the 7th Battery that was over run by our troops when they failed to get away and were captured.

He may have been seeing MG parts on a Mule but as a Battery never had an MG then its more likely he saw Mountain gun parts.

But that's a guess by me and not fact as I was not there to say what he saw is correct, never my friends were you. So your guessing hes correct also?

Also there were not Hotchkiss guns but Krupp L/14 Mountain guns, that's a fact not a guess, so if you believe he is seeing Hotchkiss then you need to correct your views.

Mates its nice to have this discussion from time to time again as we get set in our views, I am still inclined to correct my view and say Ewen is right in what he is showing is the non MG weapons which were added to the 9th Div before the invasion, like the 1" and 37mm Nordenfelts, not maxim guns?

Turkish accounts do say that the defences of the fortified zone were beefed up after March Naval attack, so that's about when these extra weapons show up, but again there deployment to the out of the way Aribunu area appears unlikely, as only a few were placed at Gabatepe.

But if you see MGs and I see pom poms then are we both correct?

Any way have a good weekend

Cheers

S.B

[bob lembke]

I very much doubt that the participants in this discussion will ever come to a broad agreement. My study of Gallipoli is mostly into a different level of detail and issue than the details of "this landing, this ridge, that ridge", so I cannot usefully add to a debate as to a MG being at this location or that location on April 25th. I do know a lot about the Turkish arms industry, such as it was in 1915, and about the German efforts to reform and improve it, and to what they were able to accomplish. I also know a lot about the overall state of Turkish arms, what weapons they had and didn't have, what ammunition they were able to produce, and which they were not able to succeed. I frequently have seen reference to Turkish arms that they simply did not possess.

The desperate situation of the Turkish Army at Gallipoli as to materiel is simply is not appreciated. A large percentage of Turkish soldiers did not have shoes, and many nothing that might be considered an actual uniform. It might be a set of underwear with a large overcoat wrapped about, held closed by a rope or a belt. Or a uniform of sorts with no underwear, or simply civilian clothes. A collaborator of mine found and shared a 80 page memoire by another Pionier in the volunteer Engineers' company that my father served in at Gallipoli, and in it the writer described being in a dugout just behind the Turkish front line at Helles, and there was an English attack that broke thru the line. In the dugout were 13 men, ten Turkish and three German combat engineers. When the Brits reached the dugout, the pioneers (the German meaning is somewhat different than the English, a more highly trained soldier.) were able to keep the attackers at bay, as there luckily was a case of grenades in the dugout, which they threw liberally and to good effect. The 13 Turkish and German pioneers had only three or four rifles between them. Then Turkish reserves arrived and drove the Brits back. Incidentally, the Turks at that time were employing 17 models of rifle; when this German soldier arrived in Turkey he was given a model of rifle about 45 years old. (Since the German soldiers arrived in small groups in civilian clothes and with false papers, they could not bring their arms with them.)

I have seen several references to "German Marines" fighting at Gallipoli, in one case mentioning German Marines armed with machine guns meeting the Allies at the landing on April 25th. Above I just read about the "German Marines" possibly not fighting well. Also mentioned "German Marines" serving on Turkish battleships. For the Allied side, I have read perhaps 20-25 books, in English and two in French. On the Turkish/German side, perhaps 50 books, probably all in German, but not all written by a German. I do not think that I have ever seen mention of a "German Marine" at Gallipoli, at the front or in Istanbul. I am not a naval expert, but I don't believe that Germans used "marines" as the Royal or US Navies did. Some portion of the sailors on a German warship were trained as naval infantry, and the armory contained some small arms, for example Maxim machine guns and the P08 "Luger" pistol with the 10" barrel, with a stock. I don't even know if a warship normally carried a detachment of "Marines". I hardly think that the Germans supplied detachments of Marines to serve on Turkish battleships. (The Germans did have Marines, one or two Marine divisions fought at Flanders, right on the coast, commanded by a German admiral.)

The German word for "Navy" is "Marine". Perhaps this is why some students of Gallipoli, not knowing German, see the word "Marine" and think of English-style "Marines".

The Germans had no troops fighting in the front line at Gallipoli on April 25th, nor for a while. The Turkish Fifth Army might have eventually had 500 Germans attached to it, but at the beginning mostly officers, generally not serving at levels below a regimental HQ. I know that someone was offended by my referring to errors in Allied memoires, but among their many errors were the writer seeing a dead Turkish officer, wearing a finer grade of uniform, and perhaps relatively fair-skinned, and proclaiming the corpse a "German officer". German officers did not command Turkish platoons or companies, probably not battalions; regiments and higher level units might often be commanded by a German officer, or alternatively the Turkish commander might have a German officer advisor. (Every German soldier serving at Gallipoli had his German rank and also held a Turkish rank one grade higher.)

The two German naval MG formations sent to the Gallipoli front after the landing were all sailors officered by naval officers; the first 45 men with a German naval lieutenant and six MGs, the second about 150 men with eight MGs. Lt. Doenitz, in his valuable book, said that the Turks, after a fight, gave the sailors 13 Vickers that they captured from the British.

My father's pioneer company was requested by von Sanders after the battle began, and only then was organized in Germany and sent to Gallipoli piecemeal, in cognito. I don't think that they actually ever "fought" at the front, but mostly supervised mining warfare, which is combat enough, in my book. the Turkish combat engineers were especially deficient in the use of explosives, due to a lack of materiel to practice with; my father was an expert before he even got there.

So, aside from the emergency detachments of sailors, no Germans "fought" at Gallipoli, in the normal sense. I doubt if there was a single "German Marine" at Gallipoli.

Also, can someone supply a source for the Turkish MGs in the armories of the old Turkish battleships, and these very scarce and irreplacible (sp?) weapons being turned over to the Turkish Army?

[gilly100]

Bob

Whether or not these German combatants were sailors trained to fight on land as part of the German Naval Land Detachment (Landungsabteilung) or actual marines I am not concerned, but some of the following, gleaned mostly through the work of Klaus Wolf, proves of some interest.

1. That some 80 German combatants died in the fighting at Gallipoli, whether with the naval land detachment operating mgs or with naval coastal artillery or other.

2.from a blog or website made by Klaus Wolf

Navy Support Command or Marine Sonderkommando reinforcing naval coastal artillery at Dardanelles, some 400 German Navy gunners all ranks.

Navy Landing Division, strengthening of defence in the land battles by machine guns, some 300 German Marines (not my words here)

The Volunteer Engineer Company, 400 German Pioneers.

Artillery (Suvla defence) 150 artillery soldiers

Add aerial support, medical etc and the claim is between 1700 to 1800 directly involved in the fighting at Gallipoli.

3. In reference to poor German combatants performance, none of which I found mentioned in the recently english translated Turk OH for Gallipoli, the following from a former Turk Army Colonel and later Assistant Professor at a Turkish University, from another website

"Germans at the foremost front were sailors of the Midilli (Breslau). They brought 12 mgs from this ship on May 3rd. They run away in the first battle leaving their guns behind. The 14th Engineer Company was the only German unit at Gallipoli. They were stationed at Sedulbahir.The Company had 200 men, but unfortunately they also run away and the number decreased to 40 in a few days time. They were no more a company." Make of that what you will.

4. From a newspaper article only a couple of years ago Professor Ayan Aktar, a Turk scholar, noted that further research was required regarding German involvement at Gallipoli as relevant files on German participation remained under lock and key at Turkish Chief of Staff Archives. Make of that what you will. Apologies if I have spelt the professors name incorrectly.

5. On 27 July 1915 the Landungsabteilung or naval landing detachment was reinforced from Istanbul with 3 officers and 150 men with 12 mgs. These 12 mgs are referenced in the Turk OH as arriving at Chunuk Bair around 7 August, some going to the W Hills, with subsequent casualties recorded via the work of Klaus Wolf.

6. Some, I think four, of these casualties were recorded/buried in the cemetery or on the memorial the German Naval Landing Detachment men built at Kilia Tepe, also where a German hospital was sited, now both destroyed and erased from their Gallipoli narrative.

7. Perhaps try Dolf Goldsmith's book The Devil's Paintbrush or John Walter's Central Powers' Small Arms of World War One as referenced by Murray Ewen in his Gallipoli Maxims article in The Gallipolian Journal no.135 of Autumn 2014.

So were German combatants involved on 25 April? No formal currently known records at present appear to say this, but certainly it appears mgs were made available for use from Barbaros Hayrettin and Torgut Reis prior to this date. Certainly the German contribution by way of either men and or weapons seems largely downplayed. No one until Murray Ewen's article even entertained mgs coming from these particular ships, so clearly worthy of further investigation. Not sorted by a long shot me thinks given the sheer scale of Allied mg accounts.

Cheers

Ian

[bob lembke]

Ian;

Just saw your post, I am in the throes of producing several Federal tax returns by next Monday,

perhaps requiring 80 hours of work.

Nevertheless, I started a brief response, and the laptop in my bedroom (it is 1:50 AM here)

just ate my response.

Still, a few fragments from the wreckage of that essay.

Almost every single "fact" from the material from the Turkish ex-colonel and now college

professor is factually incorrect, as can be established by primary sources. On April 25th

the engineering company did not exist, it would be formed six or eight weeks later from

men volunteering from many units throughout Germany and France. It never was called the

"14th Company", nor was any Pionier company in the German Army called the "14th Company."

When it got there, in June or July, its strength did drop almost immediately from 200 men

to 40, but almost entirely due to disease, the health conditions were absolutely awful,

as my father detailed to me. Thru all of the fighting, the company was never used as

infantry, and only a handful were killed or wounded in fighting, while hundreds had to be

sent home from disease. My father contracted malaria. The two things the Turks had in

great supply was men who were willing to fight and die, and workable small arms ammunition.

In the last 16 years I probably have read say 75 books about the Turkish/German side at

Gallipoli, and about the fighting in the ME from 1914-18, and I cannot recall s single

mention of a single German Marine (English meaning) even being in Turkey. (I don't think

that one of those books was in English.) The German word "Marine" has the meaning of the

English word "mariner". You or someone stated that those old Turkish battleships had

"German Marines" in the crew, meaning "Marine" in the English sense. Almost no chance of

that. Give me a source. This idea must come from someone with little or no German trying

to dig something out of a work in German. I don't think that German warships had a

contingent of "Marines" (English sense) like English and American warships did/do. But

I am not a naval expert re: 1914-18.

Have written far too much for my current situation.

Bob

[bob lembke]

I finally researched the concept of "German Marines" and WW I, and in other periods,

after opening a thread on the topic in the Naval section and not receiving a response

that would put the matter to rest. This may give the Administrators heart-burn, but

here is what I found and wrote. (In my defense, I rarely quote long sections of other

Pals' posts, as many do.)

" Guys;

Well, I decided to cease being lazy and did more research myself. This is based on a

secondary source, but one published recently by the US Naval Institute, the most

respected military publishing house in the United States, so it should be a good

source.

The Prussian Navy did form a corps of Marines in 1852, and for a while small detachments

of Marines were stationed on Prussian warships, but in 1871 the Imperial German Navy was

formed, and its first head, a Prussian general named Albrecht von Stosch, ended the practice.

Instead, like I had suggested, a certain number of sailors on each warship received

infantry training, and the ship's armory included a proper supply of infantry weapons

for the formation of properly armed landing parties. This concept was called "Infantrieismus".

This abolition of stationing small detachments of German Marines on German warships, as is

done on British and US warships, probably occurred in the mid-1870's, and has never been

revived, in WW II or at the present. The WW II German Marine formation was only one battalion,

and the Post WW II German Marine formation has been disbanded.

However, pre-WW I there was a German Marine establishment, first of two battalions, and then

with a third battalion stationed at Tsingtao, the German enclave in China. However, with the

start of WW I, the German Marines grew, to a brigade and then a division, and then to a corps

of two divisions fighting in Flanders, this corps being expanded to three divisions in February

1917. This formation fought with distinction on the Flanders coast, notably at the battle called

Strandfest ("Beach Party"), where it demolished a British beachhead.

With this information, and what I have already learned about Gallipoli and the German program

of aiding the Turkish war effort in WW I, it is very unlikely that there was a single "German

Marine" anywhere in Turkey during WW I. at Gallipoli or elsewhere. "

So I think we can put to rest the proposed images of the beaches of Gallipoli being lined with

German Marines, armed with MGs, whether or not those MGs supposedly came from the armories of

either German warships or old Turkish battleships.

As for the proposal that additional MGs appeared at the landing beaches of Gallipoli from the

armories of a pair of old Turkish battleships, does any one have a source for this idea?

[Guest]

Bob,

It all depends on what types of weapons they are getting off these old war ships.

Gilly mentioned old Maxims, while thats possible, how many of these weapons were on these ships?

Does Murray mention the types they are getting to form these new (Turkish) Naval MG companies or were these guns used to increase the strength of already formed Army MG Companies?

You just don't take, so called 24 MGs off these war ships and then send them to the front, you use them to form MG companies or to build up already formed companies?

If used on the Aribunu front, why did Aker not mention there addition to his defences, he mentions other additions around Gabatepe, like the Pom poms.

But Aker does not mention who operated these new pom poms, given to the defences, so were these old naval weapons mention stripped from the ships?

The only source is Turkish Orbat documents which show them as part of the 9th Div Artillery.

More likely then these mystery MGs at Aribunu.

S.B

[Guest]

There's another diary that mentions machine guns at the Gallipoli landings. Not proof, but one more to add to the list. It's free to download from the National Archives.

War Diaries (Private): Capt C A Milward, Indian Army: the Gallipoli landing

Mike

[bob lembke]

Off in my little world in the US, I didn't even realize that it was ANZAC Day, until

I say an article touching on the topic in the NY Times. As an outsider, it really

seems that the WW I experience had a lot to do with forming the Australian national

conciousness. So I hope that our friends "down under" will experience a meaningful day,

and reflect on those brave, tough guys who spent part of their lives on that nasty

bit of land inhabited by far too many flies of every possible description. One of my

father's memories was the water, it had been carried in goatskins on camel-back for days,

and was black, and Europeans could only drink it if it was laced with Oil of Peppermint,

which the Germans made sure that they had. One of the cables that I mentioned was a

request from a medical officer that the German Army send, for the engineering company

with the Turkish Army at Gallipoli, the standard pharmacutical kit for a German cavalry

regiment. The medications for a regiment for the use of one company! And, of course,

the Australians were sometimes only 10 yards away and suffered the same miserable

enviroment. So, hats off to those tough buzzards!