TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[michaeldr]

So, hats off to those tough buzzards!

Nice post Bob,

Here's a snap from Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, this bright and sunny, but windy, morn

best regards

Michael

[bob lembke]

Michael;

Who is the piper? I have (often) heard of Arab bag-pipers, but not

Israeli bagpipers. Or a British serviceman, or ex-?

[michaeldr]

Perhaps one of our members from down-under can identify the Piper's uniform for you

He must be a member of either the Australian or the New Zealand armed forces;

both countries were represented by their service men and women who are currently in the middle east with the UN

The commemoration is an annual event organized by the Australian embassy here

I'll offer a guess and say he's a New Zealander, but I really am not sure.

Michael

edit

I think that I got it wrong in my guess:

enlarging the Piper's belt buckle shows its emblem to be the Australian army's rising sun

Edited 26 April , 2016 by michaeldr

[Jeff Pickerd]

Michael & Bob, the piper is from one of the units of the Royal Australan Regiment. A dead giveaway to that, as you Michael have noted, is the Australan Rising Sun badge on the pipers belt buckle.

I have no idea which unit of the RAR is serving with the UN in the Middle East at the moment. Maybe someone can add further information.

Jeff

[michaeldr]

Thanks Jeff

The young service-man did a very good job and added greatly to the event which was very low-key this year,

perhaps because Anzac Day this year coincided with a local holiday (Passover week)

[bob lembke]

I believe that Palestinian Boy Scout units on the West Bank have

many pipers, perhaps derived from the probable pipers of the

Jordanian Arab Legion under that British general, I am slipping

his name. Name began with a D?

[gilly100]

Just perusing the english translated TGS Gallipoli history, released recently online through the Macquarie University, I noted the following sentence regarding the landing at V Beach at Helles.

" Not having many machine guns and heavy guns was such a misfortune for the Turkish force at Seddulbahir..."

Does this then imply they did indeed have some mgs in action at V Beach that 25 April morning? It kind of contradicts much of its other narrative nearby. Same as the contradiction on numbers of 37mm pom poms present I pointed out in an earlier post.

Ian

[michaeldr]

Ian,

Thanks for that reminder about the new translation

Here are my thoughts on going over the first few pages re Helles

It is interesting to note the confirmation of the fact that the Ottoman Infantry were supplemented by the 'Strait Fortified Positions artillery'* - eg see “One howitzer battery with two 150mm cannons and the 25mm light automatic cannons, called Nordenfelts”

It is regrettable that no number is quoted for the latter weapon, however, it is good to see the full description and to note that there is no confusion (which some have claimed) between this weapon and the 37mm (known to the British as 'Pom-Pom')

Like others, I have previously been puzzled by the Turkish reference to 'heavy' machine guns,

but having their allusion to Nordenfelts as 'light automatic cannon' seems to help make a contrast and clear up that small detail.

If the statement that “There were no heavy infantry weapons within the constitution of the battalion”

(see page 258) is meant to imply that nothing heavier than a rifle was available to this infantry battalion, then it is clearly contradicted by the earlier statements (pages 254, 256) regarding the Strait Fortified Positions weapons, which included 37mm and 25mm. Has anything else been omitted?

The writer goes on to qualify his 'no heavy infantry weapons' statement by a further reference to the 'batteries of the Fortified Positions within this region'. Alas no precise details of this vital support are given as far as I can see, except that on page 259 there is a reference to “The 37mm light battery” (ie Pom-Poms). However again, they seem to be seen as lumped in with the artillery, rather than as a regular Infantry weapon – it was “pushed forward and assigned under the command of the 3^rd Battalion/26^th Regiment. The other 5 batteries were positioned at Kirte (Krithia) and to its south. As per this situation, the artillery within the region should have been under the command of and fire management of the 2^nd Artillery Battalion Commander.............”

page 259 goes on to explain a confused command 'system' – If attacked via the sea, the SFP has command of this artillery, but if there is a landing by an army, then this artillery comes under the command of the Divisional Artillery Command.

This led to what the Turkish historian describes as a situation “devoid of the common management and discipline required in the cooperation of the infantry and artillery.”

And don't forget that we are talking about calibres of 37mm and 25mm. And perhaps others?

It's all very well to concentrate on the vitally important part played by the Infantry, however they were not facing the enemy alone and unsupported. Details of the extra weapons allocated seem unclear, or perhaps incomplete(?) Has this missing 'common management and discipline' also contributed to confusion over the historical record?

* An unusual translation this and not altogether a convenient one – the previous formula used by Erickson ie Canakkale Fortified Command sounds better to me

regards

Michael

[MikeMeech]

Ian,

Thanks for that reminder about the new translation

Here are my thoughts on going over the first few pages re Helles

It is interesting to note the confirmation of the fact that the Ottoman Infantry were supplemented by the 'Strait Fortified Positions artillery'* - eg see “One howitzer battery with two 150mm cannons and the 25mm light automatic cannons, called Nordenfelts”

It is regrettable that no number is quoted for the latter weapon, however, it is good to see the full description and to note that there is no confusion (which some have claimed) between this weapon and the 37mm (known to the British as 'Pom-Pom')

Like others, I have previously been puzzled by the Turkish reference to 'heavy' machine guns,

but having their allusion to Nordenfelts as 'light automatic cannon' seems to help make a contrast and clear up that small detail.

If the statement that “There were no heavy infantry weapons within the constitution of the battalion”

(see page 258) is meant to imply that nothing heavier than a rifle was available to this infantry battalion, then it is clearly contradicted by the earlier statements (pages 254, 256) regarding the Strait Fortified Positions weapons, which included 37mm and 25mm. Has anything else been omitted?

The writer goes on to qualify his 'no heavy infantry weapons' statement by a further reference to the 'batteries of the Fortified Positions within this region'. Alas no precise details of this vital support are given as far as I can see, except that on page 259 there is a reference to “The 37mm light battery” (ie Pom-Poms). However again, they seem to be seen as lumped in with the artillery, rather than as a regular Infantry weapon – it was “pushed forward and assigned under the command of the 3^rd Battalion/26^th Regiment. The other 5 batteries were positioned at Kirte (Krithia) and to its south. As per this situation, the artillery within the region should have been under the command of and fire management of the 2^nd Artillery Battalion Commander.............”

page 259 goes on to explain a confused command 'system' – If attacked via the sea, the SFP has command of this artillery, but if there is a landing by an army, then this artillery comes under the command of the Divisional Artillery Command.

This led to what the Turkish historian describes as a situation “devoid of the common management and discipline required in the cooperation of the infantry and artillery.”

And don't forget that we are talking about calibres of 37mm and 25mm. And perhaps others?

It's all very well to concentrate on the vitally important part played by the Infantry, however they were not facing the enemy alone and unsupported. Details of the extra weapons allocated seem unclear, or perhaps incomplete(?) Has this missing 'common management and discipline' also contributed to confusion over the historical record?

* An unusual translation this and not altogether a convenient one – the previous formula used by Erickson ie Canakkale Fortified Command sounds better to me

regards

Michael

Hi

You mean like this Nordenfelt captured by the Royal Fusiliers at Gallipoli and on display outside their museum at the Tower of London.

Mike

[gilly100]

Thanks Michael for elaborating on all this. Their general focus seems to be the infantry, which is understandable, although DFC and its role, and whom these men were remains somewhat foggy and understated, same as the Germans. It sends me back to Colonel Raschid Bey, who said "All available machine guns of the fortifications of the Dardanelles and of the fleet were disposed of." That of course from Murray Ewen's article in 2014.

And going back to what I quoted in post 1207, in the context of the paragraph it was encased in, it appears to refer to the fighting actually taking place at V Beach as the men landed, not these weapons being brought up later. At least by my interpretation anyway.

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Michael,

Mate I have no problem with these weapons showing up in the 26th Regts area as all Turkish accounts claim the addition of extra weapons showing following the Naval battles in March 1915 in these fortified zones.

As most of the outer defence line had been destroyed by Naval action, and the forts rendered defenceless.

What I find hard is these unknown MGs that show up in such an out of the way area as Aribunu, where there was no mention, other then unit officers on the spot, like Aker and Kemal who wanted extra troops and weapons. Sanders and Turkish Corps and Div leaders didn't think was a good area.

S.B

[gilly100]

Ari Burnu are was not considered 'out of the way' by Aker. It appears he regarded it a vital area for defence and dug his defences accordingly. It was his area of responsibility and he correctly concluded it as a viable enemy landing site with close access to the heights. He had mg positions dug at Ari Burnu, F Hut area and 400 plateau. And precisely where our lads recorded mg presence ad nauseum.

The whole DFC area of ops and co operation with 9th Div probably deserve much greater attention. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out some day they had a few machine guns and perhaps a few Hotchkiss guns as well.

Ian

[michaeldr]

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that things have been left out deliberately.

I belong to the c0ck-up camp.

The Turkish historian's admission of a situation “devoid of the common management and discipline required in the cooperation of the infantry and artillery” puts it much better than I ever could. This lack of management and discipline was exacerbated, first by defeat in the Great War, then by a War of Independence with its huge disruption, and finally by a change in the written language making any surviving records difficult to read.

With this in mind it really is not surprising that the history is found incomplete today,

But to ignore that incompleteness, and say that what is left is whole and complete, and that it confounds and contradicts all of the allied witnesses, who are thus judged wrong and mistaken in their reports of machine guns, is absolute nonsense.

Take one example – the 25mm Nordenfelt – That shown by Mike Meech above was captured at X Beach. The Turkish historian however writes that X Beach “was ignored in the defence plan and was left empty of defenders.” The details are later given as “At 0615 when the first attack wave set foot on land, it was only confronted by the fire of a Turkish squad made up of nine men.”

And of the two Nordenfelts captured there............not a word.

Why this omission? & What else has been omitted?

There is some evidence as to the number of Nordenfelts, but nothing detailed on how or where each of them was deployed. If the confusion over Ottoman machine guns is to be sorted out then it would be useful to know where each of the Nordenfelts were placed, if only so as to eliminate them from the discussion.

That would be a start!

regards

Michael

[bob lembke]

In the discussion about the Turkish machine guns who

were or were not at the landing sites on April 25th,

the Turkish Nordenfelds of 25 and 37 mm have

frequently been mentioned, and a few seem to have

been captured. I have not seen anything that suggests

that they played any sort of significant role in the

defense at the landings. But I don't think that anyone

has bothered to discuss what they actually were.

The two versions mentioned are actually quite

different weapons, in more than just caliber. The

25mm was a weapon designed in Sweden, but that gained

some commercial success being made and sold from the

UK. Designed about 1874, it was made in several "rifle

calibers", one being .45 caliber, and at least one

smaller caliber. (About 1870 .45 caliber was a typical

rifle caliber, then dropping to calibers closer to

.30 caliber over the next decade or so. When my father

had good grades, his father, a Prussian Reserve

Explosives Officer, and a bit of a "gun nut"), would

take him to a range to shoot a Model 1871 11 mm -

about .45 caliber, as a reward for his grades.)

The rifle caliber Nordenfelds had multiple barrels,

often 10, side by side, and a big hopper of ammo above

the actions, which gravity fed ammo into the 10

actions. They cocked and fired by the working of lever

on the left side of the gun, the ten actions firing

in sort of a ripple, not simultaneously. So there was

a rippled volley of ten shots, followed a little

while later by another ripple. These guns could put

out quite a volume of fire, perhaps 1600 rpm.

However, no one has suggested that Turkey had any of

these weapons. The design described above was similar

to the 25mm Nordenfeld, which had two or four barrels.

Two examples exist in Australia, and they are two

barreled, which might suggest that they were captured

at Gallipoli, and that the Turks had two-barreled 25mm

Nordenfelds. Due to a 19th Century arms limitation

treaty, small explosive rounds were forbidden, and

it seems that the only 25mm ammo made were solid iron

shot, and tracers. 25mm is about .99 caliber.

What would this sort of gun sounded like? The rate of

fire clearly was much slower than the rifle caliber,

even beyond two or four barrels vs. 10. There would

have been two or four very loud shots in a rapid burst,

a significant pause, probably several seconds, and then

another burst of loud fire. This very distinctive,

unusual audio pattern would have been remarked on, and

it would be absurd to have infantry hear this pattern of

shots and decide that it was machine gun fire. I am

sure they had only heard Vickers fire. To my mind this

weapon, long considered obsolete, except for a defense

against torpedo boats, might have some utility if they

were to fire on the landing craft, but almost useless

in the subsequent infantry combat. Which might explain

why several were captured; the Turks might not have

even bothered to defend or withdraw this strange weapon.

(At Gallipoli the Turks even combed museums and brought

200 year old cannon to the front, but the enormous smoke

cloud from the black powder gave them away, and they were

sent back to the museums.)

What about the 37mm Nordenfelds? Also called "Quick Firing

One Pounders", or "pom poms" from the noise of their slow

fire. They really were a conventional belt fed design,

derived from the Maxim, but with this enormous exploding

round and slow rate of fire. (They were even made in

larger calibers, but no suggestion that the Turks had any

of these.)

So, evidently, there were a few Turkish 25mm and 37 mm

Nordenfelds at the Turkish defenses. Were they employed?

Evidently their two distinctive (and very un-MG sounding)

should have been remarked on in the many Aussie memoires;

I have only read a few, don't recall any mention such a

pair of distinctive sound patterns. Anyone recall such

sound patterns being described?

I don't think there is much evidence of these being fired,

they were anti-boat weapons, bought by the Royal Navy

decades before, and I believe rejected by several armies

for land warfare service.

There may have been some Nordenfelds firing at Gallipoli,

they would have neither been effective against infantry,

nor should they have contributed to the reports of MGs,

95% of which seem to have been based on sound patterns.

(I have trained on the Browning M1919A4, and briefly

commanded a MG team, and I can't imagine hearing the

two Nordenfeld sound patterns and take them for the fire

of a belt-fed MG, although the 37 mm actually was a giant

belt-fed machine gun. Vickers and German Maxims had a

cyclical rate of fire of about 600 rpm, the 37mm probably

about 30 rpm. The 25mm, a burst of fire, a pause, a

burst.)

[Guest]

Bob - have you actually read any of the British accounts? ...and if you have do you believe that are they all mistaken?

We could start with Fyfe's account. He was a specialist machine gunner in the RNAS with a grandstand view at the bow of the SS River Clyde, on a stable platform behind armoured plating. Could he not know what a machine gun looked like or sounded like? Which parts of his account are mistaken? Just curious to know.

[michaeldr]

Bob,

It really doesn't help to keep on referring to the 37mm as Nordefelts; you are only adding to the confusion here.

The Ottoman Turks themselves only ever used the word Nordenfelt when referring to their 25mm weapon; see their OoB in the TGS's Brief History and the new translation of the Official history which was referred to by Ian a little earlier (post No. 1207 I think)

By the time that the manufacturers got round to producing the 37mm Pom-Pom gun, Mr Nordenfelt was already being overwhelmed, business-wise, by Hiram Maxim. The company traded for a brief few years under their joint names, but very quickly the Nordenfelt name was dropped all together. [This is from memory but you will be able to get chapter and verse from wiki or somewhere]

To the best of my knowledge the Turks do not refer to their 37mm guns as Nordenfelts. If you check this point with the new translation then you will see for example on page 263 they refer to their guns as, quote “the 37 mm light maxim battery”. Erickson suggests that they were recently bought as an anti-aircraft weapon and deployed to defend the Dardanelles forts.

For anyone wishing to visualise the difference between these guns, then you have Mike Keech's photograph above and for the 37mm Pom-Pom, just think of a normal Maxim machine-gun but one which has been on a course of Steroids!

Regarding an example of allied references to the 37mm Pom-Pom's use against them; see the British OH Vol.I, page 232, footnote 2, from the diary of Lt-Col (later Major-General) W. de L. Williams

“0635am Connection with the shore very bad.................nothing to be seen excepting a maxim firing through a hole in the fort and a pom-pom near the skyline on our left.”

Lt-Col Williams was absolutely spot on re the Pom-Pom and where it was placed; I believe that his recognition of the maxim firing through the hole in the fort can also be relied upon.

[michaeldr]

Last year's well researched book by Philip Lecane (known as 'Oak' hereabouts) is full of first hand accounts of the landing at V Beach.

See 'Beneath a Turkish Sky' page 168

Lieutenant Cuthbert Maffett, 'X' Company, RDF, was in one of the tows

“............The Turks let us get very close, and then they opened a terrible fire on us with machine guns and pom-poms, the shells of which contained an incendiary mixture. They began to hit the boat I was in very frequently, and killed many of my men as we were rowing ashore. We were also unlucky enough to lose several of the sailors who were rowing us in, and the men had to take over their oars, and as they did not know much about rowing the result was that we often got broadside on to the shore and presented a better target to the enemy. Just before we grounded the boat got hit once or twice with incendiary shells [from the Pom-Poms], and commenced to go on fire. She was also half full of water from the many holes in her by this time. Several of the men who had been wounded fell to the bottom of the boat, and were either drowned there or suffocated by other men falling on top of them, many, to add to their death agonies, were burnt as well.......”

Edited 9 May , 2016 by michaeldr

[Guest]

Gilly,

Mate Yes, as I wrote both Aker and Kemal liked the area they were in to have these extra weapons, but Turkish writers all agree that the only extra weapons they got were the added defences at GabaTeppe not Aribunu.

So why "And precisely where our lads recorded mg presence ad nauseum" do we keep seeing what is not yet there?

I don't know either?

​S.B

[gilly100]

Hi Steve

Well I just don't know why at the moment, although I also believe there were some Hotchkiss mountain guns involved as well at Anzac just to add another layer of questioning. All along and with more and more scrutiny of Aussie and Royal Navy accounts, and having read what I can on the OttomanTurkish/German side, my view remains the same. I find evidence for V Beach quite compelling also.

Putting aside any thought of conspiracy theories, Michael makes some valid points on why the opposing narratives don't match with regard to presence of machine guns. I guess one just has to keep digging and hope that new info comes to light.

Ian

[apple]

Michael & Bob, the piper is from one of the units of the Royal Australan Regiment. A dead giveaway to that, as you Michael have noted, is the Australan Rising Sun badge on the pipers belt buckle.

I have no idea which unit of the RAR is serving with the UN in the Middle East at the moment. Maybe someone can add further information.

Jeff

Elements from 7 Brigade are in Iraq. So, if he came from there he'd be 6 or 8/9 RAR. Although, they should be quite busy and while Iraq is pretty close to Israel an Australian serviceman couldn't just jump on a bus to get from one to the other

[Guest]

Mate,

Australian units are not sent on UN tours to the Middle East, only single members are, a mate did a tour on the Israli - Egypt border some years ago.

S.B

[michaeldr]

Unlike almost everyone else in uniform that day, the Piper was not wearing a blue beret and he may not have been with the UN

If the Australian MoD operates in a similar fashion to their UK counterpart, then the Piper may have been brought over specially.

When I was organising the dedication service for the new memorial to the nine RGA men at Haifa

the Attaché very kindly suggested that I delay it until the day immediately after the Queen's Birthday, as he could then let me have a Piper for the ceremony. [The previous evening he had played at the ambassador's reception] It worked out very well and our major donor was very impressed

[apple]

Unlike almost everyone else in uniform that day, the Piper was not wearing a blue beret and he may not have been with the UN

If the Australian MoD operates in a similar fashion to their UK counterpart, then the Piper may have been brought over specially.

When I was organising the dedication service for the new memorial to the nine RGA men at Haifa

the Attaché very kindly suggested that I delay it until the day immediately after the Queen's Birthday, as he could then let me have a Piper for the ceremony. [The previous evening he had played at the ambassador's reception] It worked out very well and our major donor was very impressed

That would make a lot more sense rather than taking someone off a deployment and I strongly suspect your suggestion is correct.

Mate,

Australian units are not sent on UN tours to the Middle East, only single members are, a mate did a tour on the Israli - Egypt border some years ago.

S.B

I forgot about the UN... Sure, we have observers there.

______________________________

Also, am not quite sure why RAR was mentioned. Scarlet lanyard on right shoulder is Royal Australian Infantry Corps (along with some other corps). But, unless there's some image mirroring weirdness going on, the piper isn't in a RAR battalion. He's lanyard is on his right shoulder, while RAR wear their lanyard on their left shoulder.

[michaeldr]

We're in danger of getting seriously diverted from the topic here gentlemen

However, if this helps...

[Guest]

Mate,

If I remember right I had a mate from an CMF Infanrty unit with us on a course, He was on cadre staff with I think, the 16th NSW Regt, in Newcastle.

He wore a Kilt, but its to long ago to remember its colour?

Also didn't not one or more of the Regular Bands have kilts, I am thinking of 5/7 RAR with Brown and Yellow, or 2/4 RAR, some years ago, have a kilted part of the band?

S.B