Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI


Chris Best

Recommended Posts

For those interested in this long debate, new information from Murray Ewen and recently printed in the latest edition of The Gallipolian might be of great interest. I would be interested to see what some have to say with regard to Murray's findings. Of great interest to me was the availability of numerous Hotchkiss machine guns of 7.65mm calibre that some German records allude to being used on land and where they likely were sourced. Previously not acknowledged I think. Also an interview by Peter Liddle with a Captain Ozgen of the Ottoman forces who claimed he was with his machine guns on MacLagans Ridge early morning 25 April at Anzac as a second lieutenant. Some of the findings from German archives also bring up previously unsighted records (as far as I know anyway) that shed further light on German involvement of their naval landing detachments, it seems including 25 April by one source. All in all a very good examination of the Turco German Naval situation, especially the poor state of the Ottoman Navy. The amount of available machine guns from this fleet is larger than what many might have thought, and the way these guns and men were channelled to the various battlefronts at Gallipoli.

Good job Murray, I know how long and hard you have been searching for answers. I think you have raised some very interesting points, and dug in places that others appear to have failed to look at or even consider.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations to Murray, but also congrats to you Ian, on the appearance of your own article in this latest edition of  'The Gallipolian' 

[The Pine Ridge Guns, Anzac, 25th April 1915]

Mine only arrived here yesterday and I am looking forward to getting into it at the weekend.

 

 

regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael, enjoy your read. I think Murray's research is proof positive of following your gut, spending lots of money and following through and not being intimidated by those that have not done any or enough research in this area and who hold to their views based on only one main area of research and ignoring so many Allied accounts, explaining them away cart blanche based on the former. This article sheds new light on German involvement that deserves much greater recognition and brings into play likely involvement of Ottoman machine guns from Ottoman navy vessels and probably Ottoman naval participants. At least that's how I view it. The Gallipoli landing story is far from complete based on recent authors writings that sing the no machine gun song.

Cheers

Ian

Edited by gilly100
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like it could be time to dig out the Turkish DVD I have on Gallipoli, filled with shots of Turkish machine-gunners firing away!:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mates,

 

The Handbook of the Ottoman Army shows both Hotchkiss and Maxin MG companies formed pre war.

 

While the Maxim companies are more well known not so much these Hotchkiss MG companies.

 

But as all records show MG companies with no types of MGs in them its harder find find which is which?

 

The Handbook does not show what types of Hotchkiss MGs these companies were formed

 

How long these companies (hotchkiss) were in service is unknown as they appear to be replaced in the main fighting units of the Ottoman Army and they don't show in units at Gallipoli, that I can find, but I am open to other comments here?

 

Sorry but I don't have acsess to the Murray research, to double check his work or what he is saying?

 

Cheers


S.B

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve, I believe that there was the odd Army Hotchkiss mgs floating about. What Murray uncovered in one piece is that the well worn and known bit about Lt Boltz and his 40 plus detachment with 8 mgs from Goeben and Breslau at Helles in early May was also accompanied by some Turks with two Hotchkiss mgs.

Also of particular interest is the Peter Liddle interview with Captain Ozgen who stated that he was waiting on MacLagans Ridge early morning 25 April at Anzac with his machine guns. Not sure how one explains that away. Murray had mentioned Ozgen in his 2014 article but refrained from stating the mg detail. If the Turko German fleet had a conservative estimate of 40 maxims and 18 Hotchkiss mgs available locked up in the straits, it would seem almost madness not to use them in the land campaign.

You really need to read and digest all Murray has written to come back on it. Might PM you later.

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Hotchkiss mgs, the reference by Drake Brockman as he landed is he thinks he heard that 10bn had taken a Hotchkiss gun. Seems to marry up with Talbot Smiths reccomendation for MID of driving Turks from an mg and Weatherills account of dismantling a tripod mounted mg on MacLagan's. Even Ibradili Ibrahim's account of Ari Burnu mentions rifles and two guns just down south of his platoon at FH and No1 Post. From my point of view it all marries up, especially with Ozgen statement to Peter Liddle in 1972.

If you get a copy of the article Steve I think you will find some very interesting new stuff uncovered that, if nothing else, adds to the Turko German fleets contribution to the land campaign that we have not seen before, hence my congratulations to Murray on his determination to dig and find where others have not trodden, or if so, did not find.

What German records remain under lock and key in Turk archives is another point made by at least one Turk scholar in the recent past and which is worthy of note.

Trial by social media and name calling certainly won't add to the debate that is for sure.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

Thanks for the EMail I'll check it out.

 

As the The two MG companies these are given as; 

 

A Hotchkiss MG Co 4 officers 119 men 53 horses 5 carts (number of guns is not stated but the standard MG Co was four MGs

 

A Maxim MG Co   4 officers 156 men  81 horses 5 carts  

 

The hotchkiss Co is shown as having 70 men (on weapons) and  28 drivers and the rest odds and sods (buglers Armourers, cook, water carrier and orderies)

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve. It would be good to know what Regiments had them around landing time and where the units were located relevant to Gallipoli. If the Ozgen info stands up, as a Turk officer sitting on MacLagan's at the Landing, it might prove interesting from where his guns came from and what type, which is why i found Drake Brockmans mention of a Hotchkiss believed taken by 10bn compelling. Certainly the 18 Hotchkiss mgs from the Ottoman fleet, given their seaworthiness, would have come in handy on land. Just the new mention of Turks manning this type of mg and enroute with a German naval landing detachment is of significant interest to the debate. Another German POW wrapped up at Anzac in August also lends weight to the fact that there were more mgs used via German control than what the TOH certainly tells us. Hence my mistrust of some of their records. I think you will find the article thought provoking at the very least. Nice to be able to discuss without the idiot or zealot tags of late from what I have seen elsewhere.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian,

 

Mate of cause you just can't take 119 men give them 4 old Hotchkiss MG's and send them out to battle.

 

If these guns were from the Ottoman Navy, did they also come with the crews to man them, as the German Navy did when the formed their MG companies later in the battle.

 

If a number of four gun Hotchkiss Companies were formed from the 18 MG's given by the Navy, were there four an half MG companies formed and where were they sent?

 

The major point of concern at that stage of the war was the landing by British Marines to attack the forts, as they did in March, so were these garrisions incressed by an MG section from these new MG Companies?

 

I don't see many guns being spared to the back water area of Ari Bunu, when more important areas need them more, like the area around Helles.

 

So even if these MG companies were formed, I am still having trouble with where they would place them, while the account by Drake-Brookman is interesting and the family is above reproch (full of old Light Horse families some in my Grandfathers 10th LHR), was at lest one Hotchkiss MG company sent to Ari Bunu and not mention, well yes its possible, but I would not be looking for more of them?

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

I think the thrust of the Hotchkiss mg evidence was to show how many mgs of Hotchkiss variety could have come from all the mostly unfit Ottoman ships, and given there were Turks with two Hotchkiss guns accompanying Lt Boltz makes one think this is possible. I don't know if Klaus Wolf related these men and guns in his book. I don't have it here and in German anyway. Whether army or navy, they were there and it's new info to me.

That Murray has found other German sailors off ships other than Goeben and Breslau fighting in naval landing detachments with mgs is also news, as well as the fact that some appear to have come via the channelling of the foremost mentioned ships. That was good work from Murray as was finding those hardy men who made it to Gallipoli after the sinking of the Emden. Again, news to me and no doubt others. This all adds to the histiography of Gallipoli and adds to the largely undertold German story there . No one can deny that.

Why no one who has written books on Gallipoli that availed themselves of the Liddle Collection at Brotherton Library, did not use, see or even consider if seen, the Ozgen Liddle interview, only they can answer, but I am glad Murray's visit there bore fruit from his perspective. If one reads the article and takes it all in, and gives the NEW information the credit it deserves for consideration, it provides a worthy response to the no mg early morning story.

An extensive list of endnotes shows where the research went to and came from, places some others have not trodden. Now not only must some have to poo poo Brit, Aussie eyewitness accounts, now they have to do so to several Turkish officers and challenge some records at Frieberg in Germany. Not one person has ever got on this forum and had a go at Weatherill and Talbot Smith. Same goes for some of those compelling accounts at V Beach.

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

I am still to be certain that the Ozgen interview is correct?

 

Hart gives no back ground on Ozgen and to say he was a 2/Lt in an MG Company at Anzac needs more research.

 

Even if correct that leaves a Lt in charge of a MG Section not mentioned in any other account, and were his two MGs both on the ridge he mentions?

 

Mate as to the Germans you are getting ahead of your self, these Germans Sailors didn't show up in the defences till after the landing

 

Boltz     Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli         WIA 8-5-15 

Carls    Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli         
Hildebrandt     Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli         KIA 8-8-15
Müller    Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Çanakkale        
Rabenau Von    Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli         WIA & PoW 4-6-15 at Gully Ravine
Schmidt Hans Martin    Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at South Group at Gallipoli         
Thomsen Von    Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Gallipoli         
Wodrig    Lt Naval    Naval MG Sects Marine-Landungsabteilung at Ariburnu/Suvla        
 

"Murray has found other German sailors off ships other than Goeben and Breslau fighting in naval landing detachments with mgs"

 

Mate, of those I found so far, none other then those in the Forts (Germans) in command positions from the Army and a few from the Navy.

 

The Navy had some advisers in a number of positions, some in fighting ships, that I found so far, other then the two main war ships.

 

None were at Ari Bunu or even close to that area in April 1915?

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from Bundisarchiv Freiberg RM40/440  as found and quoted in article

 

25 April 1915 - Kaba Tepe, Ari Burnu, Sedd el Bahr

"To support the weak attacked Turkish Army, the fleet sent all 'entbehrlichen' (dispensable) machine guns with German troops of the Goeben and Breslau in the Dardanelles to serve the V Army. This was an essential reinforcement for the Turkish troops. It made severe damage to the enemy which different English reports show".

 

Seems the date and locations are quite clear. Make of that what you will, but its not 30 April or early May by date reference.

 

I am well aware of the early May deployment of Boltz et al, and later Thomsen et al. No one until Murrays two articles knew about mgs from Barbarosa Heyrettin and now Germans from at least 3 other ships outside Goeben and Breslau, but seemingly falling under banner of those ships.

 

Why would Ozgen mention being on mgs 25 April on first ridge if he was elsewhere? Why so quick to dismiss this man? Why did Saral, when spoken to by Liddle, not see any point in interviewing veterans from both sides, when he had a hand in putting together the TGS history of Gallipoli? What a wasted opportunity and poor form from a historical perspective.

 

Ian

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gilly,

 

Mate I am not worried about Murray's comments about German Naval personal in Ottoman ships, as they are well known to those of us who follow the Ottoman side. But to say that they some how ended up in Ari Bunu 25 April seams a "Bridge to far".

 

There is no evidence that German sailors were at any beach at Anzac or Helles during the first day. 

 

Mate the call may have been made on the 25 April, but allowing for time to form and train these new MG sections and to march to the battlefields, no easy matter even now, would have taken some time from the Fleet base, even by water.

 

Mate, "Why would Ozgen mention being on mgs 25 April on first ridge if he was elsewhere"

 

I agree, its strange. But with out any other details on this man leaves me wondering. Most accounts by officers that day mention other officers and men in his unit, Ozgen makes no other comments to cross check his account. Did he command a MG section that morning, possibly, but other Ottoman accounts around him don't say any thing, do you see some sort of conspiresy or not?

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a slightly diverging note, just to add here from an archaeological viewpoint (so beating a drum for us real 'diggers':thumbsup:!), a bayonet find at Gallipoli does confirm the historical reference to sailors from the Goeben at least were 'employed' on the field - see 

I mention this to stress how such finds can confirm the historical record - or even in some cases improve it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the above post is this from Murray's article sourced from The Hamilton files, Kings College London, Intel bulletin 14 August 1915.

 

"Three Germans of a mg detachment captured at Anzac on 7 August were further examined at Mudros, they stated that they formed part of the German detachment of 30 mgs and 150 men mostly drawn from the Goeben and Breslau. A group of 16 mgs had been deployed against Anzac, and the prisoners belonged to a section of 4 guns under Oberleutnat Pohl which was enfiladed by our naval guns on 6 August, and 2 of the guns knocked out. One of the prisoners stated the remainder of the Emden's crew which reached Constantinople overland had been turned over to the Breslau."

So putting 25 April aside for the moment, this clearly indicates a much greater level of German participation in the land campaign than what the Turk OH certainly tells us, or anyone else for that matter as far as I know.

Has this ever been seen and published before? If not, then thanks Murray for adding this to Gallipoli history. Goeben and Breslau only had 8 machine guns between them, so the argument for channelling men and mgs through those two ships appears quite sound.

As for 25 April, anyone who wants to write off the likes of Weatherill and Talbot Smith at Anzac and those highly lucid accounts from so many witnesses from the Brits at V Beach, just to mention a few, I ask again, please explain these accounts away, because you simply cannot.

This article has added significantly to our knowledge, whichever side of the debate you sit. Who knows how much other stuff rests unseen in German archives,  and Turkish archives for that matter. Only a big fistful of dollars will find more in Germany and good luck getting the keys to the latter.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian,

 

Yes I also have no problems with the German MG Companies arriving post landings, these as IO show above are known, the names I found so far show a number of companies formed and sent during the Fighting.

 

The most well known was the company over ran by the British at Helles.

 

Yes Germans were sent down to Anzac to increase the MG strength there.

 

But this is a "red herring" as these men didn't arrive till after the landings and around May 1915.

 

As to the comments about 25 April, I also agree that if some other MG sections were there, we still need more information as accounts for veterns (allied) need to be explaned, but the account by Ozgen is not that "gunman on the grassy knoll" while his account is interesting its still not prof ?

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

For my part, Ozgen IS the machine gun man on the grassy knoll. That is exactly what he told Liddle in his interview.  Not with rifle but with exactly what we are looking for. Not another Aussie or Brit account, no matter how complete, but a Turk interviewed in Turkey and translated through another Turk veteran. This is the first recording, way back in the 70's that challenges other Turkish works. It, like evidence from the likes of Weatherill, Derham and others can only be discounted if one believes they are being completely dishonest. Hardly something one would forget. The TOH for Gallipoli is not even close in quality compared to the likes of Bean and Aspinall Oglander.

Whether or not these mgs were manned by some Germans or Turks I do not really care at this point, but a plausible explanation of where mgs could have been sourced, to assist Ottoman Army shortfall has been well put. I simply cannot write off so many decent Allied accounts either and the news of another model of mg put to use, namely Hotchkiss, only

Adds to my belief. Has any other author or historian in recent years mentioned these guns?

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Charles Gostelow OC 13 platoon D Coy 11Bn AIF says this from his diary regarding his landing at Anzac on 25 April

 

... we were under a perfect hail of rifle and mg fire, taking what cover possible in the dark, had to lie and wait for daylight....

 

Albert Facey, who in one of his copiously written notebooks, mentions being in the same platoon, and recounted

 

....The order to line up was forgotten. (We) got into scrub on the other side and used our entrenching tool and dug the earth up to form the mound until daylight...

 

It seems Gostelow then moved to his left to silence the fire from his left, where he came across Strickland of his battalion. 

 

Marries up nicely.

 

Ian

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gilly,

 

Mate I have no problem with soldiers hearing MG's firing on that day.

 

MG's do have a distintive sound, but that sound can change on where your hearing it.

 

Were they the British MG's firing from the pinicles or some other sourse, like Ottoman MG's missing from there Orbats?

 

I don't know if what they are hearing is what they heard, nor do you, but we take there statements as correct.

 

Cheers

 

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another 11bn man unable to distinguish anything, although he appears quite clear!

961 WR Harburn

"We came under Turkish machine gun fire. Flame from the the Turkish fire of small arms. The line of boats was raked by machine gun fire and in my boat many soldiers were killed or wounded - plus two of our sailors."

 

Or this chap 77 WB Murray

"...The next boat to that one I could see got ashore alright but as the men came ashore they were simply mowed down by machine gun fire, which was turned on them..."

 

Pinnace fire? Don't think so. Rifle fire? Not what he said, and he was there. Telling lies? Really? Come on.

 

More to come. There are just so many. The no mg yarn is a crock.

 

Ian

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

443 Cpl and Signaller HV Hitch of B Coy, 11Bn AIF gave an interview to Peter Liddle, which subsequently formed tapes 235 and 252 of the Liddle Collection at the Brotherton Library in Leeds. Some amazing pre war info AND his landing account. I note one book on Gallipoli quotes the sources of these recordings and transcripts, but only refers in the book the part when Hitch was up on the heights. And yet the landing detail is of some importance due to the level of detail.

Hitch was on the destroyer Chelmer with Captain Tulloch who was B Coy and told Hitch to be in same boat and stick with him for signalling duties. Interestingly, Hitch says there were 8 lifeboats, 4 on each side of Chelmer in pairs, and that as each one filled with men, they made off individually for shore, not together.

Some heavy casualties taken, the RN tillerman of his boat, amongst others, being wounded coming to shore.

Hitch was quite adamant when he said:

 

"I got into the fourth boat with Captain Tulloch and as we came under fire he could see that we were landing against a strongpoint because there was machine gun fire. It was all machine gun fire..."

 

Tulloch got the tillerman to veer the boat to the right to move away from the fire, which Hitch said was from the left. Tulloch and his men eventually climbed Walkers Ridge, where Tulloch recorded coming under mg fire from No1 Outpost as they ascended.

 

I think it is absurd to believe that this many men could be mistaken. More to follow in due course.

 

Ian

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

909 W Goodlet D Coy 11Bn on the destroyer Usk

 

"A searching machine gun found our destroyer and commenced drumming on her sides, then it lifted and the dull smack of bullets striking flesh and the groans of the wounded froze the blood in my veins."

 

211 JJ O'Reilly A Coy 11Bn

 

"A short time afterwards -a crack and a rifle shot was fired. I thought it great -our fellows were already there. I never thought it as the Turks. But was soon disillusioned for crack, crack, bizz bizz, a continuous stream of bullets were aimed at us. Then the machine guns tack tack tack- and afterwards shrapnel."

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1117 AA Barber 10Bn AIF

 

... Once ashore it was a case of quick rush across that death trap of a beach, some 1500 yards long (obviously North Beach, my words) and about 9 yards wide. Machine guns popped at each end and as we climbed the cliffs...

 

Captain HC Nott RMO 10Bn

 

We must have been some hundreds of yards from shore when the first shot broke the stillness of the dawn because we seemed to sit in the boat for ages, with the little steam pinnaces all out towing their burden ashore; while we listened to the irregular crackle of rifles, mixed with bursts of machine gun fire.

 

How does one ignore the sheer scale and number of eyewitness accounts? It beggars belief.

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another!!!

70 RJ Lowson A Coy 11Bn

 

Bang, one shot rang out from the hills and a bullet flew, hissing over our heads. The sentry had given the alarm. Rat tat tat the maxims had opened on us and we were under a perfect hail of lead.

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...