TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[green_acorn]

Jeff,

I understand what you mean, many of the symbols of the time evolved from those of the Napoleonic period and similar ones in fact are still in common use in Australia, the UK and NZ, as far as I am aware, to describe drill/parade ground formations. So knowing that will make it easier to discern what the symbols may be if I can get myself up to the Intelligence museum to find a 1914 German officers handbook I donated. That will be a bit difficult for another few weeks as I am in a "moon boot" after some minor ankle surgery. But by the description the symbol would possibly denote the Battery Commander's position from where he directed the guns. I know the "upside down T" symbol you mean, from the Second German Army symbols handbook translated in 1918, it may indeed have been a mountain gun, but I will do some more investigation.

I do agree with you that there will always be differences of opinions and varying interpretations of evidence, and at this remove from the time we may never know the truth. There are a whole raft of reasons, personal, group, community, national, cultural, political, security and so forth that we have those opinions. The issue is to have the flexibility of mind to be able to accept the difference of opinion and competing hypothesis and respect the opinion and position of others, without wrapping around the axle over it.

This has been a wonderful thread, the knowledge of Bryn is tremendous and Crunchy's application of the science of warfare with the mathematics, has been most illuminating and taken me from the mythology of my youth and popular culture. The whole discussion has made me wonder more about what really happened, particularly on the Northern flank that morning and I will have to go back to the Peninsula and spend a few days walking the ground looking at it more sharply, when my ankles are stronger.

Regards,

Chris H

[green_acorn]

From Haluk Oral's book "Gallipoli 1915: Through Turkish eyes". The chapter "Fire from Fisherman's Hut: Ibradili Ibrahim".

..... the 4th Company, 2nd Battalion of the 27th Regiment stood guard over the area. Since each company was organised in three platoons, and each platoon was made up of nine squads of nine rifles each, the four kilometres of shoreline from Azmakdere to the north down to Clarke Valley to the south must have been watched and guarded by a force of 250 soldiers.

................As for the 1st Platoon, commanded by Reserve Lieutenant Ibrahim Hayrettin Efendi, or Ibradili Ibrahim, it was positioned in trenches near the Fisherman's Hut area, with its two lookout squads positioned to its north and south. .....

Page 48. ........... The landing force was first fired upon from Plugges Plateau. .......the firepower of their sixty or so rifles proved rather ineffective against the incoming twelve boats. Moreover, the machine guns on the steamboats pulling the boats wrought havoc among the men of 2nd Platoon. Platoon leader Second-Lieutenant Muharrem Efendi was wounded in both shoulders and had to retire. When Muharrem Efendi, who was wounded a third time during his retreat, returned from hospital, he was faced with the news that only three or four soldiers from his platoon had survived. Company commander Captain Faik Efendi was near Courtney's Post with the 3rd Platoon in reserve. The lookouts had seen the approaching ships at around 02.00am. Faik Bey notified his battalion commander, but since the landing was expected further south, towards Kabatepe, the latter did not consider it necessary to change plans or take any additional precautions. .................

Page 49. The greatest number of casualties amongst the landing forces was caused by the 1st Platoon on Fisherman's Hut. In the official British history of the campaign, the fate of forces met by Ibradili Ibrahim is described as follows:

Six boats filled with a company of the 7th Battalion, and the first four of these, steering for what appeared to be the left flank of the troops ashore, headed straight for the Turkish post at Fisherman's Hut. For some time the Turks withheld their fire, but when the boats came within two hundred yards of the shore, so heavy a fusillade was poured into them that over a hundred of the 140 men they contained were killed or wounded before they reached land.

Page 52 and 54. Did the Ottoman Soldiers have Machine Guns?

Many Allied sources state that Ottoman units had machine guns. Bean for example wrote about the fire from Fisherman's Hut, saying "As far as we could see, two machine guns and many rifles were firing at the same time". In Tom Curran's book, the reason why only three officers and thirty-five privates out of 140 survived unscathed is attributed to the presence of machine guns.

And there are more examples. However, it is most unlikely that these sources are correct in their contentions. In his memoirs, Sefik Aker wrote, "In those days regiments had a single machine gun company made up of four machine guns. Consequently there were no machine guns, light or heavy, in the battalions".

Ibradili Ibrahim's letter, written in a sincere and heartfelt language, is further proof that there were no machine guns under his command. Simple logic leads us to the same conclusion: the landing was expected at Kabatepe where the same shore had been covered with barbed wire and more effective precautions against a landing had been undertaken. In which case, placing machine guns at Fisherman's Hut, which was far from the expected point of landing, did not make much sense from a strategic point of view. Considering almost ninety soldiers under the orders of Ibradili Ibrahim could each fire up to ten shots a minute and this fire was concentrated on the landing boats, we can conclude that their opponents simply got the wrong impression and believed that they were being fired upon by machine guns".

There is much more in the book. But the above is the most important part to the discussion. I would note the qualifier Bean has used "As far as we could see," not an authoritative "there were" or similar.

cheers,

Chris H

[Bryn]

If people are going to quote Bean, they could at least quote him accurately. To not do so indicates careless research. He does not say, "as far as we could see". Bean is, in any case, far from the only writer to mention the presence of machine guns in the direction of Fisherman's Hut (north). Nowhere is it stated that a gun was at Fisherman's Hut itself, though that's possible.

[green_acorn]

If people are going to quote Bean, they could at least quote him accurately. To not do so indicates careless research. He does not say, "as far as we could see". Bean is, in any case, far from the only writer to mention the presence of machine guns in the direction of Fisherman's Hut (north). Nowhere is it stated that a gun was at Fisherman's Hut itself, though that's possible.

Better pass that onto Mr Oral!

[Crunchy]

Bryn you are quite correct. Bean says "there appeared to be"..

Nonetheless, "as far we could see" means pretty much the same as "there appeared to be" in the context of the passage, so the meaning of Bean's comment has not been misinterpreted. Perhaps the original translation from English in the mind of the Turkish scholar during his research may explain why the words differ but the original meaning is retained. Haluk Oral's translation may not be exactly correct but it is better than presenting a Red Cross casualty report card as evidence of machine guns when, as Bill Woerlee points out, they are known by experienced researchers to be next to worthless as evidence. Furthermore, having already had a previous post where the Turkish platoon commander at the scene has been quoted as saying he had 90 men with him, to then suggest that claims of 90 Turks being there are unconvincing because a 7th Battalion man only saw eight or nine Turks at the Fisherman's Hut, while others saw Turks at No1 Outpost, is hardly a contribution that can be taken seriously. Thus in the light of these, to seek to discredit Haluk Oral's contribution and casting a slur on his research ability on the basis that he did not repeat exactly the same words as Bean, although the meaning was correctly interpreted, is somewhat ironic.

There is a big difference between i) simply researching and presenting documents as they have been written and ii) evaluating all of the available evidence, which is not simply restricted to documentary sources, against what is confirmed, possible, probable and mistaken in order to come with a considered conclusion. To base a case on only one narrow type of source, such as several accounts from one side that claim to have heard the same thing but which might be mistaken, is shallow. In fact, it goes right against the fundamentals of accepted modern historical research and analysis. At least Haluk Oral is making the effort to consider both sides of the argument and make his case on some analysis of the evidence available to him.

Chris H, does Haluk provide a source for the structure of the platoon?

It would be useful to see if there is an establishment table for a Turkish infantry platoon of that period. I understand the Encyclopedia Britannica edition of around 1912 has a detailed article on the Ottoman Army, including strengths of organisation but I haven't been able to track down a copy of that edition. Can anyone help? Also, does the British Army hand book on the Turkish Army of that period have a break down of a Turkish infantry company and platoon?

Regards

Chris

[green_acorn]

Chris,

Unfortunately no Haluk hasn't listed the source for the Ottoman platoon organisation.

Dividing the company figures for a Turkish infantry company, from the Cairo Handbook at War Establishment, gives a Platoon of 1 Lt/2LT, 1 Bugler, 2 Sergeants, six Corporals, seventy two men and a stretcher bearer. Therefore either eight sections of an NCO and nine men, or nine sections commanded by the LT or an NCO and eight men, with the Bugler and Stretcher Bearer supernumary. Eight sections of ten men sounds the more logical, with the officer, bugler and stretcher bearer "supernumary".

Cheers,

Chris H

[Crunchy]

Chris H

Thank you for that. So we are in the order of around 80 odd men for a platoon.

Cheers

Chris

[michaeldr]

quote from Chris H's post #323; In the case of the five circular symbols with three "spikes", I don't have an old "Staff Duties" book handy, but believe the symbols to be "searchlights" noting of course that they are on ground covering promontories and two of them cover Cape Helles. Whilst the graduated line is a simple range card for readers.

Chris,

Search lights is a possibility; though one would have thought that the 'spikes' or perhaps 'rays' would have been pointing out to sea; is that too simplistic on my part?

The best that I can do re the wording on the symbolic line between the circle and the guns suggests that this is a proposed, but not yet laid, communication line - possibly field telephone

caveat - This is not a linquist's translation, but my effort assisted by a dictionary - not always a fool proof method

best regards

Michael

[Crunchy]

Michael,

Just a thought. Could they be heliographs or signaling stations? Just looking at the lines between them and the artillery positions.

Cheers

Chris

[Chris Henschke]

Crunchy,

Your last post triggered something from my dim past memory. I have just found a reference to a symbol that is very similar. Given that the symbology is clearly based upon the German system, it could well be a heliograph or lamp. Given the locations it seems to make sense.

This is from SS 618 German Conventional Signs

Chris Henschke

[grantmal]

Has there been an assumption in this thread that most of the those 'witnesses' claiming the existence of machine guns above North Beach make their claims based on what they heard (as well as the effect of the fire), rather than on what they saw? According to Bean, first mentioned in Chris's post #61, men did not just hear a machine gun firing, they also saw it:

"[Lt Talbot Smith] then led them straight up the height... from the left-hand edge of the plateau above could be seen the flash of a machine gun." (Vol.I, p.257)

By the time Talbot Smith and the 10th Battalion scouts reached the top, "the flash of the machine gun on the top had ceased for some minutes, though a necklace of rifle flashes still fringed the lower crest to the right." (p.259)

Bean makes it clear there was an obvious difference between the "flash of the machine gun" and the "necklace of rifle flashes" -- would this indeed be the case? If it wasn't a machine gun making the flashes "from the left-hand edge of the plateau", what else could it have been?

Good on you,

Grant

[Jeff Pickerd]

Just a quick point with regard to the quote of C.E.W. Bean in Haluk Oral's, GALLIPOLI 1915, Through Turkish Eyes.

Professor Oral would have transcribed the English language from the Australian Official History into Turkish, as the book was published for Turkish consumption, only 500 odd English language editions being specially printed.

For the English version the Turkish language was transcribed back into English by the publishers, so it could therefore be assumed that the miss quote, albeit as Crunchy has noted, still in context to the intent of Bean's words, would possibly have occured with that translation.

I strongly doubt that such an error would have been made by Professor Oral in the first instance.

But as Crunchy has eloquently observed, this is but a trfilling matter and does not in any way detract from the qualified research undertaken by Haluk Oral for the publication of his excellent book.

Jeff

[Crunchy]

Hi Grant,

I would like to read the source that Bean drew this information from before making any comment.

I have come across instances where Bean has written something that is quite contrary to the primary source statement of the person he is referring to. For example Tulloch on Battleship Hill and Zeki Bey's accounts of the same action. Both of these sources are in Bean's files, both agree with certain timings yet Bean ignores them and brings the time forward by several hours - their timings do not fit with Bean's assertion that the Turks arrived too early for the Anzacs to advance from Second Ridge. Loutit did not agree with Bean's version of the events on Adana Spur but I attribute this to Bean's research techniques at the time.

And yes the vast majority of accounts refer to what people heard. None of these heavy and cumbersome guns at the Cove are reported as being captured although Plugge's Plateau was taken quickly. There are too many machine guns reported at Anzac to be credible, especially when one looks at the number they had available to them and where they thought the landings would probably occur. They are reported to be at Gabe Tepe, Anzac Cove (2- 3), the Fisherman's Hut (2), at the foot of Walker's Ridge - not to mention the numbers reported at V and W beaches. 9th Division must have been the best equipped division in the Turkish Army with considerably more machine guns than the other divisions.

I have come to realise that Bean's Vol I is not his best work. I think Bean seeks to justify why the Anzacs did not achieve more and his account is not as reliable as many of us think. It has to be cross referenced with other sources. His later volumes were better as he learnt the techniques of historical research. Speaking with one of our best Australian military historians, he also has concerns with some elements of Bean's Volume I, having also found inconsistencies in it. Apparently Bean took a bundle of documents with him when he departed the AWM, which were later destroyed. This came from an old AWM source but I have been unable to confirm it.

There are so many inconsistencies with accounts of the landing that one has to wonder what actually occurred - we know the broad outline but the details have been muddied. Much the same as the issue of stragglers coming down to the beach on the 25th, which Bean insisted be taken out of the British OH, which it was. There is evidence, however, that the British OH was closer to the mark than Bean.

Cheers

Chris

[Crunchy]

This is from SS 618 German Conventional Signs

Thanks Chris. They look pretty similar.

Cheers

Chris

[green_acorn]

Crunchy,

Your last post triggered something from my dim past memory. I have just found a reference to a symbol that is very similar. Given that the symbology is clearly based upon the German system, it could well be a heliograph or lamp. Given the locations it seems to make sense.

This is from SS 618 German Conventional Signs

Chris Henschke

Thank you, the symbol being a heliograph/lamp signalling station would also explain the graduated line between the sites, part of the line-of-sight/intervisibility calculation.

Regards,

Chris

[Jeff Pickerd]

While we are looking at the Turkish map symbols, thanks to Sahin Aldogan, via Eceabat, the annoying little symbol that has been the bairn of my life has finally been identified.

It stands for a small post of no more than squad/section size, lookout or observation post, so Crunchy and Chris H were right on the mark.

This also now confirms that there were no machine gun posts covering Brighton beach on the morning of 25th April, only the two 25 mm Nordenfeldts at Gaba Tepe.

It would also clearly indicate that by 8.30 a.m. all units of the 27th Regiment were engaged in the defence of the heights above Anzac Cove, Ari Burnu and North Beach area. The immediate threat to the South beach, up to and beyond Gaba Tepe, has now dissipated with the landing and advance of the ANZAC force at Ari Burnu, with these lookout posts in place as a precaution to any further landings to the South.

Jeff

[Jeff Pickerd]

Chris H,

Quote, Post 329: - "Better pass that onto Mr Oral!"

This has now been done.

Professor Haluk Oral has given an explanation as to the miss quoting of Charles Bean's actual words as they appear in the Australian Official History, Vol 1., much in line with that I speculated upon.

Haluk translated Bean's account into Turkish for his book, as indicated in my previous post, being written primarily for Turkish consumption. When the manuscript went to the publishers translator, for the limited English edition, Haluk had written the original English quotes from the history in 'English', but in doing so, missed this particular quote and did not pick up the error in the proof reading. Quite understandable.

The translator then did the translation of the Turkish manuscript into English, where as Crunchy had speculated, "as far as we could see", became the interpretation of Bean's actual quote, but still retained in essence the original meaning of, "there appeared to be".

Haluk has also stated that if this mistake indicates careless research, he is deeply sorry, but I would suggest that this is a very generous and most humble statement, for the error does not in any way detract from that remarkable research, nor devalue this most informative and beautifully prepared book.

It should also be mentioned that Haluk studied and lectured in Canada and the USA, has a Ph.D on Coding theory and lectures cryptography at university. He is also conversant with many of the old Ottoman scripts, and in particular, the Turkish script.

The fact remains, Haluk has detailed the differing accounts to there being machine gun fire heard by the Australians, and the Turkish accounts of there being no machine guns present on the morning of the 25th April, in the Anzac sector.

From the sources he has uncovered and used, he has come to the conclusion that there were no machine guns present with the 27th Regiment until after 11 a.m.

I too am of this opinion.

Jeff

[Ozzie]

Thanks Jeff, for sharing Haluk's reply.

Given Haluk's access to sources, one is persuaded towards that view.

Cheers

Kim

[green_acorn]

Jeff,

I cannot claim any credit for picking the symbols as heliograph/lamp stations, I was way of the mark with my public scribbling of them possibly being searchlights! Until mentioned by Crunchy I hadn't even twigged to the possibility of the lines marked being indications of the line-of-sight to those stations. I also completely forgot about the size of generators and motors needed to power searchlights in those days, not insubstantial and requiring permanent facilities. The generator room for the Victorian era fortifications at Middle Head in Sydney is very large and was later used as an "auditorium" for training in the 1950's and 1960's.

As Crunchy has said, the double translation problem is understandable and it is remarkable that Professor Oral's translator Amy Spangler, kept both the context and tone of Bean's remark despite the minor change in words. Hopefully one day I will get to meet Professor Oral and have him sign my copy of his book that I managed to snap up via the internet from an Istanbul bookshop last year, well balanced for both the Turkish and foreign reader, beautifully put together and tremendous stories, such as Dr C.S. (Plevna) Ryan's, that would otherwise be forgotten. My only hope would one day to get English translations of the documents at the Appendix.

Anyway, to save future confusion with the other Chris's, I will also change my signature to "Hendo".

cheers,

Hendo

[Ozzie]

Hendo,

Haluk is a most generous man with both his knowledge and his time.

We are trying to get him out to Oz, to - a- sign books, and -b - also to show him our country, as he showed us, his.

A word in the right ear, may get you the translations, .................Jeff........... Journo.......???

Cheers

Kim

[Bryn]

Crunchy wrote:

****

Bryn you are quite correct. Bean says "there appeared to be"..

Nonetheless, "as far we could see" means pretty much the same as "there appeared to be" in the context of the passage, so the meaning of Bean's comment has not been misinterpreted.

****

And there's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Near enough seems always to be good enough. How difficult is it to copy words correctly?

Of course the passage has been misrepresented. It purports to be a direct quote and is not. That's misrepresentation in itself.

Additionally, Bean was not there. He writes from the reports of others. The 'we' in the inaccurate quote gives the impression that Bean was in the boat with the 7th Battalion. How is that not a misrepresentation?

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

I notice a couple trends creeping in this discussion which are unhealthy.

First, the issue of precision. I had a discussion with Westlink in Sydney regarding their precision with the public monuments. Apparently they were of the belief that all light horsemen wore the emu plume and represented this idea in their statue to the Light Horse. After receiving their explanation, I mentioned that only 50% of the 4 NSW regiments actually wore the emu plume during the Great War. I gave them an offer that I would design their next road bridge with similar precision and margins for tolerance as they have represented the light horsemen to the public. It was then that the penny dropped. Precision was important, not only in engineering but also in recording the past. One keeps people alive today, the other keeps the society alive long after we are gone. So they did not want me to build a bridge where there was a 50% chance of getting it correct. Same too with language.

Same with misrepresentations. Let me give an example as to the power of a misrepresentation. A particular fellow in the 8th LHR was a bit of a wag and after Gaza 2 told a furphy to another fellow about the fact that he had won the VC for bravery and demonstrated this by having in his possession a VC ribbon in which he was photographed. The fellow to whom he told the story noted it in his private diary. Decades later, long after the death of the light horseman, this diary was published with the VC story in it. The family of the fellow mentioned receiving the VC now believe in earnest that there is a massive government cover up trying to deny their grandfather of his rightful VC. This is the impact of a misrepresentation. No one knows when it is going to turn around and bite a new generation.

The second issue is the appeal to authority. The possession of a PhD or being a lecturer does not give a person access to any more records than we have today. If that were so then we might as well write to the fellow in question and inform him that he is nominated to write the history of the AIF in Gallipoli and we can all abandon this site. If that sound preposterous then so is the suggestion made by a couple members that the matter is cut and dried because someone says so. Indeed, where I spent my youth, amongst the people with whom we were associated, a PhD was a capitalisation of the term "Post Hole Digger", something vital for making good fences and mending other fences.

None of this should imply that I have any disrespect for Haluk. It is just the disingenuous comments made about him that I find compromises the gravitas of this discussion.

As to the debate itself, it hasn't progressed past the stages found at about page 5 of this thread.

Cheers

Bill

[Ozzie]

The second issue is the appeal to authority. The possession of a PhD or being a lecturer does not give a person access to any more records than we have today. If that were so then we might as well write to the fellow in question and inform him that he is nominated to write the history of the AIF in Gallipoli and we can all abandon this site. If that sound preposterous then so is the suggestion made by a couple members that the matter is cut and dried because someone says so. Indeed, where I spent my youth, amongst the people with whom we were associated, a PhD was a capitalisation of the term "Post Hole Digger", something vital for making good fences and mending other fences.

None of this should imply that I have any disrespect for Haluk. It is just the disingenuous comments made about him that I find compromises the gravitas of this discussion.

As to the debate itself, it hasn't progressed past the stages found at about page 5 of this thread.

Cheers

Bill

The first of your posting says as you always say. So I deleted it.

As to Haluk, I would imagine he had access to sources yet to be sighted by Australian eyes, and being able to read Ottoman, would put him a little way ahead of some researchers.

As for your remark, "the suggestion made by a couple members that the matter is cut and dried because someone says so." is ludicrous. The people, of whom I have personal knowledge of, who have posted research here, are meticulous and open minded with their research, which is thorough and uses all internationally available material.

For you to cast doubts upon their efforts is nothing short of arrogant.

Oh, and by the way, if you are having a go, if you got something to say, don't wrap it up in hyberbole, just spit it out.

And don't forget to thank your sources publicly.

Best Regards

Kim

[Auimfo]

As to the debate itself, it hasn't progressed past the stages found at about page 5 of this thread.

Cheers

Bill

And you've added to it how?

It's fascinating that you choose to lecture everyone else about misrepresentation.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Auimfo]

The second issue is the appeal to authority. The possession of a PhD or being a lecturer does not give a person access to any more records than we have today. If that were so then we might as well write to the fellow in question and inform him that he is nominated to write the history of the AIF in Gallipoli and we can all abandon this site. If that sound preposterous then so is the suggestion made by a couple members that the matter is cut and dried because someone says so. Indeed, where I spent my youth, amongst the people with whom we were associated, a PhD was a capitalisation of the term "Post Hole Digger", something vital for making good fences and mending other fences.

Cheers

Bill

LOL. Surely you jest. Would you like me to point out each time you've claimed superior knowledge because of your apparant qualifications and easy access to archives?

Cheers,

Tim L.

P.S. I always thought a post hole digger was the cheats way out for someone who had no idea how to use a good old shovel.