TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[Crunchy]

Michael,

Thank you. Enjoy your trip to Europe - we thoroughly enjoyed the UK.

The translation is puzzling and if it is correct we have two types of artillery deployed according to Aker's map, with one type pushed right up into the front line later in the day. If you can get a check on the translation that would be appreciated. Regarding looking for something other than mitrailleuase, the only thing I can think of is German for machine gun Maschinengewehr

Hendo,

Thanks for your information of the Mounted Gun possibly being a permanently emplaced gun. This raises another question - while one is shown on the 0830 maps at Scrubby Knoll, the one on Chunuk Bair at 1100 is not shown on the 0830 map. (See below). Aker speaks of the guns that escaped from the Cup earlier in the morning, meeting up with him and going into action on Scrubby Knoll at 0830. This led me to believe symbol No 20 was a 77mm field gun. This is the same symbol as the gun on Chunuk Bair at 1100 and accords with Mustafa Kemel Bey's account that he took a field battery (presumably 77mm guns) with him when he set out for the battlefield. Thus I am not sure that the mounted gun is a permanently emplaced piece. As regards the other symbols, I can't help, although your comments seem to be logical. This is an area where you have a much greater knowledge than I do and anything you can unearth on this would be greatly appreciated.

The museums were great, thanks to Peter Pedersen, Steven Broomfield, GAC and the Tay Valley group.

Regards

Chris

[green_acorn]

Using the logic that the symbols are of German origin and probably continued by them into WW2, symbol 20 will be an "infantry gun/howitzer" upside down "T" for the Infantry gun, the parallel strokes/"wheels" for howitzer.

The search continues,

cheers,

Hendo

[michaeldr]

Hendo,

I'm not sure that I can agree with you on this

I think that allowance must be made not only for the possible derivation of the symbols used, but also for the Ottoman/Turkish explanation in the legend, however difficult it is to come to terms with

I would agree that in the map key panel's symbol No.19, the marks look less like dots than dashes or strokes

However, on the map as reproduced by Crunchy in his next post (#397) to my eyes at least, they do indeed look like dots

I would also suggest accepting that there is a degree of logical progression running down the list

ie; that a field gun is lighter than a mounted gun, which in turn is lighter than a heavy field gun or naval gun

I tend to think of the latter as less mobile (unlike the British naval guns used in the South African wars for instance)

Looking at No.21 you will see that the Heavy Field Gun or Naval Gun has no symbolic wheels, while the symbol for the mounted gun has

In the end, I find I am broadly in agreement with Crunchy's above post #401

Which begs the question......

If symbol No.20 is what we understand as a 'field gun' eg 77 or 75mm

Then what is symbol No.19?

Is it the smallest of the pieces shown grouped on the Organization Chart together with the rest of their artillery?

If so, then it is probably a machine gun (or machine-gun-equivalent) eg 37 or 25mm

regards

Michael

[green_acorn]

Hopefully this image from the English translated and published version of the 1908 German Field Service Regulations comes out at a suitable size and clarity. The images show the German map symbols and their descriptions, the same symbols used on the WW1 Ottoman maps.

Cheers,

Hendo

[green_acorn]

Hopefully this works!

[Pete1052]

Hey Aussies, anything new about those machine guns?

[michaeldr]

Thanks to Baz [Manchester Terrier] and his list of available on-line reading (given in 'Other Theatres')

I have spent an enjoyable afternoon going through 'The Immortal Gamble' by A. T. STEWART, Acting Commander, R.N., and The Rev. C. J. E. Peshall, B.A., Chaplain, RN

page 109> has the account of BOATS' CREWS' EXPERIENCES, by Midshipman Forbes,

which includes (page 111)

"As soon as we got fairly close to the shore, we received a warm reception

from six maxims or more and four pom-poms,..."

The Pom-poms are referred to again on page 148

"We were none too well pleased at having to

surrender to the flagship two captured Turkish

pom-poms which had been brought on board and

made serviceable. It was our desire to hand them

over to the two battalions which had taken the

ridge above Fort 1 where the guns were found."

At least one made it to the Royal Fusiliers Regimental Museum in London - see post 88

I wonder what happened to the second captured Pom-pom?

regards

Michael

[Crunchy]

Michael,

I came across the following information yesterday. The 37mm pom-pom had a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute. It was in relation to comparative rates of fire "magazine rifle could fire 15 to 20 rounds a minute, machine gun 600 and the 37mm pom-pom 50."

It is quoted in Antulio j. Echeverria II After Clausewitz:German Military Thinkers Before the Great War (University of Kansas Press, Lawrence Kansas, 2000.) p 71 and the source is LTCOL Walter H James Modern Strategy: An Outline of the Principles Which Guide the Conduct of Campaigns (London. Blackwood, 1903) pp131-132. I have the the third (revised and enlarged) edition, 1908, of James but the 37mm pom-pom is not mentioned in it, just the machine gun at 600 rounds per minute.

Regards

Chris

[Pete1052]

I believe the rate of fire of the 37 mm pom-pom was related to the 25-round length of its ammunition belts. Ammunition in 37 mm included explosive rounds that I assume were point-detonating. I don't know what the lethal bursting radius of a 37 mm round was but the comparitively low rate of fire of the pom-pom should not be confused with a lack of lethality.

[green_acorn]

Peter,

Though the practical/real rate of fire was related to factors such as belt length and belt changing speed, can I add for the uninitiated reader, the "cyclic" rate of fire that the gun could achieve with an "endless" belt would have been higher. The cyclic rate of fire being limited by many mechanical factors such as barrel length, recoil force and return spring strength, the distance the operating group needed to recoil, extract, eject the expended shell case and reload, and so on.

You are quite correct about the lethality of the exploding rounds, a near miss by a machine gun won't kill, a near miss from an 37mm exploding shell probably will. Much the same comparison could be made today between 7.62mm machine guns and the various automatic grenade systems, such as the US Mk19 or Mk 47 40mm AGL or the Russian 30mm AGS-30. Nevertheless I am happy that I am not facing either a modern MG or grenade launcher, or a WW1 era Nordenfelt pom-pom or Maxim MG!

Cheers,

Hendo

[michaeldr]

quote from my post of 9th Jan, above:

"We were none too well pleased at having to surrender to the flagship two captured Turkish pom-poms which had been brought on board and made serviceable. It was our desire to hand them over to the two battalions which had taken the ridge above Fort 1 where the guns were found."

At least one made it to the Royal Fusiliers Regimental Museum in London - see post 88

I wonder what happened to the second captured Pom-pom?

Pleased to now be able to answer that last point [wrong; please ignore this remark]

................................................................................

I have just got back from the post office 5 minutes ago with the latest package from N & M

which included 'The Battle of the Beaches' by Capt Hughes C. Lockyer, CB, RN

A short book of cover + 32 pages only (net it is just about 23 pages of text and diagrams)

Be that as it may, before anything else my attention was immediately drawn to the 3 paras describing 'The Defences of X Beach' from which I quote

"… … … On being occupied it was found that it was also defended by two four barrelled one inch Nordenfelts on timber mountings which commanded the wide stretch of the beach but which had been disabled by gun fire. – These were 'at the ready' with hoppers in position and spare hoppers (filled) by each gun. The firing levers were bent, otherwise the guns were in good order.

… … … these guns fired four half-pound steel projectiles at a time and 30 aimed rounds a minute, there would have been very little chance of the boats getting in before being waterlogged in deep water; incidentally as one projectile would easily have killed six men, in line at a time, the casualties would have been enormous, and the success of the operation very doubtful if they had not been disabled…

One of these guns is now at Hounslow Barracks the depot of the Royal Fusiliers, the other at the Royal Naval Barracks, Plymouth."

This latter information must have been correct as at 1936, per the date of Captain Lockyer's 'Introduction'

Please note the Captain's remarks re the loading (hopper, not belt), the size of projectile and the rate of fire of these particular guns

Equally important, it should be noted that as regards the enemy's placement of these two particular captured Nordenfelts, Capt Lockyer has them as being above the northern end of X Beach

regards

Michael

Edited 23 April , 2009 by michaeldr

[green_acorn]

Michael,

Thank you. A hopper does make sense for the technology of the day (1870's), much like the Gatling machine gun, gravity fed. It also reduces the potential for mechanical failure. The comment about their potential lethality at X Beach is quite imaginable. Thank goodness they had been disabled.

Cheers,

Hendo

[michaeldr]

Hendo,

I hope that I am reading this correctly - the rate of fire is 30 X 4 per minute; ie. 30 per barrel, per minute?

As you say, thank goodness that they were taken out so early

Another item from my recent reading

A footnote (page 269) in Chasseaud & Doyle's 'Grasping Gallipoli'

quote: Kenan Celik, noted Turkish historian of the campaign, disputes that machine guns were used by the Turks, but contemporary British accounts are firm on this, noting the presence of machine-gun belts.

regards

Michael

[michaeldr]

Oh dear me! I think that my enthusiasm got the better of me yesterday

I now believe that in my above post No.411, I have confused the two different types of guns manufactured by Nordenfeldt; the Pom-pom and the multi-barrelled

Please note the 'edit' inserted this morning.

My apologies to all for tripping-up on this

Michael

[green_acorn]

Michael,

I have probably contributed to the confusion between the two Nordenfeldts by describing them generically as "Pom Pom's", any slow, yet regular automatic gun fire sounds like "pom, pom, pom etc" to my deaf ex-PBI soldier ears. I think in our modern parlance the hopper may be more accurately described as a gravity fed magazine with four individual rows of rounds. I posted a picture of one very much earlier in the thread, I will try and find it again. As it is time for bed, I will have another look tomorrow.

I haven't gotten around to finishing or in fact deeply reading Grasping Gallipoli but can I offer the view that MG's at Gallipoli is a discussion fraught with dnager as I believe the Turkish author may be concentrating on Anzac and when and where did the British sources "find" the MG belts? Could they have been from British Maxim's? At some point English language "historians" do have to give more consideration to the Ottoman reports and Turkish interpretation and look at their own sources far more critically before discounting the alternate view. Do we know which Regiment/s Machine Gun Company's Chasseaud is talking about?

Cheers,

Hendo

[Pete1052]

The Nordenfelt pom-pom was 37 mm and the four-barreled gun was one-inch caliber. These weapons were recently discussed in the "Dum-Dum Bullets" thread in "The War in the Air" forum. It is believed that the 37 mm projectile was the indirect result of the St. Petersburg Convention of 1868, which limited explosive rounds to a minimum weight of 400 grams. Restrictions on the use of expanding and flattening bullets came a few years later.

[michaeldr]

Pete,

Both of these types of guns appear in the Organization Chart for the Ottoman 5th Army at 19 April 1915; see my post No.100 above

They had four 37mm (Pom-poms) and thirteen 25mm (1 inch, multi-barrelled)

...................................................

Hendo,

I agree with yours above; I recall instances of machine-gun fire being referred to, but cannot recollect ever seeing any ref to someone finding a belt

This is what struck me about the note in Grasping Gallipoli

I was wondering if anyone else had seen such a ref to machine-gun belts being found

Hope that everyone had a good day today; 25th April

Michael

[green_acorn]

Gents,

For those trying to envisage the Nordenfelt's hopper/magazine and its operation, there is a good picture and description at http://www.geocities.com/aroach.geo/nrdenfld.html though it is of the six barrelled gun, it does very clearly describe the firing sequence and show the hopper/magazine.

Cheers,

Hendo

[Bryn]

At some point English language "historians" do have to give more consideration to the Ottoman reports and Turkish interpretation and look at their own sources far more critically before discounting the alternate view.

If you can't beat 'em, attempt to belittle 'em.

Will such scrutiny magically make the "historians" into historians? Will you consider them more professional only when and because they agree with you or with the un-examined Turkish accounts?

When the Turkish sources have been subjected to anywhere near the scrutiny the English language (read: apparently worthless) accounts have been, I'll take patronising 'advice' like this a little more seriously.

[Crunchy]

Last week while in Perth I came across first hand accounts from two members of the 11th Battalion who landed on 25th April 1915. The 11th landed just to the north of Ari Burnu. Looking at their service records both were in D Coy, which was in the second wave.

The first was from Pte F Ashton, who was captured later in the day, and is from a short manuscript written after the war. His boat was about 120 yards from the shore when the first shot was fired. " Then followed a scattered volley which settled down to steady rifle fire." Once ashore his company covered two others, which were attacking the Turks above the beach. " With our officer [wounded] we were rather at a loss to know what our next move should be so we fired at the rifle flashes"

The second is from Cpl B Dixon and is from a letter to his mother in Albany. " There to our surprise we got a warm reception from Mr Turk. We jumped over the side of the boats into water up to our waists, and waded ashore under heavy artillery and rifle fire"

Cheers

Chris

[Crunchy]

Below is a Turkish map dated 4 Aug 1915 and shows the Turkish dispositions at Anzac on that date. It has been passed to me with a query as to the symbol in the top LH corner (At Gaba Tepe) which shows a line with a dot either side and a bar at the rear of the line.

Is it the symbol for a nordenfelt gun? If not does anyone know what it represents?

Regards

Chris

[green_acorn]

Chris,

I will have a closer look after dinner, bu can say that at the back of the German FSR for 1908 are the symbols most likely used. With regards to the Nordenfeldt being a machine gun or not, the USN Ordnance manual on machine guns describes the Nordenfeldt as a "Mechanical Machine Gun" and later blowback and gas fed machine guns as "Automatic Machine Guns". The USN manual(s) is in the AWM Reading Room.

Cheers,

Hendo

[green_acorn]

Chris,

I am positive it is a mountain gun, an ancestor of the L5 Pack Howitzer, but I cannot find the symbol in the 1908 German FSR, nor in the 1918 GHQ BEF (Int) translation of a captured German Second Army symbols booklet, nor can I recall where I have seen the symbol from that time. Interestingly Wikipedia (CEW Bean) also possibly points to a mountain gun, in fact a British BL10 10 pdr gun purchased from New Zealand prior to the war.

With regards to the symbols elements, a dot either side of the central stroke indicates MG, whilst short lines either side are for guns and represent the wheels of an artillery piece, whilst the T bar represents the mountain or horse artillery. if the T bar had a short downward stroke either end that indicates than it is emplaced in a dugout/trench. Historically by this time the Germans (and in this case the Ottoman) symbols were evolving more quickly than the British from the Napoleonic symbols Australia still uses for drill. The German symbols had a sound basis in logic often representing elements of the weapon or unit and even today this can be seen in the NATO standard, with a single cross strap representing a bandolier for cavalry or the hull of a tank for armoured units (can you tell I used to teach the subject).

But neverhteless I do not have the documentary evidence for this particular symbol at hand, but will continue looking amongst my "stuff".

Regards,

Hendo

[green_acorn]

Chris,

Correction to my last, it may well be a Nordenfeldt, I hadn't read your post properly and overlooked the two dots looking at the "T", I have never seen the symbol so clearly before (though it was discussed much earlier in this thread, I recall Michaeldr posted a translation of Ottoman symbols). An interpretation of the graphics could well mean it is a Nordenfeldt, the dots indicating a machine gun whilst the T indicates it is a carriage/axle mounted weapon that could be broken down into pack loads for horse, donkey's or men. But if that is the case, based on other useage of horse/mountain artillery symbols, I think it is orientated towards the South.

My search for HQ MEF (Ia), Cairo (Int) and HQ EEF (Ia) documents on this aspect of "intelligence" have been fruitless so far, but I haven't got to the records of the Desert Mounted Column yet.

Cheers,

Hendo

[Crunchy]

Hendo,

Many thanks for your replies and efforts to identify the symbol. They are much appreciated.

I looked at the chart Michael displayed from the TGS history and I am sure he is correct in identifying the symbols marked 37 and 25 as nordenfelts. Nonetheless, they are from the TGS history which was printed much later and thus may be using more modern symbols than those used on the contemporary map from 4 August 1915. Have you any thoughts on whether the symbols may have changed over time? If you look at the map in the lower right quarter just to the S of Chunuk Bair (L of it on the map) is a symbol with what looks like a V or a diamond at the head and a V at the base which we now associate with anti tank weapons.

Again, many thanks for your help.

Best wishes

Chris