TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[green_acorn]

Hendo

I would again suggest you either join the Gallipoli Assn or wangle a copy of the article from a mate who is a member. Then you can read in full. Glad you are still happy.

Ian

Ian and Keith,

I ceased membership a few months ago as much of their activities aren't relevant to me here in Australia. They could possibly go the way the WFA has in the past few months, have two magazines, one with memorial, remembrance and association matters and a historical journal that "friends" can subscribe to without full membership.

Does the Gallipolian peer review articles, or cross check sources, before publication?

Cheers,

Hendo

[gilly100]

Hendo

Some contributions to the journal in the past were by members of the association who had served at Gallipoli with distinction. The journal is an excellent resource. Lets not get too picky. Read the article first.

Ian

[michaeldr]

Hendo,

Regarding the logistical problems of having different calibre weapons, including some of their machine-guns;

the Ottomans don't seem to have been put off by variety, since they already used

7.65mm & 9.5mm rifles, 37mm pom-poms, 37mm Hotchkiss and 25mm Nordenfelts.

One gets the impression that (particularly following the Balkan Wars) they were glad of anything that they could get their hands on, no matter what size of round it used.

Regarding the 'flash spreader' and its effect on any identifiable flash/flare/flame;

this addition was not found on all the types of machine-gun employed by the Ottomans at Gallipoli,

as you will recollect from this thread here [Broken link removed]

That old thread also serves as a useful reminder that the machine-guns from the Goeben where available from 19^th March (see the quote in post No.7 “Some of her smaller guns and machine gun teams were detached for the defence of the Dardanelles and to resist the Allied landings at Gallipoli.”)

regards

Michael

[green_acorn]

Michael,

First the MG's from the Breslau and Goeben, the 44 man detachment "Landungsabteilung Gallipoli" arrived on the 3rd of May 1915 (as you noted at post 14 of this thread) and were deployed at Krithia. So not present at dawn on the 25th of April. Second the MG presented to the French admiral is a MG09.

The 7.65mm rifle replaced the 9.5mm rifle the Ottoman Army had previously used in front line service. if there were any 9.5mm rifles at Gallipoli, I believe they would have been with second line and support troops, not infantry regiments. The 37mm pom-poms, 37mm Hotchkiss and 25mm Nordenfeldt's were all fortress type weapons that one would expect for the time, not weapons moving with the infantry regiments and battalions which the MG Coy's did.

Ian,

I am not questioning the contribution of the veterans thirty years ago and frankly I don't know why you mentioned those long departed soles. I would love to read the article, but I am not rejoining the association to do so, the minutiae of the association finances, elections, lunches and parading in London, outways the benefit of historical articles for me. A faithful series of quotations of the text from the article, with references, as Michael and many others often do, that you refer to would easily satisfy me.

Cheers,

Hendo

[michaeldr]

The 37mm pom-poms, 37mm Hotchkiss and 25mm Nordenfeldt's were all fortress type weapons that one would expect for the time, not weapons moving with the infantry regiments and battalions which the MG Coy's did.

Hendo,

And yet, these larger calibre weapons were in fact transferred from the Fortress Command and/or Navy to the Infantry

EG: Colonel Mahmut, commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 26th Regiment (see Steel & Hart) refers to Pom-poms; four are also shown on the OoB Chart in the TGS's history

Mahmut says that 2 were knocked out during the preliminary bombardment leaving him only two firing at the time of the allied infantry landing. These must be the 2 which were the ones seen on the left of V Beach.

This is a very important point and one which some of us have been hinting at for quite some time.

If there were machine-guns, and if they were not part of the infantry establishment, as many people such as yourself currently say they were not,

then where did they come from. The record which we have today is incomplete.

The Fortress Command, which we already know transferred the heavier (25 & 37mm) weapons across to the infantry, may also have transferred some of its machine-guns.

Admiral de Robeck did not make another serious attempt at the Straits after 18^th March. The Fortress Command had well over a month to come to the realisation that the immediate threat had waned. We know that they transferred some of their 25 & 37mm weapons to positions on the coast outside of the Straits and that these seem to have been manned by infantry troops. They could just as easily have transferred machine-guns, some of which they had received from the Navy

The transfer of weapons between the Navy, the Fortress Command and the Infantry needs to be looked at in much more detail.

regards

Michael

[gilly100]

"....Liman von Sanders, according to his own idea had ordered barbed wire to be drawn below the water along the shore. In this his assailants got entangled and suddenly the machine guns of the death defying Turkish garrison which one had believed smashed, held a rich harvest in the confusion. All available machine guns of the fortifications of the Dardanelles and of the fleet were disposed of."

From Murrays article and referring to a lecture given by a former Turkish officer in 1932 on the anniversary of von Sanders' death. Colonel Harun-el-Raschid Bey.

This clearly indicates fortress command around Cannakale that Michael was onto years ago, as well as MG's coming from the navy. Does a Turkish source carry more weight than a Brit one?

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

Your right, as Michael states where these weapons (pom poms and such) were attached to the Infantry or deployed near the infantry, either at Helles (26th Regt) or Anzac (27th Regt) they do get mentioned by Turkish writers.

But so far these writes still fail to mention any MG's, at lest the 27th Regt, while the 26th Regt has confirmed the use of there MG Company.

As stated by Von Sanders MGs were to be held in reserve as the 27th Regt did and only use once the threat was seen. As they were at Anzac.

The two beaches should be and were two different battles

Helles was in the coastal defences with forts in there AO, while at Anzac there were no forts so the use of either Naval MGs and or others appears less likely, but not inclusive as Pomm Poms were used?

While the mention by the artical is compeling its still not proof that any MGs were used on the Anzac Beaches, other then the coments by veterns which we still can not explan.

As we did before, I tried to plot where different writers have placed these unknown MGS captured when storming the beach, has proved confuzing.

And at lest 4 or more MGs have been reported by men from different AIF Bn's (that can be identified from accounts).

Now thats far to many MG's to be at Anzac and not get writen about by Turkish soldiers fighting in this hard battle.

Are they all wrong both Allied and Turkish writers?

I don't know but untill some evidence confirms these missing MGs I am still on the fence leaning towards the Turkish view?

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Hi Steve

Understand your points. I hope you get to read the article in full as some of the other points indicate these weapons from the ships being doled out to the 9th Division which of course included the 27th Regt. The reason I like the article is that it has uncovered info that the 'no MG ' authors seem not to have found or at the least, if known, considered.

Personally, the weight of Allied accounts that have been recorded, and that generally support the same line are just too many, despite the arguments put forward.

Just as events went unrecorded or were missed in Allied records and histories, so too must this be possible in Turkish records. Have ALL the Turkish records been viewed?

One thing I think we all want is the full and correct record.

I did PM you but perhaps your box is full.

Cheers

Ian

[Gully Ravine]

Ian and Keith,

I ceased membership a few months ago as much of their activities aren't relevant to me here in Australia. They could possibly go the way the WFA has in the past few months, have two magazines, one with memorial, remembrance and association matters and a historical journal that "friends" can subscribe to without full membership.

Does the Gallipolian peer review articles, or cross check sources, before publication?

Cheers,

Hendo

It is the Gallipoli Association's intention to represent the Gallipoli Campaign and seek members and opinions from anyone with an interest no matter where they are based. It is a fact that the majority of our members are UK-based (75%), but we're more than happy to see this change! We have members in over 25 different countries.

We do promote and report on events globally as can be seen from the latest issue, but obviously this depends upon us receiving appropriate information.

We should not divert this thread from its original intent, but I'm happy to exchange views, thoughts on this etc privately. membershipsecretary@gallipoli-association.org will get to me. I do plan, however, to respond to the question about peer review when I have an answer from the Editor of the Gallipolian.

Regards

Keith

[gilly100]

Within Murray's article is a reference from Liman von Sanders work 'Five Years in Turkey'

'The Turko-German Navy took no direct part except that it furnished the Fifth Army with two machine gun detachments with about twenty four machine guns which were of great benefit.'

Exactly the numbers of MG'S from Barboros Hayreddin and Torgud Reis. Food for thought from a German participant.

If one was so concerned about 'peer review' in Gallipoli journal submissions it begs the question, why join in the first place? Never been an issue before has it? I look forward to mine.

Ian

[michaeldr]

Steve,

But so far these writes still fail to mention any MG's, at lest the 27th Regt, while the 26th Regt has confirmed the use of there MG Company.

The record is incomplete; not only are the MGs omitted but also they fail to account for all of the Nordenfelts which are shown on their own OoB. When we know were ALL of the Nordenfelts were then we shall be nearer to a complete record. Until that time 'incomplete ' means things have been left out, and as far as I am concerned that could also include the MGs which were seen by reliable witnesses.

Helles was in the coastal defences with forts in there AO, while at Anzac there were no forts so the use of either Naval MGs and or others appears less likely, but not inclusive as Pomm Poms were used?

Not strictly correct. It was probably true very early in the campaign during the attacks by the Navy and the landings by the RMs, however, by the 25^th April 1915 the forts at Helles and the coast there, were no longer included in the area of responsibility of the Canakkale Fortress Command.

On 18 March 1915 they had a gun near to, but to the east of, De Totts/Eskihisarlic and on 24^th April 1915 that remained the Canakkale Fortress Command's approximate western boundary on the European side of the Straits:

see map Plate 23 in the TGS's Brief History showing the areas of the 9^th Div & the Canakkale Fortress Command.

[Once the Allied landings had taken place, then the border with the Fortress Command regressed yet again, and the Infantry's area increased]

Your comment does however add weight to my point made previously, that in order to complete the picture we have to get more information about the relationship between the Navy, the Canakkale Fortress Command and the Infantry. Prepared positions were exchanged. Weapons were also exchanged. Did the latter include machine-guns, as well as the Pom-poms and Nordenfelts which were captured?

The Nordenfelt captured at Helles on 25^th April 1915 and which is on display in London, still has its Naval Mounting. It does not have the wheeled carriage which we see elsewhere in photographs of Turkish Nordenfelts during this period.. This suggests that the transfer of this weapon from the Navy/Fortress Command over to the infantry, happened very late in the day, when they had no time to mount it correctly for Infantry use.

I cannot come to a conclusion on this issue with so much information lacking, and I do not see how others can be so confident of their stance when the picture is so far incomplete. For heaven's sake, we still do not know where all the acknowledged Nordenfelts were placed.

Finally, (I'm off for a few days) I have previously in this everlasting thread, quoted the British OH and Lt-Col W. de L. Williams who mentions the exact time when he first saw a Turkish MG on 25^th April 1915. Williams was part of the General Staff, GHQ, and he was on the bridge of the River Clyde.
Quote from the British OH:
6.35 A.M. - Connection with shore very bad. Only single file possible and not one man in ten gets across. Lighters blocked with dead and wounded. Very little fire on this ship. Wedgwood's maxims in bows firing full blast, but nothing has been seen excepting a maxim firing through a hole in the fort and a pom-pom near the sky-line on our left front.”

(my emphasis)

He was dead right about the Pom pom and that was much further away than the MG. Also please note that a MG firing through a hole in the fort would be difficult to confuse with a dozen or more expert quick-firing riflemen. I don't think Williams made that mistake.

regards

Michael

[gilly100]

Michael

I note Murray quoted from Dolf Goldsmith's book 'The Devil's Paintbrush' which identifies the German navy adopting in 1903 a pom pom as the Maxim Flak M1903 (navy). These being 37mm made by Krupp of Essen. On the ships were a pair used for anti aircraft defence. The Torgud Reis and Barbaros Hayreddin could have supplied four between them. Of course there were other ships in the fleet that could also have been stripped of smaller weapons.

If Helles got weapons, why not Anzac, especially as a Turk POW stated that 9 Div got MG'S from Barbaros. This info has not been brought to light until now and warrants a hearing. The hits on this thread prove that.

Cheers

Ian

[green_acorn]

The 37mm pom-poms, 37mm Hotchkiss and 25mm Nordenfeldt's were all fortress type weapons that one would expect for the time, not weapons moving with the infantry regiments and battalions which the MG Coy's did.

Hendo,

And yet, these larger calibre weapons were in fact transferred from the Fortress Command and/or Navy to the Infantry

EG: Colonel Mahmut, commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 26th Regiment (see Steel & Hart) refers to Pom-poms; four are also shown on the OoB Chart in the TGS's history

Mahmut says that 2 were knocked out during the preliminary bombardment leaving him only two firing at the time of the allied infantry landing. These must be the 2 which were the ones seen on the left of V Beach.

This is a very important point and one which some of us have been hinting at for quite some time.

If there were machine-guns, and if they were not part of the infantry establishment, as many people such as yourself currently say they were not,

then where did they come from. The record which we have today is incomplete.

The Fortress Command, which we already know transferred the heavier (25 & 37mm) weapons across to the infantry, may also have transferred some of its machine-guns.

Admiral de Robeck did not make another serious attempt at the Straits after 18^th March. The Fortress Command had well over a month to come to the realisation that the immediate threat had waned. We know that they transferred some of their 25 & 37mm weapons to positions on the coast outside of the Straits and that these seem to have been manned by infantry troops. They could just as easily have transferred machine-guns, some of which they had received from the Navy

The transfer of weapons between the Navy, the Fortress Command and the Infantry needs to be looked at in much more detail.

regards

Michael

Michael,

Don't confuse transfer of command with ownership, manning, and mobility. If the Area of Responsibility had been allocated from the Fortress Command to an in situ Infantry Division it is highly logical to transfer those Fortress assets to "Under Command" of the Infantry Division. This is entirely logical at this point of the campaign when it is realised that the peace time forts organisation and responsibilities needs bolstering with infantry with defined Areas of Responsibility.

Assets transferred would be transferred complete, including the manpower and supplies. Remember the vast majority of the Ottoman Army soldiers were barely literate, if literate at all. More technical equipment and weaponry requires some literacy and much training to recall and understand the basic theory of small arms fire and ballistics, use range finders, remember and instantly recall Stoppage Drills and Immediate Action drills and so forth, skills and knowledge not necessarily held by the majority of infantry Nefer and Onbasi.

Similarly transferring physical assets without manpower creates huge problems, disrupting unit and sub-unit organisations, adding logistic problems, creating a significant training impost at a time when rehearsals and enhancing defensive field works are very important. Furthermore what happens to the personnel whom you have taken the weapons and equipment from? Sit around and play Canasta perhaps?

Ian,

"Could have" is not "Did" without reasonable evidence and at the moment I would grade it as F6 leaning to E5 on the Admiralty Grading system. Rather than just throwing random ideas out there could you develop the hypothesis. As for this hypothetical it is all well and good, but what about the anti-aircraft defence of those ships if they sortied out against the Allies, were they to leave themselves defenceless to the roving aircraft of the RNAS spotting indirect Royal Navy fire? I would very seriously question the Admiral approving the stripping of his ships AA defences and his suitability to retain command! The ships are very costly and important assets, militarily and politically, compared to the more esoteric defence of the coast line in places not yet known to be the intended landing sites of the enemy.

Cheers,

Hendo

[gilly100]

Hendo

I take it you have not read the complete article. A Turk officer, Liman von Sanders and some intel reports beg to differ and cast a light you seem unwilling to acknowledge that all indicate what has not been considered previously, although Michael seemed to have picked up on it way back early in the thread. Not sure that developing a hypothesis is needed. Just read what the participants who were there recorded. It seems now, not only Allied accounts are not enough, but some German and Turk officers accounts, as well as POW intel is not worthy of consideration to the debate. Not gonna die in a ditch over it.

Cheers

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

Mate while we can agrree with most of this I am still not sure you can draw a line from coments like this "especially as a Turk POW stated that 9 Div got MG'S from Barbaros".

While yes addition MG Companies were attach to the 9th Div (or in fact the 5th Army) that should never be said that they went to Anzac or else where because as also stated Von Sanders didn't release these MG companies till after the landings.

I can agree with you that some of these MGs may have been given to the coastal defences including the Helles defences (in the 9th Div's AO) I can't see there showing up at Anzac, at lest as this was not seen as a possible landing area.

As we know Pom poms were at Gaba Tepe so could one ot two of these unknown Naval MGs have been sent to that area, then I am ready to concide that point even if they are not mentioned any where (in turkish sourses while aussie reports give MG fire from that direction) , but to say these missing MGS were all over the landing area (fishermans Hut to Gaba Tepe) reported by aussie Bns, in numbers of 4 or more MGS is not reasonible to say untill better evidence shows up.

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Hi Steve

What Murray has put up should raise questions and have people digging deeper into archives everywhere, including Turkey. Whether you wish to concede anything is up to you, but it remains obvious more digging is warranted, to me at least and I dare suspect a few others.

If I was in the no MG camp, and having seen this article with previously unseen or not considered new information, I would, at the least be asking questions about the new, no MG version of events. If one is completely convinced and inflexible to new info that challenges then there probably is not much point banging heads.

When I look back on my own writing about the 7 August charge at the Nek I know I never got it 100% right, but put forward what I thought likely occurred. If however, one chooses to be emphatic on an event, one must expect a challenge if new info challenges that version. This new article does that, in my humble opinion. I think it applies to Helles and Anzac, you don't and that is fine with me. Time will tell.

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Mods. On posts and views this has surpassed most Classic Threads. Might I suggest it is put into Classic Threads? MG

[keithmroberts]

I don't want to distract from the main subject of the thread so if members want to comment on what I type here please air it in "About this Website".

We are gradually reducing Classic Threads by moving topics into relevant sub forums for the benefit of those who browse rather than search. It fits with the recurring discussion about how many and what sub forums we should have, so although much of the discussion here would clearly have merited such a move, that would contradict the way in which we are trying to manage the vastly increased number of topicsin the GWF.

Keith

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

Agreed "What Murray has put up should raise questions and have people digging deeper into archives everywhere".

I look forward to what else can be discovered while these unknown naval MGs is compelling its still not proof.

Will the missing MGs at Fishermans hut, or on the hills of Ari Bunu and or those at Gaba Tepe, some reported captured while most were never found is still open and I hope will turn up.

We will see.

S.B

[Gully Ravine]

It is the Gallipoli Association's intention to represent the Gallipoli Campaign and seek members and opinions from anyone with an interest no matter where they are based. It is a fact that the majority of our members are UK-based (75%), but we're more than happy to see this change! We have members in over 25 different countries.

We do promote and report on events globally as can be seen from the latest issue, but obviously this depends upon us receiving appropriate information.

We should not divert this thread from its original intent, but I'm happy to exchange views, thoughts on this etc privately. membershipsecretary@gallipoli-association.org will get to me. I do plan, however, to respond to the question about peer review when I have an answer from the Editor of the Gallipolian.

Regards

Keith

I hope this clarifies the content of articles and letters in The Gallipolian (included in each edition):

Disclaimer: Readers are reminded that the observations and opinions expressed in articles and letters published in The Gallipolian are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of either the Editor or of the Association.

If anyone wishes to comment further on this, may I suggest it is done offline via my email address or PM in order that we leave the thread to develop its original theme.

Keith

[Bryn]

Great article by Murray Ewen based on extensive research and on-the-spot checking of facts that throws up some interesting information and possibilities, and adds to the evidence that MGs were covering the beaches. Not sure why 'peer-review' has suddenly become an issue, but since I'm one of Murray's peers, please consider that a very short review.

There seems to be creeping into the thread again, an expectation that people who believe there were MGs at the beaches have to 'prove' this. The sheer weight of evidence in published and unpublished sources and the fact that those writers' *peers* agreed on this, proves they were there. It's up to those who believe there were no MGs to disprove these many sources which were written by, or on the evidence of, participants in the Landing, and that has not been done.

Aspinall-Oglander, Bean, Brereton, their sources, and many other writers who were there were reviewed by *their* peers - the other men who landed under fire on the beaches.

[stevenbecker]

Bryn,

I don't believe you are correct here, " an expectation that people who believe there were MGs at the beaches have to 'prove' this"

While yes accounts do give us MGs possibly at the Fishermans Hut area Ari Bunu, and at Gaba Tepe, accounts only mention the capture of guns on the Ari Bumu feature.

No guns so far have been identified in the Fishermans hut area or Gaba Tepe?

WHile we can agrre that accounts do mention there being there, that is not proof there were guns there?

So we are left of find these missing MGs.

Now do you have to proivde that proof or do the Turkish sourses to disprove them?

Well we have gone threw the Turkish sourses from vetern soldiers who say there were no guns, to so call vetern aussie soldiers who say they heard them and saw flashes?

Now accounts only mention the capture of some of these guns on the Ari Bumu feature but no where else?

So where do you think the proof has to come, the Turks to fit into your (or the Vetern aussie soldiers accounts) or to the Turks who say they were not there?

Now as stated by me The idea that naval MGS could have been in the area is compleing but still not proof that these MGS were along the Anzac Beaches that morning.

Even if aussie soldiers heard them or saw there flashes?

But there is doubts as some accounts do me mention some of there capture.

So I am still open to the finding of more evidence these guns may have been there to fill in these gaps.

S.B

[Bryn]

Hi Steve,

As I said, nothing in this very long thread has convinced me that ALL those accounts can be wrong. My response here is a general one, not aimed at your post specifically, but rather a couple of things that seem to have not been fully considered.

Whether MGs were or were not captured is irrelevant. The force in the Fisherman's Hut area, for example, inflicted plenty of damage and was able to withdraw, so naturally they would have taken MGs with them. A New Zealand major (Brereton) states that an MG had been firing from No. 2 Outpost, based on the piles of Turkish cartridges found when his unit occupied that hill. That hill overlooks Fisherman's Hut ridge and from it there is a good view of the section of beach where elements of the 7th Battalion landed well within MG range. Nobody has disproved his account. Suggesting that 80 riflemen all clumped together up there so that their spent cartridges fell in a pile certainly doesn't disprove it.

Commander Dix, in charge of the landing tows, specifically mentions an allied MG firing from the pinnace and a Turkish MG firing from land. Nobody has disproved his account. Suggesting he was 'too inexperienced' to tell the difference would be insulting.

Whether the soldiers reporting them were or were not veterans is also irrelevant. If it were relevant, we could dispute their ability to identify MGs later in the day as well. Why doesn't anybody do that? I mean, how did the soldiers who landed an hour ago, incapable of recognising an MG, suddenly acquire that ability? After all, if they really did not see them or hear them during the Landing, then by the logic of the 'unable to distinguish an MG' argument, no matter when they first encountered them they must still not have known what they were. It's a ludicrous argument, and doesn't contain a shred of proof that all the soldiers that reported MGs couldn't recognise them anyway.

People are free to believe what they want one way or the other, but there's no way I personally can just write off all those accounts based on personal opinion about what a man a hundred years ago was or was not able to recognise.

[gilly100]

In addition to Bryn, and just thinking out aloud on an early morning captured Turk MG. If it was damaged and what with the importance of getting troops ashore and wounded off and so on, what priority, if any, would there have been to trophy the weapon at least in the first hectic few days? Were some of the parts interchangeable with Brit Maxims and therefore stripped down and used and the remainder dumped?

For me now, with new evidence of where the MGs came from, which has been the big question asked by the no MG crew, it seems time to start digging in Turk Naval archives, although the evidence already put from German and Turk sources indicates already where the guns came from and when. Prior to the landings.

A hot topic indeed and a top effort from Murray Ewen. No one else seems to have found this much proof to warrant a good rebuttal.

Ian

[gilly100]

In reference to post 973

This from the book 'Central Powers Small Arms of World War' One by John Walter

"Second Rank Patterns"

"The older MG01 Maxims were restricted to training and fortification use after the MG08 became available in quantity, though survivors remained in service when WW1 began. Some of the original Kaiserliche Marine guns were still in service in 1914, shipboard guns having been issued with tripods instead of army style sleds. Photographs taken of the Emden machine gun crews defending Direction Island in November 1914 clearly show Deutsch Waffen und Munitionsfabriken made examples of the MG07 (the commercial designation for an improved form of the MG01) on tripod mounts."

I am not too fussed if the numbering is correct or not, merely satisfied that evidence exists that 'naval machine guns' were sent from Turkish Navy to the army for use at the landings. I note this book is referenced elsewhere on this forum.

Cheers

Ian