TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

Mate I don't have a problem with that,

We can agrre that MGs were reported during the landing and the chase up the hills, I have put a number of these on this, but confirmation is still no where near close to confirming all of these guns.

You keep repeating "Murray" as a sourse because of this unknown articale, with confirmation from Sanders and a Turkish Colonel?

But no where in either Sanders and the Turkish colonel do they mention the placing of MGS at Anzac (direct sourses not Murray).

How does Murray confirm Sanders said that MGS were at Anzac?

Sanders only mentions they (MG comapnies) came to his command and he placed them in reserve, how does Murray disagree with this Sanders coment?

The Turkish Colonel only said they went to Coastal defences, but does not mention where, but other sourse mention there placement at the Coastal forts.

So how does Murray say they were at Anzac?

Again we go around in circles because this new evidence from Murray is confussing the issue, and your use of it is adding to that confussion.

To say "but Murray has already explained where these guns came from by quoting von Sanders himself and backed up by the Turkish colonel"

IS not an answer only a question.

CHeers

S.B

[gilly100]

Steve

What the article tells us is that

1 the Turko German fleet furnished the 5th Army with two machine gun detachments with about 24 guns which were deemed to be of great benefit

2 POW intel reports indicate mg's going to 9th Division, stripped from ships before 25 April and one ship the Barbarossa (Barbaros Hayreddin) named specifically

3 A Turk Colonel saying these guns were in action at the Landings, although fair to say what beach or beaches is not mentioned

4 The numerous Allied naval and military accounts of early mg fire at Helles (V and W Beaches ) and Anzac, the latter being more specifically covered such as Machine gun knoll or Ari Burnu, Fisherman's Hut area and 400 Plateau (recent earlier post)

5 A Turk officer on MacLagans Ridge early morning mentioning heavy Allied landing casualties

6 Counter argument to the effectiveness of individual riflemen under strain when firing rapid, and the differences between individual men. The greater effectiveness of the mg as opposed to the above

Now, given that the two more recent books by Peter and Chris exclude the possibility of dawn and pre dawn mgs in action by Turks, this article, I believe, is a balanced counter argument. Had ALL Turk records been seen, copied, translated and made available and the subsequent evidence of such was overwhelmingly in favour of no guns, I might think again. But this is not the case at this point in time. I only wish there was one snippet that would put it beyond all doubt. Perhaps Harvey is poking his nose in Turk Naval records as we speak.

By the by, regarding David Cameron's account of the 400 Plateau mgs, he has Captain Sadik or Sedik killed by Harrison of 9Bn and Chris has him getting away with the one uncaptured gun. The former probably from Bean OH. But the relevance remains of mg's in situ.

Anyway, to me still, the no mg argument is by no means 100% conclusive despite what appears academics of high profile having accepted it as so. Murray's article is sound and as worthy as the opposite view given what is currently known and available and out there. It should at the very least have a few people scurrying back to the archives and looking in places they had not previously been to.

I enjoy very much David Cameron's work, but I think I am going to prefer his 2007 publication on the Landing more than his new Landing chapter, but will buy and read it all the same. I only hope Murray writes a book on the Landing at Anzac, knowing his doggedness to dig. His book on the 2/4th MG Bn in WW2 indicates his depth of knowledge and research ability without all the hoopla.

Ian

[Bryn]

The long and short of it is that these guns were reported by reliable witnesses.

It's been claimed on this thread that the sound of a machine gun can't be distinguished from a group of rifles. It's interesting in that case to read the following instructions, from the AWM file RCDIG0000587.pdf:

1:

For the purpose of testing the mechanism, machine guns should never fire more than single rounds, so as not to disclose their position. - Force Order No. 8, 11 May 1915, signed W P [sic] Braithwate. (p79).

2:

It is very important not to disclose the position of machine guns, and therefore when they are used to put down the fire of individual sharpshooters, they should never fire more than single shots at a time. - W G Braithwaite, Lieutenant-Colonel, New Zealand and Australian Division, Anzac Cove 17 May 1915. (p81).

Apparently the higher-ups at Anzac believed that soldiers CAN differentiate a machine gun from rifle fire. Notice they don't give the option of having the machine gun fire while a lot of rifles fire in order to disguise it.

These orders were sent to the 29th Divison, the Composite Division, the East Lancashire Divison, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps and a list of specific units. I wonder if any officer in any of those formations thought these precautions were unnecessary because machine gun fire is indistinguishable from rifle fire.

[gilly100]

Interesting Bryn, and regarding reliable witnesses. It was Tom Louch of 11 Bn AIF that recorded a maxim from a pinnace bowling over the mg nest on Machine Gun Knoll at Ari Burnu. Lucidly recorded, and look at his subsequent service in both World Wars. Hardly a slouch was Tom Louch.

Too many to blanket explain away.

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

Many thanks for the details, its nice to know what we all are talking about.

Now I understand by your coments that these 24 MGS

"1 the Turko German fleet furnished the 5th Army with two machine gun detachments with about 24 guns which were deemed to be of great benefit"

This surprises me because of the number of MGS.

As you know there was a shortage of MGS in the Turkish Army, it looks like there was no such shortage in the Turkish Navy?

I take it that these 24 MGS were striped for many Turkish war ships, were they sent with Naval crews like the Germans did later with there MGS?

Again 24 guns is a lot,

How did they deploy them?

did they add to the known Army MGS companies in the Divisons of the 5th Army or to those Regts that didn't have a MG Company?

Well no, as as yet no Turkish officers or German has mentioned the addition of these guns to there sub units?

Since a Turkish MG Company was Four guns per company then 24 guns gives us 6x MG Companies?

Did they deploy as single guns ( to account for all these allied coments of MGS along the beaches)?

I dont see it as it went against Turkish/German docrine

Sanders only mentions that his Army was sent a number of MGS companies, Chris and My self believed they came from other Army formations but I concide that they could be these Naval MGS sent from the fleet.

But even if correct Sanders doesn't say he deployed these MG Companies to the Coastal defenced, he only mentions thay were placed in Reserve to see where the attack would come then deploy these MG Companies.

As the 5th Army AO (area of operations) took in a large area they could have been anywhere, but not on the beaches.

Sorry mate this is not what you are after?

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Oh dear Steve. There seems little point telling you anything if one cannot think outside the incomplete box you sit within. Just bear in mind, it is not me or anyone else saying about 24 mgs, it was von Sanders that was quoted. Shame you can't take it up with him.

Failure to give any credence whatsoever to Allied naval and military accounts is a crying shame. If I was a bit more financial I would shout you a subscription to the Gallipoli Association so you could finally read the article.

Gilly

[Bryn]

Ian, the same old old idea persists here - that somehow we have to 'prove' machine guns were at the landing, or explain how they were deployed, or justify why they would have been where they were. We don't.

I thought your comment, "Failure to give any credence whatsoever to Allied naval and military accounts is a crying shame" - more than a crying shame, it's an indication that this is in no way a balanced or objective discussion.

Plenty of witnesses said they were there and their statements have never been disproved. Not by others who were there, not in all those years since 1915, and certainly not by this discussion.

[gilly100]

Further to Bryn's last post and drawing on some older posts I would mention the following.

In post 669 Bryn draws on an account of landing under fire by Captain Tulloch, one of which printed in a local Perth paper in June 1915. Tulloch clearly states rifle and mg fire. Later accounts to Bean he mentions mg fire, some of which allude to a prior time before 27 Regt deployed their 4 mgs on Hill 165. Tulloch's accounts are given full credence for the fighting on 25 April and over the George Mason account, also of 11Bn. Yet his accounts of early mg fire rate no mention. Perhaps this can be regarded as cherry picking to suit your version of events.

Another point worthy of mention is Bill Woerlee's post on page 8, #175, when he quotes Sefik Aker in Military Journal in 1935. Aker mentions the lack of spare parts for his 4 mgs. And yet we have two Allied accounts placing spare mg parts at Shepherd's Hut and 400 Plateau, as well as mention of mg fire and sighting of mg's, especially the 400 Plateau account. So clearly we have a conundrum. Might it be that if naval mg's were deployed just prior to the landings, that spare parts came with these guns?

On post# 969 Hendo raised pertinent questions on these guns,

What type of guns were they

When landed and deployed to beaches

How many deployed and who operated the guns and where deployed

Why no mention in Turk official accounts

Only some of these questions are answered, but until all the official accounts have been sighted, including naval and fortress command they cannot be fully answered.

My question is, if we have reliable early morning mg accounts and sighting of spare mg parts, could it not be that naval mg's were in fact deployed and used at the early landings? I think this is possible. There is still yet more to be uncovered and learned.

Cheers

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

Mate I also agree with your last;

"Only some of these questions are answered, but until all the official accounts have been sighted, including naval and fortress command they cannot be fully answered.
My question is, if we have reliable early morning mg accounts and sighting of spare mg parts, could it not be that naval mg's were in fact deployed and used at the early landings? I think this is possible. There is still yet more to be uncovered and learned.

But I still draw the other concussion, while personal accounts do give us that MGs were on the beach at Anzac, still no confirm evidence has been shown, (by that I mean a MG recorvered).

Again other then reports of some Guns captured around the plateau, none are confirmed else where and even these disappeared after capture?

We are left with the Turkish accounts with you mention as confirmation but don't, I refer to ;

"But no where in either Sanders and the Turkish colonel do they mention the placing of MGS at Anzac (direct sourses not Murray)."

I don't discount aussie reports (sorry Byrn) only I need more then a flash or noise of an MG to confirm there being there.

But your both right and that more needs to be looked at in Turkish sourses to see what else (not mentioned) by Turkish souses may have been there.

Hopefully you will be proved right an that some of these unknown missing MGS may have been naval MGS, but since no naval soldiers were captured or killed or mentioned in the known Turkkish sourses who manned these missing MGs?

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

With further regard to the fighting around 400 Plateau and references to mgs, it is worth reading Bean OH Vol1 from p385 onwards to p423.

In this he describes another set of gun emplacements near the junction of Pine Ridge and SE corner, landward side of Lone Pine. Lt Derham of 5bn and other men manned the emplacements and trenches for much of the day, which according to Bean held either Hotchkiss guns or mountain guns. See p389.

Derham is twice wounded that day and in the evening tries to take the abandoned Turk mg back with the help of another man, but drops it to help in an Aussie with a broken leg. This mg is described as being used against the Turks on p422-3. The description of the emplacements show them well covered and protected and yet it seems they were also abandoned. No doubt reclaimed later that evening.

So how does one explain these guns and the mg. Is this wrong as well?

Ian

[gilly100]

Here is another regarding the mgs located in Owens Gully and the Cup area I referred to a few posts ago. This one involves the then 182 Sgt William Anderson Connell 12Bn AIF who was recommended and subsequently awarded a DCM and MID for his work on 25 April. Connell was a Captain when he DOW on 28 Dec 1917. His recommendation states:

"Attempted to capture a machine gun and rushed enemy's trenches on right flank on 25th April"

From Bean OH Vol1 page 375

'Connell noticed a short trench containing a party of Turks and a machine gun. The enemy were intent upon the Australians on the Jolly who had seen them and were making towards them. Connells party at once turned the slope and raced for the gun. As they neared it the Turks caught sight of them, fired a few hurried shots, shouldered the gun and disappeared into the scrub.'

Now, this is the same area of Owens Gully below Johnstons Jolly and well forward of Third Ridge where Aker had his 4 mgs in action on Hill 165.

Where did this mg originate? Connell is awarded the DCM and MID for this action. Can anyone explain?

The accounts of mgs down on the beaches, on Baby 700 and around Owens Gully, the Cup and northern end of Pine Ridge seem plentiful and well documented.

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I have no problems with these accounts, as all they prove is soldiers were seeing MGs all over the beach and the hills at Anzac.

Thats doesn't mean that what they believe they are seeing is what it is?

I am afriad I can't prove a negitive.

while I believe there accounts, these are still not proof, only that MGs where believed to be seen.

Now if you can supply some turkish account that places MGs on the beaches and in the hills in numbers to confirm these personal accounts, then we have the answer.

Again more still needs to come out of the Turkish sourses and untill that happens these are just personal accounts that we must believe as fact or is it fact?

I don't know but I am hopefull more will show up.

S.B

[gilly100]

Well I suppose we can just say that while they held the gun emplacements that had guns larger than an mg, and the sgt major that came up that managed to get the abandoned Turk mg into operation were all completely mistaken and simply were just too inexperienced to tell what they saw and operated, or they just did a massive gild the lily to Bean.

More likely to me that just perhaps the Turkish records don't tell the whole story.

I will continue to put up accounts for those interested. What is certain Steve is that your mind is already made up, with no room to question the total accuracy of Turkish accounts and records, which remains your right. At this rate, Beans vol 1 might have to be rewritten.

Stay tuned for more that one can attempt to explain away.

Gilly

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

No worries, like you at the start of this many moons ago. I was in your camp, I believed these stories and went through all the works to find accounts, the problem was these just didn't jell.

Now we can agree that MGs were seen and some were over run, but we are still left to confirm these guns.

Like I said, these guns just disappeared, why?

Turkish accounts don't mention guns, where we give them?

Were they there or are the soldiers or the Turks mistaken?

I then started to look else where and in my writings of our LH in Sinai and Palestine I found accounts that also mention MGs that just were not there.

Now if vetern soldiers can be mistaken why not these in there first battle?

I don't know either?

So I came to the concussion that some of these accounts of MGS every where, may have been mistaken, possibly not all but at lest some?

Can you concide that point?

Now if some are incorrect and the known Turkish sourses don't give any, then where did these MGS come from?

I don't know

But I am willing to look to find them, but so far its a brick wall untill more can be looked at in Turkish sourses.

I heard that Fitzsimmons just finished a book on "Gallipoli" so I will have to wait till Christmas to see what he wrote about this subject ?

Mate keep posting accounts as a number I have not seen, but these are just accounts not prooof.

Its known at lest three Turkish MG Companies arrived at Anzac that first day.

The 27th MG Company arrived before midday accounts all place it around the Gun Ridge, while the 57th MG Company and 72nd MG Company get no mention (that I can confirm)

The 57th MG Company must have arrived with that Regt under Kemel and fought in the hills

the 72nd Regt arrived after 1630 so where was this MG Company sent, Turkish accounts don't seam to say, did it arrive earlier or later?

These are the known but were there any others?

Pom Poms were in the Gaba Tepe area, were there others else where, so far this not certain

So were there other MGS deployed at Anzac, so far acounts from both sides don't jell?

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Steve

My thinking is this way at present.

Most of the accounts tally to others and most of the men were not liars or all mistaken. As I accept that the Turk records are incomplete thus far and it being possible that some things have either been not recorded or omitted, and reading what Murray has proposed, I believe there were other mgs in operation that early morning. The sheer scale of accounts, coupled with Murrays work scream to me that something is not right in the Turk records. Of course it is only my opinion.

The Turk Gallipoli history hands MK the majority accolades, and for the entire campaign, fair enough. But for the early morning Landings it was others that did the job for which the accolades are now only being fully understood. Therefore, I feel their records require complete and further scrutiny. Broadbent has the best chance, just hope he gets it all.

One great positive of the argy bargy of this debate is many of us have learnt a lot more in quick time. Am sure we can agree on that.

I suppose we need to think outside the box sometimes.

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

Mate I just talked to Peter Fitzsimmons on the radio (for a very short time) but he appears to be in your camp with his new book on Gallipoli.

So It may be worth checking it out as he also looked for reports of this type of fire at the landing.

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Thanks Steve

Hope he has membership of The Gallipoli Assn!

As an aside to mgs but thread pertinent, what is your take on the 10lb Hotchkiss mtn guns that were overrun on northern end of Pine Ridge on day one? Accounts mention an abandoned Turk mg there as well. Derham from 5bn was there and the account explains the covered emplacements, trenches and so on, which is well detailed and indicates 'other'weapons that appear to elude us in Turk accounts. A footnote from Bean mentions these Hotchkiss guns were purchased ironically from NZ when they refused to take them as they had ordered different guns from Britain. Worthy of follow up in Turk records.

I think there is quite a bit yet to be uncovered. Still in the same camp is me.

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I'll take a look,

But what I remember was, these were a Mountain battery from the 9th Artillery Regt sent after the landing with the remainder of the 27th Regt and arrived midmorning?

They were over run by our forces and later taken back by the Turks (if we are talking about the same guns as I believed these guns were 75mm Types on Gun ridge)

The MGs there would have been the 27th MG Company which arrived with that Regt.

Earlier in this one of the British blokes showed a Turkish document which records a number of unknown types of guns (I think 25 mm like pom pom types) on the 9th Div's order of Battle, which so far are not shown on other records.

So far these guns have disappeared and the coments of MGs maybe these types of guns (unknown what type) earlier in this a number of British comenters gave possible types these maybe.

Of cause how many would have been at Anzac or at Helles, if at all, is unknown?

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Steve

The 75 Krupps mtn gun battery of 4 on Lone Pine near the Cup were already in position when our blokes came ashore. The accounts from 9bn like Harrison have 3 guns captured, Sedik bolting with the one remaining gun and in situ is a dead mule with SAA and one other with a dead Turk, reins clasped in hand, the mule loaded with an mg. This all before 6.30am, well before 27Regt mgc gets up to Hill 165 and place their guns on Third Ridge, directly under command of Sefik Aker. Now that is one set of guns agreed by both sides, but mgs left out by Turks.

Now, moving to Northern end of Pine Ridge bordering south eastern extremity of Lone Pine, we have another set of gun emplacements that contain several Hotchkiss 10 pounder mtn guns, along with one abandoned mg and plenty of ammo for the mtn guns which are buried by Derham of 5bn and other men. A completely different pre landing prepared position holding guns the Turks say nothing about.

Bean went to great lengths on this position and visited in 1919 during the H Mission, mentioned on pages 147-9. His footnote 9 on p65 of OH Vol2 explains the Turks buying 4 Hotchkiss 10pdr mtn guns from NZ govt as they had ordered howitzers from UK and rejected these guns, gaining a credit for them and onselling to Turkey.

Try AWM38 3DRL 606-6-1 pages 18 to 31. Hooper of 5bn was at the Pine Ridge gun site. The Hotchkiss are explained as having a drop breach. See my post 1035 for more on this area from Derham in Beans vol1 p385 to 423.

Now, this one you can't look at but in The Gallipolian no85, Ferguson of 21st Kohat Indian Mtn Battery mentions Australians coming up to him with shells similar to what his men fired, complaining of being fired on by his men, but in fact the shells were the same 10pdrs being used by both sides. Food for thought. More weapons not listed in what might be a dodgy Turk OOB.

The simple fact is, the accounts from numerous 3rd Brigade and 2nd Brigade men up around 400 Plateau indicate mgs and other artillery pieces that had to have been there in place prior to the Landing, given what Aker says about, in his version, when and where the 27 Regt MGC arrived and placed its mgs and supporting artillery.

I could start again on the argument of so few casualties in Anzac Cove, having recently dug up some more info on that, but let's stick to the 'imaginary' mgs and Hotchkiss mtn guns up around 400 Plateau for now. The more I read, the more convinced I am the new theory is wrong.

Cheers

Ian

[gilly100]

Further corroborating evidence comes from Bean's Gallipoli Mission, pages 147 to 150 and an interesting footnote, regarding Turk gun and troop positions noticed from aerial reconnaissance pre landing.

Page 149, 150

"But I notice that an old British map beside me, issued by our staff just before the Landing, and marked in purple ink with the Turkish defences seen by Villiers-Stuart and other observers from the air, there is marked precisely at that spot- 7 gun battery (5). Probably both the Krupp and the Hotchkiss batteries were noted by the observers at this point."....

Footnote 5 says- in some details since ascertained, this map is remarkably accurate. For example, the camps of the 57th, 72nd and 77th Turk Regts and the reserves of the 27th Regt and 9th Div are accurately placed; they are of not of course identified by name, but the approximate strength is correctly shown in each case.

Bean had interviewed Hooper of 5th Bn prior to him being killed in August at Lone Pine. Derham he also sought out and from this set out to find the Hotchkiss gun emplacements while on the mission in 1919.

So if we take all this information about 2 separate gun emplacements, abandoned Hotchkiss guns and an mg and so on, it really does beg serious questions of the Turkish records and OOB.

If they can leave out 10 pounder Hotchkiss mtn guns, why not mgs as well. The quest for complete historical accuracy continues.

For those interested, Bean's Gallipoli Mission is downloadable via the AWM website. AWM really are doing a terrific job of making records easily accessible. Well done indeed.

Cheers

Ian

[Guest Karl]

Mates,

You pose aninteresting point.

When did the MG Companies as part of each Turkish regt get formed?

Surely they followed the German pratice in 1914 with a number of guns at regt/Bn level untill these companies were formed.

How long had Germany been suppling these weapons to Turkey pre war and did they use them in the Balkens war prior to the Great War?

Cheers

S.B

My great uncle Lance Corporal 16391 James Henry Clarke, 4th Battallion, 88th Brigade, 29th Division was killed on Friday 6th August 1915 in the Gallipoli Campaign trying to take out a Turkish machine gun post so therefor there were machine guns available to the Turks.

[Let Erin Remember]

Chris,

Despite the account given by your pal in Turkey, stating that there were no M/G's at V Beach, there are sufficient contemporary reports that testify to the 'withering fire' from both sides of the crescent shaped beach. The extensive casualties alone would cast doubt on their probable absence.

"Come on the Dubs"

Sëamus

[stevenbecker]

Karl,

Sorry mate but we are talking about the first hours at Anzac beach 25 April 1915.

The story/accounts told by many Allied writers that MGs were seen and heard firing from the hights during the first few hours of the landing.

But Turkish sourses all say there were no MGs at the beach at Anzac and didn't arrive till mid morning with the remainder of the 27th Infantry Regt.

This doesn't gell with allied reports, so were there MGs at Anzac beach?

I don't know as both say the same story

Like wise those who landed at the Helles beaches say the same story while at lest some of these MGs are known that was not at Anzac.

This is a stroy that will go on and on.

S.B

[gilly100]

This from AWM38 3DRL606-10-1 June to Sept 1915, p82 of Beans notebook or p87 on pdf

Regarding 10Bn coming ashore early on 25 April

"We should have got the machine gun if we had no packs"

Like most of the first accounts at Anzac, mentions one shot followed by more and then mgs coming into action, this from more than one location. I don't think he meant a pinnace mg.

Ian

[gilly100]

This regarding Talbot Smith and 456 Cpl JC Weatherill at the Landing at Anzac early 25 April. From Beans notebooks and diaries.

Corp JC Weatherill

Scouts, 10bn, D Coy with Talbot Smith

A mg was on top of Maclagans. It was on a tripod. Smith ... a Turk as they were running. We pulled it off tripod and threw it over cliff face at back about 20ft. It was in the corner in ... and we had seen the flashes..... mg in the knoll close down to.....

Now the dots represent Beans shorthand so I can't explain the gaps.

Weatherill was DCM and MID for the Landing, his recommendation alluding to the capture of 2 guns and some prisoners. He survived the war. More to come on 10bn Landing shortly, but we found this tucked away in an obscure file. Now, the nay sayers can ask their usual questions, but it is quite definitive and confirms tripod mounted mgs, which is correct.

Has anyone come across this account before?

Ian