TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

No worries its great area of study with the limited evidence we have.

While I am not repared to give up on the MG question I still don't totaly believe they were there that morning.

My questions come from one area which may have confussed the aussie writers and that was the uncounted for weapons systems attach to the 9th Div during April.

Possibly related to Gilly's question?

In the 9th Artillery Regt under LtCol Mehmet Ali there are a number of weapns that dont make sence, others have checked and believe they may relate to Pom poms, and that may be so, but there are a number still not accounted for in the ORBat?

Could these be at the landing area at Anzac other then the two Pom Poms at Gaba Tepe I don't know, but when you consider this Division covered both the Anzac and Helles beaches and Pom Pom s were known to be at both beaches.

Could some aussie accounts be mistaken MG's for some other weapon system so far not known?

I don't know, but I don't believe there were all these Turkish MGs at Anzac, when Turkish accounts fail to mention any type of weapon system suporting them, other then Artillery?

I surpose we should continue this when some more evidence shows up.

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Steve

So far Murray has identified up to 24 mgs coming off the two Turk warships pre landing. Another point of interest might be, how many mgs did Cannakale Fortress command have under its control? Given the naval attempt to force the straits failed and it being known that an amphibious landing was next, it screams to me that, given army shortfall of mgs, that they sent these weapons to 9 Div, which is what Murray has stated per article. He also alludes to the pom poms missing from OOB and witnessed at Helles, may well have come from Barbaros Hayrettin and Torgut Reis. Certainly possible and worthy of widening search of Turk records to Fortress Command and naval records.

The stuff we posted on the Hotchkiss 10pdr guns thoroughly emplaced on northern Pine Ridge beg similar questions, hence our complete reluctance to accept the new yarn. This also screams something is not right or complete in the Turk records currently sighted and translated. Poor HB might have to spend a couple more years there, and I sincerely hope everything is made available.

It is great credit to Harvey to have the skills he has, from which we will all gain.

I know I am scratching the same broken record to you, but any balanced mindset would concur that all is not as it seems thus far.

I will continue to dig everywhere I can. It was the digging that turned up Weatherill DCM scout cpl of 10Bn and his tripod mg at MacLagans.

Cheers

Ian

[gilly100]

While not completely specific to thread, but worthy of mention regarding the veracity of Bert Facey's accounts of Gallipoli with regard to his wounds. His lengthy DVA and Repatriation Dept files indicate heart issues accepted to being buried by sandbags due to shellfire. Also a slight bullet wound is noted by a doctor on his left shoulder, which Facey also describes in a record of evidence.

There are conflicting dates to the shellfire episode, one being 28 June when his brother was killed, the other in August which accords to his B103 service and casualty form within his B2455 series service file.

Witness statements within these files from doctors and employers regard him as honest, simple, teetotal and hardworking with a generally fine physique. Records go right through to the 1950's. Heart trouble called a type of tachycardia. Almost every record concurs this to be from war service, hence his pension which appears to have been paid at varying percentages over time.

As far as I am concerned on this particular issue, he was not lying. More digging to be done. Thankyou LonerangerVC for passing this on. Now that is good research.

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

I refer to his coment by Michael;

"This is part of the Organization Chart for the 5th Army at 19 April 1915 [see TGS's Brief History]
Under the 3rd Corps, 9th Division you will see their artillery listed by calibre
Left to right the line runs, 150s, 105s, 87s,
then 4 x 37
This I take these to be the Nordenfelt 37mm guns referred to previously in this thread and by Travers in his book on Gallipoli. If I understand correctly the 37mm was equivalent to a quick firing 1 pounder and was referred to by the British as a 'Pom-Pom' on account of its distinctive sound when fired. Because of this distinctive sound of the 37 mm gun, it is most unlikely that it could have been mistaken for a machine gun.

questions:

What are the guns shown next after the 37mm: i.e. 13 x 25mm?

Are these thirteen guns Nordenfelt 25mm and could they be what was being used against landings at Helles before the arrival of the machine guns which, some think was only late on the 25th?

Are they likely to have made a sound which could have been mistaken for a Maxim?

If the Ottomans withdrew their machine guns but left the Pom-Poms in place, did they also leave these thirteen 25mm in place too?"

While most of these guns has been confirmed by others still some are missing?

Also you wanted to know about these guns around the Lone Pine position, one of the blokes made this coment about these guns?'

"according to the Ottoman 9th Division's order of battle, there were four 75mm mountain guns of the division's 7th Battery emplaced at Lone Pine. Three were overrun and the fourth run back to gun ridge, coming into action later in the day. The other three guns were recaptured later the same day"

This threw me as the 19th Artillery Regt had only 6 Batteries in 3 Bn's?

But the 9th Div's ORBat does show the attachment of the 1Bn 39th Artillery Regt (19th Div) along with other guns, like 7 Nordantfedts, 8X150mm Guns in two four gun batys, 1x 120mm gun and 2x 105mm guns (possibly all 3rd Corps Artillery).

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Something else that appears missing in Turk records to further ones questioning is the evidence of Hotchkiss 10pdr mountain guns, which has been put up in recent posts.

This from Major AC Fergusson of the 21st Kohat Mountain Battery, written in 1916 and placed in journal 85 of The Gallipolian in 1997 by his family.

".... Yet one more yarn about our own shell being fired at us. In the very early days we were often told we were firing on our own troops. Sometimes these allegations were wrong but investigation proved bodies of our own 10pdr shell sometimes in places where our guns could have put them, but also in places where they could not possibly have put them. One day Campbell was walking along a trench when an Australian told him to hurry as the Turks were shelling it, and pointed to the body of a shell which had just fallen. Campbell went and looked at it and found a shell with marks to show that it had been made in Cossipore and filled at Rawul Pindi, and the scoop of the shell had shown that it had come from right outside our line. He phoned down to me and I went and satisfied myself that it could not possibly be ours. I then went and asked Corps to wire and ask if Helles had lost any Mtn guns. The answer came back 'no' so the matter remained a mystery, but the Australians were still suspicious that we were doing it.

Long afterwards the mystery was cleared up. The BGRA New Zealand had long before the war ordered a battery of new mountain guns for NZ. England sent our old 10pdrs and BGRA refused to accept delivery. After a lot of correspondence England told him to sell them and credit them with the proceeds. NZ sold them to Turkey and here they were being used against us...."

Add that to the list of unaccounted for weapons let alone Nordenfeltds and Maxims. Interesting isn't it?

Cheers

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I am running down you mention of 10Pdr (British) Mountain guns at Anzac by so far no luck.

'

It is known that Turkey captured a lot of guns, many Russian and British guns and some French guns were captured: some of them were used by Turkish Army during the Balkan Wars, but to date no ORbat of the availible Turkish Divisions show these types of guns at Anzac, but they could be called so other name as Turkey used a lot of these smaller types

The 75mm Krupp mountain guns sold to the Ottoman Army used a shell that was much lighter (5 kilos or so) than that fired by the 75mm field gun and so smaller then the 10Pdr shell fired by them?

These are the known purchases by Turkey pre war?

1903
2 - 7,5cm L/6,4 Krupp GbMs
96 - 7,5cm L/30 Krupp FK C/03
1904
10 - 3,7cm L/20 Krupp Revolver-K
6 - 4,7cm L/40 Krupp SK C/97
30 - 5,7cm L/40 Krupp SK
8 - 7,5cm L/14 Krupp GbK
18 - 7,5cm L/40 Krupp SK C/97
5 - 10,5cm L/40 Krupp SK
1905
12 - 3,7cm L/20 Krupp Revolver-K
12 - 5,7cm L/40 Krupp SK
462 - 7,5cm L/30 Krupp FK C/03
138 - 7,5cm L/14 Krupp GbK
18 - 10,5cm L/30 Krupp Belagerungs-K
18 - 15cm L/14 Krupp Hb
1906 : 4 - 3,7cm L/20 Krupp Revolver-K
1907 : 4 - 3,7cm L/20 Krupp Revolver-K
1908 : 108 - 7,5cm L/16,7 Schneider-Canet GbK MD2 T
1910
8 - 5,7cm L/40 Krupp SK
90 - 7,5cm L/30 Krupp FK C/09
4 - 7,5cm L/16 Rheinmetall GbK M. 1910 (trial guns)
8 - 7,5cm L/50 Krupp SK
1911
88 - 7,5cm L/30 Krupp FK C/11
2 - 10cm L/12 Krupp GbH zarlegbare (two trial guns of different model)
19121 - 7,5cm L/28 Krupp BaK
1 - 7,5cm L/30 Krupp BaK
52 - 7,5cm L/31,4 Schneider-Canet FK PD 2 [serbian guns seized in 1912 at Salonika]
4 - 15cm L/14 H
1913
18 - 10,5cm L/12 Krupp Hb
36 - 15cm L/10,5cm Krupp sFHb
1914
54 - 7,5cm L/30 FK
12 - 10.5 cm L/18 Skoda FHb M.14 T

According with GENELKURMAY HARP TARİHİ BAŞKANLIĞI : Türk Silahli Kuvvetleri Tarihi III Cilt, 6 Kisim (1908-1920), Ankara : Basimevi 1971, p. 444, in late the Turkish Arsenal (Tophane) manufactured :
450 - 7,5cm L/13 GbK
130 - 8,7cm L/24 FK
100 - 12cm L/11,6 FHb
20 - 15cm L/14 Hb
12 - 7,5cm L/30 FK
16 - 7,5cm L/14 GbK

So far no mention of any 10Pdr Mountain guns from UK or NZ?

But I 'll keep looking?

S.B

[gilly100]

Hi Steve

Appreciate your efforts.

There is little more I can put up in light of the recent month or two of posts. Personally, I don't trust the Turk OOB, that being based on the recent posts, most of which I personally believe are honest, believable accounts.

Should I come across more new mg accounts I shall post them, but for now, at least for me, some holes appear to have been punched in Turkish records. It just may be we shall never know. I am just disappointed that the history of the early landings appears to have changed without conclusive proof beyond all doubt. To me that is wrong, although each author and reader will make their own call I suppose.

I look forward to seeing an all encompassing work that takes in both sides fully available records. Perhaps the best one will come long after the 2015 make a sale rush.

Cheers

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Sorry I have a different opion of the ORbats, having delt with them for some time, I find them full of interesting details, that don't always make sence as I am not curent of some of there weapons systems.

Most give acurate details on what they had at the time of writting, but that always changes and its hard to confirm after the fact.

The Turks had a narsty habit of moving things around, and most later formations had different units from many different divisions with different weapons systems?

Keeping track of them his very hard.

But as Crunchy/Chris has mentioned MGS were an uncommon weapon system and they kept track of them closely, so to have these unknown MGs not attached to some formation and recorded, is not what the Turks did wth them, thats why I am a sceptic about all these missing MGs.

Cheers

S.B

[michaeldr]

I find them full of interesting details, that don't always make sence as I am not curent of some of there weapons systems.

Most give acurate details on what they had at the time of writting, but that always changes and its hard to confirm after the fact.

The Turks had a narsty habit of moving things around, and most later formations had different units from many different divisions with different weapons systems?

Keeping track of them his very hard.

Nothing to argue about there Steve,

and a lot us here will believe that we are, as a general rule, sceptics too.

I don't think that there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead and likewise I don't think that anyone is trying to suggest that.

However, it has to be admitted that the Ottoman records do have gaps, and piecing the jigsaw together on the basis of the incomplete record which we have available to us today is just too difficult.

I for one do not think that it allows anyone to say that they have the final definitive answer yet.

I also feel that the Turks deserve some sympathy on account of the position which they find themselves in today;

trying to work with a different language written in a very different alphabet.

Ankara is at present discussing the re-introduction of 'Osmanli' language lessons back into the school

curriculum, but we are a very long way off having enough language savvy historians.

regards

Michael

[green_acorn]

This may help explain some issues for many of us from the "West".

Turkish Historiography of the First World War by Ömer Turana, published in Middle East Critique Volume 23, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue: The First World War in the Middle East,

Abstract:

"Turkish historiography on the First World War remained under the shadow of debates about the role of the wartime Committee for Union and Progress (CUP) government for decades. For that reason, Turkish historians preferred to work on the War of Independence (1919–23) under the leadership of Ataturk rather than the First World War. Consequently, there is not a comprehensive Turkish bibliography of the First World War on the 100th anniversary of its commencement, despite the momentous impact of that conflict on Turkey. Nevertheless, one can consult several accounts that military officers wrote after the war, and based on documents in Turkish military archives. While these sources fill an important gap about military operations, they are generally descriptive narratives with scant or no analyses. In addition, there also are many memoirs that provide valuable information about some of the issues that are neglected in the military accounts. In the last decade, several researchers have begun to examine many of the previously ignored topics pertaining to events in Anatolia during the war. Even though there still is no Turkish text that provides a comprehensive account of all the intertwined diplomatic, economic, political, military, and social dimensions of the First World War, these recent works give hope that such a long-needed book is on the horizon."

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

You get no come back from me as I find the same problems and rely on Turkish mates and good sourses like Ed E.

Of cause are we going to discover these missing MGs in Turkish sourses?

Now if say two MG companies (four MGS per company) were in the defences at Anzac (the missing 6 or more MGS often quoted) then where are we going to find them?

Ordats for the 5th Army, 3rd Corps, 9th and 19th Divs, are known and all units are shown, if we take them at face value?

Since the one's I've seen, were written at lest a month or a few weeks before the landing , did some one attach them (MG companies) that don't show up on the Orbats pre or post landing?

Personal records from some of the officers and men on the beaches and hills and known written after the war, don't mention any MGs. but could they cover them up, well there was no reason to do that at the time of writting, as there still is today?

But that dosn't disprove there were no MGs, only we need to dig deeper.

Cheers

S.B

[gilly100]

Murray Ewen put up a totally plausible account backed by good research that has thus far not been given reasonable consideration.

End of story.

If we are to take Allied naval and military accounts with a grain of salt, then that can apply to Turkish accounts, full stop.

Ian

[Bryn]

Good point Ian. Where is the discussion of the issues raised in Murray Ewing's article in the Gallipolian? That was a major development in the topic of this thread, but - roaring silence.

My own theory is that there will be no attempt made whatsoever by those already firmly convinced by the infalibilty of Turkish accounts to consider the possiblities raised by that article. I doubt it will even be read.

And since these accounts apparently cannot be wrong, the flip side is that any account that differs from them must, by definition, be wrong. No matter how many there are. And therefore it's just a matter of ignoring them or discounting them using any (often highly questionable) means available.

Of course all accounts are open to analysis and question and should be examined critically rather than being accepted at face value, but unfortunately that has only been done in the case of the allied accounts.

"If we are to take Allied naval and military accounts with a grain of salt, then that can apply to Turkish accounts, full stop." - exactly right.

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

Agreed, but why if these MG Companies were attached to the 9th Div, were they placed at Anzac, when this was not a main consideration for a landing?

The main beaches were at Helles, why not place all these MGs down there?

Also the Gaba Tepe area was a secondry area that I could believe may of had extra weapons like MGs, as they had extra pom poms and artillery.

The Ari bunu area was a poor area for defence and the Turkish defences are well known, at lest as far as we know, and the positions of the 2Bn 27th Regt by companies is recorded?

Why would a MG company or two be placed there when no such MGs companies covered the main landing beaches at Helles?

Murray might seam interesting but he provides no positive proof that any MG company or companies was pre positioned at Anzac?

Again did the Turks add to there defences inbetween the written Orbats they have, possibly, but as yet none are found, Hopefully Ed and others are checking these sourses out?

Cheers

S.B

[SiegeGunner]

A dumb question from someone who has been monitoring this thread for some time, but does not have a dog in this fight: if there had been Turkish MGs firing on the beach at the time of the initial landing, would it not have been glaringly obvious in the casualty figures?

[Steven Broomfield]

Like Mr Gunner, I have no dog in this fight, and I support his question.

Personally, having kept an eye on this discussion for its whole duration, I have to say I think Chris (Crunchy) has deployed a pretty conclusive argument, but it seems the entrenched positions generally adopted are going to take some assaulting.

[Guest]

According to Geoff's Engine, there are 755 casualties for 25/4/1915 Click Haven't been through them, and probably not all initial landing battalions, or even all Gallipoli.

Mike

[Bryn]

Does nobody stop to consider that the casualty figures for 25 April 1915 have been known since approximately 26 April 1915?

Where are all the rebuttals of the idea of MGs at the Landing in the almost hundred years between 1915 and the start of this discussion?

Is anyone able to produce accounts by some of those who were there at the time questioning, rather than confirming, the presence of mgs? Can anyone actually produce any evidence - anything at all - to support the ludicrous blanket statement that they didn't know what they were seeing or hearing? And by evidence I don't mean personal opinion.

We're being asked to believe that they were all too dumb to realise they'd been mistaken, and lived out the rest of their lives following the morning of 25th April, unaware that they had - every single one of them - been wrong. Yet none of them realised it even later, even after years of seeing and hearing machine guns. Not a single one sat back and said, 'hang on, that's not the sound I heard at the Landing after all.'

Well it seems they didn't need to, because lucky for us we've got much smarter operators than they were on the job now who are able to tell us what they did and didn't know.

[gilly100]

Only my humble opinion on Anzac, but they landed earlier and in the dark thus negating effectiveness of fire, certainly at Ari Burnu/ MacLagans. No doubt casualties higher at Helles at V and W beaches, landing later and contending with wire.

How many actually died coming ashore at Anzac in those first rushes we will never know, but also know that quite a few recorded as KIA on 2 May were killed the first day as well.

The solid info we have put up on casualties and where they were laid out, the myriad mg accounts, the Hotchkiss guns all cast doubt on the new version, despite it being, or some of it at least being, a good account. But it just does not accord with Murrays good counter argument, most of which has not been answered, and some of which would have been news to Chris and Peter, and to which has not been properly addressed.

Its taken almost 100 years to get this new version, so a bit longer to return it to the old version is fine by me. History is fluid I have been so well reminded.

Ian

[gilly100]

Just to put some faces to the debate, from AWM

on left is 456 JC Weatherill DCM and next to him is 122 CP Green DCM

Both of D Coy, 10Bn AIF. DCMs both for Landing

Weatherill, with Talbot Smith took and dismantled Turk MG on MacLagans. Then involved in taking the guns at the Cup.

Green got his for bringing in a wounded comrade to shore under fire.

Nice photo with their ribbons up. Note the difference in uniforms.

Ian

[green_acorn]

I have just received Harvey Broadbent's book Gallipoli The Turkish Defence: The story from the Turkish documents and am yet to read it fully. His first mention of Ottoman MG's arriving at, or being deployed in, the vicinity of Anzac Cove is at about 0815 hrs when the 27th defended the Third Ridge, with their MG Coy deployed at Hill 165 near Kemalyeri (Scrubby Knoll):

"... Our machine gun company, hiding in the scrub to the southwest of the hill started to fire with four guns on to the enemy concentration that was seen close the same point. The sound of machine guns, so good to hear, adding to the sound of artillery lifted our hearts. ..."

page 60

With regards to Fisherman's Hut and No1 Outpost, Broadbent writes on at page 46:

... So intense was the Turkish rifle fire and its effect that many Australians thought that they were facing machine-gun fire.. The 27th Regiment's only machine-gun company, however, was well to the rear near Maidos on the Strait. ...."

Broadbent adds in the endnote regarding this action: Aspinall-Oglander p. 183 and Sefik Aker, p. 25. The Australian 2nd Brigade's 7th Battalion landing in the second wave was severely mauled when the boats carrying 140 men of B Company under Major Alfred Jackson came within 200 metres of Ibrahim's platoon. Eighty men were killed or wounded before they reached shore. ...

The first mention of machine gun fire by the Ottoman's is around 0430 hrs, from the British steam pinnaces which responded to the initial rifle fire from the Ottoman squads of 2nd LT Muharrem deployed on Ariburnu Knoll (Hell Spit) and 2nd Lt Ismail Hakki on the ridge above Ariburnu (p. 40).

Cheers,

Hendo

[gilly100]

Yes, I wonder if Harvey ever got to all the archives. Naval and Fortress command might have been worth a look. Still totally unconvinced. Does he mention 10pdr Hotchkiss guns on Pine Ridge? Probably not. Yet our blokes do. But of course, they were all mistaken, all of them.

Amazing really when one thinks about it. Will just have to be patient me thinks.

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Gilly,

Interesting.

of cause was he mistaken?

"according to the Ottoman 9th Division's order of battle, there were four 75mm mountain guns of the division's 7th Battery emplaced at Lone Pine. Three were overrun and the fourth run back to gun ridge, coming into action later in the day. The other three guns were recaptured later the same day"

So did he see 10pdr Hotchkiss or 75mm Krupp mountain guns?

Check out some photos of these types (Krupp Mountain guns) they look very much the same types as the Hotchkiss both with no guns shields.

S.B

We could go on but that won't change your view or mine.

Saw a nice special on the Plane crush on the Hudson, they interviewed one witness who said that there was a fire in the gallery that a stewardess put out, the stewardess was interview and sid there was no fire or anything like one?

Witness do make mistakes under pressure, we all know that, first hand accounts are good but must always be double check and used with caution.

as to the dismantled Turk MG on MacLagans, what time was this action and where on that ridge, you may find that it maybe a gun from one of the two MG companies (27th or 57th MG Companies). But Turkish records fail to mention the loss of any guns, that doesn't mean none were lost, only none are mentioned?

S.B

[gilly100]

Steve

Weatherill very interesting because it is first thing on landing, first ridge rising from beach is MacLagans and correctly described tripod mounted mg.

Yes, not changing my mind at all. The sheer scale of accounts across the board cannot possibly have them all mistaken or liars. Ludicrous to think so.

Following Murray Ewens discovery of info not previously countenanced or seen and everything else put up this last 6 months and prior, it remains open as far as I am concerned. Cannot add anymore at this point, but look forward to getting HB books and reading them all the same.

Ian

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Did you see that new TV special called "Gallipoli".

Its surpose to be based on Les C's book called "Gallipoli"

What I did find interesting was the lack of any MG fire unitll they got up into the hills.

So supporting my view, which I did find confusing as I don't recall reading Les C's book, will have to check my book shelf to read or reread it?

The colour patches looked like the 4th Bn AIF so not the first to land, will have to reread their Unit History.

Cheers

S.B