TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI

[Guest]

Mate,

 

Again your right, we can state our opinions and show those opinions by men who fought there of theirs. But we should also know that these men are just stating what they believe was happening around them, what they believed they were seeing.

 

There no way Brockmann could know it was a Hotchkiss firing at him by the effects in the water around him, or by the hundreds of sounds as he boat pulled towards the shore. To say it is when even Brockmann was unsure is not correct. As Brockmann said;

 

"Something went into the water before they landed - possibly Hotchkiss shells"

 

As to the other men you mention, your right I have no answer to what they are seeing, That's why we add their views and comment on them, Not all these reports could be wrong, or are they?

 

Did Talbot Smith dismantled an enemy tripod mounted mg on MacLagan's Ridge, as he said, possibly or was it some other weapon?

 

Did Derham of 5Bn relating his opinion of enemy guns on Pine Ridge and carrying back a Turk mg from there on 25 April?

 

We can only say we must take them at their word, but that's not what Brockmann is writing, he is stating an opinion as he could not know what was firing at him.

 

S.B

[Fedelmar]

An interesting photograph taken before the first contingent left WA.

The original post appears here
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/37975228?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FW%2Ftitle%2F101%2F1914%2F09%2F18%2Fpage%2F3488010%2Farticle%2F37975228http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/37975228?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FW%2Ftitle%2F101%2F1914%2F09%2F18%2Fpage%2F3488010%2Farticle%2F37975228.

Edited 6 October , 2016 by Fedelmar

[gilly100]

Thanks for posting that great image Sandra. Probably 11Bn up around Blackboy Hill pre embarkation. Seems those in the photo had some experience of mgs, including the two platoons downhill.

Steve, of course you are correct on Drake Brockman. My real point is that he identified something other than rifle and or mg fire, which flies in the face of any artillery type shelling being as accepted as getting underway from Gaba Tepe some 20 minutes later. So which is it? Of course I will link any mention of Hotchkiss shells as there is already posted on this thread significant evidence that the Turks had these small guns at Anzac. Just trawl back a few pages. Fergusson of Indian Mtn Battery seemed sure. He handled one of the spent shells and investigated further.

I also like the fact Drake Brockman referencing 10Bn capturing a weapon on MacLagan's, which cannot be so if you are in the no mg camp. But it ties in perfectly with Weatherill's account, don't you think? And I say it again, is Weatherill fabricating his landing experience at MacLagan's? He is quite definitive and I for one believe him.

There are holes in the Turk OOB and there are conflicting accounts in the Turk OH regarding mgs, pom poms and mountain Howitzers across the Helles and Anzac sectors. Having the Turk OH now translated is a wonderful resource that opens new doors for many of us to further our knowledge, but I am convinced there are inaccuracies, just like any OH. Glad we can now zoom in more on the Turk OH accounts and sort the wheat from the chaff.

Ian

[Guest]

Gilly,

 

Yes we can agree, there are holes in the Turkish Orbats, but not the great many mentioned by our men that morning.

 

But so far I (we) can't explain the many sightings of MG's or there parts along the front.

 

Surely many men saw the same MG or what they believed to be an MG and some reported there capture, but lost the weapon during the day, as no MGs were Officaly reported captured by any unit at Anzac during that period.

 

Which would seam strange as to capture one of these MGs would have been a cause of great pride, to the men and the unit?

 

One of the many mysterys of the Anzac Front.

 

Cheers

S.B

[Bryn]

Good photo, Sandra. Some more of our troops firing, watching (and presumably listening to) machine guns well before the landings at Gallipoli.

 

It didn't end there, either: Machine Gun training in Egypt prior to Gallipoli:

 

Well Done South Australia.
Pte. Parry, of the Machine Gun Corps with the South Australian troops in Egypt, and son of Mr. James Parry, of Fullarton Estate, writes: — 'The South Australian and New South Wales and Queensland Machine Gun Sections held a competition, one on a target of a machine gun, and the other on a target of a trench. We got 47 hits on the machine gun, and 63 on the trench, and came out first, beating the second team by 32 hits. So we did not do so bad, did we? The New South Wales representatives were third. The colonel is more than satisfied, so he says, and we are going to keep it up.' (Register (Adelaide) 23 Feb 1915 p7)

 

What I find incredible in the attempts to explain away every single allied report of a machine gun at the landing is that, initially, we were being told that they were all too 'inexperienced' to recognise a machine gun.

 

When it was pointed out that one of those who reported a machine gun firing on his men was Lieut. Colonel Clarke, CO of the 12th Battalion, we were told that his experience -

• 6 years in ranks, Victorian Field Artillery. Boer War 1900-02. — Served with Rhodesian Field Force. O.C. North-Western Districts. ; and as Administrator, No. 13 Martial Law Area, Cape Colony District. Served in Command, 4th Victorian Mounted Rifles. Operations in the Transvaal. Mentioned in Despatches, Queen's medal with 4 clasps. King's Medal with 2 clasps. DSO.
• DSO citation: From Colonel Henniker's Despatch on operations in Zuurberg, C.C. [Cape Colony], in March 1901. - Victorian Imperial Bushmen, 4th contingent: I cannot speak too highly of the excellent way in which Major Clarke has always carried out his orders, and the manner in which his officers and men back him up. In the announcement of the award of D.S.O. to Major Clarke, it was said to be "for able command of operations against De Wet." 
• Promoted Lieut. Colonel 26 Apr 1907. Transferred to Derwent Regiment, Tasmania, from AFA, Victoria, 1910. 
• Colonel, 28 July 1913, 91st (Tasmanian Rangers) Infantry. (Hon. Colonel in AIF)

- was the 'wrong sort of experience' and that he still couldn't recognise the sound of a machine gun. And yet he was so sure that an MG was firing that he sent one of his officers (Lieut. Rafferty) with 43 men to silence it. Meanwhile Lieuts. Strickland and Gostelow of the 11th and their men had also been sent to do the same thing. The 11th Battalion History is quite clear that these troops were sent to silence the machine gun firing on them from the direction of Fisherman's Hut.

 

As more and more and more accounts of machine guns by experienced soldiers and sailors have been added during this discussion, the response has gradually changed from 'they were too inexperienced' to 'even experienced soldiers can make mistakes.' Of course they can. But that doesn't mean that they did, or that all of them did. Just 'thinking' they made a mistake does not in any form disprove their many accounts. And in any case, that applies to both sides.

Edited 13 October , 2016 by Bryn

[gilly100]

This is believed to be the German mg captured at Helles by the Royal Marines in early May 1915, subsequently presented to the French General as seen in photo below in black and white. It seems this weapon off the Breslau (or Goeben) was a 7.92mm MG08 maxim, unlike the Turk Army 7.65mm MG09 maxims. Both these naval maxims and MG09 army maxims were tripod mounted. Throws a bit more light if nothing else.

Ian

 

[bob lembke]

The first German MG landing party quickly lost all six of their Maxim 08s, some damaged or buried by shell fire, and most of the 45 men were killed or wounded in action. Then the Turks gave them 13 Vickers they had taken in a counter-attack. A good source for this is (later) Admiral Doenitz, who was a young officer on the Brestlau, and wrote a book about his experiences in Turkey published about 1916. I bought my copy for about $8 on the Internet.

 

The fact remains that the Turks had very few MGs, that is known if you study that side of the picture. They lost a great deal of their materiel in the disasterous Balkans Wars. I have seen accounts of other Turkish divisions also having two of their three regiments having one MG company of four guns, and the third regiment having no MGs at all. A Forum Pal wondered why this was; it seemed odd. It seems obvious that that was all the MGs they had, so that is the way they chose to distribute their few MGs among their units. (At this time, a German Jaeger battalion, light infantry, had a MG company with 12 MGs.) For example, at the Sulva landings, the Turkish defenders in the area did not have a single MG for miles of coast-line, and that was much later in the campaign.  If a MG broke or was lost, they were unlikely to get a replacement, that is why I use an estimate of six MGs per Turkish division in early Gallipoli combat. The Romanians were not allowing any weapons thru. I understand that an attempt was made to imbed MGs in blocks of concrete, and try to convince the Romanian customs officers that they were concrete ties for the Baghdad railway under construction by the Germans. The situation was so desperate that it was considered to send a fast Austro-Hungarian light cruiser (Horthy's) on an almost certain suicide mission of trying to run the blockade with a cargo of arms, ammunition, and artillery fuses. Sometimes one of the few German or Turkish airplanes in theatre was used to fly in a few precious artillery fuses, fuses made in Turkey, with German help, rarely exploded; von Sanders Pascha estimated a 95% dud rate for shells made in Turkey. German-made ammunition only started arriving in November, along with two Austrian batteries.

 

I don't study the Allied side of things in detail, probably a dozen memoires and a few Official Histories, as my father fought with the Turks, but I know a lot about the German aid to Turkey, their reform of the Turkish munitions industry with about 1500 German craftsmen and the leadership of (naval) Captain Pieper, and other aspects of the Turkish Army of the period, and of course the German effort, in particular my father's volunteer combat engineers' company at Gallipoli. On April 25th the Turks had few MGs at the front, perhaps 40-50 for perhaps 100 miles of European and Asiatic coastline, and surely some of these precious weapons were not in the front line, but held in reserve; if they were lost that was that. It is natural that some MGs would have been positioned at V Beach, for instance, but that just meant less for the other coastline.

 

A MG firing would have been heard by say 3000 men and officers, or more, and their observations could have gotten into a variety of accounts, unit histories, official histories, letters to newspapers. So many reports does not translate into many MGs. (The extreme paupacy of captured MGs is telling, the photo above indicates treatment like the crown jewels.) I, and I imagine many of our Pals, have fired MGs; they can be heard for a couple of miles. One MG firing at ANZAC might be heard by half of the Allied soldiers who were not buried in a dugout, which were not there on April 25th, except for occupied Turkish works. Despite some reports, where (dead) light-skinned upper-class Turkish officers in tailor-made uniforms were pronounced to be Germans, it is most unlikely that any German officers, and certainly no EM/ORs, had any combat role on April 25th, nor were in any post lower down than a regimental HQ. There are claims of German Marines on the beaches, manning Maxims. German ships did not carry detachments of Marines, and at the start of the war there  were two battalions of German Marines in the world, one in Germany, one in China. (Later, large formations were raised to fight on the Flemish coast.) I don't think that there was a single German Marine in Turkey.   

 

[Bernard_Lewis]

On a separate point, did Drake Brockman leave any published recollection of his war service? I can see a book by a chap who served with an Indian (?) battalion so assume that that is not the chap who landed at Gallipoli?

 

Bernard

[gilly100]

Bernard

I am not aware if Edmund Alfred Drake Brockman wrote any war memoirs. Of course he was the Major of A Coy, 11Bn that landed in the first wave at Anzac on 25 April. Later commanded 16 Bn etc. From a large and extended family with strong historical roots to pioneering Western Australia. There are numerous other Brockman and Drake Brockman family members who have written books on varied subjects, but none by him it seems. Post war he was busy in politics and arbitration and conciliation courts. Quite a life he had.

Ian

[Bernard_Lewis]

Thanks Ian. He had 'interesting' experiences, for sure!

 

Bernard

[SiegeGunner]

Not to be taken too seriously, I suspect, but I recently watched the Turkish 1964 film 'The Lions of Canakkale, Gallipoli War', which, to my surprise, features not only Turkish defenders opposing the 25 April landings with machine guns, but also Turkish women snipers!  Plus Australians in cowboy hats and, if I'm not mistaken, at least one Bren gun ... 

[T8HANTS]

Oh good a whole new thread on Turkish Female Bren gunners!

[Steven Broomfield]

On ‎31‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 09:35, Bernard_Lewis said:

On a separate point, did Drake Brockman leave any published recollection of his war service? I can see a book by a chap who served with an Indian (?) battalion so assume that that is not the chap who landed at Gallipoli?

 

Bernard

 

D H of that Ilk was CO of the 2nd/38th Garhwal Rifles in France, and wrote a memoir/history of the two battalions of that regiment. I assume he must have been some form of relation.

[SiegeGunner]

2 hours ago, T8HANTS said:

Oh good a whole new thread on Turkish Female Bren gunners!

 

Steady, Gareth!  The women were local peasant farmers who took up arms with their menfolk to assist Turkish troops in defending their hamlet against attack.  One, sniping with a rifle from an upstairs window, was killed and was buried together with the male civilian and military casualties, as it was agreed that she too was a worthy martyr.  I have no idea what factual basis (if any) this Turkish production has, but it would appear that its makers did not consider the idea of women fighting to be unthinkable, as some have contended here.

 

Do any of our Australian pals know this film and have views on it? 

[michaeldr]

 

May I respectfully ask the visitors fresh from Skindles not to drift too far off topic here,

and for those of you who have not seen the appropriate thread, then may I remind them of the article which appeared in Cross & Cockade, Vol.38 No.3 2007

and in particular, the album and diary of Petty Officer Photographic Air Mechanic F5533 William Pollard, Mytilene & Mudros 1916-1917; specifically pages 149 & 150 refer.

 

Pollard's diary entry for 24 July:-

 

“Fine. Aircraft went to protect 200 Greeks which were put ashore on Turkish mainland to drive cattle etc, to certain pier where we had a transport ship waiting to collect. About 2000 brought over to Mitylene to feed Armenian refugees. They left a number of Camels on the beach which were uneatable. Three Turkish women brigands were captured and taken to HMS Doris (photo I have). Aircraft went over again dropping bombs and starting more fires.”

 

Pollard's photograph of the three armed women brigands is on page 150

 

regards

Michael

Edited 18 January , 2017 by michaeldr

[SiegeGunner]

Timely advice, Michael, and I assure you that I am seriously interested in learning if anyone knows anything about this film, which I gather was made with the active assistance of the Turkish military.  I honestly don't know what to make of it. 

[Guest]

'The Lions of Canakkale, Gallipoli War',

 

 

[bob lembke]

I spent ten minutes skimming thru the movie. I only have a few words of Turkish (I can boast that I understood perhaps three words in the movie, including one "borrow-word" from English). I think that I know a lot about the Turkish/German side, I have studied it for years, almost entirely from primary sources, in any relevant language except Turkish, not just the fighting, but a lot about the armaments, the efforts to remake the domestic arms industry by Captain Peiper and 1500 German technicians, the attempts to run arms and artillery fuses thru the hostile Balkans, etc.

 

The movie seems like rollicking good fun, with an apparent story line, but even a brief skimming reveals many, many historically incorrect depictions, certainly military equipment and gear, but also social mores and the like, including the roles of women, which reflect the utterly revolutionary social revolution under Attatuerk. I really urge our Pals, if we view this interesting piece, not to cherry-pick and pick out one nor two bits that support our opinions. There does not seem to have been much of an effort to create a historically accurate movie. It does seem to reflect a lot of the positions of the pre-Erdogan militantly secular, nationalistic regime.

 

If I can cut out 2 hours and 20 minutes of my life, I will try to view the whole movie and report. Thanks for providing this link to the movie.     

Edited 20 January , 2017 by bob lembke
spelling

[Guest]

Historical accuracy in 'movies' (or lack of it) nothing new then?

 

Mike

Edited 20 January , 2017 by Skipman
typo

[bob lembke]

I can understand the frustration of students of Gallipoli wanting to understand the Turkish side of things, especially if you only have 

English, as there is so little good material available.  I remember looking at Gallipoli about 1970, since I knew that my father had served

in the Turkish Army there, not too seriously, and at a time when I could scarcely read any German, and I looked at some "Allied side"

secondary sources, probably written by British or Australian authors, and I had the impression that the Allies could have been fighting

Martians or little brown men from Pluto, for all that the authors seemed to know. (That might be unfair, it was my clear impression.) Of

course there are almost no primary sources on the Turkish/German side of Gallipoli that have been translated into English, with the exception

of Liman von Sanders Pascha's memoire.

 

There are exceptional problems relying on Turkish sources on Gallipoli, even if translated into English. I was told a long while ago that the Turks

might have a different take on historigraphy. (sp.?) This may have been more true when I heard that than today, I have spent a good deal of time

plowing thru the publishing district (start in front of the Blue Mosque, head inland up the street that passes by the Roman underground cistern, and

go another say four blocks) and I came up with very little. And some of what I found did go on about the different spin on writing history in Turkey vs.

the West. (Perhaps Trajan has a take on this. And I would assume that the increasing internationalization of academics might be eroding this difference,

if it ever existed.

 

There are also some currents in recent Turkish politics that creates some spin in the attitude of the present or recent Turkish military towards the military

history of the Gallipoli campaign. One of the effects of that is a limiting of the Turkish attention to the level of Turkish/German/Austrian cooperation in this

period of history. Someone who writes on Gallipoli and who has a very different take on some points of the history has attempted to use this fact in PMs

to me as an  argument to get me to "turn on the Turks", or drop my largely sympathetic attitude to Turkey and the Turks.     

 

To get to my point, I urge people not to attempt to see what they see in this movie as a source for specific points about the actual history of Gallipoli. If

this movie depicts the Turks at Galliopli  firing lots of machine guns at the British and ANZACs, I would hesitate to take this as proof that the Turks had lots

of MGs there, especially on April 25th. No more than they should take the many shots of "Australians" (wearing the cowboy hats!) firing Bren guns (and some

other type of light MG with a stick magazine stuck horizontally into the right side of the receiver) as proof that the ANZACs had these weapons there.

 

One point. The Turkish troops in the movie invariably wear impeccable, entirely uniform uniforms. The reality was that only a minority of the Turkish troops

there wore anything that should be called a proper uniform, some wearing underwear with a large coat tied about their skivvies with a rope, many men

without shoes, etc. I am sure that the Turkish military brass of 1964 would not want the Turkish Army of 1915 depicted (accurately) as being clad in that fashion.

In my brief skimming of the movie I saw several shots of Turkish female nurses performing several duties, not simply the nursing of the wounded. There might

have been Turkish female nurses in the theatre of conflict, but I would guess not, I would have to see it in reputable sources. There may have been a few

German nurses in German medical facilities. I do know from German documents that some German troops were sneaked into Turkey using the false papers

of civilian male nurses traveling to Turkey.   

 

 

[SiegeGunner]

As ever, Bob, thanks for your insight.  I certainly did not take 'The Lions of Canakkale' as any kind of 'documentary' history of the campaign, but I am intrigued to try and understand why such a film was made in Turkey in the mid-60s, apparently with the active assistance of the Turkish military. 

[Guest]

Interesting page on this Turkish site. By copying and pasting into google translate a (very rough) idea of the text can be gained.

 

Buraya Tıkla

 

Mike

 

[gilly100]

Thanks Mike for posting that most interesting movie. I could only stand a few minutes, so I must have missed the Hotchkiss mountain guns at Pine Ridge, being too busy working out the slouch hats!  And no Bob, quite right, one cannot read anything much into that movie, albeit decades old. Lightens the debate for once at least. You always manage to come up with interesting stuff Mike, keep it coming. You dig in places I am incapable of digging!

Cheers

Ian

[Guest]

Cheers Ian. There's no great secret to it to be honest, just a mixture of copy & paste URL's, google translate, right clicking & total incompetence.

 

Mike

[keithmroberts]

I have removed a post, which although interesting was more about relatively recent Turkish history right into current developments. The post content was not of itself an issue, but was not one that falls withion the scope of GWF rules.

 

Keith Roberts