Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

TURKISH MACHINE GUNS AT GALLIPOLI


Chris Best

Recommended Posts

mm Steve

One Walter Mitty Turk veteran (aka Bulls.it artist ?) VS dozens and dozens of poor misguided, easily fooled, gilding the lily Australian (and British) soldiers and sailors.

 

Hilarious! History at its best.

 

Ian

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

I only meant we have to be carefull in what these veterns are writting about, years after the event.

 

Stories can and are often mixed up, While Ozgen was on the beaches later that morning, he was not there early morning 25 April. The defensive position he talks about possibly was his  (platoons) defensive area before his Bn (3Bn) was replaced by the 2Bn, who was in place the morning of the 25 April.

 

Of cause our concern here is his mention of MGs around Plugges, while the real Platoon commander on the spot that morning said (written) fails to mention any on Plugges,  Ozgen who was not there said there was?

 

So who do you believe?

 

Like wise do we believe a tried aussie officer and or soldiers under fire, that a MG was taken here or at lest MG parts, which never turns up in Bn, Bde or Div records as they captured a MG?

 

But as you say we go round in circles which at times is a good idea.

 

S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
12 hours ago, Umeu said:

Sorry for reviving from the dead, but were there Turkish/German machine guns at Kum Kale during the French landing?


Initially, Kumkale defended by 6th Coy/31st Regt of 3rd Division. Originally 31st Regt had no MG Coy.  

 

e1.JPG.7bf58bac3d6cb78564bcd4a5afb56084.JPG

 

But the regiment was able to establish a MG Coy from 2 guns (it should be at least 4 guns in normal conditions. But, Ottoman army were short of MGs) before the landings. However, the company kept in reserve near Intepe, and never directly involved in battle during the day.

 

e3.JPG.04a45b4112bea80de68e1928d88eb5f0.JPG

 

In short, no MGs deployed on any beach (including Kumkale) during the 25th April landings, in accordance with the general Ottoman defense doctrine. No German combatants on shores during the landings. Very first German MGs joined the Ottoman forces on 3 May, a week after the landings.

 

Edited by emrezmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mates,

 

A few German Naval Officers & men are known to have served in these Batteries at Kum Kale, but these were gunners with the artillery not MG gunners!

 

Its unknown if these were with those batteries on the morning of the 25 April 1915, when over ran by the French, but I am sure a few may have been, but none are reported as lost at that date at Kum Kale, so far as I found. 

 

The 3rd Ottoman Div lost heavy casualties during the fighting here.

 

Known Germans there;

 

Haentjens    Capt Naval    OC Aleman battery att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        
Haspi    Capt Naval    OC Usedom battery att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        
Lass Robert    Pte Naval    att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        KIA 9-6-15
Schirrmacher Paul    Pte Naval    att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        KIA 9-6-15
 

S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, emrezmen said:


Initially, Kumkale defended by 6th Coy/31st Regt of 3rd Division. Originally 31st Regt had no MG Coy.  

 

e1.JPG.7bf58bac3d6cb78564bcd4a5afb56084.JPG

 

But the regiment was able to establish a MG Coy from 2 guns (it should be at least 4 guns in normal conditions. But, Ottoman army were short of MGs) before the landings. However, the company kept in reserve near Intepe, and never directly involved in battle during the day.

 

e3.JPG.04a45b4112bea80de68e1928d88eb5f0.JPG

 

In short, no MGs deployed on any beach (including Kumkale) during the 25th April landings, in accordance with the general Ottoman defense doctrine. No German combatants on shores during the landings. Very first German MGs joined the Ottoman forces on 3 May, a week after the landings.

 

 

Thank you for the reply. I read Patton's dissertation on the battle, and he mentioned a lone machine gun, which I already thought odd. It must be a mistake. Could it have been a nordenfield gun? Or were these kept in central reserve as well?

 

1 hour ago, stevebecker said:

Mates,

 

A few German Naval Officers & men are known to have served in these Batteries at Kum Kale, but these were gunners with the artillery not MG gunners!

 

Its unknown if these were with those batteries on the morning of the 25 April 1915, when over ran by the French, but I am sure a few may have been, but none are reported as lost at that date at Kum Kale, so far as I found. 

 

The 3rd Ottoman Div lost heavy casualties during the fighting here.

 

Known Germans there;

 

Haentjens    Capt Naval    OC Aleman battery att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        
Haspi    Capt Naval    OC Usedom battery att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        
Lass Robert    Pte Naval    att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        KIA 9-6-15
Schirrmacher Paul    Pte Naval    att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        KIA 9-6-15
 

S.B

 

Thanks, any idea what kind of batteries would have been present? And where they were located? Directly aimed at the beaches from the Kum Kale fort/village or farther in land? I read an account by a French doctor that mentions artillery from the forts, but at the same time it was supposed to have been quite destroyed, and French losses at landing were supposed to have been very light since the Ottoman only had 1 platoon there. Is that correct?

 

As for the first post, that same doctor also mentions that they captured a German officer and killed him. Is that a myth, or could it be true?

 

image.png.b3301b63f7353395c5613ada16753591.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stevebecker said:

Mates,

 

A few German Naval Officers & men are known to have served in these Batteries at Kum Kale, but these were gunners with the artillery not MG gunners!

 

Its unknown if these were with those batteries on the morning of the 25 April 1915, when over ran by the French, but I am sure a few may have been, but none are reported as lost at that date at Kum Kale, so far as I found. 

 

The 3rd Ottoman Div lost heavy casualties during the fighting here.

 

Known Germans there;

 

Haentjens    Capt Naval    OC Aleman battery att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        
Haspi    Capt Naval    OC Usedom battery att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        
Lass Robert    Pte Naval    att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        KIA 9-6-15
Schirrmacher Paul    Pte Naval    att Ottoman Batteries at Kumkale        KIA 9-6-15
 

S.B

 

Kumkale Fort manned only by Ottoman infantry on 25 April. There were no batteries since the fort itself was already destroyed by bombardment and Royal Marines on 26 February. The German personnel must be deployed around Intepe. As we all know, Intepe batteries caused great trouble especially for the French on the Peninsula and frequently bombarded by the navy and land batteries during the entire campaign. I think Germans you've mentioned lost their lives during one of those bombardments. (Still, I have to do a research specifically for 9 June). Also, "Haspi" ('Hasbi' would be more correct) was a Turkish officer. He was the commander of artillery group at Intepe named "Hasbi Group" (your mentioning about him alongside Germans strengthens the possibility that those Germans are in the Intepe area) which was first battery fired upon by the Allied navy on 18 March.

 

 

10 hours ago, Umeu said:

 

Thank you for the reply. I read Patton's dissertation on the battle, and he mentioned a lone machine gun, which I already thought odd. It must be a mistake. Could it have been a nordenfield gun? Or were these kept in central reserve as well?

 

Thanks, any idea what kind of batteries would have been present? And where they were located? Directly aimed at the beaches from the Kum Kale fort/village or farther in land? I read an account by a French doctor that mentions artillery from the forts, but at the same time it was supposed to have been quite destroyed, and French losses at landing were supposed to have been very light since the Ottoman only had 1 platoon there. Is that correct?

 

As for the first post, that same doctor also mentions that they captured a German officer and killed him. Is that a myth, or could it be true?

 

image.png.b3301b63f7353395c5613ada16753591.png


 


No mention of Nordenfeldts in Turkish OH and other Turkish accounts about Kumkale battles. They were attached directly to Div HQ and most probably were in reserve. We have to understand that the Ottomans used their forces gradually and meticulously on 25 April.  

 

Intepe (not Kumkale) fired some shots with 120 mm howitzers upon French landing force. Also Ottomans had adequate field/mountain artillery in the Kumkale area. But as I said before, guns at Kumkale Fort were inactive.

 

And that's a quite crappy story, sorry. Many allied soldiers initially believed that the Turks were killing prisoners with torture and they spread such a rumor amongst themselves (same in the Ottoman army, more or less). I would say, at least, if a prisoner would be killed, it was impossible to be in this way. Quite an exaggerated story. Also the Turkish officers are often confused with the Germans throughout the campaign due to misconception that the Turks were commanded by their German "masters" at all levels. No way to find a German captain commanding an Ottoman infantry company. The soldier "executed" by the French, if he really executed, was probably a Turkish. By the way, all Turkish officers could speak French back in the day.
 

I think all these issues were discussed already. You may want to make a little research in the forum.

 

Cheers.

 

Edited by emrezmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/09/2018 at 10:29, Umeu said:

Sorry for reviving from the dead, 

 

Dead?

 

This thread will need a stake through the heart and half a ton of garlic, not to mention a silver bullet, before that state is achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

Thanks for that correction to Haspi/Hasbi. I'll need to double check the source for the names of these officers & men mentioned at Kum Kale.

 

Like I said I have not found any German lost this day, so far in any records, and would agree with Emrezmen that he may have been a Ottoman Officer?

 

German officers just didn't command low level units in the Ottoman Army, other then specialist units.

 

I known two Germans were lost during attacks Feb 1915, (including

 

Woermann Hans    Lt Naval    Kommand Fort Orhanie at Dardanelles) (1880 - shown KIA 18-3-15 reported KIA 19-2-15 when battery hit by shell from British warships reported two Germans killed that day buried German Military cemetery Tarabya Istanbul


and a number lost in March 1915 

 

Brilla August    Gnr Naval    Coastal Artillery Fort Hamidie att Ottoman Batteries at Dardanelles        (KIA 18-3-15 artillery crew at Fort Hamidié killed in Allied Naval attack) grave at Tarabya Istanbul 
Radau Wilhelm    Gnr Naval    Coastal Artillery Fort Hamidie att Ottoman Batteries at Dardanelles        (KIA 18-3-15 or DoW 20-3-15 artillery crew at Fort Hamidié killed in Allied Naval attack) grave at Tarabya Istanbul 
Schildhauer Erich    Pte Naval    Coastal Artillery Fort Hamidie att Ottoman Batteries at Dardanelles    1915-    KIA 18-3-15 artillery crew at Fort Hamidié killed in Allied Naval attack) grave at Tarabya Istanbul 
Sommerfeld Max Karl Otto    Gnr Naval    Coastal Artillery Fort Hamidie att Ottoman Batteries at Dardanelles        (1886 - KIA 18-3-15 artillery crew at Fort Hamidié killed in Allied Naval attack) grave at Tarabya Istanbul 
Sommerfeld Paul    Gnr Naval    Coastal Artillery Fort Hamidie att Ottoman Batteries at Dardanelles        KIA 18-3-15 artillery crew at Fort Hamidié killed in Allied Naval attack) grave at Tarabya Istanbul 

 

But none are shown in the records as lost on the 25 or 26 April 1915, but I am open to conjecture here.

 

S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to Umeu's original question, I have it tucked away somewhere in one of my file boxes that the French came under, captured or destroyed at least two machine guns at Kum Kale on 25 April.

I know I have read this on several occasions and should I come across it again in my travels I will be sure to post same.

LonerangerVC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

I did notice the Inderpendent 64th Regt which is shown as;

 

1-3Bn/64th Regt + 64th MG Co     Maj Servet Bey (Yurdatapan)    (inderpendant) (reported poor quaility depot Troops) att 3rd Corps Troops 3-15 shown with 3rd Div in fighting at Kum Kale 4-15 att 19th Div 5-15 Gallipoli to 14th Div 1916-18

 

So at lest  31st and 32nd Regts had MG companies as well as the 64th Regt in the Kum Kale area that morning, but if any were at the beaches is not shown?

 

But concidering Ottoman/German docrine that was not there practice.

 

As stated Ottoman MG companies are shown as 4 MG's, but in practice at this early stage of the war few had all four guns.

 

S.B

 

Edited by stevebecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rifles and faith ---  end of story

 

Hilarious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, stevebecker said:

at lest  31st and 32nd Regts had MG companies as well as the 64th Regt in the Kum Kale area that morning,

 

14 hours ago, stevebecker said:

but if any were at the beaches is not shown? 

 

?

 

How long would it have taken to get into a defensive position to oppose an enemy landing? 

 

The ships were in position at the entrance to the Straits at 04:30
The bombardment commenced at 05:15

Admiral Guépratte ordered the disembarkation at 06:20 from transports about 4000 yards out

The small French steamboats doing the towing could make no headway against the current, so torpedo boats and tugs had to be brought in to assist, resulting in delays

It was nearly 10:00 before the first tows neared the beach

 

I think that 5 hrs & 30 minutes warning would have been quite enough time for the Turks to get well organised in their defence

[edit to add - also remember that the 5th Army had taken over Kum Kale (and Sedd el Bahr) from the Straits Fortress Command at the end of March; 

Enemy landings were anticipated by the Turks and they would have known how to react]

 

The British Official History has “One of the French cutters was struck by a shell from In Tepe, with the loss of all its occupants, and further casualties were suffered from a machine gun on the northern flank.... [ footnote gives “This machine gun was destroyed a few minutes later by a shell from the Henri IV]

my emphasis

Edited by michaeldr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, michaeldr said:

 

 

?

 

How long would it have taken to get into a defensive position to oppose an enemy landing? 

It was not really a question of how long it would take to bring the MGs into action once ordered but much more about the time taken for regimental HQ to decide to give the order. The French landings seem obvious to us but would not have been to HQ staff. There were plenty of examples of this problem on the peninsula itself. 

 

Robert

Edited by Robert Dunlop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/09/2018 at 15:26, michaeldr said:

I think that 5 hrs & 30 minutes warning would have been quite enough time for the Turks to get well organised in their defence

[edit to add - also remember that the 5th Army had taken over Kum Kale (and Sedd el Bahr) from the Straits Fortress Command at the end of March; 

Enemy landings were anticipated by the Turks and they would have known how to react]

 

My point was that the landings had been expected for quite some time and that serious preparations had begun a month before

If you look at Kannengiesser's chapter VIII (Prepararation by Fifth Army) he describes

"The Divisions were ordered to keep concentrated as far as was possible and only despatch covering companies to the threatened points."

So far so good. Then he continues

"These points were fortified as well as the scanty material available permitted with wire entanglements, pits, torpedo heads built in as land mines, and trip wires on the beaches under water,

and well covered by flanking fire from machine and other guns."

my emphasis

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

 

The British Naval OH agrees with 

On 03/09/2018 at 11:08, Rockturner said:

that the French came under, captured or destroyed at least two machine guns at Kum Kale on 25 April.

"... they came under fire from In Tepe and also from machine guns which had been concealed in a windmill at the mouth of the Mendere River."

A footnote suggests that this information is from Vedel, Nos Marins à la Guerre p.135

 

 

 

Edited by michaeldr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

Thats not the point.

 

While MG's were in the Area (as at Anzac) and prepared poseys ready for them. That does not mean they were on the beaches.

 

Only once alerted, they could then move down to those prepared poseys.

 

Troops would only be committed forward once the point of attack is found. (I think the Germans called it Schurpukt)

 

As we know large numbers of the 3rd Div was butchered in the fighting here. In massed attacks to push the French off the field.

 

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, but that is the point

14 hours ago, michaeldr said:

further casualties were suffered from a machine gun on the northern flank.... [ footnote gives “This machine gun was destroyed a few minutes later by a shell from the Henri IV]

 

9 hours ago, michaeldr said:

and well covered by flanking fire from machine and other guns

we are talking about exactly the sort of flanking fire described by Kannengiesser

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

3 hours ago, stevebecker said:

on the beaches.

 

So far as I am aware, no one has suggested that the Turks placed their machine guns actually "on the beaches"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not possible. Not on your Nellie. No way mate. Didn't happen!

 

Don't tell me the French are telling porkies too! The Allies must have all got together to make sure they were ALL equally mistaken and or lying.

 

I can finally see some comedy in history.

Again; Hilarious🤣

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

 

OK I see your point, of cause what time are they saying this MG was firing at them?

 

Was it destoryed by the Battleship or did it move once it came under fire?

 

Where was this MG surpose to be, so a Ottoman Regt can be pin pointed

 

But I can't account for what these men are seeing, that does not mean what they say they are seeing is there?

 

Gilly please

 

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2018 at 07:21, gilly100 said:

Don't tell me the French are telling porkies too! The Allies must have all got together to make sure they were ALL equally mistaken and or lying.

 

The phenomenon of systematically over-estimating the presence of MGs is not uncommon. The other example is the systematic mis-representation of casualties inflicted on opponents that are hundreds of yards away. 

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, stevebecker said:

Where was this MG surpose to be, so a Ottoman Regt can be pin pointed

 

answer

On 04/09/2018 at 20:16, michaeldr said:

The British Naval OH agrees with 

On 03/09/2018 at 11:08, Rockturner said:

that the French came under, captured or destroyed at least two machine guns at Kum Kale on 25 April.

"... they came under fire from In Tepe and also from machine guns which had been concealed in a windmill at the mouth of the Mendere River."

A footnote suggests that this information is from Vedel, Nos Marins à la Guerre p.135

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two maps which may also help

The first is a crop from the British Naval OH (for location only)

The second from British OH relating to 25th April 19151586128629_MapfrmNavalOHcropKumKale.jpg.ca894d036b6f861a90143805fc1830a7.jpg2103759665_MapKumKale25APR1915frmBrishOH.jpg.d60509e3de8c390cb298add220283f7b.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's sum it up:

- I think we all agree on there were no MGs directly opposed French landing/No MGs deployed in Kumkale Fort or on the 1 km long beach south of it (as supposed to be, imo). Only indirect intervention. MGs probably disabled within a short time by a bombardment from Henri IV. 

 

- Both Tur and Fr sources (including French CEO war diary and Turkish OH) accepts presence of MGs near the mouth of Menderes River. Both mentions a "windmill."

BUT interestingly, regarding to position of MGs, French CEO war diary saying "left bank" (i.e. west of the river) while Turkish OH saying "east of the river." From Fr WD:

 

1.JPG.a26dd7a6f1d3c1276c09420df05455be.JPG

 

"Elles se trouvent immédiatement en butte (...) au tir des mitrailleuses installées dans un des moulins qui s'élèvent à l'embouchure du Mendere Chai (rive gauche)."

 

Presence of MGs at the mouth of Menderes River is almost certain. At this point, although it is necessary to examine the war diary of 31st Regt (a hard row to hoe), I think we will have exact location of MG(s) when we found the location of that/those windmill(s).  

 

 

Edited by emrezmen
Realized that I wrote COE instead of CEO (Corps Expéditionnaire d'Orient). Corrected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robert Dunlop said:

 

The phenomenon of systematically over-estimating the presence of MGs is not uncommon. The other example is the systematic mis-representation of casualties inflicted on opponents that are hundreds of yards away. 

 

Robert

Yeah all good there Robert, but it's those "imaginative" scoundrel Aussie soldiers (decorated at that) that actually saw/manhandled/captured and turfed mgs that really annoy me. How can we trust ANYTHING these bloody colonials say about anything? Oh and Brit sailors and soldiers too. The ability for multiple eye witnesses to identify and explain similar events seems to have rubbed off all round. But never mind.

 

Again; hilariously hilarious!

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...