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

Remembered Today:

Mountain batteries at Anzac


RodB

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, alantwo said:

This is recorded in the Headquarters 2nd Australian Field Artillery Brigade War Diary for 29th November 1915.

 

'At 1214 the Turks were observed massing opposite South East angle of LONE PINE - but no attack eventuated (shells varying in size from 11 inch to 10 pounder & innumerable were poured in on this position)'.

 

Alan

 

I was going to add that this was the only reference I could find for '10 pounder' though 4th Lowland Howitzer Brigade for example on 10 August are recorded that they carried out registration on Johnston's Jolly 'in order to deal with mountain guns and smaller guns (probably Hotchkiss)'.

 

Hotchkiss is mentioned more frequently. The War Diary for 1st Australian Divisional Artillery has for example on 18th August at 1855 '‘A’ Battery 69th Brigade RFA, 'One round was fired at Hotchkiss gun on JOHNSTON’S JOLLY which had fired three rounds rapidly and damaged one of our machine guns.'

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

Nice to see some other references to these "unaccounted for in Ottoman records" weapons. Who would have thought? If one digs deep enough one will come across a good few more.

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mates,

 

We seam to be getting stuck here?

 

All I am saying is just because we are calling a gun a Hotchkiss or a 10pdr, because a shell had been seen to be such, does not mean they are?

 

As stated we or I can't understand why an officer is saying that, if not true?

 

As he said he could see where it was made and filled in India?

 

But it reminds me of the Tiger scare of WWII, where every German Tank was a Tiger, when in fact they were not?

 

Or, the Allied Airforce destoryed every German Tank around Normandy, when they hit very few?

 

But I can't fault these men for saying that, as that is what they believed they were seeing.

 

You take these as facts, but disregard the Ottomans records because they don't fit these facts?

 

But your right, I question their facts, because they don't fit the Ottoman records.

 

Purhaps we should all take a pill.

 

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, stevebecker said:

You take these as facts, but disregard the Ottomans records because they don't fit these facts?

But your right, I question their facts, because they don't fit the Ottoman records.

Purhaps we should all take a pill.

 

While your taking those pills, make sure they're the right ones

Get well soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/07/2019 at 02:36, Rockturner said:

Steve,

I am beginning to understand how this Gallipoli thread works. If the Turks make claim or say it was so, it is absolute, no questions asked. If the Turks say it wasn't so, or refuse to open their records to check their facts, it just didn't happen. If the ANZAC's or Brits make a claim or say it was it was so, it's still open to further forensic investigation.

How could I not have seen this before now.

Keep up the great work.

Rockturner

Or could it be you guys just trying/want to explain everything through British sources all the time? Or giving too much importance to personal narratives?

 

It's amazing how people are still stubbornly keeping that "Turks hiding their documents!!!" story alive. All documents on Gallipoli are open, and they're constantly publishing them. Our archives still have a long way to go when compared to British or Australian archives, but the documents are there, open and clear.  

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong: Steve, as far as I see, has a grasp of Turkish sources and is trying to think two sided. What's wrong with pointing inconsistencies between the sources of two sides?

 

On 20/07/2019 at 15:20, gilly100 said:

From Bean's Gallipoli Mission page 379 - Hotchkiss Tepe - Hotchkiss Hill - Foothill of Gun Ridge - NE of this.

 

I suppose it would be a LONG SHOT firing a Hotchkiss shell from there - Ottoman territory the whole campaign.

That is the hill on which 72nd Regt probably deployed its MG Coy during the attack on 27 April, so the naming wasn't about artillery as you implied. All guns of 72nd Regt's MG Coy were Hotchkiss' (either M1900 or M1903), a somewhat rare occurrence.

 

On 20/07/2019 at 02:15, stevebecker said:

Purhaps Emre can check his Turkish sourse to confirm some of the details here on Ottoman guns on the Anzac Front?

 

On 20/07/2019 at 10:14, michaeldr said:

then exactly which Ottoman gun in your lists above, would have been able to fire such 10-pdr shells? 

 

It's a 7.5cm Gebirgskanone (pretty much standard in 3rd Bns of Ottoman artillery regiments), I would say, if the 10 pdr guns are that of 2.9 inch. 2.9 inch=7.3 cm, pretty similar 4-5 kg shells, etc. BUT markings on the shells keep me from being certain about it.

 

I took a quick look in Turkish State Archives (where one can find lots of trade documents - see: https://katalog.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/), found quite a bit of material about orders made for new MGs, naval guns etc. to Britain between 1890-1914, but nothing about mountain guns purchased from NZ. Actually very few things there about NZ. Personally, never heard such thing and didn't see any particular mention about that type of guns in war diaries (or in other sources) that I have access. I only saw one mention to Broadwell guns in a Turkish article (Esenkaya, Ahmet. Çanakkale Cephesi’nde 5’nci Ordu Kuruluncaya Kadar Topçuluk Faaliyetleri, s.150, Çanakkale Araştırmaları Türk Yıllığı, Yıl 13, Güz 2015, Sayı 19, ss. 123-160 / Esenkaya, Ahmet. Artillery Operations on the Gallipoli Front Until the Establishment of the 5th Army, p.150, Çanakkale Studies Turkish Yearbook, Year 13, Fall 2015, Issue 19, p.123-160) with a reference to Turkish General Staff Archives (ATASE). 

01.jpg.7eb5ec7db3ea75eb45c94f4f327aeb0e.jpg

02.jpg.2048295d6af1de97be143f06a41e7914.jpg

I have two lists from war diary of 19th Div that may give us an insight regarding the guns used by Ottoman 3rd AC (Northern Group) at Anzac (between 25 April-28 June):

20190722_044240.jpg.7d9771ec967dac283fa6134a1b991682.jpg

39th Artillery Regiment, 1st Battalion: 8x Mantelli (Mantelkanone) 

2nd Battalion: 8x QF Krupp (erroneously written "Grupp") Mountain

3rd Battalion: 4x QF Krupp (erroneously written "Grupp") Mountain 

 

20190722_032801.jpg.0e5a19836a50bfabddf213990d96453d.jpg

20190722_032855.jpg.59b8d2d6eb7b22da66a5248ba318d5ae.jpg

5th Artillery Regiment, 5th Company: 4x Schneider 

9th Artillery Regiment, 3rd Company (Mountain): 6x Krupp (two under repair)

39th Artillery Regiment, 3rd Company (Mountain): 4x Tophane (basically the Krupps produced in Tophane), 4x Krupp
12cm Howitzer Squad: 2x 12cm QF

15cm Mortar Squad: 2x 15cm Krupp

 

7th and 8th Arty Regts also were there during the first days of landing. We know these two regiments well (captured guns at Lone Pine etc.) and that they had no 10 pdrs. 3rd Bn/5th Arty Regt was also there on last couple of days of April. A slight possibility, but if those shells had been fired around late April-early May, there might be 10 pdrs in that battalion. Otherwise, it seems that there were no 10 pdr guns on 19th Div front between 25 April-late June.

 

But still, while having the opinion that there were no Ottoman 10 pdrs at Anzac at all, it's impossible to deny or accept it categorially with all this at hand. Because 16th Div provided some arty support on 19th Div front, (starting from early-June) and maybe they had some 10 pdrs (I need to see their war diary which is not published).

 

I guess I can add a little more if Michael can provide further details (when and where the shells fired).

 

Cheers,

Emre

 

Edited by emrezmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Emre, you have saved me a good deal of typing.

By doing the simplest of internet searches it reveals the fact that there were ‘no Hotchkiss manufactured mountain guns’ used at the Anzac front by the armies of either side, and would also suggest that the references by numerous officers and men to Hotchkiss/10 pounder, mountain guns of the Turks, was in fact a generic term used by them that covered any mountain gun of any manufacture, and in reference to Gallipoli, the quick firing  Krupp 75mm QF [Gebirgskanone] L/14 M1904 Mountain Guns that the Turkish forces actually had firing upon the ANZAC forces.

All British Empire forces were equipped with the BL (Breech-loading) 10 pounder Mountain Gun, manufactured by the Woowich Arsenal, Elswick Ordinance Company, UK. Based upon and improved on the Hotchkiss 1.65 inch mountain gun design of Benjamin B. Hotchkiss of 1875. Introduced into service in 1903 and was the standard mountain gun used by all Imperial mountain gun batteries at Gallipoli.  The reference of the sale by New Zealand to Turkey before the war of a battery of 10 pounder mountain guns being, “England sent our old 10 pdrs and the BGRA refused to accept deliver”, is very odd. If Major Fergusson was referring to the BL 10 pounder mountain gun, then it could not be “our old 10 Pdrs”, for that was the current mountain gun in service until towards the end of 1915. His statement leaves a number of questions unanswered; at what dates were the sales to NZ and Turkey, exactly what type of mountain gun, and how many guns, did NZ supply ammunition with the sale, were the shells and propellant made in India?

Lastly the question has been asked of Steve Becker’s list of Turkish artillery as to where it shows the 10 pounder mountain guns. I am surprised that no one has noticed it on that list at post 42! The last entry of d] old guns, 7cm Gebirgeschutz M 1890; in German ‘mountain gun’, is a 70mm (10 pound) mountain gun. As to whether they were used at Anzac, maybe Emre can tell us.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“England sent our old 10 pdrs and the BGRA refused to accept deliver”, is very odd. If Major Fergusson was referring to the BL 10 pounder mountain gun, then it could not be “our old 10 Pdrs”, for that was the current mountain gun in service until towards the end of 1915.”

Jeff, 
I think that you are misinterpreting Fergusson's use of the word old (in fact he says “our old”)
I strongly suspect that he not referring to any gun pre-dating the 10-pdr BL (first introduced in 1901/2 per Maj-Gen B P Hughes) but rather that he is referring to second-hand weapons which had previously seen service in India – hence old in 'our' and Indian terms. 
This would also explain how, though they were now in the hands of others, they still came to be firing Indian ammunition.

 

 

I can add a little more if Michael can provide further details (when and where the shells fired). 
Emre,
The account [see The Gallipolian, No.85, Winter 1997] was “written early in 1916 by the late Colonel A.C.Fergusson, known to his troops as "Percussion Sahib", who commanded 21 (Kohat) Mountain Battery during the GaJlipoli campaign. It has been made available to us by his son Colonel Kerneth Fergusson to who we (the Gallipoli Association) are most grateful.” 


quote - “Yet one more yarn about our own shell being fired at us. In the very early days we were often told we were firing at our own troops. Sometimes these allegations were wrong but investigation proved bodies of our own l0 pounder shell sometimes in places where our own 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 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 at Cossipore and filled at Rawul Pindi, and the scoop of the shell showed 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 MN, 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 New Zealand. England sent our old 10 pdrs and BGRA refused to accept delivery. After a lot of correspondence England told him to sell them and credit them with the proceeds. New Zealand sold them to Turkey and here they were being used against us.” 


Campbell was I/C the Centre Section, 21st (Kohat) Mountain Battery, and the only references to their position relate to early in the campaign and are given thus:-

Map Gallipoli 1/40,000 - Sq. 224.M.1 (O.P.M.5
Map Gallipoli 1/20,000 Sq. 80.V.5-8 

There are however further mentions, such as:-
“Campbell …. his Section chiefly fired between Quinn's and Pope's Posts, and between Pope's and Walker's Ridge” (19th May 1915)
And another:- “The Centre Section under Campbell and Trenchard never got a chance of doing anything spectacular, but did sterling good work and were crumped more than either of the others. The Australians said they could never have stopped in Quinn's Post if it had not been for them” 

 

[Regarding Col Fergusson: 
“Arthur Fergusson was born on ,2 July 1871, educated at Haileybury, and commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Royal Artillery in 1891.  …  … In 1892 he sailed for India where his service included the Tirah Campaign and some 18 months at Chitral. He commanded the Kohat Mountain Battery (Frontier Force) for eleven years 'and was one of the band of fine Indian Mountain Artillery commanders of that period whose names embellish the history of the Frontier.' 
The Battery went to Egypt in 1915 and helped repulse the Turks in Sinai before landing in Gallipoli. Here "his cheerful bearing and wise counsel are well remembered as an inspiration both to artillery and infantry alike. In 1916 he took the Indian Mountain Brigade to Mesopotamia, later returning to Palestine, and in 1919 participated in the Third Afghan War. He retired with the rank of Colonel in 1922 having gained the DSO in 1917, the CMG in 1918 and seven Mentions in Despatches. 
Colonel Fergusson died in July 1958.”]

 

best regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify why New Zealand moved on these mountain guns. It was because they had ordered 4.5" howitzers, but were sent 10 pounders.

And if the Turkish Archives are working through the back log as Emre suggests, can someone ask them to get a shuffle on and release the Dardanelles Fortified Command records.

Rockturner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Michael,

your proposition as to the use of “our old guns” by Colonel Fergusson being the older Indian 10 pounders seems quite likely, as does the suggestion that reason for New Zealand refusing to take delivery was due to the order being for 4.5 howitzers, but the questions I have put still remain unanswered, plus, just when was ‘long after’? 

 

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attached sketch, which I've posted previously in another topic, indicates the positions of the artillery at Anzac in July. Major Campbell had left 21st (Kohat) Mountain Battery on 8th June to take command of 26th (Jacob's) Mountain Battery following the death of their CO Major Bruce. Campbell's position as CO of CX Section was ultimately taken by Captain Trenchard. Trenchard's position is indicated on the sketch. As it happens Trenchard was taken to a hospital ship on 17th July, his place being taken by Captain Hoskyn.

 

As far as I can tell the battery remained at 224 M1, but on 12th August CX Section was ordered to move one gun to 80 B7, which they did on the following day. I assume this would place the gun in the region of No.2 Outpost.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Alan

 

 

 

 

Artillery Positions Anzac.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mates,

 

Thank you all for the imput and details.

 

Erme I did notice you gave this;

 

"That is the hill on which 72nd Regt probably deployed its MG Coy during the attack on 27 April, so the naming wasn't about artillery as you implied. All guns of 72nd Regt's MG Coy were Hotchkiss' (either M1900 or M1903), a somewhat rare occurrence."

 

I did read somewhere that the Ottomans deplyed no Hotchkiss MG companies to the Gallipoli Area, for the life of me I can't find that reference?

 

Its good the see that they were and makes sence, since there were both types of MG companies in the Ottoman Army.

 

Ottoman Hotchkiss MG companies were larger then the Maxim MG company, having more men and equiptment.

 

Cheers

 

S.B

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to Alan's very useful map in post No.60,

below is a crop of the 1:20,000 sheet titled Korija Dere

80 V can be seen in the centre

80 V 5 is next to the tail of the 'g' in Maclagan's

and 80 V 8 is immediately beneath 5

 

1083143611_Map20000Anzac80V5-8.jpg.dcf636976c6bedcfe14746159732007a.jpg

 

[The map appears on the WFA disc 'Mapping the Front - Gallipoli']

 

EDIT to add: I've also looked at the 1;40,000 map but I don't think that really helps here

Edited by michaeldr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/07/2019 at 04:28, emrezmen said:

I guess I can add a little more if Michael can provide further details (when and where the shells fired).

 

Emre,

 

I suppose that actually, our maps of where the Centre Section was positioned, are not really going to be of much help to you.

What you need to know is where the shells with the Indian markings fell.

Alas, that is not specifically identified. All that we have to go on in that respect is

On 23/07/2019 at 12:18, michaeldr said:

Campbell …. his Section chiefly fired between Quinn's and Pope's Posts, and between Pope's and Walker's Ridge” (19th May 1915)
And another:- “The Centre Section under Campbell and Trenchard never got a chance of doing anything spectacular, but did sterling good work and were crumped more than either of the others. The Australians said they could never have stopped in Quinn's Post if it had not been for them” 

 

Was there an Ottoman gun firing on these particular Anzac positions which could have used the Indian 10-pdr shells?

 

regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/07/2019 at 04:28, emrezmen said:

Or could it be you guys just trying/want to explain everything through British sources all the time? Or giving too much importance to personal narratives?

 

It's amazing how people are still stubbornly keeping that "Turks hiding their documents!!!" story alive. All documents on Gallipoli are open, and they're constantly publishing them. Our archives still have a long way to go when compared to British or Australian archives, but the documents are there, open and clear.  

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong: Steve, as far as I see, has a grasp of Turkish sources and is trying to think two sided. What's wrong with pointing inconsistencies between the sources of two sides?

Emre, please don't be too concerned about this at the moment. We went through a similar phase with German sources as well, soon after the Great War Forum was created. There was a very significant level of concern about the validity of any German material, particularly when it dealt with the same incidents or battles as British sources. A good example was the Battle of Mons, the first major battle between British and German forces. Multiple British sources talk about the Germans advancing in close order formation and being shot down in huge numbers by British musketry. German sources provide a very different picture. Casualties were very light, except in one or two units, and the Germans broke through and captured Mons during the battle. Counter-arguments raged at times, with German records being accused of influence by Hitler and the Nazis, German lists of killed and wounded not being accurate, etc, etc. Thankfully, there is a much wider acceptance that German sources have a tremendous amount to offer but it took a lot of quiet determined effort, not least on the part of Jack Sheldon, Ralph Whitehead, Mick Forsyth and others to achieve this.

 

The early comparisons of the different accounts revealed how important it is to compare as many different types of sources as well. Anecdotal accounts needed to be set alongside contemporaneous records, such as war diaries where these exist, regimental histories, official histories, etc, etc. All types of accounts are subject to errors of interpretation, missing or incomplete information, etc. Cross-comparisons enable a more complete picture to emerge but the complete story will never be fully known.

 

It is wonderful to have inputs from the likes of yourself on the Ottoman perspective, thank you!

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Robert Dunlop said:

All types of accounts are subject to errors of interpretation, missing or incomplete information, etc. Cross-comparisons enable a more complete picture to emerge but the complete story will never be fully known.

On 23/07/2019 at 04:28, emrezmen said:

What's wrong with pointing inconsistencies between the sources of two sides?

 

 

This is after all, what this forum is about - cross-comparisons & pointing (out) inconsistencies

Edited by michaeldr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, stevebecker said:

I hope this works but here is a map on Ottoman Artillery at Anzac

 

1494347587_MapOttomanArtilleryatAnzac.jpg.8b907dbe4ec1b2d0f8c43dd86dce6b7e.jpg

 

The sheet mentions 8 X 75mm Mountain Guns

but not those mentioned by Jeff

On 23/07/2019 at 06:10, Jeff Pickerd said:

7cm Gebirgeschutz M 1890; in German ‘mountain gun’, is a 70mm (10 pound) mountain gun

 

I admit to the ignorance of an infantryman and ask:-

Jeff seems to be saying that the 70mm = 10-pdr ….......What British classification does the 75mm equal and could it have fired the Indian ammunition in question?

Which was firing on Anzac positions, the 70mm or the 75mm?

Can their positions be identified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have attached an image from the Şevki Paşa maps upon which I have identified the positions of the Turkish gun pits marked thereon (apologies for any I have missed). I have been trying to ascertain the Turkish units and I think the group at the top of the image would probably fit being part of the 19th Division, as these are shown on the map Steve has located, as being due East of Plugge's Plateau. The ones below would therefore be part of the 16th Division assuming the presentation and my interpretation to be correct, but I would appreciate any thoughts. If anyone is interested I can add the Allied gun pits. Steve's map looks as though it is part of a Powerpoint presentation I just wondered if there were any notes or a script to go with it.

 

I understand that a 10 pounder had a calibre of 69.8mm and the 13 pounder 76.2mm. It would be interesting to learn whether a 10 pounder shell could have been fired through any metric equivalent or if it is impossible.

 

Alan

 

2093898044_TurkishArtillery01.jpg.13e1c8e72f3ec01176ab6b1ecbf62b17.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

 

That's the question.

 

Are we reading into what the officer is saying, when all he said he found a shell filled in India?

 

Did Turkey buy much Artillery Ammo before the war, and did any of it come from the British or another country with British ties?

 

Was the guns sent to NZ from Britain, also sent ammo from India, and did they also send that ammo to Turkey?

 

How a shell with English writing and filled in India, could have come from many sources, sure possibly from these NZ guns, but that's not the only reason.

 

A note on the Ottoman Artillery Map

 

Ottoman Artillery Batteries 

 

Field and Mountain Batteries were 4x guns per battery (under 100mm)

 

Heavy Batteries 2x guns per battery (generaly over 100mm)


S.B

Edited by stevebecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

 

From what I can find of the Turkish Field and Mountain guns that fired upon the Anzac sector at Gallipoli, all the 7.5 cm guns were using QF ammunition. It would appear that none would have been able to fire the BL 10 pound shell, as that shell was not contained within a cartridge case and need a separate propellant charge to be loaded into the gun.

As yet I can find no evidence of the 7 cm Gebirgsgeschutz M 1890 M99 (mountain gun) having been used against the Anzac sector. That gun also appears to have been using shell in case ammunition.

 

With regard to the Turkish Gun emplacements at Ariburnu, and apologies to Steve for posting his old work before telling him I am doing so. The map references relate to the GALLIPOLI 2 Squared map 1/40.000.

 

Jeff

 

TURKISH ARTILLERY AT ANZAC

238 v1. Battleship Hill 2 field guns.

238 m7. Baby 700 2 x 75mm field guns 4/5, 5/5.

238 q4. Baby 700 1 x 8.2 heavy howitzer.

238 v8. Baby 700 1 x 150mm howitzer.

224 d2. f1. Chessboard/Battleship Hill 5 field guns.

Nothing.

224 j2. j5. Chessboard 2 mountain guns.

224 j4, j5. Chessboard 2 x 75mm mountain guns. 7/8. 6/8.

224 h2. h5. Johnstones Jolly 2 mountain guns.

Nothing.

224 n5. n8. Lonesome Pine 2 mountain guns.

224 o5. Lonesome Pine 1 x 75mm mountain gun. 8/9.

224 f6. k5. Scrubby Knoll 2 field guns.

224 k8. Scrubby knoll 1x 75mm mountain gun. 7/7.

224 p2. Gun Ridge North 2 field guns.

224 p2. p4. Gun Ridge North 2 x 75mm mountain guns. 7/5. 8/7.

224 t6. t8. Gun Ridge North 2 x 75mm mountain guns. 8/2. 6/5.

224 u3. Gun Ridge North 1 x 120mm howitzer.

250 o7. t1. Anafarta/Salt Lake Ridge 9" & 4.7" field guns.

Nothing.

212 r6. d4. 224x. Gun Ridge 6 field guns.

212 i3. d7. Gun Ridge 2 x 75mm field guns. 2/16. 1/16.

212 i5. Gun Ridge 1 x 75mm mountain gun. 7/2.

212 v5. Olive Grove 6 field guns.

212 a6. Olive Grove 1 x 75mm mountain gun. 6/2.

212 r5 Olive Grove 2 x 150mm field guns.

203 o5. Olive Grove 6" howitzer.

203 b5. 1 x 150mm howitzer. 1 x 8.7 Krupp mantel gun. 1 x 75mm field gun.

202 t4. Olive Grove 2 field guns.

202 t4. Olive Grove 1 x 150mm field gun. 1 x 12omm field gun.

194 o3. or h3. 303 x. Olive Grove 2 heavy guns.

194 r2. Olive Grove East 2 x 150 mm howitzers.

211 p8. Kaba Tepe 2 field guns.

212 l5. Kaba Tepe 1 x 150 mm howitzer.

So where was the Corps guns for the 3rd Corps after the landing?

3rd (105 mm) Obüs/How Bn -2x batteries each with 4 obüs guns

Its clear that this Artillery Bn was broken up and the guns disperced over the battle front from the north around Baby 700 to the Olive Grove, likewise the 5th Army Battery;

5th Obüs/How Bty (2x 15cm Krupp K16 field guns)

was also broken up with a gun possibly at Kaba Tepe and the other at Anafarta or possibly both at Anafarta and another gun for another battery at Kaba Tepe.

With the arrival of Turkish reinforcements in May 1915 the units on the Anzac front were grouped at the Northern Groups and contained new Div's as the 2nd Div, 5th Div and 16th Div along with the 9th Div and 19th Div.

These formations came from a number of Corps, but no mention is made of any Corps batteries/Bn's arriving with them, only one 120mm batrery and a 210mm battery possibly from the moblie 8th Heavy or Coastal Artillery Regt from the Narows defence.

Where did these guns go?

May to July 1915 these are recorded by Jeff's and the Artillery map;

238 q4. Baby 700 1 x 8.2 heavy howitzer.

238 v8. Baby 700 1 x 150mm howitzer

224 u3. Gun Ridge North 1 x 120mm howitzer

250 o7. t1. Anafarta/Salt Lake Ridge 9" & 4.7" field guns

212 r5 Olive Grove 2 x 150mm field guns.

203 o5. Olive Grove 6" howitzer.
203 b5. 1 x 150mm howitzer. 1 x 8.7 Krupp mantel gun.

202 t4. Olive Grove 1 x 150mm field gun. 1 x 12omm field gun.

194 o3. or h3. 303 x. Olive Grove 2 heavy guns.
194 r2. Olive Grove East 2 x 150 mm howitzers.

212 l5. Kaba Tepe 1 x 150 mm howitzer

(225 & 226 2 x 6" or 1 x 8.2")

So what do we end up with;

one 9"

one 8.7 Mantel

one 8.2" (or two)

eight 150mm

two 120mm

one 4.7"

one 6" (or three)

two heavy guns possibly 105mm

possibly 17 Heavy guns

This should give us at lest 1x 210mm Bty (8th Heavy Arty Regt?) with its 2 guns at;

238 q4. Baby 700 1 x 8.2 heavy howitzer,and

250 o7. t1. Anafarta/Salt Lake Ridge 9"

And 1x120mm Bty (8th Heavy Arty Regt?) with its 2 guns at;

224 u3. Gun Ridge North 1 x 120mm howitzer

202 t4. Olive Grove 1 x 12omm field gun.

5th Obüs/How Bty (2x 15cm Krupp K16 field guns)

where its guns are is unknown but possibly 212 r5 Olive Grove 2 x 150mm field guns

3rd (105 mm) Obüs/How Bn -2x batteries each with 4 obüs guns (total 8 guns)

There are only 2 guns 105mm marked on the maps which would not account for all these guns?

was this a mixed Artillery Bn with 105mm and other types (like one 4.7" )

But what about the 8 x 150mm guns, and (6") guns

As yet no possible unit is known unless these guns were part of 3rd Obus/How Bn and their caliber was not 150mm or 6" but lower or they were a mixed Arty Bn?

The other gun not found was this one?

one 8.7 Mantel

Its known that the Turks had at least 130 - 8,7cm L/24 FK at the start of the war but not what unit it was in but its possible these were just field guns?

Cheers

S.B

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/07/2019 at 00:31, stevebecker said:

Are we reading into what the officer is saying, when all he said he found a shell filled in India?

 

Well Steve, some of us are reading, but others appear to be merely scanning, skipping and glancing, without taking full stock of exactly what Fergusson actually wrote.

I refer to my earlier post No.57 above

 “Yet one more yarn about our own shell being fired at us. In the very early days we were often told we were firing at our own troops. Sometimes these allegations were wrong but investigation proved bodies of our own l0 pounder shell sometimes in places where our own 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 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 at Cossipore and filled at Rawul Pindi, and the scoop of the shell showed that it had come from right outside our line.

 

Please note the use of the word 'often' and the plurals which follow

 

 

 

My thanks to all those members who have taken this subject seriously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the underscoring helps Michael, but in lieu of that, perhaps Mark Twain and his reference to "no amount of evidence...? Clearly Fergusson was onto something and chose to write about it. All the other stuff put up over the years gives rise to valid questions being asked about other guns and machine guns. When Murray Ewen found new evidence for his mg argument, it was either deafening silence or outright scoffing because Ottoman records don't record it. Bit of digging in German archives threw up some new stuff that no one bothered to look at of course. Now, all you experts on unchallengeable Ottoman records, can you assist putting up all the DFC stuff? That might fill in a few holes. The moderators are too trigger happy these days. Open up the MG thread. There is some excellent material on it put up by all and sundry which adds to everyone's learning.

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

 

Maybe you are not reading?

 

As I wrote

 

"Are we reading into what the officer is saying, when all he said he found a shell filled in India?

 

Did Turkey buy much Artillery Ammo before the war, and did any of it come from the British or another country with British ties?

 

Was the guns sent to NZ from Britain, also sent ammo from India, and did they also send that ammo to Turkey?

 

How a shell with English writing and filled in India, could have come from many sources, sure possibly from these NZ guns, but that's not the only reason.

 

Cheers


S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stevebecker said:

Maybe you are not reading?

 

As I wrote

 

"Are we reading into what the officer is saying, when all he said he found a shell filled in India?

 

Well, that just goes to show, doesn't it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎26‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 06:08, Jeff Pickerd said:

Alan,

 

From what I can find of the Turkish Field and Mountain guns that fired upon the Anzac sector at Gallipoli, all the 7.5 cm guns were using QF ammunition. It would appear that none would have been able to fire the BL 10 pound shell, as that shell was not contained within a cartridge case and need a separate propellant charge to be loaded into the gun.

As yet I can find no evidence of the 7 cm Gebirgsgeschutz M 1890 M99 (mountain gun) having been used against the Anzac sector. That gun also appears to have been using shell in case ammunition.

 

With regard to the Turkish Gun emplacements at Ariburnu, and apologies to Steve for posting his old work before telling him I am doing so. The map references relate to the GALLIPOLI 2 Squared map 1/40.000.

 

Jeff

 

TURKISH ARTILLERY AT ANZAC

238 v1. Battleship Hill 2 field guns.

238 m7. Baby 700 2 x 75mm field guns 4/5, 5/5.

238 q4. Baby 700 1 x 8.2 heavy howitzer.

238 v8. Baby 700 1 x 150mm howitzer.

224 d2. f1. Chessboard/Battleship Hill 5 field guns.

Nothing.

224 j2. j5. Chessboard 2 mountain guns.

224 j4, j5. Chessboard 2 x 75mm mountain guns. 7/8. 6/8.

224 h2. h5. Johnstones Jolly 2 mountain guns.

Nothing.

224 n5. n8. Lonesome Pine 2 mountain guns.

224 o5. Lonesome Pine 1 x 75mm mountain gun. 8/9.

224 f6. k5. Scrubby Knoll 2 field guns.

224 k8. Scrubby knoll 1x 75mm mountain gun. 7/7.

224 p2. Gun Ridge North 2 field guns.

224 p2. p4. Gun Ridge North 2 x 75mm mountain guns. 7/5. 8/7.

224 t6. t8. Gun Ridge North 2 x 75mm mountain guns. 8/2. 6/5.

224 u3. Gun Ridge North 1 x 120mm howitzer.

250 o7. t1. Anafarta/Salt Lake Ridge 9" & 4.7" field guns.

Nothing.

212 r6. d4. 224x. Gun Ridge 6 field guns.

212 i3. d7. Gun Ridge 2 x 75mm field guns. 2/16. 1/16.

212 i5. Gun Ridge 1 x 75mm mountain gun. 7/2.

212 v5. Olive Grove 6 field guns.

212 a6. Olive Grove 1 x 75mm mountain gun. 6/2.

212 r5 Olive Grove 2 x 150mm field guns.

203 o5. Olive Grove 6" howitzer.

203 b5. 1 x 150mm howitzer. 1 x 8.7 Krupp mantel gun. 1 x 75mm field gun.

202 t4. Olive Grove 2 field guns.

202 t4. Olive Grove 1 x 150mm field gun. 1 x 12omm field gun.

194 o3. or h3. 303 x. Olive Grove 2 heavy guns.

194 r2. Olive Grove East 2 x 150 mm howitzers.

211 p8. Kaba Tepe 2 field guns.

212 l5. Kaba Tepe 1 x 150 mm howitzer.

So where was the Corps guns for the 3rd Corps after the landing?

3rd (105 mm) Obüs/How Bn -2x batteries each with 4 obüs guns

Its clear that this Artillery Bn was broken up and the guns disperced over the battle front from the north around Baby 700 to the Olive Grove, likewise the 5th Army Battery;

5th Obüs/How Bty (2x 15cm Krupp K16 field guns)

was also broken up with a gun possibly at Kaba Tepe and the other at Anafarta or possibly both at Anafarta and another gun for another battery at Kaba Tepe.

With the arrival of Turkish reinforcements in May 1915 the units on the Anzac front were grouped at the Northern Groups and contained new Div's as the 2nd Div, 5th Div and 16th Div along with the 9th Div and 19th Div.

These formations came from a number of Corps, but no mention is made of any Corps batteries/Bn's arriving with them, only one 120mm batrery and a 210mm battery possibly from the moblie 8th Heavy or Coastal Artillery Regt from the Narows defence.

Where did these guns go?

May to July 1915 these are recorded by Jeff's and the Artillery map;

238 q4. Baby 700 1 x 8.2 heavy howitzer.

238 v8. Baby 700 1 x 150mm howitzer

224 u3. Gun Ridge North 1 x 120mm howitzer

250 o7. t1. Anafarta/Salt Lake Ridge 9" & 4.7" field guns

212 r5 Olive Grove 2 x 150mm field guns.

203 o5. Olive Grove 6" howitzer.
203 b5. 1 x 150mm howitzer. 1 x 8.7 Krupp mantel gun.

202 t4. Olive Grove 1 x 150mm field gun. 1 x 12omm field gun.

194 o3. or h3. 303 x. Olive Grove 2 heavy guns.
194 r2. Olive Grove East 2 x 150 mm howitzers.

212 l5. Kaba Tepe 1 x 150 mm howitzer

(225 & 226 2 x 6" or 1 x 8.2")

So what do we end up with;

one 9"

one 8.7 Mantel

one 8.2" (or two)

eight 150mm

two 120mm

one 4.7"

one 6" (or three)

two heavy guns possibly 105mm

possibly 17 Heavy guns

This should give us at lest 1x 210mm Bty (8th Heavy Arty Regt?) with its 2 guns at;

238 q4. Baby 700 1 x 8.2 heavy howitzer,and

250 o7. t1. Anafarta/Salt Lake Ridge 9"

And 1x120mm Bty (8th Heavy Arty Regt?) with its 2 guns at;

224 u3. Gun Ridge North 1 x 120mm howitzer

202 t4. Olive Grove 1 x 12omm field gun.

5th Obüs/How Bty (2x 15cm Krupp K16 field guns)

where its guns are is unknown but possibly 212 r5 Olive Grove 2 x 150mm field guns

3rd (105 mm) Obüs/How Bn -2x batteries each with 4 obüs guns (total 8 guns)

There are only 2 guns 105mm marked on the maps which would not account for all these guns?

was this a mixed Artillery Bn with 105mm and other types (like one 4.7" )

But what about the 8 x 150mm guns, and (6") guns

As yet no possible unit is known unless these guns were part of 3rd Obus/How Bn and their caliber was not 150mm or 6" but lower or they were a mixed Arty Bn?

The other gun not found was this one?

one 8.7 Mantel

Its known that the Turks had at least 130 - 8,7cm L/24 FK at the start of the war but not what unit it was in but its possible these were just field guns?

Cheers

S.B

 

 

 

Many thanks Jeff for your response and my thanks to Steve for his contribution to your post.

 

I have tried to overlay the 1:40,000 maps over the Peninsular but they are somewhat inaccurate. However, the positions mentioned by Steve in 224 K and U seem to at least partially tie in with the image of the Şevki Paşa extract I posted above. Others to the Northeast in 238 appear fairly close to the gun pits identified on the Şevki Paşa maps, but I need to look at them more closely.

 

It seems to me reasonable to assume that if the New Zealand Artillery sold some of ‘our old guns’ to the Turkish army that there would have been a certain amount of ammunition sold with them. But if there is presently no record of these mountain guns in this theatre and given the guns you mention could not fire this type of shell found by Campbell; the next thing to consider would be whether the shell was simply a wayward shell from the Indian Mountain Brigade or could it only be ammunition unique to the sale of the NZ guns.

 

The attached image is from the CRA (GHQ) War Diary and it indicates the ANZAC gun positions along with the IMB; North is to the left of the image. The zones of fire are shown for the majority of IMB batteries, Trenchard, previously mentioned in this topic, is bottom centre for example. No date is given for the sketch but it must be after 27th June which is the date that Captain Jopp is attached to the IMB from the Australian Field Artillery along with an interpreter Private Brereton.

 

As Michael has indicated there were concerns that shells from the Brigade were landing in Australian lines. In the War Diary for the 21st Kohat Mountain Artillery Brigade one such incident is recorded on the 5th May where ‘Very few rounds however were fired owing to scare that we were killing our own men’. The War Diary does go on to state that the claims were unfounded, albeit without explanation and the incident is [Edit: the incident is mentioned] mentioned in the 7th Indian Mountain Artillery Brigade HQ War Diary for that day.

 

It is unfortunate that Major Campbell’s location when he found the shell is not given, or the date. It might have helped in interpreting the direction of the scoop mentioned by Michael against the attached map and whether a ‘short’ was a possibility, or indeed it may have confirmed Major Fergusson’s assertion that the located shell could not have come from the Brigade. An added difficulty to is subject is that Campbell did move to several different battery positions within the Brigade covering for Officers whilst they were sick, he himself was taken to a hospital ship on 4th July, thus I think this point will be difficult to determine without further information.

 

The other possible avenue to explore might be to learn whether this type of marking could be tied in uniquely with any ammunition that may have been sold by the NZ Artillery with the guns, or was it merely the same ammunition used by the IMB during their time on the Peninsular, hopefully someone may have the answer at least to the latter.

 

Alan

 

 

891757050_ANZACGunPositions.jpg.26d0952dba4a215427a0dab68a245189.jpg

Edited by alantwo
See edit above. The text should have read is mentioned. Apologies for any confusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...