Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Discussions on the final era of the Ottoman Empire, from the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 until the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
stevebecker
Member
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 03:04
Location: Australia

Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by stevebecker » 21 Jan 2018 23:44

Mates,

A British Intell report mentions the following;

"The 9th Div formerly at Maidos and Krithia was decimated by the 30 April and (machine guns) from the "Barbarossa" were sent to that Division?

Some accounts say these (MGs) either Maxims or Hotchkiss or more possibly the Poms Poms shown with the 9th Div at Helles and at Ari Bunu were from the navy?

They also say the Ottoman Fleet was stripped of its MGs and used to form MG sections for the Army?

Have you seen any details of the use of Naval MGs at gallipoli?

Cheers

S.B

Tosun Saral
Member
Posts: 3623
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 19:32
Location: Ankara/Turkey

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by Tosun Saral » 24 Jan 2018 10:37


stevebecker
Member
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 03:04
Location: Australia

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by stevebecker » 25 Jan 2018 00:39

Tosun,

Sorry mate, that deals with the German Naval MG groups sent to chanakkale after the landings?

I was after any details on the Ottoman Navy sent to Gallipoli, possibly with the MGs stripped from the ships?

For some years he as tried to explane the many MGs reported in the landings at Anzac, where there were none, as reported in ottoman reports.

A writter for the Gallipoli Assoc called Murray wrote that the Ottoman navy was stripped of the MG's and sent to the Army, so far he can not prove that, other then the odd account showed from the 9th Div.

He evan showed an account by an Ottoman officer called Ozgen as a Lt in a MG Section at the landings. but there is no details on this officer and he is not shown in the 27th Regt?

Cheers

S.B

gilly100
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 07:11

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by gilly100 » 27 Jan 2018 13:49

Well Steve, it's a recorded interview with Peter Liddle in 1972. Ozgen said he was with his mgs on MacLagans Ridge for the Aussie landings, nothing more nothing less. So now its up to the no mg mob to shoot him down. I note you and others are not willing to offer opinion on what Weatherill and Talbot Smith did on MacLagans that early morning. Talbot Smith MID recommendation quite clear he drove enemy from a mg, while Weatherill explained the dismantling of said mg and disposing over the edge of the position. They were together at the time. Please enlighten me on our DCM winner and his scout officer. The no mg argument just gets weaker and weaker as time passes and more info comes to light. Note it is never from Turk records, but German and Aussie and Brit archives, all of which are a damn sight more OPEN than Turk archives. Please argue against that. Please explain the absolute pathetic reluctance to give any real credit to their then Allies, Germany, on their contribution. Murray's article would have given you some info you had never seen before I bet, not to mention others. Just what is locked away for good in Turk archives concerning the Germans we probably will never see.
Why is there no memorial to the Germans at Gallipoli?
Ian

stevebecker
Member
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 03:04
Location: Australia

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by stevebecker » 28 Jan 2018 02:06

Mate,

My problem with Liddle-Harts account by Capt Ozgen, relates more the lack of details given by both men. While we can agree or disagrre that Ozgen was on MacLagans, as I can find no Turkish soldier/officer gives an account using our identifications (MacLagans) he would have given the Ottoman name for the position he had his MG?

So Liddle-Hart must have translated the hill as "MacLagans" not Ozgen?

The accounts by these aussie soldiers, are your and others trying to fit the Ozgen account into what, they aussie soldiers are saying?

Lets hope the Ozgen account is correct, as it would put these other accounts out of wack?

There are a number of Ottoman accounts around that area, but none mention a MG section (2x MGs) on MacLagans. That does not mean there was no MG there, only more research needs to be done.

So while we can say the Ozgen account helps your view, there is not proof positive he was there, with supporting accounts by the Ottomans, only possibly by our accounts.

MacLagans if I am understanding it right ran off Plugge Plateau, where the account by the 2nd Platoon (under DO Muharrem WIA) from 8th Company under Capt Faik was in position and fought the first battle against the landings. No mention is made of any MG's around his position or any officer named Ozgen?

While MG's positions made have been dug and pre positioned ammo and such in place, none arrived in time before they were forced to retire. When the support of two MGs would have made the defence easier, strange they are not mentioned?

You must be right its a consperisy by the Turkish Govt to hind these MG's, I think not?

These veterns of the 57th Regt and lest so the 27th Regt, were looked on as important men after the war and there service to the country was knowaged by the Ataturk Govt, so did they down play the MG's at Anzac, possibly, as much as we up-played the MG's in our accounts?

Cheers

S.B

gilly100
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 07:11

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by gilly100 » 28 Jan 2018 03:24

Steve
At least Liddle went to Turkey to interview Turk veterans of the campaign. Liddles comment that Saral, who had a hand in writing the TOH saw no point in this and would not assist Liddle in accessing Turk archives. If it was not for the Australian Research Council stumping up over $400, 000 for the Harvey Broadbent directed translation of the TOH and other documents, we would still have next to nothing from their archives.
Plugges Plateau forms the highest part of MacLagans Ridge, with Ari Burnu Knoll down below at front, all first ridge. I would say by 1972 Ozgen was well aware the Allies had named this feature as such, and was for the benefit of Western readers and researchers. Either way, it is clearly identified, as are the weapons he had. Dismiss all you like, but I hardly see what he had to gain by saying all this if untrue and his risk of being called out by then still alive comrades. Do not forget that up to now, no one seems to have viewed Dardanelles Fortified Command diaries or documents, or any Ottoman Navy files, ships logs and so on. Yet we can view almost every available Brit and Aussie document, free and online, a telling difference to Turk archive access.
Why can you not speak to me on Weatherill and Talbot Smith evidence? How can one possibly rubbish the detailed accounts from the Brits at V Beach regarding mg fire? I do appreciate you putting your case and questions, which is better than stone silence coupled with social media slagging. How professional. Poor form indeed. Murray should be congratulated for finding new and interesting information, at considerable expense, that adds to everyone's knowledge, whether one agrees with his assertions or not. THAT would be professional.
Cheers
Ian

stevebecker
Member
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 03:04
Location: Australia

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by stevebecker » 29 Jan 2018 00:27

Mate,

"Why can you not speak to me on Weatherill and Talbot Smith evidence? "

I can say like the Ozgen account, these are also just accounts and we take there view as true.

That is not to say what they are seeing is what they saw?

Are you saying that " I would say by 1972 Ozgen was well aware the Allies had named this feature as such"

That his account was taken in 1972?

Can I say that this is fraught with danger for any account after 80 years to remember correctly?

And mate "NO" he would not called the hill he was on as MacLagans, but as the Ottoman name, even the major known Ottoman/Turkish writers still call these features by there Ottoman name not our names, even as qualitfyers?

But your right we still need more info on the defences at Anzac and Helles, Murray is doing a great job, but some of his concuions need to be rethought, as I think he draws the wrong concuions from the details he found so far.

But thats my view

Cheers

S.B

gilly100
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 07:11

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by gilly100 » 30 Jan 2018 01:24

The reason I push Talbot Smith and Weatherill is obvious. Talbot Smith recommendation ties in with Weatherill account of driving enemy from an mg which was dismantled and thrown down a cliff face, possibly the mg Darnell from 11bn mentions jumping clean over in his account. Drake Brockman recalls hearing 10bn got a Hotchkiss gun on MacLagans. It ALL marries perfectly and with new info highlighting Turks using Hotchkiss mgs, I think is a very strong in case.
Did you know about the Hotchkiss mgs Steve? Did Roberts, Hart, Mesut?
There is still more to be learned and it will not come from the above authors as they think it's all done and dusted, case closed. The Murray Ewen article has exposed a lack of research that needs to be addressed in areas these blokes never went to. I enjoyed all their books but they are all incomplete in certain areas of research, and we know what that is.
Cheers
Ian

stevebecker
Member
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 03:04
Location: Australia

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by stevebecker » 30 Jan 2018 22:52

Mate,

Yes I gave you details on both MG Companies (Hotchkiss & Maxim) formed by the Ottomans pre war.

While the possibly of a Hotchkiss being where they (our men) say it might of been, is interesting, no such gun is recorded as captured during the fighting.

Again I can't find any Hotchkiss MG's being in front line units at Gallipoli, so its is possible they were there. But another that needs to be confirmed.

Cheers

S.B

domster
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 11:21
Location: UK

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by domster » 09 Feb 2018 14:53

stevebecker wrote: "Are you saying that " I would say by 1972 Ozgen was well aware the Allies had named this feature as such"

That his account was taken in 1972?

Can I say that this is fraught with danger for any account after 80 years to remember correctly?

S.B
Sorry to be picky Steve but if it was written in 1972 that would be 57 years after the event, not 80 years.

stevebecker
Member
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 03:04
Location: Australia

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by stevebecker » 10 Feb 2018 00:20

Mate,

Thank you, I must have misunderstood Gilly's comment.

But if so then my comment is still true, that no Ottoman Officer would call a place name on Chanakkale by some allied name, even post war.

This name was unknown to the Ottomans during the war and even if they were informed post war, then the place given must of come from Liddle-Hart not Ozgen?

I would still like to read the story behind Liddel-Harts interview with Capt Ozgen, to see what other details he gives on the action, as just this small comment by him is limited to what we can read into the fighting.

Cheers

S.B

gilly100
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 07:11

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by gilly100 » 10 Feb 2018 08:06

Steve
First ridge is first ridge, be it the Allied name or Ottoman. Why are we picking holes in this man's claim of where and when he was there? Perhaps ask why Aker claimed, while outside Maidos in olive grove, he claimed he could hear at Ari Burnu firing of rifles AND machine guns. What machine guns? There were none there other than a few rounds fired off from two pinnaces in that first wave and then nothing according to the Turk yarn. Amazing that Aker gets all credit and belief for everything he says, and Allied and German info and accounts get dismissed out of hand with no effort to study them, as well as a Turk who just happens to be exactly where no one wants him with weapons no one wants to believe were there. Incredible. Read Aker account. He basically admits to machine guns being present at Anzac, hearing them all that way back near Maidos. With one sided scrutiny like that, how can anything put up by Murray ever get real and FAIR consideration. Just punk rock social media slag offs by a pidepiper and followers. Hardly professional scrutiny.
All those books will require major rewrites once it all comes out, and slowly but surely, it is. Why so little faith in our eye witness accounts? It still amazes me how they so easily dismiss them.
Ian

stevebecker
Member
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 03:04
Location: Australia

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by stevebecker » 10 Feb 2018 23:38

Gilly,

OK lets read what Ozgen said.

He is reported by Liddle as being Mustafa Kemal's aid (ADC?) or Div HQ staff and with the MG's at Anzac?

That would make him part of the 19th Div not the 9th Div holding the beaches?

Let me say this even if correct would not place him anywhere near the front lines at the morning landings

One for Tosun to check to see what officers were with the HQ staff 19th Div April 1915?

The known 57th Regt MG Company officers were all killed during the fighting

Alaaddin Efendi 57th Regt - MG Co Lt KIA 1915
Ali Ratip Efendi 57th Regt - MG Co Lt KIA 1915
Fahreddin Hadim Efendi 57th Regt - MG Co Lt KIA 1915
Yüzbasi Emran Efendi 57th Regt - MG Co Lt KIA 1915
Hikmet Efendi 57th Regt MG Co Lt KIA 1915 from Çorlu

So what would an ADC of the 19th Div being in command of a MG section from an unknown MG Unit, with the 27th Regt 9th Div
He say's

He's in the front of what the allies called Maclagan's Ridge?

But also said his position was poor but they did inflict heavy losses on Australians?

The interview was taken by Peter Liddle as of July 1972, not the more well known author Liddle-Hart as I believed?

Capt Ozgen is shown as being with the Turkish Veterans Union, one for Tosun to check on to see what they are?

But to add the interview was by a translator

No mention of being on the first Ridge, Gilly?

How does he know the position he was in was on Maclagan's Ridge?

But Murray does not place any more of the Liddle interview as liddle then goes to the Helles Front, so was there more to this interview, did he ask Ozgen more questions about his position on Maclagan's Ridge and the officers and soldiers around him, as there is a book by an officer (8th Company 2Bn 27th Regt) on Plugges, right next to him?

These are just a few questions I have about this inter view?

These questions are to find the truth, and not take a statement by any soldier as truth. Just because a soldier said he saw such and such, does not mean what he is seeing is what he saw or heard?

We should question our soldiers, as we question our leaders or at lest is some countries, considering the problems Turkey is having now where they can't question there leader/s?

But we get away from the question, were there Naval MG's sent to the Chanakkale Front (Anzac and Helles) before the landings?

Cheers

S.B

gilly100
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 07:11

Re: Ottoman Naval MG at Gallipoli

Post by gilly100 » 01 May 2018 14:09

Even the much heralded Sefik Aker account makes reference to Oglanders OH. Just like the wobbly Turk Official History which is far from a quality work. Why won't anyone review this now English translated history?
Perhaps because it is just not that good when stacked up against Oglander and Bean.
Ian

Return to “The end of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923”