The Es Salt Raid, 30 April - 3 May

Bill Woerlee · Post by **Bill Woerlee** » 08 Mar 2007 22:44

Mates

This is the second contraversial raid which took place during the Jordan campaign. The sobriquet "contraversial" is used here as the term "raid" is used to cover two tactical defeats suffered by the allies at the hands of the Turkish forces. They are more appropriately called invasions that went wrong. The third invasion was ultimately successful culminating in Zizi and the co-operation of armed Turks and Australians against the wonderfully loyal members of the Arab rebel forces who were happy to slaughter the Turks after the fighting was done. But that was in the future.

The second raid is of greatest interest to me as it involved the 9th LHR and 12th LHR, units I am writing about.

Here is the post battle diary note of Col Scott, CO of the 9th LHR detailing his objective.

Diary

Palestine Campaign - Es Salt Raid 29/4/1918 to 7/5/1918

On the night of April 29th we left our camp 6 miles west of the Jordan and moved over to the east side of the river where we halted at about 1 a.m. on the 30/4/18, and started to move North at 3-15 a.m. parallel to the river, and moved North as fast as the country would permit along the foothills.

The eneny was holding these hills in strength and had a post of about 1000 men with guns on the Jordan so we had to pass through between two very strong enemy positions. After we had moved about 12 miles, the last 6 of which were under heavy shell fire, we turned sharp to the East; our object being to get behind the ememy and cut him off from the Hedjaz Railway while the Infantry pushed his front and tried to seize his positions where he had over 6000 troops and about 100 guns.

Below is the hand drawn map of this scheme.

Cheers

Bill

Bill Woerlee · Post by **Bill Woerlee** » 08 Mar 2007 22:47

Mates

Now that you can see the dispostions of the Turkish forces, what I am trying to do is flesh out the nebulous term "enemy" and actually insert Turkish units, drilling down as close to the name of the actual formation on the ground if possible. For example, if possible to find out which company of what battalion was assigned a specific piece of front line.

Cheers

Bill

Bill Woerlee · Post by **Bill Woerlee** » 08 Mar 2007 23:07

Again on this map, Turkish units were deployed - but which units?

stevebecker · Post by **stevebecker** » 09 Mar 2007 06:52

Mate,

The facing unit must be the 48th Div which was even at this stage a mixture of units,

These are known to be in the Area in March/April after the first defeat of the raid;

1-4/150th Regt (possible two Bns only (2-3/150th Regt)
2-3/159th Regt (24th Div)

1-3/126th Regt Regt (11th Div)
1-2/17th Regt (8th Div)
2/24th Regt (8th Div)
191st Regt (59th Div)
23rd Regt (8th Div)

3 x FA Bty's of 48th Artillery Regt

48th Div Cav Sqn
59th Div Cav Sqn

What MG units were with the 48th Div or there during that time are unknown?

How many of these units were still with the 48th Div in May 1918 is unknown and Tosun is the only man with the right info.

S.B

Tosun Saral · Post by **Tosun Saral** » 09 Mar 2007 16:17

Another place where the Turk fought like a Turk.

To Bill:300 Turkish KIA buried at Turkish Şehitlik in es Salt.

to be continued

My note: I am a Turk but I dont understand how The Turk makes impossible possible? and makes possible impossible?

Bill Woerlee · Post by **Bill Woerlee** » 10 Mar 2007 00:24

Tosun

G'day mate

There is little doubt that on both the first two invasions of Amman, the Turkish defence was excellent causing great problems for the invaders. On both occasions they Allies thought a cheap and easy victory would be secured and despatched forces accordingly. The aim was to sever the Hejaz Railway and thus bottle up 60,000 soldiers in a self imposed POW camp a la Salonika. Because of the defeats, the invasions were later revised to "raids" and thus remove any hint of defeat - after all, a raid infers a quick insertion and then a retreat. None of the orders I have seen considers a retreat until things go pear shaped. The term "raid" is applied after the defeat rather than before.

Nothing can be taken away from the Turkish soldiers or their leaders ... they performed well in the field. No report from any Allied commander says anything but a bristling admiration for the fighting qualities. Sadly for the Turks, both victories were tactical rather than strategic and they high command did not rectify the weakness which prompted the attacks in the first place. Nor did the attacks do anything to improve the co-operation between the Germans and Turks, an argument that brought with it disasterous consequences at Abu Tellul in July where the German companies were slaughtered while the Turks looked on with great glee and refused to help them - sort of pay back time. This split was rent all the way up the command structure and goes a long way to explain the poor Turkish performance in the September break out.

Cheers

Bill

stevebecker · Post by **stevebecker** » 10 Mar 2007 02:06

Bill,

Further to my last I should have remembered this, Tosun placed a map of the operations on the site during or talks of the fighting at the Ghoraniye Bridgehead and Musallabeh.

These details are mentioned by another writter, these are the units of the 8th Turkish Corps April 1918;

"The 48th Division had following units under its command during the battle: 23rd Regiment, 191st Regiment, and the 48th Artillery Regiment.

The Lütfü Mürettep Division had the 152nd Regiment, one battalion of the 146th Regiment (Germans), a Mule cavalry Regiment, and an artillery battalion.

The 3rd Cavalry Division had only three regiments: 6th Cavalry, 7th Cavalry, and 8th Cavalry (detached with the 20th Corps), plus a field battery".

But again this details are for the April battles on the Jordan but they may be likely in May also?

Tosun Saral · Post by **Tosun Saral** » 10 Mar 2007 10:02

Generalmajor Hans Guhr a.D."Als Türkischer Divizionskommandeur in Kleinasien und Palaestina" (As a Turkish Divisionscommander in Asia Minor and Palastina)

"The enemy captured Eriha on feb.21st. The Arap riot extened dangeorously into the inner parts of the country. There were the danger that the Araps pass by the side of Turks and meet the British. For that reason a 4th Army under the command of Küçük Cemal Pasha (Cemal pasha the Jr.) was established in Es Salt to conntrol the area."

"Because the enemy couldnt won againts 7th Army tried to get its victory again at east of Seria River in Tel Nimrin-Es Salt- Amman area. There the 1st Seria battle was done. The German units, the 703th battalion of Asian Corps were also took part in the battle under Capt. Grassmann. Col. Esat Bey pushed the enemy to the back of Seria River on March 31st. "

"Now the enemy concentrated all his attantion to the same area to the east of Seria River las in Mach 31st. At Tel Nimrin-Es Salt area the 2nd seria battle was done. The 24th Divizion which was at rest in Kabalan, the 3rd Cav. Division under command of Esat Bey, German Engeeners, and some units of the infantry regiment was forfarded to that area. The battle ended with a bright victory of Turks. Es Salt was taken back. The retead of English was in panic. They had heavy casualties. They left 10 artillary guns, many armoured cars, MGs and ather war material. After that it seemed to be a long silence at the region."

I will look other books also.
to be continued.

Tosun Saral · Post by **Tosun Saral** » 10 Mar 2007 10:33

During all WW1 there was a quarrel between Germans and Turks. As I wrote before Turks disliked Germans because of their arrogance. Falkenhayn was one of them. Because of his uncapacity we lost Palastiana and Syria. The other reason why we lost the WW1 was that we missed the indrustrial development at the beginning of 19th C. There is a Turkish saying "You cannot work a mill carring water with buckets from the river" We tried to work the mill with german water. At the end Falkenhayn (they say he was a German jew) lost Jerusalem. he was dismissed. von Sanders was made commander. It gave a new hope.
Guhr writes:
"With von Sanders the relations between Germans and Turks which was icy and colt turned again into sympaty. Every soldier from trenches to HQs jubeled this change with a great joy. Sanders also was hursh to Turks.He wanted more over their capacity. But he knew them very well. In every situation, at every moment he was within the Turks. The Turks know very well that their commanding officers was suffering as themselves. This non stop work and inspections gave the Turk a new astonishment."

TS's note: The weak, sick, wounded, barefoot, demoralized Turkish soldier who was fighting since 1911 won againts 7 great powers under the command of Turkish officers in the War 1919-1922.

jwsleser · Post by **jwsleser** » 11 Mar 2007 00:00

Attached is the map from the Turkish OH covering this battle. I will need to translate the pages covering this battle. Unfortunately, this volume is one of the worst of the WWI OHs in terms of details on the composition of the units. This is likely because many of the records were lost in September 1918.

Jeff

jwsleser · Post by **jwsleser** » 11 Mar 2007 05:47

RE: 48th and Lütfü Müfrezesi OB.

The 48th on 30 April had the 23rd, 191st, and 2/24th Infantry Regiments, 11th Cavalry Regiment, two quickfire artillery sections, one mountain battery (only two guns), 46th Assault Company, a divisonal engineer company and the usual support elements.

The Lütfü Müfrezesi apparently still had the 152nd and a battalion of the 146 Infantry Regiments, the Mule Mounted Regiment (Estersüvar alayi), an artillery battalion, a cavalry squadron, engineer company and the usual support units. Please note the 146th is the Ottoman regiment, not the German 146th "Masurian" Regiment. The 7th Cavalry Regiment was attached to this division on 30 April.

Attached is the 2-4 May map (follows the one above).

Jeff

stevebecker · Post by **stevebecker** » 11 Mar 2007 11:09

Mate,

Are you sure its the 146th Turkish Regt?

I have that the 145th and 146th Regt had been replaced in the 46th Div with the 17th and 191st Regts in early 1918.

As to the 11th Cav Regt, any ideas when this unit was attached to the 4th Army as I can only find this Regt with Independant Cav Bde.

S.B

Bill Woerlee · Post by **Bill Woerlee** » 11 Mar 2007 13:13

Jeff

G'day mate

Thank you so much for posting the maps - they are a great assistance to me.

Tosun

Thanks for your comments. BTW Ed Erickson of "Ordered to Die" fame would like you to get in contact with him. Let me know if you want to respond and I will send you his email address.

Cheers

Bill

jwsleser · Post by **jwsleser** » 15 Mar 2007 04:16

S.B.

RE; 146th Ottoman Regiment. The OH is clear that it wasn't the German regiment. The organization of the 48th Division is given twice during the discussion of the Es Salt battles.

RE: Organization of the 46th Division. I have been trying to pin down the organization of this division after it leaves Macedonia. It was sent to Mesopotamia and briefly appears as part of the 6th Army in August 1917. It leaves in December 1917 and is in Palestine in March 1918. Still working on this.

11th Cavalry Regiment. Good question. On my to-do list.

Jeff

domster · Post by **domster** » 15 Mar 2007 09:43

Jeff

Attached image is from an intelligence document translated from captured German original and gives 46th division OB as on the 25th July 1918.

Bill: I haven't forgotten about your images-still sorting them out!

Hope it helps

Cheers
Dominic

P.S. just noticed this might help with Steve's machine company query as well-seems to be six per company!