Was gas ever used at Gallipoli?

I've come across primary documents of a request for gas respirators in May 1915 based on intellignece of potential Turkish capability to manufacture.

The War Office replied-also in May 1915-- that 50000 respirators were sent and that another 50000 helmets would follow.

So was the threat real and has anyone come across an indication that these were actually issued on the Pennisula?


Joe Sweeney

Joe,

I feel certain that this has cropped-up before but the search engine here is not too keen on words of just three letters

Gas helmets were issued. There is a good description in ‘Solo Saga’ by Reginald Gale which is held by the Admiralty Library, Great Scotland Yard, London [ref A2021. Ca3376] This was reproduced in Len Sellers magazine ‘RND’ Issue No.15 December 2000

“On 1st July [1915] we were still standing by and consequently could only leave camp after permission and one or two at a time. It was about this time that we were issued with gas helmets and given instruction and drill with them. They were really bags made of flannel which pulled completely over the head and tucked inside the tunic. There was a mica panel and mouth piece with an external rubber tube.”

Gale was with the RND Divisional Engineers – Signals, at Helles at this time

Most historians feel sure that gas was never used on Gallipoli

Regards
Michael D.R.

Joe,

The foll was RD’s post on a related thread


Robert Dunlop Posted: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:39:47 +0000

QUOTE (michaeldr @ Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:21:33 +0000)
If get a response from Dr. Sheffy then can you please oblige and let me have details


Michael

As requested, the following reply was received from Dr Sheffy:

'The EEF used chemical shells against Ottoman forces during the Palestine Campaign on two occasions: on the 2nd Battle of Gaza, 19 April 1917 (about
1,600 shells of asphyxiating and tear gases) and on the 3rd Battle of Gaza,
30 October-4 November 1917, (about 10,000 shells, mostly containing deadly
gas).

Palestine was only one of four Middle Eastern fronts, in which British
forces were equipped with chemical weapons. On Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia
they never used them. In Salonika they did, even before employing gas in
Palestine. The story of the decision-making process (combining political,
ethical and military aspects) which ultimately led to the use of chemical
weapons in the Middle East, makes a fascinating reading.'

I believe that Dr Sheffy is preparing articles for publication.

I am pretty sure there is an article on the use of gas in a copy of the 'Gallipolean' (journal of Gallipoli association) in the 70s or 80s. I have these stored away at present, but if I can find it, I will mail you a copy Joe.

Garden, a company commander from the Special Brigade, transferred to Mudros and Egypt, along with 3000 cylinders containing chlorine. The conditions on Gallipoli were totally unsuited to chlorine gas cloud attacks. The gas was heavier than air and would have 'flowed' down the gulleys and ravines. There was a great fear that the Turks, who enjoyed the advantage of the high ground, would launch attacks down onto the allies. Garden ended up rejoining the Special Brigade again.

Robert

Sorry, I should have added that Foulkes mentions the Ottoman Army being supplied with gas by the Germans. So the threat was real (or there was a real threat, depending on whether Foulkes' sources were correct).

Robert

Everyone thanks.

For some reason I had never associated Gallipoli with gas or the threat of its use.

The request for the respirators and helmets came as a bit of a surprise.

Joe Sweeney

Joe,

for the use of Chlorine gas in Flasks, not in shell Gallipoli wasn't a good place.
It is at the coastline and the wind mostly blows from the sea to the land, so direstion Johny Turk... And i never saw Turkish gas masks. So i think the Ottoman empire didn't want to invest in gas masks. I never saw a mask on picture or even not a container for some gas protection.

Maybe the tried a few things, like paul thinks, but i doubt that there were real gas attacks as part of an offensive.

And I recall that a few books on the topic said that the German didn't supplied the Turks with gas shells because they didn't trust them enough.

This is my little contribution.

By the way, if anyone should have a picture of a Turk with gas protection... I am VERY interested to see it.

greets,

bk

Frederick Gibbon in 42nd Division history does not mention gasmasks on Gallipoli, he mentions the issue of the "strange new" box respirator in France later.
There is a brief mention of the Turks releasing what appears to be an "aromatic" lacrimatory gas, which did not affect the lungs, into a British mine gallery near the Gridiron, on 25/11/1915.

The NZ official history also makes mention of flannel type gas masks issued due to a percieved gas threat. No use was made of them though.

The Turks used "Tear Gas" on several occasions, but its effects were minimal. The Allies, for reasons stated above, did not use gas.
Respirators were issued in limited quantities to the Allies for contingencies. There was never a complete issue, so many "Tommys" and polius had no protection.
The British did intend to attempt to use poisonous gas, but by the time the special gas detail and their equipment had arrived, the evacuation had been planned so the idea was scrubbed. The crew and cyclinders were sent back to the Western Front.
This is from "Facing Armageddon" but I don't recall the chapter or page.
DrB

I wonder what evidence you have about Turks using 'tear gas'.
Are you sure that you not confound the effect of the some obus impact with a special tear gas? In their first experience, many allied soldiers believed also that the Turks using tear gas. That's not true. This is the greenish yellow smoke of the obus (from Turkish howitzers).

The British did not use gas during the Gallipoli campaign. As mentioned above, a detachment of the Special Brigade was sent, but then returned home. Asquith specfically forbade the use of gas in this theatre on the grounds that the Turks had not used it. His letter on the subject can be found at the National Archive.

Terry Reeves

baby700....I used the wrong source. See pg. 140 and 142 for Turkish use of tear gas in "Gully Ravine" by Stephen Chambers.
RodB mentions its use in a mine tunnel, so it could not have been from a shell. The Surrey Yeomanry and Munster Fusiliers both report tear gas being used.
Apparently the hypo type mask was issued in small quantites, but neither the Allies nor the Turks employed the poisonous stuff.
DrB

DrB... I checked the Chambers book. So:

1. The quote in page 140 from Frederick Gibbon's 'The 42nd Division (14-18) is: 'injected through a hole in one of the galleries an aromatic gas, which affected the eyes, but not the lungs."
. This is fantaisist. The Turks had no such an equipment, even after 27 novembre (date of the first German tecnical package reached to the peninsula)
. There was no underground gallery system in Helles sector such as in Anzac. Only mine tunnels (or deep dugouts). The most active part of this system was between Fusilier and Kecidere (branch of the Zigindere (Gully Ravine), hold by the Turks).
. To use gas, poisonous or lachrymogene, underground or above the ground was not possible, because the distance between the trenches in that sector was only 50-60 metres.
. Also in such a windy and especially changeable windy conditions like Gallipoli, even if the distance between the two sides was sufficient enough to use the gas; it would'nt be rational.
. We have the full list of all the equipment of 5th Turkish army in Peninsula. You can check vol:10 of Turkish Official History (Logistics). There is no any sort of gas, cylinders, etc.
. I checked also the records of 42nd Turkish Division (Yes, it is a coincidence that the Turkish division is also 42nd. Just come to the place). Ther's no such an incident.

2. Other quotes in page 142, by 1/Sussex Yeomanry and Royal Munsters Fusiliers clearly show that is a shell effect in open air.

3. The British did not also use poisonous gas in Gallipoli; yet it was their intention to do so. In the same page of the book, the author clearly said that a special British team of gas embarked for Alexandria in novembre, with 6000 gas-filled cylinders, to be used at Gallipoli. But the evacuation plan was already underway, they abandoned this idea.

4. The same effect of the shell impact, mistakenly beleived tear-gas was also hit Turkish soldiers during the Allied diversion attack in 6 august to Lone Pine. Almost whole 47th. Turkish Regiment in deep trench system, positioning under heavy wooden bars, was badly touched with the gas, coming from the mass bombardement of the Allied howitzers. Many become unconscious, before the attack of Australians.

5. We don't discuss yet, how the Allied howitzers appears suddenly in 6th august, in North Beach and in the very side of the redcross tents!

6. In the attach. looking today from the first line Turkish trench to Fusilier Bluff.

baby700....I won't argue....I was only relating what I read in Chamber's book. Fiction or truth? Who really knows for sure.
DrB

Dear Friends,
"Turks are clean fighters" those are not my words but the words of our dear enemies. During the war British high command wanted to give the soldiers on the front gas masks. The soldiers protested "The Turks are clean fighters. They don't use gas. The famous Britische Orientalist and Turk-friend Aubrey Herbert wrote in his famous book "Mons, Anzac & Kut ANZAC, 1915" . Monday, August 16th, 1915. No. 2 Outpost. It's curious the way the men speak of the Turks here. They still can't be amde to wear gas helmets, because they say the Turks are clean fighters and won't use gas. . . ."
Yes the Turks are clean fighters but are British? They killed, bayoneted 16 Turkish soldiers in March 16th 1920 in Istanbul while sleeping in their beds when they witout a warning captured the city after the Armistrace.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...ghters%22&hl=tr

In war my friend there are always atrocities committed by both sides. There are no exceptions.

Steve.

Tencere, dibin kara !

Seninki benden kara !


eric

and freely translated ...

the pot reproaches the kettle it is black.

eric

Gas in tunnels at Gallipoli was not uncommon; it formed there as the result of mines being fired and either not breaking into the enemy's underground works or through to the surface. Several Australian soldiers, including two officers, were overcome and killed by the gas from an Australian mine explosion in Tunnel C2 opposite Johnston's Jolly, Anzac, on 29 October 1915.

Don't get me started on the "clean fighting Turk" myth!

'Fumes that had a tearing effect' might be a better way to describe what happened. 'Gas', in the context of WW1, implies the deliberate use of chemical warfare.

Robert

Foulkes, the UK CO of gas efforts, did send some men, and 6000 cylinders (I think, from memory) to Egypt, but they were never used. The very idea of a gas release from cylinders from the Allied positions, given the Gallipoli layout, is rediculous. See Richter's excellent Chemical Soldiers.

Intentions aside, I can hardly imagine that the Turkish industrial base could have made an effective gas. The Germans were hardly able to get any supplies or munitions to the Turks and the small German forces (a company of volunteer pioneers and a few machine gunners, mostly from the Goeben and Breslau) on Gallipoli. The Turkish-produced shells were quite unlikely to explode on impact. When the Serbs were defeated, late in 1915, some materiel got through, although the Serbs had effectively wrecked the railroad, and the reliable German artillery ammunition and two batteries of heavy guns that arrived changed the situation significantly. Sending an exotic and questionable weapon such as gas to Gallipoli (which must be windy, and which wind must mostly blow from the Allied positions to the Turks) would have been a fool's errand, compared to supplying more effective artillery ammunition and conventional aid. Materiel from Germany had to be dragged long distances overland until early in 1916.

Bob Lembke

PS Any information about the volunteer Pionier company serving there will earn my eternal gratitude. My father served in it, and I know little.

PPS Eric, my computer is running again, and you will hear from me.

While not having a lot to add as far as whether gas was used by either side on the Peninsula, as a resident here I would say something about the prevailing winds.

Generally, the wind is from the north, with either a bit of east or west in it. On the Dardanelles side of the strait it comes barrelling down as if through a wind tunnel. The Poyraz as it is known locally, is especially strong in the winter but can also be powerful in the spring and autumn. We have just had five days of high winds here (up to 75 kilometres per hour) and it was very strong on the straits side, but also powerful at both Helles and in the ANZAC/Suvla area. In all cases, the wind was blowing from the Turkish positions towards the Allied lines. However, it can be still in the ANZAC area when the Poyraz is blowing at moderate strength.

Up on Second Ridge in the ANZAC sector, where the front lines lay, there is usually a breeze, if not a strong wind, almost all the time, and almost always from the Turkish side of the lines. (Very refreshing in summer if you come out of one of the deep and airless gullies).

The other main though less common wind, the Lodos, blows from the south, ie towards the Turkish lines, and ususally brings with it a rise in temperatures and, in the cooler months, quite often rain.

Not being a gas expert my opinion may not be worth much, but with the closeness of the lines, especially at ANZAC, I would have though that any use of gas could go badly wrong very easily. Rear area bombardment could have worked, but this would have ruled out the use of cannister released gases.

OK, so much for the report from the Eceabat met office.

Cheers

Bill

Dear Friend Steve, In war OK ! But in peace if you kill someone it is murder. Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth "All the perfumes of Arabia can not clean this little hand."

Kristof.

It'll take some finding, but I've seen a photo of a Turk wearing a German Gummimaske. The photo could have originated from the 1920's, but I'm pretty certain that it's circa.1918.

I'll see if i can find it.

dave.

Bill;

Thanks for the report on the winds. I didn't know any specifics, but an exposed penninsula like that has to be very windy. It clearly would be an absurd place to attempt a cylinder attack.

I don't know what role Foulkes had in the decision to send cylinders, but he was always trying to set up cylinder attacks, even late in the war when all allies and enemies had given up on them. In my mind he was extremely energetic, but sometimes made really bad technical decisions and hung onto them and pursued the tactical things that flowed from these decisions like a junkyard dog with a bloody bone. A very dangerous kind of guy, and not always to the enemy.

Dave;

Remember that the Turks had at least one army corps on each of the southern Russian front (Galicia) and in the Macedonia area. The former, at least, were extensively equipped and trained by the Germans. I have seen a rare photo of a Turkish flame thrower team training on an exercise field in Galicia. I believe the gas sent to Alexandria ended up on Salonika. And I think the Russians used gas a bit. So that is where it could be expected that Turks would receive German gas masks.

Bob Lembke

Somebody wrtote: I believe that Dr Sheffy is preparing articles for publication.

This is probably the article that was referred to:

Sheffy, Y, 2005. The Chemical Dimension of the Gallipoli Campaign: Introducing Chemical Warfare to the Middle East. War in History, 12 (3): 278-317.

Abstract: Studies of the history of chemical warfare ignore the chemical dimension of the campaigns in the Middle East during the First World War. They miss the fact that the British first considered using gas in the region during the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. At that time, the political and military leadership in London, as well as senior commanders of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force (MEF), were alarmed by the possibility of Turkish chemical attacks and repeatedly debated whether they should pre-empt this move by initiating the use of gas. This raised ethical, moral and prestige considerations, related to the British reputation in the Middle East. Eventually, gas cylinders were shipped to the MEF but never used. The British waited another year and a half before attacking the Turks with chemical munitions in Palestine.

Regards,

Rob Carman

Australian 3LH with gasmasks.

I don't know if ever gas was used during the Gallipoli campaign - however...

In the records about Capt Pieper, who was the commander of the Turkish Waffenamt, which means the whole ammunition and weapons production from spring 1915, the following is stated:
"With the start of the trench warfare on Gallipoli the production of weapons fpr close battle started. From the front lines they ordered bombs and rockets to Ausräuchern fumigate? the enemy trenches and the warheads should be filled with materials which produce poisonous gas. Those rockets were produced very quickly."
At least the thoughts to use gas were made as well as the means were produced under the auspice of the German officers and craft masters in the factories in and around Istanbul. Fortunately never used!

People tend to argue over what are atrocities and which side is more prone to committing them. Emotions can run high.

Here's a simple way to address the issue: Whom would you rather face in combat, a Brit or a Turk?

To whom would you rather surrender, a Brit or a Turk?

It depends if you're a Brit surrendering to a Turk or a Turk surrendering to a Brit and if it's circa 1915 and just east of Istanbul... If you throw and Aussie into the mix then it really is a non-starter!

In short, if its close combat and you try and put your hands up, you're basically (edited - bad language is not appreciated) Especially if you are anywhere near a machine gun, flame thrower, gas canister or in possession of a saw backed bayonet.

If I have to choose, I'll be a Brit surrendering to the Hun when Operation Micheal has over run my post or a Hun surrendering to a Brit when Haigs counyer attacks kicked in. If I'm a Hun and I see an ANZAC badge advancing on me, I reserve the right to scarper as fast as my little Germanic legs can carry me...

I've just read Carlyons latest opus hence the fear/respect!

Hold on a moment please, this thread is about whether gas was used in Gallipoli - nothing else. Let's not spoil it for the original poster.

TR

quote from El Shahin: In the records about Capt Pieper, who was the commander of the Turkish Waffenamt, which means the whole ammunition and weapons production from spring 1915, the following is stated:
"With the start of the trench warfare on Gallipoli the production of weapons fpr close battle started. From the front lines they ordered bombs and rockets to Ausräuchern fumigate? the enemy trenches and the warheads should be filled with materials which produce poisonous gas. Those rockets were produced very quickly."

The following may be of interest
"On the 16th (July 1915) we took over from the Manchester a small stretch of trenches on our left, and "C" Company salved fifteen asphyxiating bombs from a pent-house in one of the nullah trenches. A captured Turkish officer, evidently disapproving of these innovations by his German masters, had given information as to where they would be found. Packed in two cases marked RAKATEN, they were long, slender, uncanny-looking projectiles evidently intended for discharge from a trench-mortar."

This is from 'The Fifth Battalion Highland Light Infantry in the War 1914-1918' author: F.L. Morrison
which can be seen here http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20250/20250-h/20250-h.htm
The quotation is from Chapter III

PS: There is also a good Bird's Eye View map of Helles at the end of the book

regards
Michael

i doubt that the terrain would lend itself to the effective use of gas for reason of both the topography and climate

regards

I have documents from the AWM showing my grandfather was evaced from ANZAC Cove in October. His injuries are listed as: "concussion and gas effects" and "concussion and gas poisoning" as well as "neurasthenia".

So, your information and discussion related to the subject of this thread is most interesting and valued.

Thanks
- Rod

Dr. Yigal Sheffy's brilliant article is answering all the questions that were raised in this threat. His another article is dealing with the British introduction of chemical warfare into Middle East.
Regards

Under some conditions men could be poisoned, even fatally, by fumes from detonated explosives in both artillery attacks and in mine warfare. The concussion diagnosis supports that kind of exposure to gas. It would be interesting to see the Dr. Sheffy article; but to me the idea of a Turkish (or German) gas attack at Gallipoli is almost impossible for about a dozen reasons.

Bob Lembke

I second that. For anyone interested in the topic it is addressed directly in "War in History," 2005; 12; starting at page 278 "The Chemical Dimension of the Gallipoli Campaign: Introducing Chemical Warfare to the Middle East," by Yigal Sheffy.

Paul

Hi
I havent come accross any information as to gas being used by the Turks; on the contrary I have read that usage of gas was considered "unchivalrious" by Ottomans. However, I have recently downloaded first part of a book documenting the canakale wars (printed by state archives online-currently only relating to 1915 and is in Latin Ottoman, which I can read even if it is time consuming) that the English used shells which diffused "green colored smoke"..there are also İD cards for a couple of foreign journalists, reports on soldiers dying of dum dum bullets and pictures of the bullets. Lots of info for those who are seeking info from Turkish side(the submarines, german machine gunners etc).
Regards

hi dogan

what is mentioned in the book you have downloaded is what usually happens after the artilery stop firing,

here is a pharagraph from the book of defeat at gallipoli,

"THE ACRID SMELL OF SMOKE BECAME ALMOST UNBEARABLE"

another paragraph

"the sun,high in the heavens by 9am,but after 30 mins later bombardment its golden disc was veiled by thick clouds o smoke and dust that floated skywards,while the acrid smell of powder hung heavly in the air."

william

[quote name='fred durst' date='Mar 18 2008, 11:28 AM' post='883719']
hi dogan

what is mentioned in the book you have downloaded is what usually happens after the artilery stop firing,

Thanks fred,
yes , I did continue reading the site and learned that especially Howitzer shells had such effect. I believe neither side used gas in Gallipoli..
regards

I am no expert in gas warfare but the books I have read suggest that at the time of the fighting in Gallipoli, gas would have been delivered by the British through nozzles from cylinders. First use of gas was 25th September in this way at Loos and I have seen no suggestion that shells were available between then and December, when Gallipoli was abandoned. Reading of the work involved in installing the cylinders and their associated pipework and the necessity for men of the RE Special Companies to release it, makes me doubtful that gas was used by the British side.

And of course, at most points the Allies at Gallipoli faced Turkish forces entrenched higher up a slope. There were a lot of dumb things done during WW I (a fair number by the Special Brigade), but it is hard to see someone attempting to conduct a cylinder gas release uphill. Perhaps that is why some British gas equipment and men were sent from the Western Front to Alexandria, but never then sent on to the actual battlefield.

Bob Lembke

I'm no expert on gas warfare, nor on Gallipoli but whilst reading a book on my relative's battalion in Gallipoli I came across the following:

'On 7th October he {the Turk} caused great excitement by using what was believed to be a gas bomb. For some time thereafter officers wearing red tabs haunted the bomb's resting place and as much care was taken in the excavation of it's remnants as though they were relics from a buried city. The effective small box respirator was not then on issue and the anti-gas equipment consisted of a piece of black gauze and a pad of saturated wadding...' (With the 22nd - A history of the 22nd Bn AIF by Capt E Gorman MC)

It would suggest that whether gas was being used or not by the Turks and whether or not the Turks (as clean fighters) would or wouldn't use gas on the peninsular the threat of such an eventuality was taken seriously and warranted thorough investigation.

I came across another account of gas on the peninsular and thought I should read more of what has been written

The warnings produced by the above incident or another filtered around - an officer of the 2/1st Londons mentions in his diary on the 9th Oct 15:

'The discomforts were added to by the fact that the Turks took advantage of the change in the weather and wind to send along some asphyxiating bombs, so that we had to be ready with our respirators. However none came near us...' (Strong for Service - Lord Nathan of Churt by H Montgomery Hyde)

By this stage respirators had been issued and this example may have been an intelligence warning of the use of 'gas bombs' or the spread of gossip or rumour between units.

I'm sure this muddies the water!

CWT

[/font]

[font="Arial"]

Colin;

I know a fair amount about the Turkish/German side at Gallipoli, and have read all of the primary sources I have been able to find, such as Germans, an Austrian, and a German Swiss in the French Foreign Legion at Gallipoli, all writing in German, and I have never seen anything remotely suggesting the Turkish use of gas at Gallipoli. I also know quite a bit about the Turkish arms industry at that point in time, the German efforts to improve it, and the state of the then Turkish economy/industry. With great effort, they were able to manufacture plentiful SMA for the 16 types of rifles the Turkish Army used. They were able to produce artillery ammunition for the smaller calibers; the shells fired, but due to poor fuses the odds of the HE shell actually exploding at the other end were not good. Also, they had to cast shell bodies in iron, rather than form them out of steel, so that when they exploded they threw about sand-like iron particles, rather than sharp shards of steel splinters. So the improvised Turkish arms industry was working frantically to provide the most basic munitions, and in my judgement would have little or no capacity to experiment with exotic munitions. At this time there was almost no land or sea connectivity between the Central Powers and Turkey until very late in 1915. Also, this was very early for gas, even on the Western Front, with the munitions and techniques only being developed at this time.

Additionally, I have read say 10-15 memoires of Allied officers and soldiers, and some official histories, and I have to say that the memoires are repleat with errors and gross exagerations about the weapons that the Turks were throwing at the Allies, regularily describing, for example, incoming shells in calibers that the Turks did not have. Also, a lot of other odd stuff, like female Turkish soldiers (let's not start that old wives' tale again here) and sea monsters eating bathing Allied soldiers.

Be assured that the Turks (nor the Allies) did not use gas at Gallipoli.

Bob Lembke