The Two Bullets That Collided In Mid-Air At The Battle of Gallipoli

Submitted by: theman01 3 months ago Weird

The Battle of Gallipoli was made up of British, French, Australia and New Zealand against a fierce Turkish Army. In the end, the allied side lost 46,000 troops while the Turkish lost 65,000 with the Allies retreating from the battle. (These two bullets were found on the battle field. There's some discussion as to whether or not both bullets were fired and were in mid-air during the collision or one was fired and hit the other while stationary.)

The Turks still consider their victory at Gallipoli to be a great, defining moment in the nation’s modern history. Eight years later, the Turkish War of Independence broke out, led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Ataturk was a commander at the battle of Gallipoli.

The battle was also Australia and New Zealand’s first military campaign as independent dominions in the British Empire. It was a formative moment in the national consciousness of both countries.

There are 12 comments:
Male 292
The battle of Gallipoli was  a nightmare on all sides, but the Kiwi and Oz troops were poorly utilized by the British generals running the battle.

Its hard for us these days to imagine, but at the start of WW1 horse-mounted troops and stone cannon balls were still in use (although the stone cannon balls were only used by rear echelon troops in really old forts that weren't expected to see action).  By the end of WW1 we had air forces that fought in dog-fights, tanks, and chemical weapons.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
punko as much as it galls me to say, at the north of the peninsula (ie at Gallipoli), the command was actually Australian. The British commanded the campaign overall, and most of their troops (my great grandfather included) fought in the southern end of the peninsula, around Suvla Bay. Overall strategy was determined by British high command, and it's convenient for Aussies to blame them for the problems that occurred up north at ANZAC on the Brits, but in fairness, our generals were, for the most part, just as clueless as theirs. As an Aussie I often hear criticism not only of the generals, but of the British troops as a whole; there is a myth and a misconception that British soldiers sat around drinking tea whilst AU and NZ troops were dying....which isn't really the case, and, as a first gen Aussie (my parents emigrated in the mid 60's, about 9 yrs before I was born) I always point out that there was only one beach in the British sector that had unopposed landing. The others were slaughterhouses, with incredibly heavy casualties. Thankfully my GGF was not in the first wave; if he was, I would not likely be here. He was a reinforcement, sent in shortly afterwards. (my gran was born in Feb '16, and he wanted to call her 'Dardenella'. LOL. She ended up with the much more sensible name 'Mabel'. )

0
Reply
Male 250
Seems fishy to me. Don't bullets typically fragment into multiple pieces when even impacting animal flesh, which is much softer?  I call BS
0
Reply
Male 1,195
mrsnowmeiser Your thinking of hollow points and full metal jacked rounds are used just because they don't fragment so much, causing more survivable wounds. (yes I know that's oxymoronic)  
1
Reply
Male 1,195
0
Reply
Male 1,008
casaledana yes, it sounds like an oxymoron, but you are indeed correct. I can't recall if it was the Hague or the Geneva convention that called for the use of FMJ in military conflict, specifically for this reason. 
edit: But since then (and even predating the conventions iirc 1901-1903) there has been a lot of development, even in the early years, to 'unstable' rounds, aka 'tumbling' rounds, such as the british .303 I mention below. They're FMJ, but have an uneven weight distribution, which causes them to decelerate unevenly on impact, causing a larger wound, particularly on exit.
0
Reply
Male 833
buttersrules Geneva Conventions.
0
Reply
Male 1,195
buttersrules ya tumbling rounds, the M16 does this, I had forgotten about that
0
Reply
Male 1,195
mrsnowmeiser In World War II only about 1/3 of Germany was mechanized, more horses died in WWII than solders.  
0
Reply
Male 2,063
mrsnowmeiser Well, I was doing a quick bit of research on this. From what I saw, the expert consensus is that the bullets did collide but, due to the absence of rifling marks on the lighter bullet, that bullet probably wasn't in flight. Some suggested that it may have been in a soldier's ammo belt when hit. An amazing battlefield find nonetheless.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
squrlz4ever Also, if the round that was pierced was a British .303 MkVII or MkVIIZ, which would have been common in 1915, the front third of the projectile would have been either aluminium or, more likely, wood pulp or compressed paper, under the jacket. Whilst from the photo it appears that penettration is about half way along, it's feasable that the point of impact could be at, or near, the change of material in the internal. Even if it hit the lead in the rear section, it would have been near the edge, and would be weaker than if it had hit, for example, in the mid point of the lead section....

It's likely, as you say, that it hit a round in a clip, and I would presume that the casing, charge, and active primer would have been removed at a later time to render the round inert. But, who knows?. 
0
Reply
Male 250
0
Reply