|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 799
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
On 25 April 1915 Australian soldiers landed at what is now called Anzac Cove on the Gallipoli Peninsula.
For the vast majority of the 16,000 Australians and New Zealanders who landed on that day, it was their first experience of combat. By that evening, 2,000 of them had been killed or wounded.
The British had been trying to force their way through the narrow straits known as the Dardanelles to capture Constantinople and so relieve pressure on their Russian allies engaged with Ottoman forces in the Caucasus.
Minefields and on-shore artillery batteries thwarted the early naval attempts to seize the strait and it was decided that troops would have to be landed on the peninsula to overcome Turkish defences.
The Gallipoli campaign was a military failure. However, the traits that were shown there – bravery, ingenuity, endurance and mateship – have become enshrined as defining aspects of the Australian character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
|
Quote: On 25 April 1915 Australian soldiers landed at what is now called Anzac Cove on the Gallipoli Peninsula.
For the vast majority of the 16,000 Australians and New Zealanders who landed on that day, it was their first experience of combat. By that evening, 2,000 of them had been killed or wounded.
The British had been trying to force their way through the narrow straits known as the Dardanelles to capture Constantinople and so relieve pressure on their Russian allies engaged with Ottoman forces in the Caucasus.
Minefields and on-shore artillery batteries thwarted the early naval attempts to seize the strait and it was decided that troops would have to be landed on the peninsula to overcome Turkish defences.
The Gallipoli campaign was a military failure. However, the traits that were shown there – bravery, ingenuity, endurance and mateship – have become enshrined as defining aspects of the Australian character.
An awful price to pay for Australia and NZ while still learning how to survive. Wazza, did Australia have any say as to where their troops would be deployed?
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 799
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
George, a devastating price to pay for two small populations.
I believe we were happy in the beginning to be under overall British command and direction. Especially as we had stood up a brand new army in 1914-1915.
Things would gradually change over the coming years of the war but we never really attained the autonomy the Canadians had until late 1917 early 1918.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
Wazza,
Thanks for opening this post. I also enjoyed your post on ANZAC Day on the general history forum.
I wonder how close the ANZACs and other Allied troops were to victory in those opening days, hideous casualties aside. The lack of proper maps hindered the advance, and the Turks fought desperately to defend their home. That said, I think had the Allies managed to properly break out into open countryside there would have been a quick advance onto Constantinople. Such is the margin between winning and losing.
Similarly, I think the naval attacks were called off too soon. The Turks were almost out of ammo and would have withdrawn had the British and French fleets kept at it.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
It’s good to see Colin’s comments about how close this notorious campaign came to success.
If anything gives evidence of this, it’s the size of the Ottoman casualty list : absolutely appalling.
For troops who supposedly enjoyed the advantage of strong defensive positions and good fields of fire, they paid an exorbitant price in lives holding their ground.
If the Allies succeeded in achieving a better exchange rate in terms of the killing match, despite their flawed implementation, one has to reflect on what might have been if , as Churchill unrepentantly insisted thereafter, they had been provided with the resources that he advocated.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
Without access to my books, I think I recall that Ian Hamilton (a brilliant, unconventional man who perhaps should have entered politics instead of the army) had advocated for a campaign involving a large naval commitment of modern warships, plus around 200,000 men to get ashore and push onto Constantinople. What he initially got was a scratch force of outdated battleships plus 70,000 men from various British and ANZAC contingents, which meant he didn't have the numbers in both heavy firepower and men to decisively push inland. I think it was the 29th Division that made up most of the early UK commitment. Let's not forget this division was formed from regular forces scattered abroad in garrisons - regular soldiers with experience and high quality training. Intact regular units were a rare commodity by 1915. Does their commitment to the campaign reflect a seriousness on the behalf of the British leadership or a cheapness in that they weren't being missed in Flanders anyway?
I know I have argued elsewhere in the Doullens thread that the Allies should have committed fully to the western front and that expeditions such as Gallipoli achieved little in the larger picture of the war. However, if the Allies were committed to knocking the Ottomans out of the war, they should have dedicated the proper resources to it - and here was their chance. To my eye, they committed enough resources (at least initially) to prevent defeat on the beachheads, but not enough to achieve victory. That the casualties of the the ANZACs and other Allied units in the first few days were so high shows the ferocity of the fighting. The Allies got close, desperately close, to breaking out. I wonder what Hamilton thought as his brave 70,000 men threw themselves against the thin Ottoman lines. What price another 30,000 men otherwise tied down in garrisons across the empire or sat in trenches in Flanders?
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3224
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
|
Quote: . I think it was the 29th Division that made up most of the early UK commitment. Let's not forget this division was formed from regular forces scattered abroad in garrisons - regular soldiers with experience and high quality training. Intact regular units were a rare commodity by 1915. Does their commitment to the campaign reflect a seriousness on the behalf of the British leadership or a cheapness in that they weren't being missed in Flanders anyway?
Cheers,Colin
Colin,
This is often mentioned. Both my grandfathers were with the Lancashire Fusiliers in the 29th Division landing at the Lancashire Landing. The professional soldiers might have formed the core but the rapid expansion of the army meant that the vast majority in the 29th were new volunteers with the NCO´s being professionals.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
Hi Trevor,
That's really interesting - if the 29th Division was meant to be comprised of regular units moving from garrisons, does that mean that volunteers assigned to those units were sent from the UK to meet with the division in Egypt to bring them up to strength? Would that also mean that units abroad were substantially under-strength at the outbreak of war, leading to the rapid promotion of the existing men to NCO levels?
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
Falling between two stools : doesn’t that expression encapsulate the failure of 1915 ?
Neither France and Flanders, nor the Dardanelles, properly resourced.
Of course, we have hindsight and can point out failures and culpabilities . Those on the spot had to grapple with dilemmas and disasters that came at them from point blank range .
I tend to think of Neuve Chapelle in March 1915 : a battle that showed great promise and started well for Haig’s soldiers of First Army. It petered out in failure, just as the Dardanelles was being pressed into a new phase of intensity. That, too, promised much but ended in humiliation. Commanders in both theatres attributed failure to being deprived of men and guns, and argued that - were it not for the other one- they would have prevailed. Why was the “ sink” in the Dardanelles allowed to take resources away from Flanders? So said Haig. Churchill’s response: look at the dreadful waste of men and material in the failed British offensives in Artois in May and September 1915. Imagine what we would have achieved in Gallipoli with just a fraction of those resources !
A convincing argument might be made for both those advocacies.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3224
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
|
Quote: Hi Trevor,
That's really interesting - if the 29th Division was meant to be comprised of regular units moving from garrisons, does that mean that volunteers assigned to those units were sent from the UK to meet with the division in Egypt to bring them up to strength? Would that also mean that units abroad were substantially under-strength at the outbreak of war, leading to the rapid promotion of the existing men to NCO levels?
Cheers,
Colin
No Colin. The units were transferred to the UK and the 29th was formed in March 1915 as it was first intended for the Western Front.
I know at the outbreak of war the Lanc Fusiliers were stationed in Karachi, India ( now Pakistan) and were transferred to Aden, Yemen. In December 1914 it was transferred to the UK and the 29th was formed up in Warwickshire.
Both of my grandfathers were Welshmen who had gone to Liverpool looking for work and Liverpool then was in Lancashire ( became Merseyside in 1970 ?). So volunteered at the Lancashire Fusilier headquarters in Bury. Sorry, but I don´t know more.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
Thanks Trevor. I don't know why, but I always thought the 29th was formed abroad and kind of met in detail in Egypt. That makes sense though that they assembled in England and transferred from there.
Hopefully your grandfathers made it through the war relatively unscathed.
Phil,
Quote:
Neither France and Flanders, nor the Dardanelles, properly resourced.
You've made the point better and more succinctly than I have managed to date! There's definitely a general point about the resourcing - for example, if 30,000 additional men couldn't make the breakthrough at Artois but could have been decisive at Gallipoli, where was the strategic oversight to decide this? Why was Hamilton only given 70,000 men and some rusty old ships when he asked for 200,000 and modern dreadnaughts?
One can only imagine the success that might have been achieved had the Allies undertaken the expedition in the Dardanelles in 1918. The combined arms attacks would have surely broken through the Turkish defences in no time?
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
Colin,
An interesting thought : the prospect of forcing the Dardanelles in 1918.
By that time, with Tsarist Russia eliminated, the strategic rationale would not have applied.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
A truly shocking statistic :
In the Gallipoli campaign the 29th Division suffered battle casualties that actually exceeded twenty thousand. Of these, 9,042 were killed or missing.
Since the Turks took so few prisoners, virtually all the missing were dead. The wounded totalled 10,993.
To make the cup run over, an additional 13,997 were incapacitated by disease.
Without being able to make authentic comparisons, I reckon that this must be one of the deadliest divisional casualty rates on record.
You’re lucky to exist, Trevor !
Edit : Putting this into perspective, the 1916 Battle of the Somme is cited as the most terrible battle ever fought by British soldiers. The BEF Division with the heaviest casualties in that battle was the 30th, which suffered 17,374 killed, wounded and missing.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3224
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
|
Quote: A truly shocking statistic :
In the Gallipoli campaign the 29th Division suffered battle casualties that actually exceeded twenty thousand. Of these, 9,042 were killed or missing.
Since the Turks took so few prisoners, virtually all the missing were dead. The wounded totalled 10,993.
To make the cup run over, an additional 13,997 were incapacitated by disease.
Without being able to make authentic comparisons, I reckon that this must be one of the deadliest divisional casualty rates on record.
You’re lucky to exist, Trevor !
Edit : Putting this into perspective, the 1916 Battle of the Somme is cited as the most terrible battle ever fought by British soldiers. The BEF Division with the heaviest casualties in that battle was the 30th, which suffered 17,374 killed, wounded and missing.
Regards, Phil
Looking Back I am indeed lucky. After getting through the Lancashire Landing, they survived the Sunken Lane at Beaumont Hamel and were then moved to Passchendael where one grandfather said the generals made plans to finally get them all killed and finished off.
He was not, however, a believer in Lions being led by donkeys. His opinion was it was donkeys led by donkeys. And the Germans and Turks were just as much "poor sods" as us.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
“ Poor sods “ : millions and millions of them.
Isn’t that the story, essentially, of all the big wars that have afflicted us ?
Yet, I’m tempted to ask, of all the “ as much poor sods as us “ examples in history, do you think that this one stands out as something extreme ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3224
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
|
Quote: “ Poor sods “ : millions and millions of them.
Isn’t that the story, essentially, of all the big wars that have afflicted us ?
Yet, I’m tempted to ask, of all the “ as much poor sods as us “ examples in history, do you think that this one stands out as something extreme ?
Regards, Phil
Phil,
that is a really interesting question. It´s on my list to ponder. Started making notes.
Hope you are recovering
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6387
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli Landings
|
Quote:Quote: “ Poor sods “ : millions and millions of them.
Isn’t that the story, essentially, of all the big wars that have afflicted us ?
Yet, I’m tempted to ask, of all the “ as much poor sods as us “ examples in history, do you think that this one stands out as something extreme ?
Regards, Phil Phil, that is a really interesting question. It´s on my list to ponder. Started making notes. Hope you are recovering Trevor
Reading your thoughts on this question will hasten my recovery, Trevor.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
