Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Battle of Gallipoli - who won? Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 15:12 |
Originally posted by andrew
The Allies failed to realize two major things: 1. Turks using modern German weapons and 2. The location of which the Allies were trying to land.
|
I think the main failure out there was that the Allies did not calculate that Turkish Army concentration to the area would be that intensive.
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 01:16 |
I would call it a pyrhic victory for the ottoman empire. They won the battle and prevented the allies from achieving their objectives but lost a lot of men that could have been fighting on other fronts. Perhaps someone could enlighten me but from what I understand the campaign was botched by the allies because of miscommunication and poor co-ordination between different army units and the failure of the navy to break through the straits because of overcautiousness.
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 03:40 |
Yes, all of those Justinian. I heard one story of the minesweeper coming up behind a flagship. The ship ahead got sunk of course.
|
elenos
|
|
mamikon
Sultan
Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 22:31 |
Turks obviously...you are delusional if you think otherwise
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 23:00 |
I didn't quite catch whose reply you are referring to mamikon. Anyway it was an British ship that struck a Turkish mine and went down. This cost the allies any hope of surprise in landing.
|
elenos
|
|
The Hidden Face
Chieftain
Ustad-i Azam
Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1379
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 01:07 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
the ANZACs were expected to be better adapted to the hot
conditions in which they would be fighting the Turks. |
Probably that's another reason why the Allies failed. They didn't even know the climate in the region.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 02:51 |
The Turks very much respected the Australians as fighters. There still are beaches in Turkey that have become sacred to both nations.
|
elenos
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 21:37 |
In determining 'victory', one has to consider the objectives each side was trying to achieve, as well as the ultimate 'cost'. The somewhat higher losses for the Turks does not detract from their victory IMO. It's hard to argue that the additional effort of landing forces, supplying them by sea and ultimately evacuating them without great port facilities in order to inflict somewhat higher losses on the Turks constitutes an 'efficient' use of force. That, plus failing to achieve any strategic goal whatsoever pretty much 'seals the deal'.
|
|
YohjiArmstrong
Knight
Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 19:27 |
Originally posted by The Hidden Face
Originally posted by Constantine XI
the ANZACs were expected to be better adapted to the hot
conditions in which they would be fighting the Turks. |
Probably that's another reason why the Allies failed. They didn't even know the climate in the region.
|
Same in Africa where Britain wallied about for years with British, Dominion and Indian troops when they needed African units.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:04 |
African troops still are notoriously hard to train. I know don't say it, but that was an opiniion given in the past by top commanders
|
elenos
|
|
Surmount
Pretorian
Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:56 |
The Turkish were victorious
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:58 |
Originally posted by YohjiArmstrong
Originally posted by The Hidden Face
Originally posted by Constantine XI
the ANZACs were expected to be better adapted to the hot
conditions in which they would be fighting the Turks. |
Probably that's another reason why the Allies failed. They didn't even know the climate in the region.
|
Same in Africa where Britain wallied about for years with British, Dominion and Indian troops when they needed African units.
|
I was under the impression Britain conquered 1/3 of Africa, and
extended its control from the mouth of the Nile to Cape of Good Hope.
Considering the tiny number of troops the British sent to Africa, I
think their efforts were outstanding.
Edit: but let's not get sidetracked. That can be discussed in another topic, this one is about the Gallipoli Campaign.
Edited by Constantine XI - 22-Aug-2007 at 23:59
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 03:09 |
The campaign was a stuff up with poor coordination between army and navy. Then many troops, like the Australians had never seen battle before.
|
elenos
|
|
YohjiArmstrong
Knight
Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 04:38 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
I was under the impression Britain conquered 1/3 of Africa, and
extended its control from the mouth of the Nile to Cape of Good Hope.
Considering the tiny number of troops the British sent to Africa, I
think their efforts were outstanding.
Edit: but let's not get sidetracked. That can be discussed in another topic, this one is about the Gallipoli Campaign.
|
Not in WW1, sorry if I didn't make that clear. British casualties from malaria and similar diseases were horrendous. Once African units like KAR, Nigerian Brigade etc. turned up that dropped sharply.
Originally posted by elenos
African troops still are notoriously hard to train. I
know don't say it, but that was an opiniion given in the past by top
commanders
|
I can't say I believe that. European armies have used excellent African auxilaries and soldiers for years, even up to the '60's when the Portuguese used fantastic African units like the Flechas. Similarly remember how fantasticly well trained and disciplined many African armies were, the obvious example being the Zulu. African armies like the Rhodesians have also used African troops with great success.
Edited by YohjiArmstrong - 23-Aug-2007 at 05:17
|
|
kurt
Consul
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:09 |
Originally posted by elenos
African troops still are notoriously hard to train. I know don't say it, but that was an opinion given in the past by top commanders
|
Depends who's training them. They're good fighters when under leadership that understands them. Don't forget the battle of Isandlhwana, or Adowa. The British and the Italians certainly wont.
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 09:32 |
Originally posted by kurt
Originally posted by elenos
African troops still are notoriously hard to train. I know don't say it, but that was an opinion given in the past by top commanders
|
Depends who's training them. They're good fighters when under leadership that understands them. Don't forget the battle of Isandlhwana, or Adowa. The British and the Italians certainly wont. |
Agreed, no bad soldiers only bad officers.
Isandlhwana saw only the loss of a small part of the British army who had been left behind and then nearly pulled it off.
Re Gallipoli & weather, British were well aware of the climatic conditions. They'd been around the Mediterranean and worse climates for many a long year!!!
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 09:52 |
Let's keep this topic on track, once again if you wish to discuss African soldiery you may do so in another thread.
|
|