The Battle of Gallipoli - who won?

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.

Turks obviously...you are delusional if you think otherwise

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.

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'.

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

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

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

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.