The Battle of Gallipoli - who won?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19842
Printed Date: 07-Jun-2024 at 20:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Battle of Gallipoli - who won?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: The Battle of Gallipoli - who won?
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 07:03
| the allies were forced off the peninsular, but the turks had weeks to fortify their position and still lost alot more troops |
Replies:
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 07:49
|
Losses were about even AFAIK. The only success of it was the distracting of considerable ottoman resources from the middle east ------------- |
Posted By: Balaam
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 07:53
|
Turkey won the battle. They may have lost more troops but they were in a much better position than the ANZAC's. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 08:05
250k Ottoman Casualties - 65k fatal.
205k British Casualties - 43k fatal
33k ANZAC casualties - 11k fatal
47k French Casualties - 5k fatal
Allied Losses: 59k dead from 285k casualties
Ottoman: 65k dead from 250k casualties
Not that much in it ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 12:38
|
Well, the Allies weren't able to fulfill their objective... and some Allied warships sank in the process.... and Turks were able to hold their ground. So strategically speaking, I think the Turks won. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 22:31
|
stalemate? ------------- It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 06:45
|
The Ottomans won, the Allies did not gain control of the Straights.
------------- |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 06:46
|
objective of the allies: - take out the towers which were guarding the straits so that the british fleet could get through and threaten istanbul, forcing the ottoman government to surrender.objective of the turks:
- force the allies out the peninsula
could it be more plain who won? even if the higher casualty rate meant anything significant in terms of victory, we should remember that the ottoman army was over one million men, they could afford these losses. they knew this themselves and sent wave after wave of men through no-mans land, well aware of the casualty rate this would cause.
besides which, there is hardly a difference in the casualty figures. the turks won, the end.
|
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 22:06
| It was a stratagic victory for the Ottomans. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 07:29
|
general rule of thumb (ive read) is that you need roughly three times the force in attack than defense. With the element of surprise and the initial attack (inc the first couple of days) being botched, to no fault of the allied soldiers, the whole thing was doomed. Great idea stuffed up, by awful execution. In Australia generally it is the British officers are cast in a negative light, fairy or not, but not the turks. The whole thing is celebrated over here, on the way the ANZACS fought, despite being goners from the start. It is a sad loss that most Aussie's are very proud off. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 08:26
Well, the Ottoman losses were significant and hard to bear iirc. The Ottoman Empire had the problem of fighting the war as if a demographic great power like the other Central Powers or the Entente, when in fact the population base it could draw troops from was much slimmer. I've seen figures as low as 14 million, to be compared with the 100 million Russians, 65 million Germans or 40 million French.
And the Gallipolli campaign did in fact use up the best troops of the Ottoman empire. They weren't as easy as all that to replace. They would be sorely missed later in the war. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: the_oz
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 10:29
|
of course ottoman lost alot more troops.. can you compare ottoman navy(nearly nothing) vs.british+fench navy(biggest navy of the world)? i dont even mention that turks fought with bayonets. |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 16:03
| Are we discussing who won this war? How can turks be defeated? İf they were Istanbul would be invaded. All clever people can guess why did ottoman suffer bitter loses |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 20:06
Though the Straits were already fortified, and Ottomans began to concentrate more troops to the area after the failed naval breakthrough attempt of Allies, which happened before the amphibious assault.
Surprise effect may have been there if there wasn't the initial naval breakthrough attempt, which costed allies several huge nice vessels due to small number of mines laid over the strait. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 20:13
True, The excessive mortality rates of officers created a black hole in Ottoman army in the later phases of the war. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 22:51
However, the capture of Constantinople could have ended the war right there and now. So it logical to put all the defense nessasary to prevent an early knockout and shameful defeat without any victories... |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 03:32
|
Ironically the best executions in the Allies plan was the landing and the disengagement phases. They managed to land the troops without losing a single soldier (and then they spend two days swimming instead of securing the high ground) and they also managed to withdraw the troops, by making the Turks think it was a diversion, without losing a single soldier either. Of course the second was much more difficult than the first. ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 04:42
|
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 04:57
|
Good point. I was mostly thinking of the landing at Suvla bay...
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 06:07
Yeah, that's what was done
 ...Not in sake of shame or pride but to save the land...If Gallipoli had succeeded, the World War I could have had quite a different developments .. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 07:04
| hmm i disagree kapikulu; when i went to turkey it seemed like it was entirely about pride to me. what with mustafa kemal's famous line: " i do not order you to fight, i order you to die!", and the fact that the powers of europe thought the ottomans a push-over and the turks barbarians, the victory is an entity of pride and self-justification to turkey. theres an entire section dedicated to the battle in one of the museums i went to in istanbul |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 07:12
|
What If russia did not fall to communism? Most Probably If Ottoman failed to early, Russia would not become communist. So what would we do? when half of east and north anatolia was under Russian rule..
I think gallipolli war was more important than even independence wars.
Lets not compare russia and greece.
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 07:19
I think I was misunderstood or I couldn't express myself clearly.
The reason of fight in Gallipoli was not a pride/shame competition, but to save the country.One of the elements of the victory can be pride for sure, and it may be a battle to be proud of, however the reason Gallipoli was defended cannot be solely pride/shame status in front of other European states, as one other forumer stated. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: PanzerOberst
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 07:32
|
If we're to stick with the question, my vote goes to an Ottoman victory. No matter what the cost to the turks, they failed the allied plan of achieving their strategic aims. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 07:50
give or take 30% casualties of their entire force is a strategic victory? from what i gather, the theater was a 'win or die' situation for the ottomans, and for the allies basically just somewhere to put spare resources to work which would have no effect on the western front. |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 10:40
|
The thread asks 'who won the battle of gallipolli'?
The aim of the Allies was to breakthrough the Dardanelles, capture Constantinople, set up a supply channel to Russia and ideally knock out Turkey.
They failed to achieve this. Thanks to their poor planning (nothing to do with WSC) and the courage of the Turks they were repulsed.
They lost. The Turks won
|
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 11:25
It was just about the only daring strategic initiative in WWI - to become able to boost the Russians through the Black Sea - and it failed.
As for the use the Anzac troops could have been put to on the western front, they would have relived the French in 1915. They were pretty much fighting Germany alone there, which casualty-wise made it the worst year of the entire war for them. That would have left a French army in better shape by 1917, without the setback and casualties at the Dardanelles. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 11:31
|
Part of the reason the ANZACs were sent to Gallipoli is that they were
practically all new recruits, the Turks were seen as a softer target
for them to practice on first rather than the highly professional
Germans. Plus, the ANZACs were expected to be better adapted to the hot
conditions in which they would be fighting the Turks. Plus the simple
fact that Egypt was the ANZACs training ground, located conveniently
close to the Ottoman Empire.
------------- |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 17:54
Does giving casualties change the outcome of the battle? Not really...It was not such a basic operation for Allies. It was the largest naval operation and amphibious assault ever been undertaken by them. Considering the toughness of amphibious strike and transportation and supply of a total of 300,000 soldiers...Grand operation, and would have great impacts if succeeded.
1- Strike over Constantinople would have become possible and puff,Ottoman Empire out of war.
2- Bulgaria would not have entered the war, and many other countries(mostly Balkans) would be attracted to enter on Allied side at an earlier phase... Pressure from the south without Bulgaria+Ottoman Empire, and the British-French-Russian forces battling against Ottoman forces shifted to Eastern and Western Fronts...Balance of war would change
3-Russia would be supplied, yeah, and Tsarist regime might have been successful and it is much serious as that we might not have seen the October Revolution.
Would have an effect that would change the 20th century history as a whole. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 18:48
Now, thats some stratagic victory  |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 11:58
------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 23:23
|
Well. Firstly the Turks won. Secondly, this operation was meaningless in strategic sense. In fact, Russia didn't need those "supplies" The aim of the operation was more cunning than it seems. Churchil, who was the author of the whole plan, simply wanted to get his hands first on the straits between the Black sea and Mideterranean. Although according Entente agreement, Russia was supposed to get the straits after victory of the allies, Britain didn't want it to happened due to the long historic suspicion about the real Russian intentions. British simply thought that with their army stationed in Constantinopole after the victory, they will have better postion for the renegotiation of the original terms of Entente agreement in their favor. That's why this operation was actually opposed by Russia.
The fail of Galliopoli was actually the biggest fail of Winstone Churchil ever, since a lot of lives and resources were lost for nothing ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 03:59
|
Haha, the only topic in the forum I see, everybody agrees with each other, even persians and Greeks. Thats way too good.
This forum helps us develop ourselves, BTW, Upto 500 Azerbaijan Turks died in gallipoli and Chanakkale wars. ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 06:25
|
No, No, No.
Nothing so devious as that.
It was simply what it set out to be nothing more.
It failed. Churchill as Minister at the time honourably took responsibility for the failure.
However, the planning was poor, the security was poor, the liaison between the branches of the UK armed forces was poor, the execution of the project was poor.
None of these were Churchill's responsibility.
|
Posted By: Burdokva
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 06:57
|
What amazes me is how few fatalities the French have out of a total 40 000 casualties, especially compared to the ANZACs, who lost 1/3 of their men.
A possible loss at Gallipoli would certainly have been a catastrophy for the Central Powers. ------------- Unity makes Strenght |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 08:09
|
It was a mistake by Churchill (as much as I admire him) and the allies, for all their bravery, got beaten in that they failed to achieve a result. As for planning a major troop ship got sunk by a mine because the minesweeper was sailing behind and not in front. It would have been cheaper to go the table, negotiate and have paid the Turks to let the fleet sail through. But that is using hindsight. Eventually the talented Kemal Ataturk who had commanded the Turkish resistance came into power. The------------- elenos |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 09:05
I think I can safely assume that the war could have ended in something like late 1916 if it succeeded... ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 09:36
The mistake was in planning and execution and not concept. The bickering between the various branches was largely to blame. Guess Churchill learnt from that when the COS committee was set up for WWII
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 10:04
|
Peteratwar said "The mistake was in planning and execution and not concept. The
bickering between the various branches was largely to blame. Guess
Churchill learnt from that when the COS committee was set up for WWII" Touche! If you put it that way then I must agree. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 10:27
|
Of course the Turks won, they were unprepared but it doesn't take much
thought in order to realize if the Dardanelles Straits are taken your
done. The Turks used heavy German weapons and machine guns to beat back
Allied attacks on their fronts. The Allies practically landed on cliffs
make their men easy target for Turkish snipers and heavy artillery.
It's like America not taking Japan seriously and going straight for
Tokyo, the plan is doomed from the start. 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 found a documentary from the Allies perspective (apologies hyperlink doesn't work): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR5uHmoUReQ (Battle of Gallipoli - Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0kvxTzHtzg (Battle of Gallipoli - Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85uj9jpCp24 (Battle of Gallipoli - Part 3) |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 15:12
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 |
Posted By: Justinian
Date 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 
|
Posted By: elenos
Date 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 |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 22:31
|
Turks obviously...you are delusional if you think otherwise
------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date 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 |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 01:07
Probably that's another reason why the Allies failed. They didn't even know the climate in the region.  |
Posted By: elenos
Date 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 |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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'. |
Posted By: YohjiArmstrong
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 19:27
Same in Africa where Britain wallied about for years with British, Dominion and Indian troops when they needed African units. |
Posted By: elenos
Date 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 |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:56
| The Turkish were victorious |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:58
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. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date 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 |
Posted By: YohjiArmstrong
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 04:38
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.
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. |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:09
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.
|
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 09:32
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!!!
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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.
------------- |