- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Let's Discuss the Dardanelles/Gallipoli Campaign of WWI
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:09 am
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:09 am
What a monumental screw up on the Allied part, IMO.
Naval Operations in the Dardanelles
The whole thing revolved around the element of surprise on the Allie's part yet the commanders, naturally, didn't want to lose their battleships. Keep in mind that the battleships were rendered obsolete around 10 years before this yet the commanders had grown up on those ships and felt an emotional connection to the ships. So they were slow getting into the fight and then a few ships were blown up by mines. So they completely fell back.
Gallipoli Campaign
The admirals then decided to land troops in Gallipoli. Keep in mind that this was never supposed to be a ground battle, so they didn't have enough troops and gave the enemy way too much time to get ready for their ground attack. In fact, the German commander there said he needed 8 days to get ready, well the Allies gave him five weeks.
It turns out to be a slaughter mainly because the troops hadn't trained for an amphibious assault nor did they exactly know what the objectives were and it turned into another stalemate like the western front.
This cost Churchill his job in the admiralty.
Naval Operations in the Dardanelles
The whole thing revolved around the element of surprise on the Allie's part yet the commanders, naturally, didn't want to lose their battleships. Keep in mind that the battleships were rendered obsolete around 10 years before this yet the commanders had grown up on those ships and felt an emotional connection to the ships. So they were slow getting into the fight and then a few ships were blown up by mines. So they completely fell back.
Gallipoli Campaign
The admirals then decided to land troops in Gallipoli. Keep in mind that this was never supposed to be a ground battle, so they didn't have enough troops and gave the enemy way too much time to get ready for their ground attack. In fact, the German commander there said he needed 8 days to get ready, well the Allies gave him five weeks.
It turns out to be a slaughter mainly because the troops hadn't trained for an amphibious assault nor did they exactly know what the objectives were and it turned into another stalemate like the western front.
This cost Churchill his job in the admiralty.
8
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:17 am to TigerFanInSouthland
The Australians and New Zealanders celebrate April 25 as ANZAC (Australian-New Zealand Army Corps) Day. Even though Australia federated and became an independent nation of the Commonwealth in 1901, many considered the Gallipoli Campaign of 1915 as the time when Australia proved themselves worthy of being an independent nation and began forging a national identity. ANZAC Day is a very revered holiday in Australia and New Zealand.
My wife's (no pics) great-grandfather was a medic at Gallipoli, and himself was wounded during the campaign. He recovered in England before being returned to the front in Belgium in 1916.
My wife's (no pics) great-grandfather was a medic at Gallipoli, and himself was wounded during the campaign. He recovered in England before being returned to the front in Belgium in 1916.
This post was edited on 6/27/17 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:21 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Naval Operations in the Dardanelles The whole thing revolved around the element of surprise on the Allie's part yet the commanders, naturally, didn't want to lose their battleships.
Keep in mind that the battleships were rendered obsolete around 10 years before this yet the commanders had grown up on those ships and felt an emotional connection to the ships. So they were slow getting into the fight and then a few ships were blown up by mines. So they completely fell back.
Battleships were absolutely NOT obsolete in WWI. They were a key component to Naval warfare in 1915.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:24 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Battleships were absolutely NOT obsolete in WWI. They were a key component to Naval warfare in 1915.
With the building of the drednoughts in 1906, I would argue that they were probably considered obsolete.
This post was edited on 6/27/17 at 10:29 am
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:31 am to TigerFanInSouthland
According to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast, Churchill knew the ships were out dated and essentially worthless. He wanted to sacrifice a lot of the ships to take the forts on both sides but the admirals didn't want to lose the ships. So instead of just bull rushing through they kept getting slowed down and lost the momentum of the campaign.
A new class of battleship was created in the mid 1900s and make the previous battleships outdated especially with new submarine warfare. Completely changed the naval war game by 1915.
A new class of battleship was created in the mid 1900s and make the previous battleships outdated especially with new submarine warfare. Completely changed the naval war game by 1915.
This post was edited on 6/27/17 at 10:32 am
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:33 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
With the building of the drednoughts in 1906, I would argue that they were probably considered obsolete.
I argue Drednaughts are a type of battleship
Three types of battleships during the WWI era
1: Pre-drednought
2: Drednought
3: Super Drednought (similar to WWII BS's)
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:34 am to Tigeralum2008
Exactly but the whole fleet of battleships before 1906 on the British navy were expendable due to being outdated. The admirals actually making decisions on the ships didn't agree.
This post was edited on 6/27/17 at 10:36 am
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:37 am to Tigeralum2008
Ok, well the British high admiralty didn't agree with that, they thought they were obsolete since they were not drednoughts.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:40 am to HottyToddy7
Ok, I see what OP meant.
The battleships used in the Galipoli campaign were obsolete.
I first read it as by the time WWI erupted, all battleships were obsolete... apologies
So yes, no one can argue against the fact that Churchill sent expendable assets to which the admiralty were woefully too conservative in using them.
The battleships used in the Galipoli campaign were obsolete.
I first read it as by the time WWI erupted, all battleships were obsolete... apologies
So yes, no one can argue against the fact that Churchill sent expendable assets to which the admiralty were woefully too conservative in using them.
This post was edited on 6/27/17 at 10:41 am
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:45 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Indeed, a royal frick up. Churchill got the blame because it was his plan, but it wasn't executed as Churchill laid out. It is unfortunate that he was labeled the scapegoat here. His original plan seems pretty logical. That's no guarantee of success, but I think the outcome would have been more favorable
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:55 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
Indeed, a royal frick up. Churchill got the blame because it was his plan, but it wasn't executed as Churchill laid out. It is unfortunate that he was labeled the scapegoat here. His original plan seems pretty logical. That's no guarantee of success, but I think the outcome would have been more favorable
Exactly, the commanders didn't execute the plan like Churchill laid out. It hinged on speed and surprise and the commanders did neither. Which forced them to turn to ground combat.
This post was edited on 6/27/17 at 10:55 am
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:03 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
With the building of the drednoughts in 1906, I would argue that they were probably considered obsolete.
The ships lost in this campaign were pre-dreadnoughts, not battleships.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:06 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:I disagree and go the opposite and think Churchill doesn't get enough of the blame. He is completely lionized and people never bring up his blunders. Like Reagan.
Churchill got the blame because it was his plan, but it wasn't executed as Churchill laid out.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:08 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Almost destroyed the entire career of Winston Churchill.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:14 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Do you think if the Russians had agreed to make an advance on Constantinople that things would have been different?
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:21 am to SuperSaint
I think you may have a limited understanding of Churchill's career. Galipoli ruined him at the time. If Chamberlain hadn't gone for appeasement, Churchill would probably not have near the legacy he does today
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:21 am to FineWine
I think the Russians couldn't afford, both economically and in manpower, to open up another front in the war as they needed majority of them both to hold off the Germans. Things would've been different but I think Russia would've been quicker to revolt due to more men being lost and more money drained.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:22 am to SuperSaint
quote:
disagree and go the opposite and think Churchill doesn't get enough of the blame. He is completely lionized and people never bring up his blunders.
Care to elaborate?
Posted on 6/27/17 at 11:30 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Wasn't there some discussion by the British that a new front should have been opened along the Baltic, and not the Dardanelles?
Posted on 6/27/17 at 12:09 pm to HottyToddy7
quote:
According to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast
I just finished Blueprint for Armageddon. That was a great series. Any history buffs that want to learn more about WWI should give it a listen: LINK
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News