History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedThe Battle of Gallipoli - who won?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 15:12
Originally posted by andrew andrew wrote:

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
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of NĂºmenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1405
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 22:31
Turks obviously...you are delusional if you think otherwise
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 1381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 01:07
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

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. Wink
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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'.
Back to Top
YohjiArmstrong View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote YohjiArmstrong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 19:27
Originally posted by The Hidden Face The Hidden Face wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

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. Wink


Same in Africa where Britain wallied about for years with British, Dominion and Indian troops when they needed African units.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Surmount View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Surmount Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:56
The Turkish were victorious
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:58
Originally posted by YohjiArmstrong YohjiArmstrong wrote:

Originally posted by The Hidden Face The Hidden Face wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

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. Wink


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
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
YohjiArmstrong View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote YohjiArmstrong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 04:38
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

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 elenos wrote:

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
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 358
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:09
Originally posted by elenos elenos wrote:

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.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 579
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 09:32
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Originally posted by elenos elenos wrote:

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!!!
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.