WI: Gallipoli Naval Attack Succeeded?

Anaxagoras · Mar 26, 2006

I haven't seen any Gallipoli postings in awhile, so I thought I'd toss this one in:

On March 18, 1915, a combined British and French naval force attempted to force their way through the Dardanelles, pounding the Turkish forts to pieces along the way. However, several ships hit mines and were sunk. The attack, planned to continue the next day, was called off. In following months, of course, the Allies landed an army which became bogged down in one of the greatest fiascoes of the war, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

What was not known on the evening of March 18 was that the Turkish defenders were nearly out of ammunition and were terrified at the prospect of a renewed naval assault. Had the Allies pressed on with their attack on March 19, it is very likely that they would have succeeded. Without interference from Turkish artillery, the minesweepers could have dealt with the mines. By March 20 or 21, powerful British and French battleships would have been able to anchor off Constantinople.

What might have the results been? Would Turkey sue for peace? Would renewed supplies to Russia have made a difference on the Eastern Front? Would Greece, Bulgaria and Romania have joined the Allies, thus opening up a third front and saving Serbia? What subsequent course would the war have taken?

Keenir · Mar 26, 2006

Anaxagoras said:
I haven't seen any Gallipoli postings in awhile, so I thought I'd toss this one in:

cool. thanks.

What was not known on the evening of March 18 was that the Turkish defenders were nearly out of ammunition and were terrified at the prospect of a renewed naval assault. Had the Allies pressed on with their attack on March 19, it is very likely that they would have succeeded.

perhaps.

perhaps, but I doubt it. this quote may be apocraphal, but anyway: "We have no more bullets." "You have your bayonettes." -random soldier, Mustafa Kemal.

Without interference from Turkish artillery, the minesweepers could have dealt with the mines.

you mean the mines that were replenished every night?

By March 20 or 21, powerful British and French battleships would have been able to anchor off Constantinople.

they may've fired on each other (assuming either could get through the mines) to keep the other from making landfall & taking the city for themselves.

What might have the results been? Would Turkey sue for peace?

the Sultan might sue for peace...but there were enough patriotic movements (and independant-minded groups*) who would flatly refuse to surrender or sue for peace.

* = not to be confused with independence-minded groups. think Robin Hood, or Jean LaPucelle, not Lawrence of Arabia.

Would renewed supplies to Russia have made a difference on the Eastern Front? Would Greece, Bulgaria and Romania have joined the Allies, thus opening up a third front and saving Serbia?

why would they save Serbia, when they could grab it for themselves?

Anaxagoras · Mar 26, 2006

Keenir said:
this quote may be apocraphal, but anyway: "We have no more bullets." "You have your bayonettes." -random soldier, Mustafa Kemal.

Bayonets are ineffective weapons against battleships.

David S Poepoe · Mar 26, 2006

Keenir said:
they may've fired on each other (assuming either could get through the mines) to keep the other from making landfall & taking the city for themselves.

What? This is World War I you know. The French and British were allies. They would have coordinated their attack and figured out occupation before hand.

MrP · Mar 26, 2006

Keenir said:
They may've fired on each other (assuming either could get through the mines) to keep the other from making landfall & taking the city for themselves.

What the Devil? Aye, sure they would!

LacheyS · Mar 26, 2006

If the Turkish lines were about to break, they would have called on reinforcements. But assuming that the ANZACs got through the, IIRC, 14th Division, there was really nothing stopping them from marching all the way into Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire would have surrendered within days. I would give it months before the Arabs were rebelling and Turkey itself would be in a state of civil war.

Keenir · Mar 26, 2006

MrP said:
What the Devil? Aye, sure they would!

if you were the Prime Minister of England, would you sacrifice English lads* so the French could own Constantinople?

* = and ANZAC and Indian, etc.

and if you were the (whomever was head of the French government at the time), would you sacrifice French lads so the English could own Constantinople?

Keenir · Mar 26, 2006

Anaxagoras said:
Bayonets are ineffective weapons against battleships.

but mines aren't. and every night sees the spent mines replaced with new ones.

and you were saying that the beachheads of troops would clear the way so the ships could cross in relative safety.

David S Poepoe · Mar 26, 2006

Keenir said:
if you were the Prime Minister of England, would you sacrifice English lads* so the French could own Constantinople?

* = and ANZAC and Indian, etc.

and if you were the (whomever was head of the French government at the time), would you sacrifice French lads so the English could own Constantinople?

Actually you are entirely mistaken. France and Britain sacrificed their young men in order to keep Russia in the war - and they were to give the city to Russia after the war. You may want to pick up a few books about the Great War and read about the politics and strange bedfellows war creates.

Anaxagoras · Mar 26, 2006

Keenir said:
but mines aren't. and every night sees the spent mines replaced with new ones.

and you were saying that the beachheads of troops would clear the way so the ships could cross in relative safety.

If the Turkish artillery was out of ammunition (which they very nearly were) there would be nothing to prevent the minesweepers from clearing the channel of mines.

And no, I wasn't saying anything about the "beachheads of troops" at all. It is my opinion (and the opinion of many military historians) that the navy could have done the job by itself had they kept up the attack on March 19.

Anaxagoras · Mar 26, 2006

LacheyS said:
If the Turkish lines were about to break, they would have called on reinforcements.

In March, 1915, most of the Turkish Army was deployed in the Caucasus Mountains, fighting against the Russians. It would have taken a long time for reinforcements to arrive, whereas the Royal Navy and the French Navy would have dropped anchor off Constantinople within a day or two of forcing their way through the Dardanelles.

Keenir · Mar 27, 2006

Anaxagoras said:
If the Turkish artillery was out of ammunition (which they very nearly were) there would be nothing to prevent the minesweepers from clearing the channel of mines.

so....in 1914, a minesweeper ship could get rid of every single mine in a wide waterway of varying depths, and this ship could do so while suffering neither damage nor destruction ??

And no, I wasn't saying anything about the "beachheads of troops" at all. It is my opinion (and the opinion of many military historians) that the navy could have done the job by itself had they kept up the attack on March 19.

please allow me to quote you:

Anaxagoras said:
What was not known on the evening of March 18 was that the Turkish defenders were nearly out of ammunition and were terrified at the prospect of a renewed naval assault. Had the Allies pressed on with their attack on March 19, it is very likely that they would have succeeded. Without interference from Turkish artillery, the minesweepers could have dealt with the mines.

emphasis mine.

btw, the defenders weren't the only ones terrified -- the Allies certainly understood the concept of being bled dry themselves.

and the Ottomans were a side theater for the Allies -- the main focus was Germany.

Alratan · Mar 27, 2006

Keenir said:
so....in 1914, a minesweeper ship could get rid of every single mine in a wide waterway of varying depths, and this ship could do so while suffering neither damage nor destruction ??

No, but the several minsweepers present could clear out sufficient mines at a sufficiently low cost that the battleships could get through. When that has happened, it's all over.

MrP · Mar 27, 2006

Keenir said:
if you were the Prime Minister of England, would you sacrifice English lads* so the French could own Constantinople?

* = and ANZAC and Indian, etc.

and if you were the (whomever was head of the French government at the time), would you sacrifice French lads so the English could own Constantinople?

Gadzooks, man! You were being serious! I half thought you were speaking in jest.

Look, here's the situation:

The French and British want to beat Germany.
It's easier to beat Germany if she's fighting Russia.
Russia needs supplies to keep going without collapse.
The best route to get supplies through is via the Dardanelles.
The Dardanelles are in enemy hands.

So to keep Russia in the war the Dardanelles must be taken, and Turkey knocked out/back.

As David says, you really should pick up a book or two on this subject rather than making ill-informed pronouncements.

Keenir · Mar 27, 2006

MrP said:
Gadzooks, man! You were being serious! I half thought you were speaking in jest.

Look, here's the situation:

The French and British want to beat Germany.

true.
and every troop they send to fight Ottomans is a troop they can't send to fight Germans.

knock the Germans out of the fight, and its a fair bet the Ottomans will sue for peace - yes?

It's easier to beat Germany if she's fighting Russia.

what exactly was Italy?

Russia needs supplies to keep going without collapse.

wait, you're telling me the British and French couldn't tell that Russia was on the cusp of some sort of a revolution or civil unrest?

The best route to get supplies through is via the Dardanelles.

send those minesweepers into the North Sea to clear a path through open water. that way, the supplies land much closer to the Russian capitals.

The Dardanelles are in enemy hands.

So to keep Russia in the war the Dardanelles must be taken, and Turkey knocked out/back.

if that were so, then why did the British (in the five or ten years leading up to the Great War) do everything possible to alienate The Ottoman Empire ?

supplying Russia would be a lot easier if the Ottomans were an ally of Britain, yes?

As David says, you really should pick up a book or two on this subject rather than making ill-informed pronouncements.

hm, as opposed to hand-waving assumption that the Gallipoli campaign would automatically result in an Allied win of the entire War? or as opposed to speculating on what human civilization would be like if Earth orbited two suns?

ps: don't get me wrong, I do enjoy AH discussions.

Earling · Mar 27, 2006

By the time of the landings, victory is doubtful. The Ottomans have superior logistics, internal routes and all the other benefits of a defender.

However if one of two potential British Admirals (Carden or de Robeck) had simply held their nerve or even displayed some Nelsonic contempt for danger they would have cleared the straights. (Beatty, for example, comes to mind). At worst they lost a few vessels who might have been salvagable but wouldn't really effect things in the north anyway.

Ottoman coastal emplacement ammunition was at an end by the 18th of March. They were under orders to fire their remaining rounds then withdraw. Further more these mines which they were able to replace everyday were so scarce that they had to be caught from the Russians and redeployed in the straights. A minesweeper could certainly clear enough of the mines to prevent them holding up a determined push by the fleets if it is not facing enemy fire. If the minesweeping ships were manned by soldiers rather than civilians they may well have been able to perform this task regardless of the shore opposition.

Any opposition to a landing in Constantinople had effectively been rendered impossible due to the chaos of evacuation and the collapse of morale.

Whether or not this would have actually hastened a German defeat is debatable. Certainly it would have ensured a greater commitment of Russian, British and other powers forces against Germany/A-H on their respective fronts. As to the collapse of friendship that is bound to occur over who gets Constantinople.. well thats an issue for the peace makers to decide. Much the same happened for all of the Ottoman domains.

MrP · Mar 27, 2006

Keenir said:
True. And every troop they send to fight Ottomans is a troop they can't send to fight Germans.

Knock the Germans out of the fight, and its a fair bet the Ottomans will sue for peace - yes?

War on the Western Front had stalemated. Gallipolli was a way to continue the conflict and achieve greater results for less outlay. It didn't work out that way, but that was the plan. In short, there is far less hope for the Allies in 1915 that they could knock Germany out that year, than there is hope for them to knock out the Ottomans.

Keenir said:
what exactly was Italy?

*cough*
19 February British begin naval action against the Dardenelles
25 April British landing on Gallipoli Peninsula
23 May Italy declares war on Austria-Hungary

Keenir said:
Wait, you're telling me the British and French couldn't tell that Russia was on the cusp of some sort of a revolution or civil unrest?

How did you get that idea?

Precisely because GB and Fr know that Russia is fragile, they are aware that she needs their material and logistical support.

Keenir said:
*cough*Send those minesweepers into the North Sea to clear a path through open water. That way, the supplies land much closer to the Russian capitals.

Impossible, old boy. Quite impossible. Whereas the Ottomans were defended solely by mines, Goeben and Breslau and a few cruddy ships, the Denmark Strait has as potential defenders the High Seas Fleet, the Baltic Fleet and mines. I agree it'd be nicer to use the Baltic to ship Russia supplies. But since the Russian Baltic Fleet can't even challenge the German Baltic Fleet, you'd need the British Grand Fleet to get the supplies through. Thanks to the Kiel Canal the Germans have the option of striking at this grand supply fleet or bombarding the British coast. It would be political suicide for the British PM to send the Fleet away for so small a reason.* Bear in mind the distances involved, too. The British will need to keep squadrons on-station in the Denmark Strait or the Germans can remine them. Kiel is closer than Scapa or Rosyth.

Keenir said:
if that were so, then why did the British (in the five or ten years leading up to the Great War) do everything possible to alienate The Ottoman Empire?

Not quite everything, old boy.

We were building them 2 BBs at the outbreak of war. Because we feared the Ottomans'd go over to Germany and because we needed more BBs, we nabbed 'em. This did annoy the Ottomans more, of course.

Incidentally, if you like, you can probably push further back the date of us annoying the Ottomans. Egypt

Keenir said:
Supplying Russia would be a lot easier if the Ottomans were an ally of Britain, yes?

Yes. Sadly, Russia and the Ottomans tended to squabble a bit. Of course we and Russia did, too, but France dragged us together.

Keenir said:
Hm, as opposed to hand-waving assumption that the Gallipoli campaign would automatically result in an Allied win of the entire War? Or as opposed to speculating on what human civilization would be like if Earth orbited two suns?

I don't recall making that assumption. However, if the Entente had been victorious, and had either secured Istanbul or compelled the Ottomans to permit the passage of freighters to support the Russian war effort, then there would have been a positive effect on Russia's warfighting ability.

Keenir said:
ps: don't get me wrong, I do enjoy AH discussions.

They are fun, aren't they?

I didn't mean to sound very rude about picking up a book, but I confess I did mean to sound a little rude, old boy.

Because you are making some rather out-there statements. I don't doubt your intelligence - but I do question your knowledge of this period and campaign.

Your point about mines being dangerous is well-made. Especially given how nervy the Admiral commanding was of losing ships. Still, two battleships getting holed in quick succession would make me nervy, too! But to suggest that Britain and France would quarrel over which acquired short-term control of Istanbul doesn't make any sense. In 1915 Britain has sent her army to protect France and Belgium. She's raising and training a vast army that will be used against Germany and in support of France. They are allies.

A valid question-mark hangs over giving Istanbul to Russia, since Russia'd gain a Mediterranean port for her fleet, upsetting the traditional balance of power - after the war. But Britain and France quarreling with each other and worrying about losing a few men? No.

* There's a delightful and interesting series of articles in Wargames Illustrated by Richard Wimpenny that discuss Fisher's planned Baltic landings. Now, landing the BEF in Pomerania is a good reason to strip Britain of her defences, because the High Seas Fleet must try to stop it - or let an army invade. So there is great potential for the fleet to be needed.

Redbeard · Mar 27, 2006

Of course the Gallipoli campaign could have been won - some modest ideas from a map recon about the terrain to be landed in would help a lot. And even following the OTL events pressing on might have done it like other posters have said.

A victory at gallipoli would first of all mean gaining direct acces to Russia for the other Entente members. If that means Russian armies of 1916 and 17 being better equipped and supplied it could mean a lot for the war.

I doubt if the Entente will try to occupy all of Turkey let alone the entire Ottoman Empire - why should they do that? But a new front will be opened on the Balkans which the Triple Alliance can't ignore. In OTL Rumania (Entente ally) was pretty much crushed here in 1917, but now she will as Russia have much better acces to support. In this TL A-H is likely to be the first to collapse. That will put great strain on Germany if Russia is still in. I guess they would seek armistice in 1917.

The Ottoman Empire is probably dissolved at least as much as in OTL, but with the Entente controlling the Dardanelles and the Aegean coast the Greeks living there will not be ethnically cleansed/killed as in OTL. I could imagine the coast line going to Greece but I'm unsure what will happen to Istanbul/Constantinople. On one hand a lot of people in the Entente, not at least in Russia, will simply demand that it is turned back into Constantinople, and see anything else as blasphemy, but on the other hand the city has a significant Turkish majority probably saying: "That will be over our dead bodies!"

I guess the outcome will depend on how strong the Russians are. If Russia is in a strong position similar to that after Napoleonic wars I guess the other Entente powers will have no choice but to try to close their eyes and stuff their ears. The British ought to be very suspicious towards the Russians controlling the access to the Med. though, but I don't think GB can stop a strong and determined Russia in that area - or will - after years of slaughter in Flanders.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Martel · Mar 27, 2006

The objective of the Dardenelles Campaign was to neutralize the Turks in the short term. The long term hadn't been remotely worked out. As long as they force the Sultan to surrender or at least use their ships to pummel the fortifications on the Straits, it's a win. Kemal or someone can plunge into the interior, fight the Russians or even the Allies entirely, but as long as the Allies can keep them away from the water, the objectives were met. Occupation of large chunks of the Ottoman Empire is unnecessary.

Anaxagoras · Mar 27, 2006

Redbeard said:
A victory at gallipoli would first of all mean gaining direct acces to Russia for the other Entente members. If that means Russian armies of 1916 and 17 being better equipped and supplied it could mean a lot for the war.

I doubt if the Entente will try to occupy all of Turkey let alone the entire Ottoman Empire - why should they do that? But a new front will be opened on the Balkans which the Triple Alliance can't ignore. In OTL Rumania (Entente ally) was pretty much crushed here in 1917, but now she will as Russia have much better acces to support. In this TL A-H is likely to be the first to collapse. That will put great strain on Germany if Russia is still in. I guess they would seek armistice in 1917.

Do you think this combination - better Russian armies and large new front in the alkans - would be sufficient to knock Austria-Hungary out of the war in 1916? Could this, in turn, have caused the Germans to sue for peace?