Brighton Beach, Gallipoli?

Riain

Banned
The original plan for the ANZACs landing on Z beach was to use 3 beaches, from south to north; Brighton Beach, ANZAC Cove and North Beach. Aerial recon located some 200 Turkish troops with some artillery on the flat space behind Brighton beach, so in the end only the 2 northern beaches had landings. The Turkish troops, from the 77th regiment of the 19th reserve division, did not contest the landings and were ordered to withdraw to the 2nd ridge by Mustafa Kemal at 9.30 am.

The difference between Brighton and the 2 other beaches is a bit of a flat plain behind the beach, rather than basically scrubby hills coming directly from the beach shingles.

WI some ANZACs landed at Brighton beach on 25 April 1915, perhaps the 2nd wave once the Turkish troops had pulled back?
 

Dorknought

Probably the same as this:
On the morning of 25 April 1915, the 29th Division included a supporting landing made at 'Y' Beach on the Aegean coast to the north was made without opposition but the troops were without instructions and made no attempt to either advance or dig in. The first-day objectives of the village of Krithia and the nearby hill of Achi Baba were virtually undefended. When Ottoman reinforcements arrived, the British were forced to evacuate 'Y' Beach and forfeited an opportunity for an early success.
 

Cryhavoc101

The 29th was only formed in Jan 1915 so was a new formation. Granted it would go on to become one of the most decorated Divisions in the British army and still holds the record for most VCs and sadly sustained one of the highest casualty rates. But in April 1915 it was not yet that Veteran formation. The biggest problem for me is not the beach but the date. April was too late. The RN probably could have taken the Peninsular using Marines and Armed sailors on Feb as many of the ‘Turkish’ defending units had not then been even raised.
 

Riain

Banned
I still imagine a jumble and lack of clear objectives, but wonder about a bit of flat land to sustain a 9 month campaign. However, unlike the very steep ANZAC and North beaches, it might have been a gift for Turkish artillery.
 

Dorknought

The 1914 Greek plan was to put 80,000 (ANZAC only 20,000) men into this area and push across cutting off the southern forts. Just land the entire 29th alongside the ANZAC force but yes April was too late. Churchill's retaliatory bombardment in November 1914 for the Turk attack on Russia was infantile and brought the Turk's attention to the weakness of the Dardanelles defences.
 

Riain

Banned
What did the British expect from the 5 divisions landed at Cape Helles? That should have been the small, diversionary landing and the 3 Z beaches and Suvla should have been the main thrust with 5 divisions.
 

Dorknought

SwampTiger said:
This should have been done before the Turks entered the war, With proper planning, it could have been done by February 1915.
Click to expand...
The first mapping was done during the Crimean war and then proper surveys done again during the Russian war scares in the 1880’s. The plans were revised in 1906 during a border crisis with Turkey. Once the Balkan wars started then there was no opportunity to go poking around a sensitive area in a war zone taking soundings. Intelligence officers did walk the ground and their notes were incorporated in the plans as late as 1914.

What should have been done was bribe a Turk officer for the new 1:50,000 scale topographic maps made with German assistance. They were much better than the maps that the Med Expeditionary Force used at the landing.
 

Sam R.

At what point could the RN have realised it needed to send scientific expeditions or temporarily dismissed individuals to map and survey all the things?
 

Dorknought

The Naval mission to the Porte under Adm Limpus could have organised a survey but there was so much more to do like raising crews for the new Dreadnoughts. Also I think the Turks would question why they need charts off Suvla when they are not going to invade themselves.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Explain that updated charts off their western coast is essential to ensure safe navigation for the Turkish navy and shipping, noting operations by Greece and Italy in the recent wars. While you are at it, suggest improved charting off Cilicia and Syria, especially off Alexandretta. :openedeyewink:
 

Riain

Banned
I have to say, now I've seen the area I'm a convert FOR the campaign. Standing on Chanuk Bair and with one sweep of my head seeing both Limnos in Greece and Cannakale in Asia its easy to envisage the strategic/operational opportunities in the ANZAC landing area.

But, and this is a big but, the operational/tactical side does present significant hurdles that need to be overcome. First operational hurdle would be to not alert the Turks to the Gallipoli peninsula with a month of naval bombardment, the ANZAC sector was barely defended as it was so I wonder how it would have been without 2 months warning. Second hurdle would be getting the men out of formation pigpile and up to the objectives, this would require junior commanders to take whatever men they could find and go as far inland as they can and sort things out later.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Riain said:
I have to say, now I've seen the area I'm a convert FOR the campaign. Standing on Chanuk Bair and with one sweep of my head seeing both Limnos in Greece and Cannakale in Asia its easy to envisage the strategic/operational opportunities in the ANZAC landing area.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is beautiful and the areas so small compared to the Western Front.

However even today with modern roads you are 4-5 hours drive from Istanbul. To push up the peninsula against Turkish defence would be costly & time consuming. And without controlling at least one side of the Dardanelles the idea of a naval squadron bullying Constantinople into national surrender is a pipedream.
 

Riain

Banned
Coulsdon Eagle said:
Yes, it is beautiful and the areas so small compared to the Western Front.

However even today with modern roads you are 4-5 hours drive from Istanbul. To push up the peninsula against Turkish defence would be costly & time consuming. And without controlling at least one side of the Dardanelles the idea of a naval squadron bullying Constantinople into national surrender is a pipedream.
Click to expand...

I agree about bullying a surrender being a pipedream, and about a slog up the peninsula as well. I'm only talking about taking the Dardanelles narrows rather than the follow on, and taking the narrows still leaves ~20 of narrow waters until the Sea of Marmara.

However if the RN can get into the Sea of Marmara the Ottomans are in trouble, they will be subject to close bombardment even up to Istanbul and likely further landings from the Aegean at the neck of the peninsula and in the Sea itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top