AHC: Townshend's Mesopotamia campaign not a total disaster

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Townshend's campaign in Mesopotamia seemed to start well but resulted in a repulse at Ctesiphon, and a retreat to Kut and a siege and surrender at Kut.

Assuming that there must still be a British campaign in Mesopotamia in 1916, how could the British do better and not be forced to surrender, either through improved tactics, operations or preparations? Even if Townshend's forces end up imperiled, is there a way other British Empire or Allied forces could successfully rescue the Kut garrison?
 
The British campaign in Mesopotamia seems to have been an economy of force operation, an attempt to use a relatively small Indian Army force to tie down a larger Ottoman force. In particular, it seems to have been designed to tie down Ottoman forces that would otherwise have been employed against Russia in the Caucasus and the Entente forces on the Dardanelles.

This mission could have been fulfilled by setting up a base at Basra and limiting inland excursions to expeditions that could be supported logistically. Indeed, if Townsend drew Ottoman forces towards Basra, he would increase the distance between them and the other fronts, thereby doing a better job of fulfilling his mission. Moreover, keeping the Indian Army forces close to Basra would facilitate their use throughout the Persian Gulf, thereby strengthening the British Empire position there.
 
Alternately pay more attention to expanding the support and field forces attempting to follow Townshend. If the Ottoman army in Mesopotamia is defeated and the enclave @ Kut saved the Brits are inside the OP requirements.
 
Top