Gallipoli Disaster

The Allied assault on the Turkish Empire at Gallipoli during WW One was unsuccessful for the Allies from start until almost the finish, from the naval assault in March 1915, through the initial landings in April and the major July-August battles until the evacuation in December/January 1916. The evacuation was the only part that actually worked as it was supposed to. Approximately 80,000 troops from Suvla Bay and Anzac Cove were lifted in December 1915, with 35,000 at Cape Helles lifted in January 1916.

What if the evacuation isn’t successful? Supposing the Turks realise (not sure how) the Allied troops are leaving Suvla/Anzac, attack in mid-December and overrun the bridgehead. 40,000 Allied troops are either killed or captured including many ANZACs. Maybe that’s not so bad for the British army, that’s quite big at this time. But Australia and New Zealand probably just lost much of the experienced core of their armies. Whoever was the man (W.C.) who organised the Gallipoli plan won’t be popular in those two countries. What are the effects? On the war? Post-war? Is this a sensible idea? Way off track?
 

Cook

Banned
You don’t think the prolonged ‘quiet times’ and use of Naval Guns to replace the artillery that had been withdrawn wasn’t a bit of a give-away?

For those not aware, Naval Gun rounds have a completely different sound to Howitzer rounds when in flight, it’s unmistakable.

And then there’s the Bully Beef tin that was thrown into the Australian lines with a note inside that said: “Sorry you are leaving, see you in Cairo.”
 
So Churchill could have been so disgraced by the fouled-up evacuation he's never PM? Maybe he never goes back to politics with the stigma of the total Gallipoli failure. He suffered from depression, maybe he has a serious breakdown or worse.

Cook. Apparently the German/Turkish commanders thought the British were planning a major attack and not an evacuation. What might change their minds? Prisoner, air recon, some security leak?
 
Perhaps the fall of Asquith's government is accelerated by the debacle? A fair amount of blame for Gallipoli fell on the Liberal party, not just Churchill. IOTL Gallipoli forced Asquith to form a new coalition, but a more complete disaster may have led to a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a new Prime Minister. Of course the most likely candidate to succeed Asquith is still Lloyd George, so a complete disaster at Gallipoli might not change the "big picture" very much.

Post War you might see Churchill so disgraced that he never again becomes First Lord of the Admiralty, but that is not certain by any means. The victorious powers could be more or less vengeful towards the Turks at the Peace conference, it could really go either way. Perhaps the British would be more intent on revenging themselves, and actually support the Greeks when they invade in 1920.
 

Deleted member 1487

Kind of hard to imagine thanks to naval firepower. The Turks tried their damnedist to overrun the beachheads during the invasion, but failed bloodily. Perhaps some night assualts go somewhat better, but they didn't have a good track record of those at Gallipoli. If anything Entente booby traps are left, which slow down the Turks enough to allow the front to consolidate and the evacuation is put off until it can proceed again unmolested. Basically though, I don't expect the Turks to do much more than bleed if they try to attack.
 
Turkish army hadn't get enough food, weapon... But they could win! It is completely about bravery!!! They defended their motherland, and Anzacs attacked foreign country. It is very very important victory for Turks. Because after then Turkish commander Mustafa Kemal who is founder of modern Turkey, is known all Turkish public. After WWI he could start a Indepence War, because Turkish nation were loving, believing and trusting him. Gallipoli is a disaster for Allies but it is great victory of Turks and first step of their modern republic future....
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Turkish army hadn't get enough food, weapon... But they could win! It is completely about bravery!!! They defended their motherland, and Anzacs attacked foreign country. It is very very important victory for Turks. Because after then Turkish commander Mustafa Kemal who is founder of modern Turkey, is known all Turkish public. After WWI he could start a Indepence War, because Turkish nation were loving, believing and trusting him. Gallipoli is a disaster for Allies but it is great victory of Turks and first step of their modern republic future....

Bravery does not take you through barbwire and machineguns....

Ask the French dead, the British Dead, the German Dead, the Russian Dead..... or the Turkish Dead...

Its always nice to think ones nation has a special bravery that can overcome all problems - unfortunetly it is not true
 
Bravery does not take you through barbwire and machineguns....

Ask the French dead, the British Dead, the German Dead, the Russian Dead..... or the Turkish Dead...

Its always nice to think ones nation has a special bravery that can overcome all problems - unfortunetly it is not true

You are right but we must accept that Turkish army won Gallipoli Battles without enough equipment. Not enough machine gun, not enough bullets, not enough food, not enough weapon but they won. Please tell me how could they win this battle without enough equipment. Sometimes there is more than money, powerful air navy support or well armour! in the battles.

You are right and i dont think Turks have a special bravery. I just intend that If soldiers fight with desire, it will affect the complexion of battle. Gallipoli, Stalingrad...
 
Last edited:
Don't know much about British politics, but from a little reading Asquith/Lloyd-George only started their feud in 1916. If Asquith's already gone by 1916, what butterflies for the British Liberal party? Maybe they don't melt down.

The German general in charge later said he was planning an attack at the time of the evacuation. If the Turks figure out what's going on and attack at night, in some places they only have to charge 10 metres against half-empty trenches. With Turkish troops in the Allied trenches as the British are trying to leave, I reckon it would destroy any chance of an ordered evacuation. If the Turks figure the evacuation's happening, they'd be tempted to at least tryan attack.

Also, how would the Turks have treated Allied prisoners? I know virtually zero about this and would appreciate if someone can reccomend a good source on the subject.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
You are right but we must accept that Turkish army won Gallipoli Battles without enough equipment. Not enough machine gun, not enough bullets, not enough food, not enough weapon but they won. Please tell me how could they win this battle without enough equipment. Sometimes there is more than money, powerful air navy support or well armour! in the battles.

You are right and i dont think Turks have a special bravery. I just intend that If soldiers fight with desire, it will affect the complexion of battle. Gallipoli, Stalingrad...

Defending is a different matter. There you have all the advantages, add in all the allied mistakes etc and brave men can do well.

Attacking takes more than just courage
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Also, how would the Turks have treated Allied prisoners? I know virtually zero about this and would appreciate if someone can reccomend a good source on the subject.



http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Siege+of+Kut

General Townshend arranged a ceasefire on the 26th and, after failed negotiations, he simply surrendered on April 29 1916 after a siege of 147 days. Around 13,000 Allied soldiers survived to be made prisoners. 70% of the British and 50% of the Indian troops died during captivity of disease or at the hands of the Turkish guards.
 
Thanks Orry. Going by this, Australia/NZ aren't going to be happy with the British who lost them their armies in the first place, or with the Turks who theoretically killed off anything up to half of the prisoners they took.
 
Orry, the source offers no evidence of British/Indian troops dying for reasons of disease or any other and the very same article states earlier that 8,000 troops were captured, not 13,000.
 
If allies could pass Dardenelles(Gallipoli), there d be two benefits for allies. First one is; they could capture Istanbul(capital of Ottomans) so Ottomans d be defated, and second one is; they could connect and interfere Bolshevik rebellion in Russia.

But they couldnt. After Gallipoli War, Bulgaria join German-Austria-Turk allies, and Turks could connect with their allies. WW was lengthened, and victory made Mustafa Kemal a popular hero.
 
I'm guessing that with a more complete victory, Ataturk will be even more popular/respected than he is in Turkey. Mind you, he'll possibly be facing a more vengeful Britain postwar as has been pointed out so he might achieve less.
 
Could a more confident Ataturk bouyed by his success in WWI have taken Turkey into the Axis. How does an Axis Turkey change things in the Med and the southern front in Rusia. Could a combined German Turkish army have struck down through Syria and the Lebanon and threatened Britains position in North Africa. A joint attack by Rommel in the west and the Turkish/German force from the Levant could just have created enough panic in Alexandria to lead to a comprehensive victory for Rommel.

Unlike in the 1st war Britain seems to have done its level best to keep in Turkeys good books, did Britain learn its lesson.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Considering the treatment the British and Indian troops captured by the Turks at Al-Kut received, the treatment of however many thousands of British and ANZAC troops captured at Gallipoli is not going to be pleasant.

Could a more confident Ataturk bouyed by his success in WWI have taken Turkey into the Axis.

You're assuming Ataturk lives longer ITTL, for which there is no particular reason. He died in 1938 because his liver gave out after a life of heavy drinking. Why would he drink less ITTL?

Besides, you're basically suggested that Turkey IOTL didn't join the Axis because it wasn't "confident", which doesn't make sense to me. Furthermore, a completely different outcome of the Gallipoli campaign would introduce so many butterflies into the TL that the subsequent course of WWI would be completely different, and WWII would, in all likelihood, be butterflied away entirely and there would never be such a thing an the "Axis". It certainly wouldn't be anything like OTL.
 

Cook

Banned
If allies could pass Dardenelles(Gallipoli), there d be two benefits for allies. First one is; they could capture Istanbul(capital of Ottomans) so Ottomans d be defated, and second one is; they could connect and interfere Bolshevik rebellion in Russia.
But they couldnt. After Gallipoli War, Bulgaria join German-Austria-Turk allies, and Turks could connect with their allies. WW was lengthened, and victory made Mustafa Kemal a popular hero.

a successful landing at Gallipoli means you have cleared the west coast of the Dardanelles, you face an enormous problem of the East Coast forts, and the Bosporus is mined already, which would take a lot of time to clear, especially if the guns on the east coast forts are still firing.
Then you reach the Sea of Marmara, and European Turkey, all heavily defended.

And then you are faced with Istanbul and the Bosporus!

Taking that region would have demanded far more forces than were committed to the campaign and would still not have “Knocked Turkey out of the war” in 1915.



The Allies pushed extremely hard on the first day to seize the high ground of the peninsular but were beaten back by the suicidally determined resistance of the Turks. One Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is one of several key figures in the defence. After the first day it became a battle of attrition and the Turk build-up was just fast enough to frustrate the Allies.

Military Lessons to learn from the campaign (This isn’t a complete list that would take volumes):

Operational Security. If you are going to attack somewhere, keep it a secret. The destination of the troops was well known in Egypt and Greece prior to their departure for the Straits. Even if it had not been, the fact that the Royal Navy bombarded the Turk Fortresses on the Peninsular on the 3 November 1914, again on 19 February and 25 February 1915 and then land Royal Marines in raids on the 25 February and 4 March are a good hint to the Turks that you may be interested in the most strategically vital straits in the Mediterranean after the Straits of Gibraltar. And just to be sure, the RN further bombarded the forts on 7 and 8 March 1915, then 18 Battleships hit the forts on 18 March and Royal Marines landed in another raid on 26 March.

Deception Plan. Have one and make sure it’s good. A bit hard when you are planning to attack the most important position the enemy owns but even if it confuses him as to exactly where you will land and when it will help.

Reconnaissance. Know the terrain you are going to attack. Thoroughly. Find out what the enemy has waiting for you. Find out where the key blocking terrain is. Check if your man will be able to get off the beaches. Check where the enemy’s likely lines of sight, lines of fire and killing grounds are. This can take time and will require a small number of skilled professionals, but if you don’t do it the result is butchery.

Command. Choose a commander with experience in that type of warfare if it is possible. Or someone with a proven track record as a good commander and a planner otherwise. Choosing someone because he is a good old fellow and drinking buddy of the Commander in Chief isn’t such a good idea.

Allow time to Plan. Hamilton (the good old fellow and drinking buddy) was appointed on 11 March, only 45 days prior to attempting the largest amphibious landing in British and Allied history.

Command (Again). Co-ordinate. At no time prior to the landings did Hamilton even meet his Chief Medical Officer and enquire as to the casualty evacuation and treatment plan. Other key elements of the attack were left with almost as sketchy planning.

Choose the ground. Don’t attack the Enemy’s hard points. A lot of this is tied up with decent reconnaissance but also in planning. The British 29th division landed squarely in front of a Turkish fort; straight into a killing ground where many died before setting foot on dry land.

Rehearse. You are about to undertake the largest amphibious landing in your history, it may help if your men are well rehearsed and know intimately what their role is and their commander’s intent.

Have a back-up plan. What are you going to do if things go to shit?

I could keep going for another dozen pages but you get the idea.

For a very brief but reliable introduction check out the following websites.

http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/5environment/

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww1/anzac/gallipoli.htm




https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3267958
 
Top