Was the Gallipoli Campaign really that unwinnable?

[GauchoBadger]

I'm a bit of a sucker for WWI PoD's, and one of my favourites is that of a successful pushing of the dardanelles, with the british securing Istanbul with its massive navy, possibly knocking out the Ottomans from the war, and creating a more secure supply line to Russia through the black sea. However, as most people here are used to saying, it was nothing but a meat grinder, and the OTL outcome of it is an indicator.
But i insist on it.
Is there any, any way that Churchill's plan could have succeeded? The british had one of the most, if not the most, powerful navies on Earth at the time, it's kind of sure they had enough dreadnoughts and ammunition to focus on a conquest of the straits.
Are there any pre-war, retroactive PoD's necessary for the campaign to be more successful, such as Greece joining the war? I heard that greek troops were quite experienced in warfare against ottoman troops and machine guns, considering that they fought in the first balkan war.
Are there any contemporaneous, on-the-spot PoD's that could make the campaign at least a bit less of a grind, such as scout ships being sent before the dreadnoughts came to detect the sea mines that would destroy them?

 

[Zheng He]

Has anyone ever written a TL on this? I'm sure somebody has...

 

[Lalli]

Has anyone ever written a TL on this? I'm sure somebody has...

There is one Gallipoli TL:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-soft-underbelly-a-gallipoli-tl.385398/

 

[sloreck]

Having done serious academic research on this campaign, let me say (briefly) that there are ways this could have worked. By trying the naval attack first, which foundered (literally) on the mined narrows the Turks (and Germans) alerted them and started the serious land defense preparations. If the naval attack is done, the land attack needs to be ready to go soon after in case the purely naval affair fails. That was not done, and the Turks had plenty of prep time. The staff preparations for the attack were pure crap, better staff work and some recon of the area (the only maps used by the commanding general came from a 10 year old source) would have made a big difference. Finally even in spite of all of the above the initial assault was not pushed aggressively. A unit moved sluggishly and stopped for a brew up when if they had kept moving they would have take a key feature that was held by the Turks for the entire campaign and had the British taken it they could have flanked the Turkish defense.

Lots of other major screw ups with navy-army coordination, counterintelligence, and much more. Gallipoli was the largest modern opposed amphibious assault ever and done a long way from logistic bases - Egypt and Malta were depots nothing more. Having said that the sheer ineptitude of the planning and execution of this campaign was beyond excusing.

 

[That Damned Fool]

Sloreck.... in your opinion, are there any ways the operation could have succeeded? My impression always was that the fault lay with timid and indecisive generals who wanted to fight the first major war of the 20th Century on 19th Century terms; slow to understand the rapidly changing tactical realities, slower still to recognize both the dangers and opportunities presented by modern weapons and tactical philosophies, and slower still to make and enact an independent and innovative decision quickly enough to make a difference. I know that's a simplistic and superficial characterization of the events, but would it be fair to say that better, more decisive generaling both on the tactical and logistical levels might have produced a substantially different outcome?

I have not studied Gallipoli to the degree that you apparently have, but my impression has always been that this should have been a very winnable exercise. Is that a fair assessment, or is there more to it that I am missing?

 

[von Adler]

Gallipoli will be hard because it is right outside the center of the Ottomans. Whatever military resources they have can and will be there in an instant, while it is a long way for reinforcement and supply to go for the Entente.

 

[jeandebueil]

I would like to quote LSCatilina on this. Basically the English said for months "Hey everyone, we are going to attack Gallipoli, I'm sure there is no risk about this saying this loud". The secrecy about the Offensive was as bad as with the Nivelle Offensive (where politicians spoke about it in bars in Paris publicly! Seriously?!)

 

[Deleted member 94680]

If the land attack went in alongside the naval attacks, if better minesweepers were used and used more effectively there was a serious chance of success.

Gallipoli will be hard because it is right outside the center of the Ottomans. Whatever military resources they have can and will be there in an instant, while it is a long way for reinforcement and supply to go for the Entente.

But once the Gallipoli beachhead has been properly secured and the perimeter secured, the WAllies can bring in all the troops and equipment they need.

 

[Christopher Marcus]

IMO the single biggest mistake of Gallipoli was the assumption that the Turks would automatically fold once warships appeared off Constantinople. The British did not rate the Turks very highly as fighters or in terms of morale, which would cost them dearly.

Of course, we can never know what would have happened (this is why we have AH.com! ), had the ships come through, or had a combination of landings and ships made it, but I'd say given past hindsight about how the Turks fought in other campaigns and in their Independence War, the Entente would have no more than a 50-50 chance max of forcing a surrender once Cons was threatened or even taken.

It was after all the imperial capital, so the Turks could just as likely have fought on to regain it, pinning down a larger and larger number of troops which were essential on other fronts. The Turks themselves had other fronts, sure, but if the capital was threatened they might have shortened their line several places there, too.

As I have mentioned in another thread, the best way to ensure success would be to draw in the Bulgarians and Greeks on Entente side with the promise of lavish compensation of Ottoman territory and then let them do much of the fighting, policing, etc. whilst the Entente kept the Straits open for shipping to Russia. This was OTL one of the political wet dreams in London for the successful outcome of forcing the Straits, IIRC - to incite esp. the Bulgarians to come in on Entente side.

But there were a lot of dominoes that had to fall in the right place for all of this to happen in just the way the Brit gov dreamed about.

 

[GauchoBadger]

But once the Gallipoli beachhead has been properly secured and the perimeter secured, the WAllies can bring in all the troops and equipment they need.

Yes, but the british would need to move troops from the western front to this new straits campaign. Were the french strong enough to hold out on their own?
Also, would offering Adrianople be enough to bring the bulgarians to the Entente side? The bulgarians were surprisingly strong in their military, and would have been quite vital for defending the straits.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Yes, but the british would need to move troops from the western front to this new straits campaign. Were the french strong enough to hold out on their own?
Also, would offering Adrianople be enough to bring the bulgarians to the Entente side? The bulgarians were surprisingly strong in their military, and would have been quite vital for defending the straits.

Why would the British need to do that? More Anzac troops, Indians or other Dominion contingents would be thrown in. They wouldn't remove anyone from the Western Front, that's madness. A lot of troops were used OTL in the Gallipoli Campaign, once the breakout is achieved you're talking War of manoeuvre as opposed to grinding offensive. I imagine the other "Eastern" theatres would take the hit, but definitely not the Western Front.
Adrianople would be a massive lure to the Bulgarians, it was a War Aim for them in the Balkan Wars. Offering it and it's hinterland would be an easy offer for the WAllies to make. It also doesn't have to abut the Straights, allowing the Russian's claims to be respected.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I half remember from reading one of Anthony Preston's books or Raymond K. Massie's Castles of Steel that the minesweepers were trawlers manned by fishermen of the RNR or RNVR and that when they came under fire from Turkish shore batteries they retreated and that is why the Turkish mines that did so much damage had not been swept. Is that true?

Another story, possibly from The War in the Air, which was the British official history of the air services in World War One was that aerial reconnaissance provided Ian Hamilton and his staff with an accurate picture of the Turkish dispositions, but they ignored it. Is that true as well?

I half-remember that Liddel Hart thought Hamilton's dispositions for the initial landings were correct, but that his subordinate commanders did not show enough initiative and instead of interfering too much like generals on the Western Front, he didn't interfere at all, thinking that the "Man on the Spot" knew better than he did. Is all or some of that true also?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

AFAIK the minesweeper bit is, that was the intent of my comment earlier.

I've read bits on the timidity of the on-ground commanders, so there's a chance that's true too.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IMO the single biggest mistake of Gallipoli was the assumption that the Turks would automatically fold once warships appeared off Constantinople. The British did not rate the Turks very highly as fighters or in terms of morale, which would cost them dearly.

I don't know if they would surrender immediately, but the resistance they would be able to put up might be limited by all their explosives factories being in Constantinople (according to Liddell Hart when I read him 25 years ago). That might mean that they can conduct a guerrilla war in the Anatolia, but they might find it hard to take Constantinople back. Also taking Constantinople cuts the Turks off from the other Central Powers and without arms, ammunition and German air squadrons they might not be able to hold Mesopotamia and Palestine for as long as they did.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

AFAIK the minesweeper bit is, that was the intent of my comment earlier.

Sorry missed that.

 

[BlondieBC]

Gallipoli will be hard because it is right outside the center of the Ottomans. Whatever military resources they have can and will be there in an instant, while it is a long way for reinforcement and supply to go for the Entente.

Well stated.

While the battle can be won, the odds are very long for the Entente to accomplish anything of significance. The only chance for British to win quickly was thrown away at Gallipoli. The British should have attacked in Flanders where the logistics were easiest.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why would the British need to do that? More Anzac troops, Indians or other Dominion contingents would be thrown in. They wouldn't remove anyone from the Western Front, that's madness. A lot of troops were used OTL in the Gallipoli Campaign, once the breakout is achieved you're talking War of manoeuvre as opposed to grinding offensive. I imagine the other "Eastern" theatres would take the hit, but definitely not the Western Front.
Adrianople would be a massive lure to the Bulgarians, it was a War Aim for them in the Balkan Wars. Offering it and it's hinterland would be an easy offer for the WAllies to make. It also doesn't have to abut the Straights, allowing the Russian's claims to be respected.

The Gallipoli Army's proper name was the Mediterranean Expeditionary Forces (MEF) which initially had 6 divisions (IIRC) and grew to be 12 divisions strong. IIRC the 6 original divisions were one British regular, one TF, 2 New Army, one French and the Royal Naval Division.

 

[BlondieBC]

Yes, but the british would need to move troops from the western front to this new straits campaign. Were the french strong enough to hold out on their own?
Also, would offering Adrianople be enough to bring the bulgarians to the Entente side? The bulgarians were surprisingly strong in their military, and would have been quite vital for defending the straits.

Yes, but you kill the Russians. In about August 1915, a series of French and British attacks force the Germans to transfer 330 battalion in a week or two to keep the Western front from collapse. This transfer stopped the German Advance in the east. If you pull the 16 or so division need to make the campaign credible chance of winning, the the Germans likely keep advance until the snows fall in the east. The Russian army had already retreated for 90 straight days with heavy losses. Here it will be at least 180 days, and the Germans will be several hundred miles to the east. Things like Kiev being in CP hands, or the Baltics being in CP hands, or Romania joining the war as the Russian forces in the Ukraine collapse should not be ruled out.

Besides all the post war CYA that goes on and attacking where logistics are unfavorable, there is another issue that has to be addressed. To open trade to Russia, you have to have both sides of the straights, so you will need roughly double the number of troops used IOTL, or 16 extra divisions. The choices roughly are to land at Troy or to take Smyrna so you have a good port, and then advance towards the straights. If the UK wants to win at Gallipoli, the have to go full out on Gallipoli. I don't think it would work, but strange things happen in war, so it might.

 

[BlondieBC]

Why would the British need to do that? More Anzac troops, Indians or other Dominion contingents would be thrown in. They wouldn't remove anyone from the Western Front, that's madness. A lot of troops were used OTL in the Gallipoli Campaign, once the breakout is achieved you're talking War of manoeuvre as opposed to grinding offensive. I imagine the other "Eastern" theatres would take the hit, but definitely not the Western Front.
Adrianople would be a massive lure to the Bulgarians, it was a War Aim for them in the Balkan Wars. Offering it and it's hinterland would be an easy offer for the WAllies to make. It also doesn't have to abut the Straights, allowing the Russian's claims to be respected.

Indian troops are need to keep India from revolting. The White Settler colonies don't have spare divisions laying around. If you go thru the British Empire Order of Battle, there are not 3-4 spare corp sitting around doing nothing. And then there is the issue of many of these colonial troops being very lightly armed. Things such as multi-regimental size units without machine guns, much less artillery.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Indian troops are need to keep India from revolting. The White Settler colonies don't have spare divisions laying around. If you go thru the British Empire Order of Battle, there are not 3-4 spare corp sitting around doing nothing. And then there is the issue of many of these colonial troops being very lightly armed. Things such as multi-regimental size units without machine guns, much less artillery.

In WWI there was no real risk of Indian revolution. Granted white settler colonies can't provide divisions but maybe regiments, also I was also thinking more Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They can always be equipped better with heavier weapons for the campaign.

I'm basically saying a Gallipoli breakthrough would become the priority for "spare" troops and equipment the way Mesopotamian Front was OTL.