What if the Anzacs won at Gallipoli?

How does 90% of the Allied force get annihilated yet the Anzacs somehow secure the win?
Most probably the Anzacs get a reputation for cowardice as Britain's nd France did all the fighting and during while the Anzacs climbed over their corpses to victory.
 
Had the troops landed either at or just before the Navy tried to force the narrows they probably would have succeeded. There were few Turks in the area outside of the forts so the landings would have been virtually unopposed, and with the guns of the fleet on one side and the troops on the other the forts would have fallen. With the coastal forts out of action the mine sweepers would have cleared a channel through the minefields and the fleet would have been able to proceed to Istanbul.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
If the fall of Constantinople knocks Turkey out of the war, the results would be massive.
I wonder, why so many think, that an entente (and with then ANZAC) victory at Gallipoli would shortly after result in :
1. capture of Constantinople and the Bosphorus strait
and with that
2. drop out of the ottoman/turkish army of the war entirely

ad 1.
Even if the Gallipoli landings - with whatever method/PoD - would succeed, it would have been payed with a huge bloodshed by the entente forces. And to advance further ... next has the turkish 1st army to be beaten before reaching Constantinople.
By the way : there are still some "interesting" forts guarding the Dardanelles on the asia minor side. No "just steaming through" for the entente ships into the Marmara Sea, wich will then be crowed by whatever turkish ship or fishingboat can carry a mine. It would become a spitroot running for the entente ships.

Preparing the advance to Constantinople with another landing ? Maybe at the trojan plains ? Well as the russians at that time have their hands full with the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive they will be pleased to see the turkish 3rd army withdraw into Anatolia and guarding Constantinople - freeing whatever man they can send into Poland.
But maybe parts of turkish 2nd and 4th army are quicker in facing the entente forces (better railway connections) than 3rd army. I'm quite confident, that the turks would easily retreat from palestine/syria and mesopotamia to secure their heartland.

That said : it would be a very hard grinding through an unforgiving, defenders prefering countryside, widly unknown for the entente forces.


Bulgarias reactions : It won't "flock" to the ententes cause but as IOTL still wait and see ... an increasingly difficult and blood-costly, ever slowing down advance of entente-troops. BTW the stubborn serbs were still not ready to cease macedonia to them, even though the latter were pressed by France and Russia to do so.
IMO they would finally see an entente retreat similar to what happened to the Greeks 1922.

In the meantime Austria and Germany may still have invaded Serbia one more time and IMO Serbia would have be beaten even without the bulgarian participation IOTL.

(more to come)
 
The forts on the Asia Minor side of the straights were take by the French. The Fleet would have been able to steam through. Constantinople would fall because it would have a large number of very large guns pointed at it. Whether that would knock the Ottomans out of the war I don't know, but baring a revolution I think not. It could have the opposite effect. Whether the fall of Constantinople would end the fighting in European Turkey again I suspect not. Even if the military is mopped up I would expect there to be an insurgency to deal with.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Had the troops landed either at or just before the Navy tried to force the narrows they probably would have succeeded. There were few Turks in the area outside of the forts so the landings would have been virtually unopposed, and with the guns of the fleet on one side and the troops on the other the forts would have fallen. With the coastal forts out of action the mine sweepers would have cleared a channel through the minefields and the fleet would have been able to proceed to Istanbul.

OTL there was no attempt to force (or even approach) the narrows, nor an attempt to land on the continental side of the Dardanelles. Mine sweepers were substantially manned by civilians and vulnerable to mobile artillery and probably even small arms if the narrows were approached. OTL few if any of the Entente naval forces (substantially obsolete) could cope with plunging fire from even mobile howitzers, which would be very difficult to spot/ subdue if firing from the equivalent of a reverse slope.

Unbeknown to the Entente, I believe Bulgaria and the Ottomans had already reached an understanding - I think in September 1914. With the Germans occupying France's industrial heartland and Britain building its continental army from scratch, were substantial military supplies available for export to Russia? Similarly, I understand mobilization had taken its toll on Russian rail resources, which might have struggled to get export grain to Black Sea ports - OTL there were already people in Russia going hungry...
 

BooNZ

Banned
In the meantime Austria and Germany may still have invaded Serbia one more time and IMO Serbia would have be beaten even without the bulgarian participation IOTL.
General Typhus was already ripping through Serbian ranks and wider population through the 1914/15 winter, so quite possibly.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If it is clear that if the West cannot supply Russia even when the strait is under control (this is actually a fact, both Britain and France struggled to arm themselves), then Alexandretta is the number one option for a landing: a railway hub, large Christian population, flatter beach, far from Constantinople. Occupy it and you will cut off the south of the Empire from Turkey. Turkish armies in the south would eventually surrender as they run out of supplies. Build a firm entrenched position in Alexandretta and you don't have to worry about any kind of Ottoman offensives.

If we can defeat the Turks before Brusilov offensive, we can use troops in Middle East Front to launch a direct offensive to A-H at the same time of Brusilov. A-H will not survive.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
The forts on the Asia Minor side of the straights were take by the French. The Fleet would have been able to steam through. Constantinople would fall because it would have a large number of very large guns pointed at it. Whether that would knock the Ottomans out of the war I don't know, but baring a revolution I think not. It could have the opposite effect. Whether the fall of Constantinople would end the fighting in European Turkey again I suspect not. Even if the military is mopped up I would expect there to be an insurgency to deal with.
About the highlightened sections :
The forts :

Any reference for the french haven taken these forts ? I couldn't find it mentioned at least in wiki.

I was refering more to the batteries deeper inside the dardanells
dardanellen-batterien 2.jpg

Still a spitroot running IMO.
Not to forget the most likely constantly ongoing mining ITTL of the Dardanells east of Nagara.
Can't see the "steming through" being easily achieved, rather a quite costly buisness for the entente sailors.

The "guns" at Constantinople :
Found an article of swiss origin from 1905 stating, that at that point there were "72 modern Krupp-guns" in battery ...
Therefore I would assume in 1914 there would be at least these guns shooting back, with high-angle plunging fire against rather flimsyly deck-armored old and older entente BS uncapable of high-angle fire and rather unsuited to land bombardement.


Here's the "more to come" ... though @Peg Leg Pom has essentially already said it :
Fall of Constantinople doesn't kick the Ottoman Empire-now-reduced-to-coreTurkey out of the war.
=> very bloody, very dirty, lots of troops binding, ongoing guerillia warfare in unforgivingly, unknown countryside, without infrastructure to speak of the entente forces are used too (opposite to the turks) by even more nationalized Young Turks.
Not the brightest outlook for middle-class, middle-school, middle-england Kitcherners Army boys.

Don't get me wrong : ofc it's possible for the entente to take Constantinople ... somewhere around novembre/decembre at very, VERY best, but only at the costs of too many troops needed IOTL elsewhere :
in Macedonia and not to forget on the french fronts. ... with an awfull lot of other butterflies there.
No ammo for Serbia, as the MEF and ANZAC would use up every shell they get a hand on (what they would have to).

Leaves the possibilty of taking the Gallipoli penisula and ... let it be good with that. That would have achievd :
nothing
  • no ammo for Serbia (again, see above) so Serbia's still defeated
  • shipping neither to nor fro Russia via the Black Sea
  • still no pressing reason for Bulgary to join the entente
but a great booldshed ending in a stalemate trenchwar at the fortress line at Muriar Dere at the neck of the peninsula (at any point in time you wish), what could still count as a strategic, at least propagandistic victory for the Ottomans having beaten back 2 Great Powerss assault, that achieved nothing.
 
Last edited:
Because the title says ANZACs win.

Yes but that title had more to do with the OPs misunderstanding of events - while not wanting to dismiss or belittle their service, and I appreciate that it was a very big deal in Australian and NZ, but the Anzacs made up about 10% of the Total Entente Forces involved during the campaign - a campaign that the entire force did not win.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
I hope that Anzac users of an alt-history board have a better than average understanding of the Gallipoli campaign...
I found it heartbreaking standing on Chanuk Bair, with the straights just visible, but so many ridges in-between.
I recently read a book on the August offensive which laid out just how doomed to failure it was for multiple reasons, it has put me right off thinking too hard about it!
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I hope that Anzac users of an alt-history board have a better than average understanding of the Gallipoli campaign...
I found it heartbreaking standing on Chanuk Bair, with the straights just visible, but so many ridges in-between.
I recently read a book on the August offensive which laid out just how doomed to failure it was for multiple reasons, it has put me right off thinking too hard about it!
Thats why the original option of Alexandretta was the optimal one
 
I see the advantages of Alexandretta landing.

But I think that taking Constantinople, even though more risky choice, if done correctly, does more to neutralise Ottoman armies. Empire was very centralised economically. Large portion of city-dwelling population lived in the immediate neighbourhood of Marmara and Aegean Seas.
Taking out Ottoman Fleet during campaign means all those cities are sitting ducks. Most of their industry, population, and military stockpile is essentially rendered useless for the rest of war.
Greece and Italy join Entente with their strong fleets, effectively rendering Austrian Navy superfluous.
 
Last edited:
I hope that Anzac users of an alt-history board have a better than average understanding of the Gallipoli campaign...

Don't worry some of us do. Had a grandfather that served with the 20th Battalion on the peninsula until his body was so ravaged by multiple diseases that he was medically evacuated all the way to Bristol in the UK.

The chance of an ANZAC victory at Gallipoli was about the same as me winning the powerball tomorrow, and I haven't even bought an entry.

I recently read a book on the August offensive which laid out just how doomed to failure it was for multiple reasons, it has put me right off thinking too hard about it!

Cameron's 'The August Offensive at Anzac 1915'?

Any reference for the french haven taken these forts ? I couldn't find it mentioned at least in wiki.

The French landed at Kum Kale (Kum Kalesi on your map), as a diversion on 25/4/15 to stop the Ottoman artillery on the Asian side shooting into the rear of the 29th Division. They were successful in that, and in shooting down the first Turks to arrive, but the guns at Kum Kale had already been captured/destroyed by Royal Marine landings in Feb 1915. There were no landings further north on the Asian side, and this was not an attempt to capture the forts. The French successfully withdrew the next day, ironically they later suffered heavily holding the right of the Helles position from the Ottomans shelling their rear.
 
Top