What if the whole Gallipolli force was used in the western front instead?

Okay let's stick with what having that 1/4 of the forces in the Western Front does to the Western campaigns.
Remember that the Canadian and Indian infantry divisions have to be added into the BEF plus the British and Indian cavalry. OTOH the ANZAC infantry and light horse divisions that were part of the MEF would be available to the BEF too.
@Riain, @Kurt_Steiner, @NOMISYRRUC
For this thread I am trying to consider effects of increased effort/resourcing on the western front, rather than Mediterranean alternatives or the "making Gallipolli work" option as we have alot of discussion threads focused on those already, some that have not yet expired into the "necro" zone that consider the alternatives like Alexandretta, Palestine, Greeks getting in on Gallipolli, etc.
A large proportion of the RNAS was involved in the Gallipoli Campaign. ITTL the aircraft probably go to the RNAS Dunkirk command.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
If you aren't occupying the Ottomans in the Dardanelles, you will need more garrison in Egypt. Likely the Mounted Infantry for starters.
 
That's true as far as it goes, but some of the divisions that were sent to France in this period didn't have their full complement of artillery either.

Yes, so the BEF doesn't need more underequipped divisions on the Western Front.

For this thread I am trying to consider effects of increased effort/resourcing on the western front, rather than Mediterranean alternatives or the "making Gallipolli work" option as we have alot of discussion threads focused on those already, some that have not yet expired into the "necro" zone that consider the alternatives like Alexandretta, Palestine, Greeks getting in on Gallipolli, etc.

I'm not pushing that line, just pointing out that there were solid practical reasons in a military-materiel sense to send these troops to Gallipoli rather than Flanders; ie there wasn't enough artillery for these troops to go to to the Western Front and this shortfall couldn't be addressed by naval gunfire. You can't just plug one unit from Gallipoli into Flanders.
 
Yes, so the BEF doesn't need more underequipped divisions on the Western Front.
It needed all the divisions it could get whether they had the full complement of four 60pdr guns, fifty four 18pdr guns and eighteen 4.5-inch howitzers or not.

However, I was also going to suggest stripping the Gallipoli divisions of their artillery and sending that to the BEF so that the divisions already there could be brought up to full strength in artillery and any surplus artillery would be used to from army field brigades.

IIRC the BEF soon found that each infantry division needed one field company, RE per brigade (i.e. 3 companies per division instead of 2) and that each division also needed a field park company. So there is also a case for stripping the Gallipoli divisions of their Royal Engineers companies to provide the divisions already in France up to the new establishment faster and form the RE units at corps and army level faster. Ditto with signals which at that time was still a branch of the Corps of Royal Engineers and transport.

However, I think the Australian and New Zealand Governments would object to their divisions being stripped of units to bring British, Canadian and Indian units in the BEF up to strength.

As 1915 was the height of the shell shortage might it be better to send the artillery shells used at Gallipoli but not the guns and howitzers that fired them?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Instead of the Western Front would the forces that made up the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force have been sent to Egypt or Mesopotamia? Recently I've also been thinking of making landings in the Levant instead of Gallipoli. Is there any merit in these options?


Alexandrette. It is that little bit of Modern Turkey that sticks into modern Syria.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
But Austro-Hungarian troops can be redirected towards Russia.

That's true. And come to think of it, there may well be more A-H troops freed up in Serbia to largely counteract the 300K more British troops in Flanders. i.e. A-H divisions replace German divisions in the east. These German divisions are the extra losses need to counteract the additional British losses. A lot depends on timing, and to me this is why it is such a fun POD. You can take this POD a lot of different places depending on where, how, and how fast the British use the Gallipoli Troops.

Also, if A-H will allow Bulgaria to garrison Serbia (and presumably annex post war), then the A-H Troops free up to a greater degree and faster.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Is this because it cuts the rail links to Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Hejaz in one fell swoop?

It cuts the rail link to these areas, and makes setbacks much more likely. There are other ways to get the supplies down to these areas, they are just much less efficient.
 
It needed all the divisions it could get whether they had the full complement of four 60pdr guns, fifty four 18pdr guns and eighteen 4.5-inch howitzers or not.

What was the average artillery compliment of a BEF and MEF division in mid 1915?

I'd also add that the biggest problem on the Western Front wasn't resources, but skill in using them to best effect.
 
I found this elsewhere on the intermernet.

"There were not enough guns and there was nothing like enough ammunition...

On 6th, 7th and 8th May, Sir Ian Hamilton had attacked with 20,000 men on a three mile front. 18,500 rounds were fired from all guns, British and French and the ships, much of it was shrapnel which had little destructive impact on defences. Thus for 6,000 rounds per day he advanced 600 yards at the cost of 6,500 casualties. He never closed with the enemy's main positions which were not yet completely wired; he was held up by isolated, unlocated but well coordinated machine guns concealed in natural cover. On the following day, at Aubers Ridge in France, Sir Douglas Haig attacked with 30,000 men (with 25,000 more in reserve) on a two mile front. 500 guns fired 80,000 rounds to support him in one day. This too failed, but had half that force been available to Sir Ian Hamilton they might well have enabled him to drive the Turks from the peninsula ...”
 
What was the average artillery compliment of a BEF and MEF division in mid 1915?
I know that the artillery establishment in August 1914 for an regular infantry division was 76 artillery pieces of all types organised into 13 batteries. That is 12 RFA batteries of six guns (fifty four 18pdr guns and eighteen 4.5" howitzers) and one RGA heavy battery with four 60pdr guns. However, that only applied to the six regular divisions (1st to 6th) that existed at the outbreak of World War II. The Cavalry Division had twenty four 13pdr guns organised into 4 batteries of 6 guns.

The 9 regular infantry divisions (Guards, 7th, 8th, 27th, 28th and 29th Divisions, 2nd Cavalry Division and 3rd Cavalry Division plus the RN Division) were formed with what was left in the UK after the original BEF left and troops withdrawn from the colonies, Egypt and India. Their divisional artilleries had to be made up of whatever was available so initially they had non standard organisations. I've got the copy of the Orders of Battle volume on the regular infantry and cavalry divisions, but I don't have time to work out what the average was. And by the time the Gallipoli landings took place they might have been reorganised on the standard pattern anyway.

AFAIK the British New Army infantry divisions and the Dominion cavalry and infantry divisions were formed on the regular British pattern. However, the 10 Indian divisions (1st to 9th and Burma Divisions) that existed in August 1914 had less artillery than the British divisions, but I haven't looked up what they had.

The 14 Territorial Force infantry divisions only had 48 field artillery pieces because their RFA batteries had 4 guns each instead of 6 and IIRC it wasn't until 1916 that all the RFA batteries in the TF were organised on a six-gun basis. Plus they were equipped with Boer War vintage weapons at the outbreak of World War II.

The PDF of the volume of Orders of Battle about the regular British divisions includes an Appendix showing how the establishment of an infantry division on the Western Front evolved from 1914 to 1918. I tried to upload it into this post, but it didn't work.
 
I found this elsewhere on the intermernet.

"There were not enough guns and there was nothing like enough ammunition...

On 6th, 7th and 8th May, Sir Ian Hamilton had attacked with 20,000 men on a three mile front. 18,500 rounds were fired from all guns, British and French and the ships, much of it was shrapnel which had little destructive impact on defences. Thus for 6,000 rounds per day he advanced 600 yards at the cost of 6,500 casualties. He never closed with the enemy's main positions which were not yet completely wired; he was held up by isolated, unlocated but well coordinated machine guns concealed in natural cover. On the following day, at Aubers Ridge in France, Sir Douglas Haig attacked with 30,000 men (with 25,000 more in reserve) on a two mile front. 500 guns fired 80,000 rounds to support him in one day. This too failed, but had half that force been available to Sir Ian Hamilton they might well have enabled him to drive the Turks from the peninsula ...”

Banging off along the entire front for days did little but waste shells, and churn earth.
The later creeping barrage was a little better, but it wasn't till 1918 that getting FOs in the front line, and then the batteries going by fire mission was the 'problem' solved
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If you aren't occupying the Ottomans in the Dardanelles, you will need more garrison in Egypt. Likely the Mounted Infantry for starters.

Probably not. The Ottomans would need to extend the railroad into Egypt from Palestine or the logistics will hamper the effort.
 
I know that the artillery establishment in August 1914 for an regular infantry division was 76 artillery pieces of all types organised into 13 batteries. That is 12 RFA batteries of six guns (fifty four 18pdr guns and eighteen 4.5" howitzers) and one RGA heavy battery with four 60pdr guns. However, that only applied to the six regular divisions (1st to 6th) that existed at the outbreak of World War II. The Cavalry Division had twenty four 13pdr guns organised into 4 batteries of 6 guns.

The 9 regular infantry divisions (Guards, 7th, 8th, 27th, 28th and 29th Divisions, 2nd Cavalry Division and 3rd Cavalry Division plus the RN Division) were formed with what was left in the UK after the original BEF left and troops withdrawn from the colonies, Egypt and India. Their divisional artilleries had to be made up of whatever was available so initially they had non standard organisations. I've got the copy of the Orders of Battle volume on the regular infantry and cavalry divisions, but I don't have time to work out what the average was. And by the time the Gallipoli landings took place they might have been reorganised on the standard pattern anyway.

AFAIK the British New Army infantry divisions and the Dominion cavalry and infantry divisions were formed on the regular British pattern. However, the 10 Indian divisions (1st to 9th and Burma Divisions) that existed in August 1914 had less artillery than the British divisions, but I haven't looked up what they had.

The 14 Territorial Force infantry divisions only had 48 field artillery pieces because their RFA batteries had 4 guns each instead of 6 and IIRC it wasn't until 1916 that all the RFA batteries in the TF were organised on a six-gun basis. Plus they were equipped with Boer War vintage weapons at the outbreak of World War II.

The PDF of the volume of Orders of Battle about the regular British divisions includes an Appendix showing how the establishment of an infantry division on the Western Front evolved from 1914 to 1918. I tried to upload it into this post, but it didn't work.

Don't go crazy looking. I know that the 1st Australian heavy artillery battery was formed in May 15 with 2 x 6" howitzers scrounged from Malta and an old 4.7" naval gun. Another 4 gun 6" howitzer battery was in theatre in the early days as well, and that is it in terms of heavy artillery. I don't think that is unusual in gallipoli, and I get the impression that not only were the guns thin on the ground but were older types such as the 15 pdr and 4.7".

Therefore it's a bit difficult to pull these units out of the med and send them to Flanders, they'd need niche supply and repair pipelines for starters, which would detract from the main effort. There is a bit of sense using scrounged capabilities in a niche campaign.

Edit. For the Battle of the Aisne in 1914 the BEF had 4 batteries of 6" howitzers for 6 infantry division, but for the Gallipoli campaign some 4 divisions had a mere 6 6" howitzers, which shows the mismatch that the ships were supposed to assist with.
 
Last edited:

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Probably not. The Ottomans would need to extend the railroad into Egypt from Palestine or the logistics will hamper the effort.

The Brits were concerned enough about the Ottomans getting artillery in range of the canal that they decided that passively defending the canal wasn't good enough. Lacking a Dardanelles distraction, they will address the issue (eg water infrastructure in central Sinai) sooner than OTL.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The Brits were concerned enough about the Ottomans getting artillery in range of the canal that they decided that passively defending the canal wasn't good enough. Lacking a Dardanelles distraction, they will address the issue (eg water infrastructure in central Sinai) sooner than OTL.

If you mean move the positions a few 10's of KM east of the canal, sure maybe.
 
Top