Botched invasions

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,081
#51
While the Dardenelles WAS an abject failure, it’s main purpose was to relieve pressure on the Russians who were hard pushed on their Caucus front.
.
had not the Russain fortunes recovered in the Caucus by the time the ground cmapaign was launched?


What ? No mention of Dardanelles Campaign in 1915 during World War I. The fiasco that almost finished Churchill's poltical career ? Entante lost six battleships , two destroyers , various other pupport and escort craft and on land more than 250.000 men (British Commonwealth , ANZACs and French) killed , wounded , missing , captured. EDIT : Sorry rvsakhadeo mentioned six minutes before me.
was it only 3 pre-dreadnougts lost outright ?
 
Apr 2014
372
Istanbul Turkey
#52
had not the Russain fortunes recovered in the Caucus by the time the ground cmapaign was launched?




was it only 3 pre-dreadnougts lost outright ?
Three pre dreadnought battleships were sunk when Combined Fleet tried to pass through Straits on 18th March 1915 (naval battle of Dardanelles)
Three more pre dreadnought type battleships were sunk AFTER that when Combined Fleet was utilised to support land campaign between April-December 1915 (one was sunk by a Turkish torpedoboat Muave Milliye , two other by a German U-Boat , Otto Hershing's U-21 I believe)
 
Sep 2012
9,016
India
#53
While the Dardenelles WAS an abject failure, it’s main purpose was to relieve pressure on the Russians who were hard pushed on their Caucus front.

So while operationally the mission failed all its objectives.
Strategically it diverted Ottoman attention, helped the Russians and succeeded in what it intended to do ... albeit in a costly and humiliating way.
I am not sure that the purpose of the Dardanelles campaign was to relieve pressure on the Russians. The Russians were hard pressed by the Germans. And the Germans did not bother themselves about the fate of the Turkish Army in WW I except sending a few trainers and advisers.
 
Feb 2016
4,343
Japan
#55
I am not sure that the purpose of the Dardanelles campaign was to relieve pressure on the Russians. The Russians were hard pressed by the Germans. And the Germans did not bother themselves about the fate of the Turkish Army in WW I except sending a few trainers and advisers.
November 1914 the Caucus Campaign begins.
In January 1915 the Turks launched an offensive there and Tsar appealed for the British and French to launch an attack in the ottomans. Which they did via the Dardanelles. They were defeated completely.

But the Russians had time to replenish there forces in the caucus and the Ottomans had to funnel everything into defending the homeland. So nothing could be sent to help the forces struggling against the Russians.

The allies agreed to attack the Ottomans providing the Russians launched an offensive against the Germans.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,232
#56
The problem with the Dardenelles operation was that it was badly conceived and in fact required operational skills that were not current in 1915. Covert landings of that size (the original landings that is, not the following ones) had not been attempted before and were prone to chaos in the dark of the early morning. One anecdote is hugely funny. An australian soldier got tangled in the net getting down into the landing boat. A Royal Navy officer heard the commotion, leaned over the side, and ordered "Stop making that noise!". The angry Australian replied - rudely - "I'm not a trapeze artist!"

Although some aerial recconaisance had been undertaken the operation was planned with old maps, some dating back to the Crimean War. Further, the ability of artillery to hit targets nominated by map reference would not be evolved for at least another year. Also the German officer commanding the Turkish defences had the bright idea of determining which beach we were going to use.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,081
#57
The problem with the Dardenelles operation was that it was badly conceived and in fact required operational skills that were not current in 1915. Covert landings of that size (the original landings that is, not the following ones) had not been attempted before and were prone to chaos in the dark of the early morning. One anecdote is hugely funny. An australian soldier got tangled in the net getting down into the landing boat. A Royal Navy officer heard the commotion, leaned over the side, and ordered "Stop making that noise!". The angry Australian replied - rudely - "I'm not a trapeze artist!"

Although some aerial recconaisance had been undertaken the operation was planned with old maps, some dating back to the Crimean War. Further, the ability of artillery to hit targets nominated by map reference would not be evolved for at least another year. Also the German officer commanding the Turkish defenses had the bright idea of determining which beach we were going to use.
I think giving the Turks 6 week or so to prepare was pretty much the game. Had the landing gone in against the much reduced forces at that time, the landing and siezure of the Dardenelles may well have worked. That it would hav a significnat effect I'm not sure at all, a few bombardments of Constantinople would have achieved what?
 
Mar 2016
1,116
Australia
#58
The many failed attempts by the British to land forces in the Low Countries during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. The list reads like an utter farce in how badly and how swiftly they failed time and again.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,232
#59
I think giving the Turks 6 week or so to prepare was pretty much the game. Had the landing gone in against the much reduced forces at that time, the landing and siezure of the Dardenelles may well have worked. That it would hav a significnat effect I'm not sure at all, a few bombardments of Constantinople would have achieved what?
interesting that you ask. Bombardment of cities doesn't usually have the dramatic effect the aggressors hope for. We see this from ancient times to the modern day. Feet on the ground matter. Once Constantinople is occupied and secured, you achieve. Pummelling ruins with more explosives achieves nothing other than to reduce morale for the citizens to a degree and give you something to report to your boss about how the war is going.
 
Jun 2013
485
Connecticut
#60
The battle of Cape Bon (Roman invasion of N. Africa in 468) has been mentioned a couple of times already. The was decisive in hammering the last nail in the coffin of the Western Empire yet rarely is the connection made, often not even mentioned, of the "Fall of the Roman Empire" and Cape Bon. Cape Bon bankrupted the company so to speak. Why isn't it mentioned as often as it should be?

Lots was going on to end the West but this seemed to be the "point of no return".
 

Similar History Discussions