The Entente launches another amphibious attack on Constantinople in 1917

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,934
SoCal
#1
What if the Entente Powers would have launched another amphibious attack on Constantinople and the Straits in 1917 in place of the Kerensky Offensive? The Entente Powers would use their lesson from the failed attempt at Gallipoli to try doing a better job in regards to this this time around and an advantage of this course of action is that the US Navy would be able to be put to good use by participating in this attack as opposed to forcing the Entente to wait until the next year (1918) for large numbers of US troops to actually arrive in Europe.

Russia could also try launching a separate amphibious attack on Constantinople from the Black Sea in this scenario but could also simultaneously launch a land attack against the Ottoman forces in eastern Anatolia in an attempt to get the Ottomans to divert some of their resources from Constantinople towards eastern Anatolia.

Anyway, how do you think that such an Entente amphibious attack on Constantinople in 1917 would have fared? Also, what about the Russian moves that I discussed in my paragraph above (which Russia would do instead of launching the Kerensky Offensive)? How would the Russian moves have fared in this scenario?

Any thoughts on all of this?

@Maki Thoughts?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,934
SoCal
#2
BTW, the logic behind such an Entente move would be to open the Straits and thus to allow Entente supplies, material, and food to reach Russia in much larger numbers--thus possibly providing a morale boost to the Russians and thus allowing them to remain in WWI up to the very end.
 
Mar 2019
1,448
Kansas
#3
Anyway, how do you think that such an Entente amphibious attack on Constantinople in 1917 would have fared? Also, what about the Russian moves that I discussed in my paragraph above (which Russia would do instead of launching the Kerensky Offensive)? How would the Russian moves have fared in this scenario?

Any thoughts on all of this?

@Maki Thoughts?
Same result for the same reasons. Only this time the Turks will more confident in their abilities.
 
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2019
1,448
Kansas
#5
This time they will have the US Navy helping them out, though. Also, possibly the Russian Navy from the other direction as well.
The main thing that beat them the first time was a lack of maps and the terrain. If you plan to force the straights with a combined naval force, you don't need the amphibious assaults.

A naval attack will fail for the same reasons.........plenty of mines and land based artillery in a very confined space.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,387
U.S.A.
#6
Several problems with this.
The Kerensky offensive was designed to reinvigorate the evaporating morale of the Russian army. Russia could not divert army resources for a naval campaign, they are separate. The army would need to do something or else it would collapse. The Russian navy although dominant at the time, didn't have the skill or ships for large scale amphibious landings. It would be a miserable failure.
Even if it succeeded (which would take months), Russia was doomed by this point to internal revoulution.
The US navy was used to secure the transport of supplies across the Atlantic and to augment the Royal navy to blockade the german navy in port. Diverting it for artillery support an another Gallipoli would be a waste.
A greater waste would be the resources of another Gallipoli invasion, they were badly needed on the western front. In real life the Gallipoli landings were seen as a failure in concept and practice. The resources could have been better spent on the western front.
As stated above the basic facts don't change, terrain, maps, mines, lack of space, etc. It would be too problematic for the allies to succeed.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,934
SoCal
#7
Several problems with this.
The Kerensky offensive was designed to reinvigorate the evaporating morale of the Russian army. Russia could not divert army resources for a naval campaign, they are separate. The army would need to do something or else it would collapse. The Russian navy although dominant at the time, didn't have the skill or ships for large scale amphibious landings. It would be a miserable failure.
What about having Russia launch an offensive in eastern Anatolia in 1917 instead of the Kerensky Offensive, though?

Even if it succeeded (which would take months), Russia was doomed by this point to internal revoulution.
The lack of a Kerensky Offensive and its resulting failure could buy the Russian Provisional Government some additional time, no?

The US navy was used to secure the transport of supplies across the Atlantic and to augment the Royal navy to blockade the german navy in port. Diverting it for artillery support an another Gallipoli would be a waste.
Were there enough US ships in the US Navy so that it could be simultaneously used for both of these purposes?

A greater waste would be the resources of another Gallipoli invasion, they were badly needed on the western front. In real life the Gallipoli landings were seen as a failure in concept and practice. The resources could have been better spent on the western front.
The problem is, though, that Russia is on the verge of collapse and thus urgently needs aid and a huge morale boost. The Western Front was not in critical condition after the 1917 French Army mutinies were quelled.

As stated above the basic facts don't change, terrain, maps, mines, lack of space, etc. It would be too problematic for the allies to succeed.
So, another crushing Allied defeat?

Also, what about a Russian offensive in eastern Anatolia in 1917? How well would it have fared?
 
Mar 2019
1,448
Kansas
#8
.
A greater waste would be the resources of another Gallipoli invasion, they were badly needed on the western front. In real life the Gallipoli landings were seen as a failure in concept and practice. The resources could have been better spent on the western front.
.
The only good thing that came out of the campaign from the ANZAC perspective was the lower casualty rates suffered in Turkey compared to the Western Front.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,387
U.S.A.
#10
What about having Russia launch an offensive in eastern Anatolia in 1917 instead of the Kerensky Offensive, though?

The lack of a Kerensky Offensive and its resulting failure could buy the Russian Provisional Government some additional time, no?

Were there enough US ships in the US Navy so that it could be simultaneously used for both of these purposes?

The problem is, though, that Russia is on the verge of collapse and thus urgently needs aid and a huge morale boost. The Western Front was not in critical condition after the 1917 French Army mutinies were quelled.

So, another crushing Allied defeat?

Also, what about a Russian offensive in eastern Anatolia in 1917? How well would it have fared?
The winter of 1916-17 was especially harsh in the Caucasus, and Russia collapsed by September, so it would have to be between april and September. The rough terrain would significantly slow things and limit the size of the army. Also Russia was losing big on the European front, pulling troops from there (as the germans advanced on the capital) and moving them to a secondary front would be foolish. To make a difference against the otttomans would take months they didn't have, while ignoring the main enemy.
No, Russian troops were already beginning to refuse to fight, sitting around while the germans have the initiative would only make it worse.
The US navy could only spare so many ships for Europe, they would have to split them to do both. Using battleships (the most powerful and expensive weapon in existence at the time) for shore bombardment of an already failed strategy is a waste of resources.
The western front was always where the war would be won or lost from day one. Ignoring it for other fronts is a mistake for both sides. This strategy is doomed to failure and even if successful would take too much time to matter. In this time Germany would fair better in a critical time.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions