The year is 1915. The Western Front has become a bloodbath and all hope of Mobile Warfare has largely been lost. France has devoted most of its available forces to holding the front and practicing their Attack at all costs doctrine. The BEF is still relatively small in comparison to the French commitment, but to many of the BEF, it was still the deceive theatre in the War. Haig & Churchill/Kitchener would butt heads quite a bit about this, to the point that some attribute Haig complaints to the press about resourcing, being one of the deciding factors for the British adopting a Unity Government. Since 1914 the German Naval Presence outside of UBoats had been reduced to only the Baltic Sea and Churchill, Lord Admiral was itching to open a new front against the Pact.
Prior to 1915 most considered a naval invasion of places like Gallipoli to be ill-advised at least. There hadn't really been a true test of naval invasion since the outbreak of machinegun warfare and Churchill had faced opposition because of this. However as the Western Front rapidly became a locked slaughter house and at least at the start of 1915, Russia was losing ground in Poland, people desired some sort of breakthrough. The Ottoman Empire looked the weakest out of the Pact. In 1910ish they had a coup that restored the constitutional monarchy and with the arab uprisings, it looked like a house of cards. Even if it didn't tumble from a successful landing & capture of Istanbul, the moral & diplomatic message that would send to the world, might have been enough to shorten the war. At least this was the belief. It would also open the Bosporus Straits, allowing for a flow of supplies into Russia.
I think most people would agree a shorter First World War would be the best outcome and at least from the British standpoint, they believed this would do it. Regardless of the outcome could the landings at Gallipoli worked?
To me, Hamilton had one of the worst possible conditions to pull this operation off. Not only did have a force of mostly very fresh divisions with limited or no amphibious training, he also was against an enemy that was experienced and able to dig in. By March the British had been preemptively bombing naval defences in the peninsula and due to the need to train up these units, the invasion didn't start until April. von Sanders himself admitted that if the British had invaded within the first 7 days of the bombardment, there would be relatively little he could do, but by the time he did, he'd had a month to entrench his positions.
Hamilton did against odds, have some success right at the start. The ANZAC landing made decentish haedway before stalling.
What changes could be made to enable the landing? To me it would be more experienced troops and better timing. This was the reason Hamilton went with.
Prior to 1915 most considered a naval invasion of places like Gallipoli to be ill-advised at least. There hadn't really been a true test of naval invasion since the outbreak of machinegun warfare and Churchill had faced opposition because of this. However as the Western Front rapidly became a locked slaughter house and at least at the start of 1915, Russia was losing ground in Poland, people desired some sort of breakthrough. The Ottoman Empire looked the weakest out of the Pact. In 1910ish they had a coup that restored the constitutional monarchy and with the arab uprisings, it looked like a house of cards. Even if it didn't tumble from a successful landing & capture of Istanbul, the moral & diplomatic message that would send to the world, might have been enough to shorten the war. At least this was the belief. It would also open the Bosporus Straits, allowing for a flow of supplies into Russia.
I think most people would agree a shorter First World War would be the best outcome and at least from the British standpoint, they believed this would do it. Regardless of the outcome could the landings at Gallipoli worked?
To me, Hamilton had one of the worst possible conditions to pull this operation off. Not only did have a force of mostly very fresh divisions with limited or no amphibious training, he also was against an enemy that was experienced and able to dig in. By March the British had been preemptively bombing naval defences in the peninsula and due to the need to train up these units, the invasion didn't start until April. von Sanders himself admitted that if the British had invaded within the first 7 days of the bombardment, there would be relatively little he could do, but by the time he did, he'd had a month to entrench his positions.
Hamilton did against odds, have some success right at the start. The ANZAC landing made decentish haedway before stalling.
What changes could be made to enable the landing? To me it would be more experienced troops and better timing. This was the reason Hamilton went with.
Last edited:
