Battle of Gallipoli

Poor intelligence and an unwillingness to withdrawn once committed to an action.

They almost broke through despite that, the main thing they underestimated was the Ottoman resolve.

File: 1448637544304.png (289KB, 1222x993px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1222x993px

>>510891
you underestimate the Turks, who, on their own turf are pretty exceptional fighters .
In the Balkans or deserts of Palestine- not so much .

>>510891
Churchill was an absolute madman that wanted to see how many he could get killed on a wild ride to the east for a laugh

because Churchill was a hack

>>510891
>Well we are already winning handily in Europe, so I guess we should be greedy and take as much land as possible!
>The land army already has its honor, time for the navy to get some too!!
>Those are just colonial troops, and the turks are bound to run out of machine gun ammo soon.

iirc The original plan was to land at Alexandretta which would have cut the Ottoman Empire and its supply/communications lines in half. France vetoed it though because of their own territorial ambitions in Syria, and because the western front took precedence over everything else we had to keep them onside. Not sure why Gallipoli was chosen instead though, I guess because it was close to Istanbul.

>>511771
I was taught in school that they landed on the wrong beach. The planned beach didn't have anywhere near the cliffs of Gallipoli

>>511072
The ruined Turks Held out pretty fucking well against the biggest empires in even their wirst times.
They even scored a few vixtories against brits in the desert, all the while while being sabotaged by Nationalist arabs.

And pre 1800 nobody could stand up to Them on the Balkans anyways.
We only hear about the big Sieges but they also managed to defend many parts From holy league forces pretty good.

Even in their sick man of Europe Phase they Held their own against Russia and assorted slavs.

The Turks are badass.
Read up on their gentlemanly conduct when they Were Allied with France and raiding the mediterranean. No other Muslims would have Been able to honour the alliance so gentlemanly.

>>510891
Because fuck the Aussies

>>510891
First of all; realise that the attacking party was always in a BIG disadvantage against the defending party for the biggest part of WWI ( it only changed a bit around 1918). Then there are the geographical reasons. The cliffs of Gallipoli formed a perfect natural defense line for the Ottoman troops, as the could easily use this position to oversee the bays. Then there was the retarded english command. Hamilton, but especially the senile Stopford were ridiculously bad leaders. And at the end of the day, the operational meant a huge underestimation of the Ottoman war capabilities

>>512013
I'm focusing on the Ottoman military only during the late 19th century to WW1. They had impressive victories but for some reason had faced a number of humiliating defeat. They lost a war to Italy...literally Italy

>>512993
They lost a war to Italy because they had to project their power across the Mediterranean to Libya.

Just looking at a map, you can see the problem there. Like 5,000 Turks even managed to fight in the war.

>>513044
I wonder why they were unsuccessful in rallying arabs into an effective fighting force ?

>>513064
Because they jumped into the arab nationalism rethoric and were hijacking ottoman forces because the colonial powers promised them independence after the war. Then Sykes-Picot happened

>>510891
Because Churchill and

>muh soft underbelly of Europe

>>513091

basically this

Allied strategy was literally based on a military college meme

>>513075
>>513064
And don't forget that: Arabs can't into war

>>513104
>>513064
If i'm not mistaken during the time of the Turko-Italian war Arab nationalism was largely limited to a few academic circles.
The French were able to discipline the Algerians into a moderately effective colonial auxillery force, as were other Colonial powers.

>>513064
Because they're not god almighty.

In seriousness it was a combination of:
1) Usual Arab military-political considerations. An effective fighting force would have radically transformed Libyan society. Outside the cities, it was your usual tribal patchwork, in a massively distributed population. And the Turks themselves had encouraged this for centuries. They had never actually 'governed' Tripolitania the way they governed Anatolia. They just established themselves as the source of biggest guns in the region. So getting the Arabs into a professional fighting force would take centuries of work in a few weeks.

2) The Turks had no way to transport anything to Libya. They had no hope of getting past the Italian Navy. So it was the local garrison, and whatever officers could smuggle themselves into the country, to do the fighting, with no arms and no supplies from Turkey.

>>513117
>If i'm not mistaken during the time of the Turko-Italian war Arab nationalism was largely limited to a few academic circles.
Correct.

>The French were able to discipline the Algerians into a moderately effective colonial auxillery force, as were other Colonial powers.
The French were able to do so by recruiting the Algerians into French military units and treating them like Frenchmen.

File: 1445892749970.jpg (1MB, 2000x1481px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1481px

>>513138
That's fair point.. Its frustrating how useless Arabs are in modern combat

Because they are british.

>>513150
>treating them like Frenchmen.
source?-
I highly doubt Harkis were anywhere near equal. Even as recently as the Algerian war of independence they were effectively left to die after France left.