Colin Posted November 5, 2022 Posted November 5, 2022 When I saw those pictures of the artificial harbour, it reminded me of a proto-mulberry. They certainly had some of the right ideas, just not the logistical and technological abilities. Imagine if they had proper LCI's, LCT's and proper small landing craft (not to mention proper minesweepers early on)
sunday Posted November 5, 2022 Posted November 5, 2022 17 minutes ago, Colin said: When I saw those pictures of the artificial harbour, it reminded me of a proto-mulberry. They certainly had some of the right ideas, just not the logistical and technological abilities. Imagine if they had proper LCI's, LCT's and proper small landing craft (not to mention proper minesweepers early on) There was a number of X-Lighters https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/12/01/x-lighters/ I think some of those were used later in the Alhucemas landings of 1925.
Argus Posted November 7, 2022 Posted November 7, 2022 The actual getting ashore bit wasn't a problem, nor was the 'over beach' logistics. I mean it wasn't very efficient in any respect, but they were challenges well within their frame of reference. hell they were even innovating, a number of pontoons were made up and pre-stocked with Food/Water/SAA to be run ashore, combining both landing stage and ready use supply of essentials - unfortunately they didn't survive the trip from Egypt under tow. But the prototype LCI was there at Cape Hellas, the River Clyde, interesting story, the Turks salvaged her and she survived in commercial service into the 1950's or 60's IIRC. They offered her back to the UK for preservation but no one was interested, so she went to the breakers. X-Lighters were fascinating, essentially Thames Barges in riveted steel, they combined the virtues of teaching everyone how not to build a landing craft while actually being useful as landing craft. Of course like most of the Gallipoli landing, the X-Lighters with the small Monitors were all based on Fisher's Baltic Scheme being re-purposed to sunnier climes. Amphibious Operations on a strategic scale were not new. They had been a mainstay of British foreign policy from the Napoleonic Wars into the 1890's. The 'Strategic' strike from the sea was, hand in hand with Blockade, the fundamental threat under naval supremacy - ie if you have a coastline we can/will come and f0ck you up. This really kicked in after the Crimean War, not so much Sebastopol but the Baltic Campaigns, the Sea of Asov, Kinburn and such, demonstrated the power of fleets against contemporary forts and provided the RN with a useful brown water capability, but also the Government with diplomatic signal. IN the late Victorian period sending the dockyard hands to overtime in the Gunboat yard was an accepted signal that HMG was very serious indeed - I can only wonder how 1914 would have played out if such a signal were still available, but alas by then only the gunboat sheds were left - and they still are, Haslar Rd Gosport, opposite the hospital. The key feature of Amphib in this period was breaking/suppressing the defences of a port or river mouth. Either just for the effect of taking a commercial/naval node, or for greater operations. So the key tools were less about putting the 'army' ashore, and more about gunboats/monitors to shoot the infantry into the fortifications, so the fleet could using the port to put the Army ashore in good order. The Taku Forts being an example.
Colin Posted November 7, 2022 Posted November 7, 2022 Yes the amphibious aspects of this action are fascinating. It would interesting to see what history would change had the UK been able to knock the Ottomans out of the war?
Murph Posted November 7, 2022 Author Posted November 7, 2022 13 hours ago, Colin said: Yes the amphibious aspects of this action are fascinating. It would interesting to see what history would change had the UK been able to knock the Ottomans out of the war? That would have been very interesting, I suspect that the middle east would have been just as f'ed up as it is now.
R011 Posted November 7, 2022 Posted November 7, 2022 5 minutes ago, Murph said: That would have been very interesting, I suspect that the middle east would have been just as f'ed up as it is now. Most probably, but they'd have been able to ship grain into Russia which would have helped government stability. We may not have got the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent Soviet interventions and subversion. perhaps not the Nazis either, though a rematch war under different German leadership might have happened.
bojan Posted November 7, 2022 Posted November 7, 2022 (edited) With a crystal ball AH could be probably KOd (or at least heavily pressured) out of war in 1915 with troops wasted on Gallipoli. But none had crystal ball, and Serbia repulsing AH offensive in 1914. twice, let alone being able to (partially) pursue broken enemy was considered highly unlikely. IIRC someone in British staff had idea of staging troops in Serbia in early 1915., in order to strike on "soft underbelly". It would have been difficult logistically (only a single rail line into Serbia from Salonika), but with much higher chance of producing at least some positive result than whole Gallipoli mess. Edited November 7, 2022 by bojan
Argus Posted November 7, 2022 Posted November 7, 2022 There's a good argument to be made that knocking the Turks out early would have prolonged the war, as they amounted to a net drain on the Germans and Austrians compared to the Entante resources they diverted. The same has been said about the Austro-Hungarians too, not least by various Germans, 'being shackled to a corpse' and all that. Not sure I buy any of them myself, but its a factor. The thing I've never quite understood was how a fleet turning up in the Golden Horn was supposed to knock the Turks out of the war. I mean, sure they can't ignore an Anglo-French fleet sitting off their capitol, but beyond opening up the Black Sea and separating European and Asiatic Turkey the situation is mostly symbolic. There's not a lot this fleet can actually do 'to' the Ottoman Empire as such if the Ottomans arn't willing to meet them half way. Are they going to bombard Constantinople? Land troops to take the city? Half the reason the Ottomans joined the war in the first place was they'd had enough of being dictated too by the great powers and nibbled away piecemeal. IMHO they'd be just as likely to tell any negotiator sent ashore to go get knotted. As the British found out in the 20's floating in the Sea of Marmara is not a very strong position from which to bargain with the Turk if he doesn't plant to play. This is doubly so because of the Russian factor. I certainly do not underestimate the impact of opening the Black Sea could have had on Russia. Not just the materiel imports, an Franco-British field force in Eastern theatre would have done interesting things to the whole dynamic. But all that said, want to shove 250amps of 3 phase up the Russian war effort? For my money, having the Tsar take Mass in Hagia Sophia is about the one thing that would turn the whole game on its head and give the revolution serious pause. If that religious and patriotic shot in the arm comes hand in hand with some positive war news like Romania joining the war with an powerful French and British army landing there, and the redirection of Central resources to meet this new development taking pressure of the Russians in the field... But that same impetus is underpinning the Turks. They KNOW the Russians want Constantinople, its not exactly a mystery, and while the Anglo-French might not be too keen on giving it too them, as the price of keeping Russia in the war... <sucks teeth> So if the Ottomans are more or less certain that any ground given now is lost and gone forever, and they are well sick of that game - its worth keeping in mind much of the leadership in this period were 'European' Turks who'd seen their particular homelands go over the last generation or two, Attaturk was born in Salonika IIRC. They have about zero incentive to comply with any fleet on their doorstep, and every reason to be uncooperative. Fine so the fleet lands an army, that army takes the city, the army... is about as stuck as it was in Salonika, only now its the meat in a Turko-Bulgairan/AH/Ger sandwich. So we now need Armies in Egypt to guard the canal and Constantinople, plus a third army to deploy into the Black Sea, thats before we even think about the Gulf.... I mean sure it was a German who said it, but the east gives nothing back.
R011 Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 11 minutes ago, Argus said: The same has been said about the Austro-Hungarians too, not least by various Germans, 'being shackled to a corpse' and all that. Choosing Ausyria Hungary as an ally meant Germany would have a conflict with Russia and could get dragged into war with them over matters not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier. Germany not a potential enemy of Russia means no Franco-Russian alliance. If germany avoided offending Russia and Britain, the great war might have been just another Balkan War.
bojan Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 It would not have happened same way probably, as w/o being "safe" AH would most likely not annex Bosnia.
Yama Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 21 hours ago, Argus said: Amphibious Operations on a strategic scale were not new. They had been a mainstay of British foreign policy from the Napoleonic Wars into the 1890's. The 'Strategic' strike from the sea was, hand in hand with Blockade, the fundamental threat under naval supremacy - ie if you have a coastline we can/will come and f0ck you up. This really kicked in after the Crimean War, not so much Sebastopol but the Baltic Campaigns, the Sea of Asov, Kinburn and such, demonstrated the power of fleets against contemporary forts and provided the RN with a useful brown water capability, but also the Government with diplomatic signal. IN the late Victorian period sending the dockyard hands to overtime in the Gunboat yard was an accepted signal that HMG was very serious indeed - I can only wonder how 1914 would have played out if such a signal were still available, but alas by then only the gunboat sheds were left - and they still are, Haslar Rd Gosport, opposite the hospital. Baltic campaign was actually what I had in mind as an example of 'Age of Sail' amphibious warfare, which no longer worked in 20th Century. Before telegram or wireless were a thing, it was possible to arrive at a shore and land your army and have it march inland before the enemy got a word that something was happening. However if you attempted to land against a defended shoreline, it was just not going to work. During the Baltic campaign, all the opposed landings failed, sometimes the opposition was just armed civilians.
Argus Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 You're not talking about the naval raiding are you? Beside Petropavlosk, Bomarsund and Sevaborg I can't think of too many major ops. There were plenty of coastal raids that got an increasingly warm reception once the novelty had worn off and the locals got sick of being threatened, but that's more less to be expected. A Corvette landing a party to harry the coast is not going to stand and fight against more than a token opposition. They were there to take what could be taken easily, but the other half of their job is to provoke the diversion of resources into penny packet local defences and popular pressure on government etc. On the other hand Sebastopol might not have been Normandy '44, but the Crimean Campaign was waged off an amphibious operation. Kerch, Kinburn, Bormarsund all came off and its not like Sevaborg was a total failure either, no one was in any doubt that 'next time' it wold work.
rohala Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 7 hours ago, Argus said: The thing I've never quite understood was how a fleet turning up in the Golden Horn was supposed to knock the Turks out of the war. I mean, sure they can't ignore an Anglo-French fleet sitting off their capitol, but beyond opening up the Black Sea and separating European and Asiatic Turkey the situation is mostly symbolic. There's not a lot this fleet can actually do 'to' the Ottoman Empire as such if the Ottomans arn't willing to meet them half way. Are they going to bombard Constantinople? Land troops to take the city? Half the reason the Ottomans joined the war in the first place was they'd had enough of being dictated too by the great powers and nibbled away piecemeal. IMHO they'd be just as likely to tell any negotiator sent ashore to go get knotted. As the British found out in the 20's floating in the Sea of Marmara is not a very strong position from which to bargain with the Turk if he doesn't plant to play. I wouldn't be so dismissive. The blockade of Greece in 1916-1917 brought hyperinflation and famine, and caused the Greek king to abdicate and Greece to join the Entente. do the same to the Ottomans and Constantinople. even if they don't capitulate immediately, few months down the road things might start to turn similarly ugly for the economy and the Sultan's government.
Yama Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 3 hours ago, Argus said: You're not talking about the naval raiding are you? Beside Petropavlosk, Bomarsund and Sevaborg I can't think of too many major ops. There were plenty of coastal raids that got an increasingly warm reception once the novelty had worn off and the locals got sick of being threatened, but that's more less to be expected. A Corvette landing a party to harry the coast is not going to stand and fight against more than a token opposition. They were there to take what could be taken easily, but the other half of their job is to provoke the diversion of resources into penny packet local defences and popular pressure on government etc. On the other hand Sebastopol might not have been Normandy '44, but the Crimean Campaign was waged off an amphibious operation. Again, that was sort of my point - in 1854 one could still sail a fleet along enemy coast and find an undefended beach to land at your leisure, in 1915 not so much anymore. Sveaborg could have been reduced with more extensive and better preparations, sure. But in the end, it was only an island fortress. Had they tried to land at Helsinki after that, they would have been defeated. Of course, they could have shelled the city and hope to gain a capitulation that way. All of that was how Dardanelles were originally hoped to play out, and my point is that in 1915 it wasn't going to work.
R011 Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 So long as they could have got grain through to the Black Sea, the campaign would have been worth it even if Constantinople remained in ottoman hands and the Empire didn't collapse right away Nor do I think they would have held out longer than real life. Allenby would probably still have forced his way up from Egypt, the Arabs still rebel, and Russia would be able to exert pressure in the north east.
RETAC21 Posted November 8, 2022 Posted November 8, 2022 11 hours ago, rohala said: I wouldn't be so dismissive. The blockade of Greece in 1916-1917 brought hyperinflation and famine, and caused the Greek king to abdicate and Greece to join the Entente. do the same to the Ottomans and Constantinople. even if they don't capitulate immediately, few months down the road things might start to turn similarly ugly for the economy and the Sultan's government. Of note, that's what the Russian Black Fleet did and it nearly knocked out Turkey out of the war, as Istanbul was dependent on shipments of coal from Trebzon to keep on going.
Argus Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 On 11/8/2022 at 9:58 PM, Yama said: Again, that was sort of my point - in 1854 one could still sail a fleet along enemy coast and find an undefended beach to land at your leisure, in 1915 not so much anymore. Sveaborg could have been reduced with more extensive and better preparations, sure. But in the end, it was only an island fortress. Had they tried to land at Helsinki after that, they would have been defeated. Of course, they could have shelled the city and hope to gain a capitulation that way. All of that was how Dardanelles were originally hoped to play out, and my point is that in 1915 it wasn't going to work. But in 1915 they DID sail along the coast and landed more or less wherever they pleased, The RN had a lot of fun along the Anatolian and Syrian coasts in just the same way as they had in the Baltic and Black Sea in the 1850's. While the Naval attempt on the Straits saw naval landing parties going ashore to deal with fortifications in the face of field forces that were actively engaging the fleet with artillery and MG fire. The Turkish field artillery was in some ways more of a problem than the coastal guns - to the ships, the landing parties got ashore and did their business in fine old style. Landing an Army was a different kettle of fish to be sure, but it wasn't the telegraph, wireless and railways that summoned a defending force to counter an invasion. The Turks were dug into the Gallipoli Peninsula and positioned in depth to respond, before the invasion force left Egypt. It was an opposed landing from the outset, not as heavily opposed as say Normandy, and yes the true weight of the defence was bought to bear by telegraph and steamship, but if they had landed at Alexandretta or somewhere the race to build up local forces would have been far more even. I'm guessing but it looks like about 4 days at 6 knots from Egypt to Iskenderun, 22 hours by rail from Istanbul today in 1915 on I'm guessing single track line - my gut suggests the maritime power is going to be the continental one in this situation. Further more WWI only gets trench when the force/space ratios permit a continuous defence, neither the Turks nor the Entante have the troops spare for that. I go so far as to suggest a campaign held within reach of the coast is probably more sustainable by sea than by rail anywhere outside Western Europe.
Sardaukar Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 Churchill thought it was a splendid idea...
Murph Posted November 10, 2022 Author Posted November 10, 2022 13 hours ago, Sardaukar said: Churchill thought it was a splendid idea... He did, but according to Castles of Steel he thought that the RN could do it without landing an army, and was convinced by Kitchener to land troops. Kitchener, was he good, bad, a drain, toxic, or doing as best he knew how to do things?
Sardaukar Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, Murph said: He did, but according to Castles of Steel he thought that the RN could do it without landing an army, and was convinced by Kitchener to land troops. Kitchener, was he good, bad, a drain, toxic, or doing as best he knew how to do things? Kitchener has very bad rep in South Africa, for inventing concentration camps (not in German sense, but close).
Murph Posted November 10, 2022 Author Posted November 10, 2022 7 minutes ago, Sardaukar said: Kitchener has very bad rep in South Africa, for inventing concentration camps (not in German sense, but close). That I understand. He is also said to have the common failing of Egyptian Army officers: A taste for buggery.... He was....odd.
RETAC21 Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 12 minutes ago, Murph said: He did, but according to Castles of Steel he thought that the RN could do it without landing an army, and was convinced by Kitchener to land troops. Kitchener, was he good, bad, a drain, toxic, or doing as best he knew how to do things? Like all of his peers, he just was out of his depth. Industrial age warfare was new to all of them and they didn't have solutions beyond "fire more shells" and "charge the enemy until the human wave overwhelms him"
Sardaukar Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, Murph said: That I understand. He is also said to have the common failing of Egyptian Army officers: A taste for buggery.... He was....odd. I think all guys (and some gals) I know who chose "special career path" were slightly insane. There were actual studies about this.
Murph Posted November 10, 2022 Author Posted November 10, 2022 7 minutes ago, Sardaukar said: I think all guys (and some gals) I know who chose "special career path" were slightly insane. There were actual studies about this. I like that "Special career path".
Sardaukar Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 11 minutes ago, Murph said: I like that "Special career path". I think that you deducted that it was exactly not promotion-wise path
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now