The Dardanelles Naval Assault - Falling at the First and Last Hurdles (Fixed)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Today we take a look at the purely naval element of the Dardanelles attack, prior to the Gallipoli Landings, and how just a couple of wrong moves can sink an entire operation.
www.amazon.co....
www.amazon.co....
www.amazon.co....
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshi...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/u...
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A (Fixed visual glitches)
Why didn't the Japanese convert Ises and Fusos to CVs and continue to build Tosas and Amagis? Does the naval treaties might allow for such a plan? And if they did go ahead with it, how much it'll be effective?
During WWII, what happened to surviving sailors after their ships were sunk, damaged or otherwise put out of commission? Were they simply reassigned individually as needed to other ships, or were they transferred in groups or even en masse? How orderly was this process, and how did it differ between nations?
Q&A (My original was on the glitchy post) At the 35:45 mark a ship is pictured with its anchors pulled up to the deck and considerable slack is shown in the anchor chain, why would they pull and store their anchor this way rather than hanging from the eyes at the bow?
If Bolivia was able to keep even a sliver of their coastline during the war of the Pacific, what kind of navy would they have by the start of the first world war. In addition where would they source any new construction of ships? Either local shipyards or on the Thames for example.
I know that the Germans and the British named their turrets with the Germans calling there's Anton, Bruno, Cesare and Dora and the British calling theirs A,B, X and Y I was wondering what did the Italians, French, US and the Japanese call their turrets?
Royal Navy: “Quick adventure, in-and-out 20 minutes.”
*EIGHT MONTHS LATER*
Russian military 2022-2023 " Hold my vodka! You are amateurs, let me show you how it is DONE !
US military in Korea 1950: "Gen. MacArthur will get us home by Christmas!"
@@RCAvhstape Almost did that - then the Chinese sent an unending wave of meat bags over the border. I worked with a veteran of that war, he was a lifelong alcoholic as a result of the unending waves of Chinese soldiers he had to machine gun. Then, after all that horror, when he got back home, the local RSL that was dominated by ww2 veterans dismissed him and his fellow KW vets as imposters because theirs was "not a real war".
@@lunsmann Then the Korean War Vets dismissed Vietnam Vets, because it wasn't a "real war" and told told them it wasn't a just war like Korea was.
@@pyro1047 - actually you will find the ww2 vets were still running the RSL in the 70's Korean war veterans have never run the RSL.
Nusret the minelayer and her 26 mines that changed the outcome of the naval campaign is a "hero ship" in Turkey. Under the cover of the night, against all odds, she endured. Turkish Navy has a yearly mine warfare exercise named after her with participants from numerous countries including NATO. Didn't see many British ones but for the French participants, it has to be somewhat ironic.
Nusret honestly has to be considered one of the naval legends given the disproportionate impact she had on WWI.
I visited Turkey in 2000 as part of an Australian War Memorial tour, and one of the places on the itinerary was the Naval Museum. An exhibit devoted to the Nusret was the first one we were led to, and the museum guide spoke in reverent tones of what she had achieved.
Nusret survives as a museum ship, and there's also a replica in existence.
Yep - big ups. It's one of the great coastal forces / small ship exploits of all time. A heroic unit indeed.
Single handedly saved Turkey, that ship.
And Turkey didn't bother preserving the hero Ship "Goeben" that single handedly fought the Russian Black Sea Navy
Every time I hear about yet another aspect of the British side of this campaign, I wonder how most of the upper levels of the people involved could manage to focus enough brain activity to tie their shoelaces. Those in the field did their very best, but each revelation shows new ways they seem to have been hamstrung by those in charge.
One begins to suspect that those making the decisions took the expression "How stupid can you be?" as a challenge.
Kind of like those destroying the effectiveness of MY country's military today. These people NEVER learn.
the simple answer was Racial Arrogance. a similar level of arrogance that made the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the sinking of Force Z possible. (as well as general dismissal of Japanese aircraft performance)
Just who exactly were these people in England that drew up those plans.? Young Naval upstarts smoking opium. Such disconnection.!!
@@fullmontyuk Yeah, very true. One should never underestimate an enemy. Hitler played Armchair General and what did he get? A Lost War. Look towards today, Putin directed a lot of forces at various places with disastrous results.
As a grandson of a Gallipoli veteran....this was both informative and highly entertaining. The cat was absolutely terrified by the snort laughing that erupted when you said "Being satisfied that they had shown the Ottomans "What for", "Jolly good and all that!" after describing that first shelling and I had to also change my shirt as it was covered in the coffee I had been intending to swallow at the same moment you fired off that zinger.
are you? Literally a "Quigley Down Under?" sorry mate it's the Yank in me wanting to yank your chain.
@@davefellhoelter1343 Ha! Who's Yanking who's chain now? I was born in Dearborn MI.
@@seanquigley3605 butt U got it!
Same here, Luckily I was not drinking anything, but I laughed my head off and did replay it a few times, with the same effect. Sounded so much like Melchitt in Blackadder😂. Drach is a wealth of information and an outstanding raconteur
The fight song of the University of Washington includes the line "it's harder to push them over the lines than pass the Dardanelles" as a reference to this, which is fitting because the song was written shortly after WWI ended
It's a Husky thing. Go Dawgs.
My great grandfather served at Gallipoli, towards the end of the campaign. He was the 'Last Anzac' in fact. The last living person to have stood on the shores and serve in the campaign from any country involved. To hear in detail the naval history side of the situation that lead to the Army ventures that Pvt Alec Campbell served in, is a real eye opener. Thankyou Drach once again
"Shore based spot lights could be countered by blinding the crews with your own spot lights." 🤣🤣🤣 What complete muppet had that brilliant idea?
But it _was_ a brilliant idea ......
@@dukenukem5768 Ironically.
Blank that! Open FIRE!
@@AtomicBabel only CLAA gunnery officers get to say that!
@@christianlim772 which one, Atlanta or Juneau?
The whole Dardanelles debacle could be summed up in a single sentence: If only the Brass had lived up to its pedigree.
What a shambles.
Thanks for the re-upload, Drach. Much appreciated.
This really goes to show just how much of an impact Goeben had on world history. She dragged the Ottoman Empire into WWI (even if it had been leaning in that direction anyways), not only leading to the entire Gallipoli Campaign but ultimately causing the destruction of both the Ottomans and the Russian Empire, to be replaced by Turkey and the USSR respectively.
Very few individual capital ships have ever had the sort of impact that would have fundamental repercussions for all of humanity for the next century and beyond.
(Kamchatka is furiouly taking notes)
Not to mention that the Ottomans' entry into the war paved the way for the Arab Revolt, Sykes-Picot Agreement, and pretty much the entire modern map of the Middle East.
@@Wolfeson28
This as well. Goeben is, to a large extent, responsible for the War on Terror. She arguably did more to shape the history of the 20th and 21st century than every other capital ship before or since put together.
Even Enterprise failed to have anywhere near as big of an impact.
The British knew it was a disaster right away - in fact they court martialled the admiral supposed to prevent it with the wonderfully RN charge of "failing to pursue an enemy then fleeing". Unlike his 18th Century forebear who was convicted of that charge though he was not shot on his own quarterdeck (he was acquitted).
The scrapping of the Goeben makes me so damn angry. Served her country for decades, the last Kaiserliche Marine capital ship. I just hope she is an amazing museum piece in an alternate universe somewhere because damn does she deserve it.
"...which meant at least all the sailors got a fez, and we all know that fezes are cool" 3:50
One of the improvised Ottoman fortifications that fired at Allied vessels during this operation was the Mesudiye Battery. It consisted of guns that had been salvaged from the sunken Mesudiye and was manned by survivors from the ironclad. When the Allied vessels withdrew, Şefik Kaptan (the Mesudiye's gunnery officer) recalled, "The battle was won. We had helped to avenge the loss of our ship."
A friend of mine years ago was from england, growing up near coventry. His grandfather was killed in the Dardanelles. He said his grandmother blamed and hated Churchill even through WW2 and later.
I have been looking forward to this one for quite some time I am originally from Turkey and have visited the Gallipoli(Gelibolu) peninsula and the firsts along the Dardanelles…just as a side note the reason why Gallipoli was a big point of pride for the ottomans/Turks was due to the fact that they be a superior, much better equipped and more modern for us, with what amounts to a handful of cannons from the 1890s
The greatest enemy of the 1910's Admiralty was the ego of the 1910's Admiralty. Impressive level of failure.
Robert Ballard was contracted by the National Georaphic to explore some of these wrecks. This was around 2005 iirc (2009). Finding the wrecks was no problem. They also found circular stone structures up around 40 meters in diameter. Some of the structures had crude stone "towers" in their centers. It has been speculated that the central tower may have acted as central support for wooden beam supporting a roof. The structures may be the oldest habitation with stone used in their construction yet found. The area was last above water around 8,000 BCE.
“We all know that fezzes are cool” I see what you did there. A fellow Whovian!
As a wise man once said, "Plans are useless, planning is indispensable, [political interference is immortal]..."
*And Drach reuploading for the highest possible quality is assured, and we love him for it.*
Plans* are useless, planning is indispensable
All hail Drachinifel!
Well done (as always) Drach. This is a story that the worlds navies have never paid any attention too. No matter how many times it is repeated MINES ARE VERY DANGEROUS!! Some one hundred years later we are still not working this out yet. Nothing has changed save that mines are now more dangerous than they were before. You could give a couple hour presentation on this and a lot of your (now over a half million 😇) subscribers would find out things they had no idea of.
Quite frankly, the entire thing smacks of unmitigated, _galling_ arrogance on the part of the Britain-based elements, from Churchill to Whitehall to the Naval Planning Office. Not just in one part, but at every individual step.
-Treating the Ottomans as a backwards colonial nation that could be bullied with a show of force rather than galvanized into action, ignoring the entire history of an empire whose existence predated Britain and indeed multiple prior historical examples that could have provided Britain with knowledge about what might not work in this situation
-Seizing the Ottoman ships despite having a perfectly good idea of what the response would be, and then getting offended when the response happened
-Continuing to treat the Ottomans as a backwards non-threat in their battle plans by outrageously hamstringing the naval force with absurd deployments and restrictions on fire
-Continuing said absurd deployments by actually having better tools for the job available IN THE AREA in the form of the minesweeping destroyers and refusing to use them for no conceivable reason beyond "well it shouldn't be necessary"
-Every single god damn thing about the Gallipoli Campaign
Of all the points, as well, Point 4 is the most outrageous to me. The whole point of building an overwhelming advantage is to make use of it to the absolute maximum, because of the ancient maxim that mass minimizes risk. You deploy more and better troops so you can utterly overwhelm at the point of attack, producing a fight of minimum length and thus minimum overall risk. The same is true with ships, certainly at least in this context. Deciding to just not send in the purpose-built military ships is an absurd decision that undermines this maxim in the first place, but doing so _and then not having those purpose-built ships do anything else in the meantime,_ just sit around twiddling their thumbs while they wait for Dogger Bank fishermen to try and handle shellfire in a box canyon, is almost offensively wasteful. Even if it WORKS, the trawlers being slower means it will definitionally take longer and thus give your ships more time that they have to be suppressing the Ottomans and are at risk of getting hit in return, causing expensive damage and wasteful casualties -- and that's if it works, which it bloody well didn't.
Edit: Oh, yes, and it taking longer also means your big ships will definitionally have to fire more shells and put more wear on their barrels, which was the whole reason you wound up in this stupid mess, trying to avoid just that. So you're not just not benefiting your overall objectives with the decision to use trawlers instead of destroyers or fleet sweepers, and you're not JUST putting the operation at risk, you are also contradicting your own stupid self-imposed limitations!
Also, I have to say -- I don't think I've heard that particular tone of disgust and frustration you used for "...frankly _STUPID_ reasons..." come out since the Courageous-class five-minute guide. Maybe for the bit in Naval Engineering Disasters where you go over why the Indefatigable was the #1 all time.
Sterling comment, mate.
Complacency kills, man. As does arrogance and ego.
You took a lot of words to say "Churchill".
Politicians and buerocrats... should have loaded those in their guns for maximum effect!
So Drach, it seems to me that when the Russians passed by England on their way to Japan about a decade or so earlier, their best gunners must have jumped ship. They then proceeded to join the Royal Navy and teach their skills.
"Look! Torpedo boats!"
This is a fascinating story I had never heard at all. Very strange to think about a world where the Ottomans did not declare war on the Entente. Thanks Drach!
As usual very interesting Drac. I'm lucky enough too have a Gallipoli veteran as a next door neighbour. Seems you can't post pictures in TH-cam comment's. The former X57 landing craft, is a houseboat now. Not 50 feet from where I'm sat.
They must 120+ years old!
@Matt McCue it's boat. Built in 1915. In Sunderland. She's only 108. At gallipoli and Dunkirk. We are teaching her to read too.
@@joiainmclachlan6598 Boats are easily bored by books though
@@NashmanNash Only vessel I ever got away with boring was a pilot boat, I only got as far as a pilot hole though.
I make the note that there is an often overlooked factor in the decision to launch the Dardanelles Operation. As demonstrated by the work of Dr. Nicholas Lambert (see his book "The Warlords and the Gallipoli Disaster"), the primary motivation for the operation was an attempt to reopen the Black Sea shipping lanes to get Russian food back into the world market. The actual notes of the meeting that saw Churchill and others make the infamous decision are dominated by the topic of the food crisis brewing in 1914-1915 as the war and other problems saw the world at large suffer a poor supply of wheat and other food products.
For example, the USA had a good harvest, but bad weather and iced rivers ensured most food that would be sent on rivers cheaply to ports for export were trapped, literally, in the heartland of the USA. Slower and more expensive railroad shipping allowed very little of the food to go to waste, but it drove prices up and limited exports considerably. All over the world, crops failed or otherwise were unable to be tapped effectively to ensure the food went to Europe where it was needed.
By far the biggest problem, however, was that the western allies couldn't feed themselves with domestic production. Britain had long been a net-importer of food, and France, one of the most productive nations in the world normally, had just stripped its farms bare to maintain the army. The two managed to avoid starvation in the winter of 1914, but the prospect of the winter of 1915 was grim if they couldn't source more reliable food.
Meanwhile, Russia had had both a good harvest and still had the manpower to keep both farms and armies sustained. What Russia couldn't do was get its surplus food out of the Black Sea, because the Turks had just shut it off. Russia, in turn, desperately needed the exports to prop up its collapsing credit and get war-making materials imported.
As Dr. Andrew Lambert has noted, the Gallipoli Campaign was also the most British of strategies, being a naval operation aimed at promoting control of the seas to ensure economic flow on the seas that would allow ultimate victory over stronger opponents on land.
This is not excusing the abysmal conduct of the actual operation, but it is important to appreciate that at least in principle, the Dardanelles Operation was the most sound use of British Imperial warmaking assets at the time. The Allies needed Russian exports, the Russians needed Allied imports, and the Turks looked vulnerable to a combined naval-army operation aimed at opening sea routes, which was British military strategists had specialized in for centuries. It was not a reckless or ill-conceived strategy born of imperial arrogance. It was not Churchill being a doofus.
It was a good idea in and itself; the problems lay in the execution, not the conception!
You have made a good argument for it being necessary. I wouldn’t say the idea was sound.
Well the order of survival has always been water-food-ammunition in that order
The problem with your assessment is that it requires nuance and understanding, much easier to just say Churchill was a doofus.
It's remarkable to see a battle where orders -- some inexplicable -- absolutely snowballed into a brutal fight.
Just toured the U.S.S. Alabama and submarine Drum recently. I would highly recommend it for future visits. Currently the aft turret is under repainting but most of the ship is free to visit. Also thank you for all your hard work on providing us more content and info!!!
I toured the Alabama in the latter 80s when I was sent to Pascagoula in support of the LHD. It was an eye opener for me to stand near a 16" shell.
@@stevebarrett9357absolutely. Still hard to believe something that large can travel so far in a small amount of time
Only allowed to fire 15 shells? I'm suddenly in the scene in Blue Harvest where the lower enlisted asks the officer if they're paying by the shot fired.... Honestly, even if you didn't allocate modern ships to the bombardment, why limit the number of shells? You fire as many as does the job...... Damn
Well I'd already watched the original in full, but I went ahead and had this play through in the background once more to make up for the engagement potentially lost by deleting the first one.
There is a great read about the skipper of the AE2, Dacre Stoker titled Stoker's Submarine by Fred and Elizabeth Brenchley. He had a second career as an actor playing the British skipper in the 1935 film, Brown on Resolution staring John Mills. Though AE2 was an Australian boat the crew were a hodge podge of RN and RAN.
Well, that was depressing. De Robeck's assessment that unaided naval gunfire couldn't destroy the forts rouses faint memories of an admonition from Nelson himself that ships shouldn't fight forts. It took these plonkers more than a hundred years to not learn that lesson.
And the worst part of it was that, by de Robeck's time, that assessment had actually become _wrong;_ it only appeared to be true in this case due to incompetent planning and execution of the naval operation.
"Ships do not fight forts !" Standards japanese naval doctrine. However in several instances ships do fight forts , sometimes with success... Well not at Gallipoli!
I understand that monitors were eventually used to provide bombardment support. Some discussion of these quirky ships and their role at Gallipoli might be in order in the future.
Fezes are indeed cool! :)
But only if you also drive tiny cars in parades.
This Dardanelles instance is certainly not alone in history's episodes where arguably superior powers lapse into lazy assumptions about inferiorly equipped opposition - and - meet surprise. One recalls the racist Anglo world's pre-WW II incapacity to conceive of the Japanese as competitive martial arms innovators, etc. etc. At this very instant, a serious confrontation involving the same presumptive error is ongoing; these presumptions now being similarly disabused in the actual contest.
And the Japanese racist attitude that convinced them Americans were too soft to put up a fight.
Excellent review of the naval ops in the Dardanelles. So many missed opportunities and "what if" scenarios. So much micromanaging from a distance. May I refer folks who may be interested in the submarine operations to "The Underwater War" by Edwin Gray. I think this has an alternate title in the UK. For those who are not familiar with this book, it's a head-scratcher and a great read.
due to this battle it is phrased as ''Çanakkale is unpassable'' and still today is the only strait that you DO NOT write as ''passed '' in the ships log book ... it is written either as '' martyrs Monument saluted '' or '' exited''
Quintessential Drach. Taking no prisoners and pulling no punches.
Thanks. This is brilliantly written.( Sorry at the hyperbole) I can only add that the Dardanelles folly is well covered in both the Keegan book, and J.FC Fuller books, and as I am still, ‘ that guy with the Stroke’ I am amazed I recalled so much! Cheers!
The only great thing to take a day of on Wednesdays is you do not have to wait the evening for your Rum Ration. As a French I was never fond of the Never before sunset motto 😇😁😂 Fez are cool 😂 We do know now how Drach got so many great pictures, his friend take him in a blue box and they do a trip to acquire the picture just after it was taken 🤣
“Fezzes are cool!” Great Dr. Who quote by Matt Smith.
My grandmother's elder brother was killed when the monitor M28 recieved a direct hit from the Goeben when she and the Breslau made their sortee from the Dardanelles in January 1918. Would be good to hear your review of the 'battle'.
2018? sortied?
That would be the battle of Imbros then.
Thanks very much for this video. I've read/seen just a couple of accounts of Gallipoli (including SLA Marshall's book) and they had few details on the naval prelude to the land campaign, except the misleading statement that "after the first attack, the British ships could've seized Constantinople". I also hadn't noticed in my prior reading that there was a 4-month gap between the first bombardment and the concerted effort. More videos on naval aspects of the campaign as it "developed" would be welcome
Thank you for fixing the glitches with the original upload. A true content creator takes pride in their work. 🖖
This is an amazingly informative and (for someone with no connection to the people being shot at on either side) entertaining historical video. I can't say enough good things about it).
You could have shown Donitz in a fez.
Opportunity missed.
Donitz in a fez in Constantinople is one of those weird history once in a lifetimes, like future CSA general Pickett camped out on San Juan island protecting WA by staring down Canadians in the pig war
Just think, if Gallipoli hadn’t happened Britannic might’ve avoided being sunk and might’ve had the glorious career as a passenger liner she was robbed of 👀
So reminiscent of the land campaign, dictated plans from too far away meant the reinforcing of failures and lack of exploitation of successes.
This was the country where the head of state was going to be a career naval officer before the loss of his older brother forced him to retire and take the throne, and it still had this kind of nonsense in the high ranks. Remember that means that, as impossible as it seems, everyone else in WW1 was *worse*.
That's not quite true, there were plenty of competent officers in WW 1, most of the them however just happened to subordinate to truly incompetent leaders... and yet, somehow, the Brits and the French had the more reasonable incompetents in charge.
Allies just had much more Ressources thus could make more mistakes
Nice 1 Drac, didn't know the 1910 ship bit. Seems the British Admiralty were way outa touch 🙄 Ballsy picket Captain in front of Elizabeth under 15"! Well done Navy!
Excellent, thanks for letting us know of the exhibition at the British Museum. I hope to get to this exhibition and take a good look around!
No more Morse codes this one :D
Oh this is a perfect video. for Drach's humor
Your reading of each remembrance really still made it sound like the different individuals who wrote them. Even though you read them all.
I was fortunate enough to go to a supper at HMS President in London on the anniversary of Gallipoli a few years back.
This includes a fascinating talk from a member of the RAN.
The thing that struck me massively, was a comment that until 1916, regardless of the weakness of the defences in 1914, there had been multiple studies by the admiralty and the war office over the last 50 years stating that trying to force the straights for an actual landing was anticipated as being a very tough prospect and not sensible. And then magically in 1916 all these apparently well considered studies (allowing for some being out of date) were handwaved away.
That and the matter of the Turkish army units and commander in the vicinity actually having recent combat experience from the Balkan/Greek wars and having learnt their lessons the hard way!
Could we get a video on how naval minesweeping worked? It's always mentioned, but I've never heard a description of the actual process.
They get in their with a broom and dustpan
+1 from me. I’d love to see a video on the nuts and bolts of mine warfare, on both sides
@~8:45, Admiral Duckworth another great military name from the nation that gave us both a General and an Admiral Manley Power. 3 cheers
Thanks!
Totally off topic: Drach, I Hear the guys at The Unauthorized History of the Pacific War are doing an episode with you. Can you tell us what it's going to be about?
I missed this! Great video.. a fascinating battle for both sides.
Excellent work!
Loved the Dr Who nod, because we all know that Dr Who mentions are cool…
4:14 that's a really cool painting.
Great story telling once again. This whole episode is another fine example of why commanding from the rear (London) is such a bad philosophy. Thx.
If anybody in the comments that knows Drachinifel well was he being serious or sarcastic when he said "fezzes are cool"? Meaning is he a doctor who fan or was he making fun of Doctor Who? Don't care which, although I am Doctor Who fan I've seen every episode up until I could no longer afford cable for BBC America Channel. If it is obvious what he meant I'm sorry, although English is my only language I'm not very good at it even when it's physically spoken to me. And no I'm not legally stupid, I can do the algebra, geometry and basic physics with very little effort. History too as long as the test is multiple guess and not a written essay. As for Drachinifel thank you for the time and effort you put into all your videos, thumbs up.
Arguably one of the most significant moments in modern history. If WWI ends quickly, WWII is very different. All coming down to the blunders of individuals. You can make it up.
If WWI ends quickly, WWII likely _doesn't happen._
Interesting to see camouflage patterns on the capital ship that is at 31.44
Always interesting!
One keeps hearing the word "Churchill" uttered in conjunction with horrible ideas.
I'm still surprised that the people constantly altering the plans didn't get accused as Turkish agents
The strategic considerations going in, along with the politics, are certainly interesting.
Gallipoli 2.0 was Italy in World War 2. There was pretty much no one on the American side who thought trying to fight their way up Italy - narrow, mountanious, easy to defend - was a good idea. And yet, many in the UK, led by Churchill, went on and on and on about the 'soft underbelly of europe'. Churchill pushed this so hard that, despite the misgivings of nearly every American military officer in any position of authority, the political decision was made to humor the British. Gotta go along to get along and all that. The outcome? The German army in Italy was literally the last field level unit to surrender in WW2.
It is great to heard first hand account. I am wondering if there is something like that available from Turkish side?
A few years previously there had been an attempt by the Italian Navy to break though the Narrows, it was during the Italo-Turkish war of 1911-12. Probably it played some role in the decision to strengthen the defence force
Well, a perspective of the failure of the Dardanelles campaign.
From start to finish too little too late. Hesitation is dangerous. If the Allies had attacked early and hard it would have been a completely different outcome.
The planners in London should have stayed home, and left it to professionals earlier in campaign.
As Eric Bogle sings "We were butchered like lambs at the slaughter
Johnny Turk, he was waiting, he'd primed himself well
He showered us with bullets and he rained us with shell
And in five minutes flat, he'd blown us all to hell".
just hearing this "plan" has me facepalming and laughing at the same time
"... delay of the politicians ..."
Politicians ... always a problem when it comes to warfare.
legend has it that when the Allied ships struck the mines, the Kamchatka radioed in and reported torpedo boats!
Another theory (claimed by the Turks and laboratorium tested by the French) of the sinking of the Bouvet is that she was hit by shells and due to here bell shape hullshape, port/starboard engineroom watertight bulkhead (starboard engineroom flooded) she had to capsize.
Whatever the cause, the loss of lives on both sides was horrific.
May they ALL rest in peace!
I do t know Drach a naval officer coming up to someone with that mustache and beard combo I’m pretty sure he’ll get whatever he wants. 19:42.
In my eyes, the "higher ups" that were in charge in the USA during the Vietnam War could have definitely learned a lesson or two from this campaign! It seems that they repeated the same mistakes 60 years later. I do understand that there were also a lot of differences too but you can't "micro-manage" troops from afar & you can't tie a soldiers hands in being able to react before shots are fired. Because, if soldiers have to wait for the enemy to fire first then they are always having to react to fellow soldiers being injured and trying to get them to safety & treatment. Rather than fighting to win, they are instead fighting to survive. And you can't WIN a war that way. If soldiers are mearly fighting to survive then they are better off just NOT being there in the first place. Therefore they don't have to fight to survive. Soldiers should be deployed to obtain an objective. An army can't win a war by constantly being on the defensive. An army has to fight offensively to be able to win. And threatening an ultimatum will only work when you prove your willingness carry out the consequences of your threats. Which Britain never did to Constantinople. If Duckworth had done so back in the late 1800's after making such threats then the Dardenelles & the Galipolee campaign would probably have never happened. Also, when planning such a task, there should be no rules, guidelines maybe, that can be over ruled by those in charge that are actually there.
tomorrow is Remembrance day, "Lest We Forget"!
Yes, many an "Oof" moment was to be had in this ill-fated campaign to say the least.
Really excellent video
I once heard that obsolescence has a quality of it's own.
Barney Fife rules of engagement
Thank you Drach for making this video. ^^
Interestingly the Ottomans had did very little to strengthen their costal battery after the Italo Turk war of 1912, where the defences were bypassed more the once.
40:00 the fleet didn't even make it to the second line of ottoman guns, including 5 14 inch naval guns, they may have made it passed the first line, but they would have had an even stronger force to get though in an even narrower battel space.
The whole Dardanelles strategy was based upon the German success at destroying Belgium forts with plunging gunfire. What seemed to escape the planners was that naval guns couldn't be elevated enough to do the job. While Churchhill gets the blame the campaign was the brainchild of Admiral Jacky Fisher, although he wanted a joint navy-army assult along his thinking that the British Army should be a protectile fired by the Navy.
The good ABC [Australian Broadcasting Commission] doco 'The Fatal Shore' had a British naval historian say that the whole Dardanelles naval attack featured some very bad English staff work and planning, and laid the blame there. Not for the last time it seems the people that fared the worst were her own fighting men and her allies.
Churchhill was blood thirsty he did not care who's blood.
a very strange thing
THANK YOU FOR VIDEO
Incompetence is the great equalizer.
Did they stil have civilian/commercial traffic with all those mines?
So, if I got this right, Churchill's not as all to blame as history told me?
I laughed alot about tactics involved. And I'm still not sure about sizes of ships.
37:05 when can we expect a video on this General Despondency guy?
If attack resume in 19march with same stradegy the result probaly will not change. Suppressed forts was able to repair some damages and further batteries was ready to defend with Goeben and rest of the fleet as second defense line. For Ottomans third defense line in capital which is experienced in 1807 Anglo-Ottoman war.
Canadian Newfoundland Gallipoli war campaign 19 september suvla bay extraction they withdrew peninsula coribou hill 🇨🇦
3:50 Is that a Tommy Cooper reference or is it that doctor guy, Dr What's his name again?
This is one of the sadder stories of distant (mis) management in WW One. Of course there are plenty of other examples, getting information to and from the front lines and command HQ in a timely manner was never solved in a satisfactory manner.