WI Gallipoli landing works & progresses but the Turks fight for every bottleneck?

raharris1973

Well-known member
What if the the Gallipoli landing works in terms of the Alled forces establishing their beach-head, getting supplying going, being able to finish taking the peninsula and then expand beyond the peninsula, and destroying the Ottoman guns and forces in the way...
...but not having a 'cooperative' enemy that panics and gives up the war over this.

Instead the Ottoman enemy continues to feed reinforcements from wherever it can to the battle, especially urban warfare, defends additional bottlenecks after Gallipolli and fires upon the Entente from the Asian shore?

Would the Entente need to do a series of consecutive serious operations, from Gallipoli east across Thrace to besiege Constantinople --> storming Constantinople------> crossing the Bosporus into the Asian side at Istanbul Bogazi to clear Turkish infantry and slience Turkish guns ------> cross from Gallipoli to the Asian side in Cannakale to clear the Turkish infantry and silence the Turkish guns----> and possibly unite the Asian wings to seize the back-up Ottoman capital at Bursa, in order to:
1. Restore the straits as a reliably working waterway
2. Destroy completely the Turkish ability to resist Allied terms or to contest the straits

What are the longer and shorter timeframes this might take?

Once the British led Entente forces capture (and repair) any loading docks or wharves at the Bosporus/Black Sea end of the straits, would the Russians transport any infantry units to the city or Thrace to take part in the remaining clean-up of Ottoman resistance? Or to take on garrison duties in areas where fighting is done?

Or would wartime operations and garrisons be left entirely to the British led forces that did most of the conquering, with the Russians awaiting handover of the straits at the end of the war, per treaty.

If the Russians do send reinforcements or garrisons in wartime, would it be more because of them volunteering, or the British asking?

If there is no Entente agreement to send Russians in wartime to the straits, will that be because of Russia being lazy or Britain being exclusionary?

If it is Russia being lazy but still expecting a hand over at the end of the war, is that not super naive on their part?

If it is the British being is exclusionary, what does that mean for Russian morale and Entente relations overall for the rest of the war?

With great achievements come great problems. Or at least questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
What if the the Gallipoli landing works in terms of the Alled forces establishing their beach-head, getting supplying going, being able to finish taking the peninsula and then expand beyond the peninsula, and destroying the Ottoman guns and forces in the way...
...but not having a 'cooperative' enemy that panics and gives up the war over this.

Instead the Ottoman enemy continues to feed reinforcements from wherever it can to the battle, especially urban warfare, defends additional bottlenecks after Gallipolli and fires upon the Entente from the Asian shore?

Would the Entente need to do a series of consecutive serious operations, from Gallipoli east across Thrace to besiege Constantinople --> storming Constantinople------> crossing the Bosporus into the Asian side at Istanbul Bogazi to clear Turkish infantry and slience Turkish guns ------> cross from Gallipoli to the Asian side in Cannakale to clear the Turkish infantry and silence the Turkish guns----> and possibly unite the Asian wings to seize the back-up Ottoman capital at Bursa, in order to:
1. Restore the straits as a reliably working waterway
2. Destroy completely the Turkish ability to resist Allied terms or to contest the straits

What are the longer and shorter timeframes this might take?

Once the British led Entente forces capture (and repair) any loading docks or wharves at the Bosporus/Black Sea end of the straits, would the Russians transport any infantry units to the city or Thrace to take part in the remaining clean-up of Ottoman resistance? Or to take on garrison duties in areas where fighting is done?

Or would wartime operations and garrisons be left entirely to the British led forces that did most of the conquering, with the Russians awaiting handover of the straits at the end of the war, per treaty.

If the Russians do send reinforcements or garrisons in wartime, would it be more because of them volunteering, or the British asking?

If there is no Entente agreement to send Russians in wartime to the straits, will that be because of Russia being lazy or Britain being exclusionary?

If it is Russia being lazy but still expecting a hand over at the end of the war, is that not super naive on their part?

If it is the British being is exclusionary, what does that mean for Russian morale and Entente relations overall for the rest of the war?

With great achievements come great problems. Or at least questions.
Well,it would be funny,if brits after taking Constantinopole would fight over it with Russia.Well,France could join,too
Minor balkan states too,but who care?
 

Buba

A total creep
Taking the Gallipoli Peninsula means that the Entente can shell the Asian bank forts with field artillery, not something they were designed for. Rubble inside a few days. And then it's clear sailing.
Dardanelles open = RN and MN sail up to Constantinople and shell it, civilians be damned.
It is "Just a bunch of wogs" to them.
Absolutely no need for any contrived land campaigns on either side.
Also - at this point maybe finally somebody ignores the Russian idiots and brings Bulgaria into the Entente, thus gaining Thrace almost overnight. Or the Bulgars move on their own ... ?
@Agent23
 

stevep

Well-known member
Taking the Gallipoli Peninsula means that the Entente can shell the Asian bank forts with field artillery, not something they were designed for. Rubble inside a few days. And then it's clear sailing.
Dardanelles open = RN and MN sail up to Constantinople and shell it, civilians be damned.
It is "Just a bunch of wogs" to them.
Absolutely no need for any contrived land campaigns on either side.
Also - at this point maybe finally somebody ignores the Russian idiots and brings Bulgaria into the Entente, thus gaining Thrace almost overnight. Or the Bulgars move on their own ... ?
@Agent23

As I understand it the plan was to clear the southern straits as suggested so that a fleet could enter the Sea of Marmara. This could threaten Constantinople where the only munitions plant IIRC correctly was on the dockside and hence could easily be destroyed. Also I think I read once that the fortifications of the northern straits - to the Black Sea - were sited such that they could be destroyed by such a fleet. As such Russian forces could then easily arrive to help occupy and garrison the city and the straits.

As well as the possibility of aiding Russian and having Turkey either knocked out of the war or at least gravely weakened there are a lot of possible impacts on assorted Balkan nations, all favourable to the allies in results.
a) Bulgaria isn't going to join the CPs here and might be persuaded to join the allies in return for E Thrace.
b) With Bulgaria kept at least neutral and possibly greater aid reaching it Serbia will hold longer, which puts even more pressure on Austria and its possible it might hold out for the duration.
c) Despite the pro-German attitude of its king Greece might also be prompted to join the allies - say with chances of territorial gains in the Smyrna region for instance, to protect Greek minorities against abuse - especially when details of the Armenian genocide start emerging, or possibly to aid Serbia, their ally in the region.
d) Romania might be prompted to enter the war earlier, because their southern flank is now secure and also the CPs will look a lot more vulnerable.
 

Buba

A total creep
IMO with the RN, MN and VMF anchored on the Bosforus Turkey throws in the towel.
BTW - the Gov't and Everybody Who Matters flee the city the moment passage of the enemy fleet through Dartdanelles is assured.
 

Buba

A total creep
I remember reading that during the fleet effort there was a sort of "panic" in Constantinople.
Which, leading to the Turkish leadership doing the "bravely run away away", is simply natural.
In 1914 the French (IMO sensibly) evacuated to Bordeaux. And I'd like to see the British reaction to Germans disembarking at Chatham ... :p
To quote Witcher novels - "A mess comparable to a brothel on fire", I'd wager.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
I remember reading that during the fleet effort there was a sort of "panic" in Constantinople.
Which, leading to the Turkish leadership doing the "bravely run away away", is simply natural.
In 1914 the French (IMO sensibly) evacuated to Bordeaux. And I'd like to see the British reaction to Germans disembarking at Chatham ... :p
To quote Witcher novels - "A mess comparable to a brothel on fire", I'd wager.
Well,before WW1 brits wrote many novels about german naval invasion.There were even panic in 1909 over german airship landing in England in british press.Maybe it was UFO ?
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
I am not going to deny that Allied success at Gallipoli is going to have pro-Allied effects. Diplomatic: Bulgarian reluctance to join the CP, Ottoman seeking of the exits from the war. Military: At a minimum, a redirection of Ottoman military attention and forces inward, potential bombardment/destruction of Constantinople armory/war industry, potential Ottoman capitulation - if terms can be reached, and opening of the straits to Allied military and commercial traffic.


But, even a full success of the occupation of the peninsula, and the passage of British battleships to bring the Ottoman capital under their guns does not guarantee, all by itself, Ottoman capitulation at the level of the Armistice of Mudros and Treaty of Sevres, as a prompt next order consequence. The Ottomans in OTL accepted those terms after more years of hard fighting and land losses on multiple fronts. Here they would be faced with quicker land losses and force losses at the capital, but fewer overall losses. If the Allies offer softer terms than Mudros and Sevres that get the Turks out of the war and don't overly carve them up a la Sykes-Picot, the Turks would accept and open the straits, but if they see amputations of not just the straits and the Arab provinces but chunks of Anatolia to Greece and Italy they will try to fight on for longer.

Even in OTL, Mudros was a pretty debilitating armistice with pretty comprehensive disarmament and wide permissions for Allied movement, but when the Turks saw different groups like the French, Italians, Greeks, and Armenians encroach beyond what they thought the limits of toleration and the signed treaties were, they rallied resistance and had a successful war of independence to win back Anatolia and Thrace. Even though in theory in wartime, all their military industry was in Constantinople, they must have moved some arms manufacturing and repair into the interior over the course of their war of independence after WWII under the Allies' noses.

So, while not being anything as vast in scale as the OTL Ottoman fronts, or as bad as the OTL Gallipoli disaster, Kut al-Amara disaster, and effects of the closed straits, an early apparent Entente 'victory' against the Ottomans in 1915 or 1916 could be more of a false dawn than meets the eye. Essentially the theater becoming again more of a sideshow and distraction than wanted or expected because of Turkish resistance and rebellion against a set of over-harsh surrender terms, all distracting from higher priority missions for minor Allied powers like the Greeks of liberating Serbia and the other Allies of concentrating against Austria and Germany.

What I've just tried to emphasize is that it is not a single silver bullet and then all Middle East problems disappear, so its not like redeem Gallipoli and OE disappears automatically like the:

Wicked Witch


Death Star


Dracula
 

stevep

Well-known member
To summarize what I said on the other site I suspect that if the Turkish authorities were prepared to end the fighting they would get fairly generous terms:
a) Russia would have some control over the straits as agreed already among the allies - unless they backed away from that later on but by then Russian forces are likely ensconced in the region so would be difficult to remove without fighting.
b) You might see some sort of Basra emirate carved off as a British protectorate to deny the Ottomans access to the Persian Gulf - thinking that before the siege of Kut Britain had made significant gains there so this seems likely.
c) Certainly the ending of formal Ottoman suizage over Egypt and Cyprus would have been confirmed - forgotten about this but a fairly trivial issue.

Its only if the Turks fight on, as some leading elements of the Young Turk regime were arguing, retreating into the Anatolia interior that the continued resistance and the costs to the allies are likely to make them seek an harsher peace. However such a move would make it very difficult for this resistance to threaten movement through the straits, which coupled with preventing attacks on locations such as Egypt, Russian Armenia, Persia were the primary allied war aims in the region. Also if hard liners do this its likely to make them unpopular with most Turks as their continuing the war and the suffer for no clear reason. If the allies occupy the Smyrna region then coupled with the straits their got the bulk of the Turkish industrial economy secured so what would the resistance fight with, especially since there's no Soviet state to send them aid?

The only other possible issue would be with news of the early stages of the Armenian genocide leaking out which could prompt a call for those areas to be occupied - which would really have to be by Russia - to protect the inhabitants.
 

49ersfootball

Well-known member
What if the the Gallipoli landing works in terms of the Alled forces establishing their beach-head, getting supplying going, being able to finish taking the peninsula and then expand beyond the peninsula, and destroying the Ottoman guns and forces in the way...
...but not having a 'cooperative' enemy that panics and gives up the war over this.

Instead the Ottoman enemy continues to feed reinforcements from wherever it can to the battle, especially urban warfare, defends additional bottlenecks after Gallipolli and fires upon the Entente from the Asian shore?

Would the Entente need to do a series of consecutive serious operations, from Gallipoli east across Thrace to besiege Constantinople --> storming Constantinople------> crossing the Bosporus into the Asian side at Istanbul Bogazi to clear Turkish infantry and slience Turkish guns ------> cross from Gallipoli to the Asian side in Cannakale to clear the Turkish infantry and silence the Turkish guns----> and possibly unite the Asian wings to seize the back-up Ottoman capital at Bursa, in order to:
1. Restore the straits as a reliably working waterway
2. Destroy completely the Turkish ability to resist Allied terms or to contest the straits

What are the longer and shorter timeframes this might take?

Once the British led Entente forces capture (and repair) any loading docks or wharves at the Bosporus/Black Sea end of the straits, would the Russians transport any infantry units to the city or Thrace to take part in the remaining clean-up of Ottoman resistance? Or to take on garrison duties in areas where fighting is done?

Or would wartime operations and garrisons be left entirely to the British led forces that did most of the conquering, with the Russians awaiting handover of the straits at the end of the war, per treaty.

If the Russians do send reinforcements or garrisons in wartime, would it be more because of them volunteering, or the British asking?

If there is no Entente agreement to send Russians in wartime to the straits, will that be because of Russia being lazy or Britain being exclusionary?

If it is Russia being lazy but still expecting a hand over at the end of the war, is that not super naive on their part?

If it is the British being is exclusionary, what does that mean for Russian morale and Entente relations overall for the rest of the war?

With great achievements come great problems. Or at least questions.
Subbed & following very closely!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top