Gallipoli Landings

[trooper]

Hi Pals

Not certain if this is the right place to ask this question but I have reading the official history and it got me to wondering if the landings on 25 April were the first major opposed landing the British army had taken part in. If not when was the last such operation before Gallipoli? Sometime during the Napoleonic Wars I would have thought.

Any thoughts?

Trooper

[michaeldr]

when was the last such operation before Gallipoli? Sometime during the Napoleonic Wars I would have thought.

Trooper,

I think that you are probably right

Prof. Robert O’Neill AO, in his 1990 Gallipoli Memorial Lecture offered two candidates:

“This extremely complex art [The Technique of Amphibious Operations] often shown to be sadly deficient in earlier British operations such as those at Constantinople itself in 1807 and Walcheren in 1809, can hardly be regarded as having been mastered by Britain and her Allies in 1915.”

Regards

Michael D.R.

[jim_davies]

How about Tanga, earlier in 1915.

Jim

[Robert Dunlop]

The actual landings were unopposed, Jim

Robert

[trooper]

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to look at a few of the landings during the Napoleonic Wars. Constantinople in 1807 cann't really be classified as an opposed landing as I beleive that the 150 casualties incurred resulted during the forcing of the Dardanelles and at Walcheren, the troops landed unopposed and were committed to action later.

The last "major opposed landing" I can find is Alexandria in 1801 when the boats were meet by grape shot and musketry and almost a thousand casualties were incurred by the British.

Trooper

[Guest Roger J. Marchant]

Correspondents should understand that Gallipoli was an Antipodean affair, the ANZACS merely being assisted by England and France

[michaeldr]

Gallipoli was an Antipodean affair, the ANZACS merely being assisted by England and France

Roger,

I am not entirely sure that I understand exactly what you meant by the above,

However the figures below may help you to appreciate that, whilst it was of undoubted importance to Australia and New Zealand, Gallipoli was an experience shared by many other nations as well

The page below is taken from ‘The Gallipolian’ No.97 Winter 2001-2002

My apologies to the French and Turks for being unable to include the numbers of their fallen

Remembered on the 25th April, and always

[BMoorhouse]

Trooper,

There is an account that I have seen of an opposed landing made by the Dorsets in Mesopotamia (Iraq) in 1914. This contradicts the official history account. I am trying to research casualties to determine the accuracy of the account I have.

I doubt that it would count as a "major" landing though.

Brendon.

[Tim Birch]

I don't want to belittle the galliant efforts of the ANZACs at Gallipoli, but I am puzzled why memories of this campaign feature so highly in Antipodean psyche when compared with the even greater tragedies and victories experienced by their forces on the Western Front, particularly towards the end of the war when along with the Canadians they contributed a major influence on events? Was it because Gallipoli was a glorious defeat in the same way that the defeat of the British forces in France in WW2 is celebrated by memories of Dunkirk?

Sorry I am straying away from the original question. If I recall correctly wasn't the Battle of Corte, where Nelson lost an eye, fought to cover a landing on Corsica?

Tim

[Bryn]

I get the impression that Roger's remark about the Anzacs was meant as sarcasm, rather than being the genuine view of an 'Antipodean'. Only non-Antipodeans use the term 'Antipodean'.

The (incorrect) full-capitalisation of the noun 'Anzacs' is also a bit of a giveaway.

[healdav]

Amazingly, there was even at least one Luxembourger killed at Gallipoli (I forget exactly where). He was with the French army.

If one was killed there were probably others present, but I haven't traced them yet.

[Dolphin]

Tim

There are a number of reasons for the high profile of the Gallipoli campaign in Australia and New Zealand and I think that not least among them is the way the ANZAC had a distinct battlefield [more or less] to itself. Hence, the battle for Anzac Cove and environs can be seen as an almost independent Australian and New Zealand venture.

It's interesting to reflect that ANZAC might not have gone to the Dardanelles. The departure of the Corps was delayed due to the potential danger that might have been posed by the German cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, until the Germans were found to be near Tahiti. Also, there was a proposal for the convoy to sail to South Africa, rather than via the Suez Canal to the United Kingdom/Western Front, so that the troops could assist in action against the Boer rebellion. However, the uprising was suppressed just before the convoy sailed and the troops then travelled to Egypt. Circumstances therefore combined to put them in the right place, at the right time, to be added to the Gallipoli invasion force.

Had the Australians and New Zealanders not been sent to Gallipoli, it's likely that their baptism of fire would have been as part of a large enterprise somewhere on the Western Front and most probably some time would have elapsed before a defining event, such as the Canadians at Vimy Ridge.

Something to think about as Anzac Day approaches.

[Edward_N_Kelly]

I don't want to belittle the galliant efforts of the ANZACs at Gallipoli, but I am puzzled why memories of this campaign feature so highly in Antipodean psyche when compared with the even greater tragedies and victories experienced by their forces on the Western Front, particularly towards the end of the war when along with the Canadians they contributed a major influence on events? Was it because Gallipoli was a glorious defeat in the same way that the defeat of the British forces in France in WW2 is celebrated by memories of Dunkirk?

Sorry I am straying away from the original question. If I recall correctly wasn't the Battle of Corte, where Nelson lost an eye, fought to cover a landing on Corsica?

Tim

Look also to the "defining moments" of the the various townships around the UK. Some commenorated 1JUL16 as much if not more than 11NOV18, Bury for instance had and still has a strong connection with Gallipoli.....

In Australia (and to a lesser extent New Zealand) the propoganda generated by governements to further "the cause" in several wars, together with ex-service organisations to further their need for relevance in the society.

Over the last twenty years or so (as the "old diggers" have passed) there has been a re-awakening of Australian nationalism and interest in its past. This has led to a re-appraisel of the military history of Australia (much as there has been of WWI in general).

There is an excellant book on the whole mystique but it is home and I am not -but will post details as soon as I can.

Edward

[trooper]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my original question, it looks as though the last major opposed military landing by the British is firmly back in the Napoleonic Wars.

The replies have however raised another question, how many of the ANZAC forces killed at Gallipoli were actually born in Australia/New Zealand? The reason I ask is that there are at least 2 on my local war memorial who are definitely not from the southern hemisphere.

Trooper

[Robert Dunlop]

There was a substantial proportion of men who were English-born immigrants in New Zealand. Some had served in the regular British Army. I have the figures back home.

Robert

[Guest Roger J. Marchant]

Re Anzacs @ Gallipoli (tks for putting me right on that!)

I think what I was inching towards was that Oz sustained over 14% of her WW1 deaths at Gallipoli compared to Britain's approx 2%. No slur intended against the stronger allies, just a comparison. I know comparisons are invidious but the point I make is that in the Antipodes (no apology here) the feeling was/is that it was indeed an Australian/New Zealand affair, grossly mismanaged by guess who.

[Guest Roger J. Marchant]

re. Tim Birch's throwaway comment on Dunkirk.

Dunkirk was not a defeat of the British army - it was a let-off because of a German stuff-up (be it by Hitler or the field General involved).

[Robert Dunlop]

I think it probably would surprise many New Zealanders and Australians that there were English soldiers as well. It would be a real surprise that French soldiers were present in numbers (possibly this would surprise many English people as well ).

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

Dunkirk was not a defeat of the British army

While it was no doubt necessary to put this slant on things for home consumption at the time, there is a danger that this interpretation prevents learning from taking place (which is in no way meant to distract from the tremendous effort that recovered so many men from the beaches!!!). The entire expeditionary force could have been killed or captured. As it was, the loss of equipment was tremendous but I don't have a feel for whether it was so great that there would have been real problems defending a German invasion of England on the ground.

Similarly, the ANZAC view of Gallipoli has hidden some important issues about command and control within the Australian and New Zealand contingents, independent of any interpretations about the performance of Hunter-Weston, etc. It is good to see that the likes of Carylon are redressing these deficits in the collective consciousness.

Robert

[Malcolm]

Correspondents should understand that Gallipoli was an Antipodean affair, the ANZACS merely being assisted by England and France

Does that mean the Irish, Scottish and Welsh were there by mistake Robert???

Aye

Malcolm

[trooper]

Pals

As I am sure some of you may be aware I am researching a thesis on the 10th(Irish) Division. During my research last week I came across these comments made in the battalion history of the 10th and 12th Hampshire Regiment by Major LC Morley who arrived at ANZAC on 10th August 1915 with Capt Hudson and 2/Lt Calderwood and 145 men for the 10th Hampshires who were part of the 10th Div.

"At 6pm (10/8/1915), the Battalion, all that was ever found, was collected behind Brigade HQ and numbered with reinforcements about 280, but owing to the lack of cover, casualties were occuring continuously"

The Battalion was reorganised as follows:

CO Major Morley

QM & Adjudant - Lt. Saunders

A Coy - Lt Hellyer (KIA 21/8)

B Coy - Sergt Mears

C Coy - Lt Hudson

D Coy - 2/Lt Calderwood (KIA 21/8)

Writing on 20/8/1915 Major Morley records " Three days previously the remnant of the Royal Irish Rifles had been sent to us. It consisted of 1 Sergeant and 35 men; this was all that was left of that fine Battalion." It should be remembered that the 10th Hampshires and 6th R.I.Rifles had only landed at Gallipoli on 6th August.

Major Morley's final entry records the outcome of their engagement on 21 August when the Battalion suffered the lost of 2 of 5 officers killed and 100 casualities of its remaining 180 men.

So as ANZAC Day approach let's not forget those men from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales who also served.

Trooper

[Robert Dunlop]

Does that mean the Irish, Scottish and Welsh were there by mistake Robert???

Malcolm

I am not quite sure what you are suggesting. Forgive me for not making my point more clearly. For many New Zealanders, the historical understanding of Gallipoli is determined by films such as 'Gallipoli'. The emphasis is on incompetent English officers pushing the ANZACs to their deaths. This helps explain the significant losses and the failure of the campaign quite nicely. But it deflects from the truth, something that Carylon and others are beginning to rectify.

Many New Zealanders were English-born or were only first-, at most second-, generation New Zealand born. England was the Mother Country. New Zealand was a piece of England. My own family was predominantly English. There were many Scots settlers (which is proudly reflected in my heritage as well) and some Irish & Welsh, but the settlements of Wellington, New Plymouth, Nelson and Christchurch for example were all Wakefield settlements ie whole segments of English society that migrated to these towns. So my mention of English soldiers was an attempt to reflect this narrow focus of attention of many (but not all) New Zealanders. I hope it is clearer now that a lack of awareness of English soldiers being present is VERY significant. This does NOT mean that English soldiers were in any way more important that Scots, Irish, Welsh, Senagalese, Indian, Ghurka, or the many other nationalities that were present. I am just trying to give a deeper insight into the meaning of ANZAC.

Gallipoli serves as a point in time where New Zealand became a very distinct entity. Clearly, this is not strictly true but the legend of the ANZACs is a powerful one, much more powerful than most non-Antipodeans realise in terms of forging a national sense of identity. I was very aware from a young age that our soldiers had fought well in both the First and Second World Wars. I was proud to have known my Grandfather, who had been one of those soldiers.

Robert

[Malcolm]

I meant don't use English when you mean British.

Aye

Malcolm

[Guest Roger J. Marchant]

This business about Dunkirk.

Plenty of informed opinion suggests that Hitler never really wanted to invade England (sorry, Britain), preferring an 'gentlemanly' standoff rather than a desperate venture. Perhaps he thought there was nothing in it for him, particularly in view of his toe-tapping impatience to have at Russia, where there were millions of square miles of territory lying ready to increase the Reich. So, the theory goes, take Russia, consolidate the borders of the new German Empire and then come to some rapprochement with England and France. It seems he wasn't very well-informed (or too well-informed) about America. Certainly that country's stolid isolationism would have given him reassurance that if he didn't disturb them, they wouldn't worry him.

In due course, the Middle East and all its oil would also fall to Germany, either by political or military success.

Therefore, I believe 'Sealion' was half-hearted. Lacking support from the Navy and the Army, only the overheated enthusiasm of Goering convinced Hitler that it would, literally, be a blitzkrieg.

And then Japan struck...

[Geoff S]

Hi all,

Can confirm Antipodes still exists, sadly all Antipodeans likely to have been killed at Gallipoli.

Regards

Geoff S