Who were the best Allied troops at Gallipoli

[gilly100]

Hi All

At the risk of being a little controversial (and parochial), but just wanting to see others opinions, I was wondering what those on this forum thought with regard to my post title. Going only from what I have read regarding the Australians and some of the mens recordings on other units, it becomes apparent that many Australians thought very highly of the troops of the Brit regular 29th Division, to the point that some sought commissions with units in that Division in late July when positions were made available. Fortunately for the AIF many of the men were subsequently commissioned within the AIF.

It is also apparent from other recollections of Diggers, that they also thought highly of the Indian troops and the Gurkhas. Throw in the Royal Navy that landed them too. Never a bad word there either. At the other end of the scale, it seems some of the New Army troops, and even more of the Territorials, were not highly thought of, perhaps somewhat unfairly in some cases.

While this ties in just a little with the National biases thread, it is different. I would be interested to know what New Army thought of Territorials and so on. What did the NZ'ers think of other formations. Then there are the French troops and some Colonial French troops. What about the Ottoman Turks and the Arab units? ( I know not Allied but worthy of discussion). Were the Arab units unfairly maligned?

From the Allied side, I find the NZ'ers appear to have performed very well throughout the campaign. I can't comment on the Brit units at Helles or Suvla with enough authority, but I am sure others can. I don't see that statistics can make a case, just an interesting question.

Cheers

Ian

[Jonathan Saunders]

The French troops were the most experienced (having seen recent Colonial conflict) and arguably the best led from the Allied side. I think they would get my vote.

Regards,

Jonathan S

Edited: That said, I have always held William Malone in the highest regard from the Allied point of view, as a fairly senior ranking officer at Gallipoli.

[stevem49]

Many of the New Army men were to busy dying to worry about 'who was best'. 50% casualties in two days tended to concentrate the mind on other things.

The 9th Sherwood Foresters must have been good as Aussie and South Africans took commisions with them after Suvla

[gilly100]

Thanks Jonathan and Steve. I am aware of casualties at Suvla and casualties were not my point, merely what troops (or men) of certain formations thought of other troops of other formations and whom they considered good troops. Lt Col Jourdain of the 5th CR's (New Army) was critical of at least one unit from his brigade, as well as critical of the 13th Division. 13th Div took heavy casualties in August and some units came in for criticism. 4 Brigade AIF same. Casualties could be a whole new thread.

Ian

[spof]

Ian

"At the other end of the scale, it seems some of the New Army troops, and even more of the Territorials, were not highly thought of, perhaps somewhat unfairly in some cases."

Why was that? I'm just thinking that the AIF were in the same league when it comes to experience etc.

[gilly100]

HI SPOF

Yes, I can only comment on what I have read from some of the men (AIF) had to say when writing a diary/letter etc. One example was Lt Tom Kidd of B Sqdn 10 Light Horse complaining about the 5 CR's giving up a trench at Hill 60 and the Light Horse having to go in and re take it. Kidd was a Boer War vet, MID for Gallipoli and went over the top in three charges. I commented in my narrative in the 10LH history that his comments appeared harsh and unfair, although a Sgt McIlwain of the 5CR's mentioned the Anzacs being angry about the loss of the trench, and many of the 5CR's panicky and some bolted. Mind you, from what I have gathered on 5 CR's at Hill 60, is that they did a damn good job. McIlwain was MID for Gallipoli and had already fought on Western Front (wounded) prior to Gallipoli.

The sacrifice issue is not in doubt amongst all the combatants. As for experience, perhaps some of the AIF lads had already been at Gallipoli a good few months prior to the New Army and Territorials, and no doubt, some had learned a bit along the way. I am just trying to understand why these things were recorded. I know when some 100 odd scouts/snipers were sent to Suvla around 12 August to counter snipe the Turks, these Australian, New Zealand and Gurkha troops were commented on positively. This by a Royal Naval officer doing forward observation work for ships guns. He went on to say how their very presence seemed to buck the Territorials. On the other hand, 172 Sgt Evan 'Enie' Bain 10 Light Horse, was part of this detachment and he commented harshly on the Territorials.

Just looking for other examples across the Divisions and their thoughts.

Ian

[David B]

How about the Turks, after all they were not the ones who lost.

[gilly100]

Go for your life David if you have some evidence of what Ottoman Turks in one formation thought of others .I mentioned this in my first post. I would be interested to know that myself. It is not about who won or lost.

Ian

[kenneth505]

Read Peter Hart's Gallipolli.

What X thought of Y is meaningless.

[gilly100]

Yes read that one Ken. Good book. Not meaningless to me, hence the post. I was looking for examples of what those that were there had to say on other units .It was certainly not meaningless to those that wrote about it, otherwise they would have not bothered in the first place. Gee whizz!

Ian

[Steven Broomfield]

Casualties could be a whole new thread.

Ian

Please, God. Not another one.

[gilly100]

It's all good Steve, no one forcing anyone to be involved or otherwise.

[keithmroberts]

Surely the question is impossible to answer. Some units were not too good initially, but performed well when they had found their feet.Then again few would have rated their own unit below others.

Keith

Edited 7 June , 2013 by Keith Roberts
typos

[Steven Broomfield]

It's all good Steve, no one forcing anyone to be involved or otherwise.

It's just that there are already several threads on Gallipoli casualties, which seem to go round and round like a couple of chubby lasses with their handbags at a disco. The sad thing is, that like the said chubby lasses, I feel impelled to watch ...

[stevem49]

Thanks Jonathan and Steve. I am aware of casualties at Suvla and casualties were not my point, merely what troops (or men) of certain formations thought of other troops of other formations and whom they considered good troops. Lt Col Jourdain of the 5th CR's (New Army) was critical of at least one unit from his brigade, as well as critical of the 13th Division. 13th Div took heavy casualties in August and some units came in for criticism. 4 Brigade AIF same. Casualties could be a whole new thread.

Ian

My point was not on casualties either - Most men were to busy to worry about who was best and most thought that they were the best. Was it ever thus! Therefore they did not have the time or energy to talk on the subject, except of course for senior Ruperts .

[Guest]

It is of course highly subjective, and I am not sure how one accurately can measure this. From what I have read in the published histories, private correspondence with Aspinall Oglander and the appendices to the War Diaries I would make a few general (I really stress general) observations.

1. Most units had a very high regard of themselves. I have lost count of the number of unit histories that talk themselves up as they set off to War.

2. The histories of the British regulars rarely commented on the New Army or the TF, but the regulars serving with the New Army had a lot to say in private correspondence. Not all of it was good.

3. The New Army units generally thought that they were nearly as good as the Regulars and had an extremely low opinion of the TF

4. Some units of the TF at Gallipoli performed poorly according to some accounts. I have seen very disparaging comments on the 53rd Welsh Div at Gallipoli and ditto the 42nd East Lancashire Div. When the TF Mounted Div went into action, Regular staff officers on Lala Baba were making bets on how soon they would break. They didn't. For some scathing remarks on the TF it is worth trawling the last file of the 11th Northern Div War Diaries as a staff officer(regular) - I think Col Malcolm - lays into them in correspondence with Aspinall Oglander. He is pretty angry about it all.

5. The New Army Divs reputation at Gallipoli was not particularly good. Drinking tea on the beaches and all that rubbish. I think they were harshly treated and there is considerable confusion in the exp<b></b>ression 'they were poorly led'. At Div and Bde level yes, but at Company and battalion level leadership was unflinching. ....edit: the 10th Hampshires springs to mind. Even within its own Divisional histories their role is largely ignored., and of course the much derided 11th (Northern) Div whose commitment and sacrifice has no memorialisation in the way of a published history.

6. Almost everyone had a high regard for the Turks' tenacity and resilience

7. Everyone had a very high regard for the passive bravery of the Indian Mule Corps

8. Bean seemed to have a low opinion of everyone who was not an ANZAC, particularly the British. In fact he makes some scathing comments on the slum-bred Britons and their physical limitations - I assume this is the 42 East Lancs Div, although there is specific reference to The RND. He seems to ignore the fact that a reasonable per cent of the AIF were born in Britain.

9. Waite, ditto. Etc ad nauseam.

I could go... Any mistakes are mine. Edited for typos.

MG

P.S. Despite all of the above, when the **** hit the fan nobody was shy of pointing the finger. The capitulation of one unit in trench H12 is a good example where every unit of the 29th Div blamed (in their War Diaries but not in their published histories) the neighbouring battalions

PPS. For what it is worth, my view on "Who were the best Allied etc.." is the Indian Mule Corps

For those who shy away from casualty stats, I would suggest looking for a new area of interest. It is possible that high casualties imply high zeal and imply a very high commitment to ones's duty, particularly in the Officer Corps. Leadership in 1915 often attracted high casualties and to dismiss studies or discussion that involve casualties would suggest to me at least that we would be ignoring very vital evidence.You don't have to follow the thread.

It is difficult to understand WWI without these stats as for example on this thread; the casualty stats of the units of the 53rd Div would support the argument that they performed particularly badly. To avoid confusion, they allegedly ran away and did not face their enemy. They landed within days of the 10th (Irish) and 11th (Northern) Divs and yet their casualty figures are a fraction of these Divisions. Casualty figures do not tell us everything, but they at least give us a starting point, particularly in a theatre such as Gallipoli where refuge from gunfire was limited, even in the so called rest areas.

The apologetic comments of Hamilton and others might confirm this and the casualty stats would certainly support this theory. Unsurprisingly, the History of the 53rd Div covers itself in glory for the period at Gallipoli. The author (Ward) was a prolific author of WWI battalion histories and suggests to me at least that his version on the truth is steeped in controversy. Welshmen need not be offended as the so-called Welsh Div was predominantly English. More Gallipoli bullshit. MG

[Bryn]

Just to add to Martin's post above; the original request was not for OUR opinions on any unit, nationality, author, etc. The question was whether we were aware of opinions expressed by contemporary authors towards units other than their own. The opinions, I suppose, don't have to be watertight in their accuracy or politically correct.

Ian, I'm sure you know this, but as far as the Ottomans go, at least at Anzac, the Turks tended to disparage the Arab regiments (72nd and 77th), while at least one allied account I read somewhere rated them highly as soldiers.

[gilly100]

Thank you Martin and Bryn. Finally something of value to ponder. I have also been reading the thread containing casualties and ratios and the like and agree that it is well worthy of looking at them and taking it onboard. How could one not really? I wasn't trying to express MY opinion of any particular unit etc, merely explore what the actual combatants might have recorded and why. I can retract the Gee whizz now.

Cheers

Ian

[frev]

Ian – as per many other Aussie soldiers (as you noted in your first post) Pte Fred Symonds 5^th Bn, AIF, also had high opinions of the Indians & Ghurkas, and even the Brits & NZers – but wasn’t quite so keen on the French! He also gives the impression that others (ie Brits) weren’t so keen on them either when he first notes on the day after arriving at Helles: “The say the French troops are very poor fighters here; they retreat too easily.”

He follows that up with another diary entry four days later (11/5/15) based on his own observations:

“They seem to be letting the Australians do the tough jobs. Some of the other troops are very poor fighters; of course, the regulars are alright, but the French are making an amusing show here. While they advance they hold their packs up in front of them, and are more ready to retreat than anyone else.”

Cheers, Frev

[Chris_Baker]

How could a Private in an infantry battalion acquire any view on the qualities of a different unit, let alone of units of other nations that were fighting many miles away from him? Symonds, for example, would not have seen a French soldier in action. The men would be lucky if they bumped into another company of their own battalion, let alone another unit. It is surely all based on hearsay and bravado.

[gilly100]

HI Frev and Chris

It seems a recurring comment from the Australians towards the Indians and Gurkhas especially, and of course they did see a bit of them, especially the former. Symonds no doubt was at Krithia at that time when he commented on the French, and while he may well have seen some French troops at some stage, he most unlikely fought anywhere too close to them in that affair, correct me if I am wrong, the French being further to the right. As Chris says, probably a bit of chat amongst themselves after arrival at a new area called Helles.

I was interested in what Bryn mentioned about the Ottoman Turk and Arab units, and who was it the Allied account rated more highly of the two.

Ian

[Steven Broomfield]

Was I imagining things, or has post 16 been edited?

[bob lembke]

HI Frev and Chris

It seems a recurring comment from the Australians towards the Indians and Gurkhas especially, and of course they did see a bit of them, especially the former. Symonds no doubt was at Krithia at that time when he commented on the French, and while he may well have seen some French troops at some stage, he most unlikely fought anywhere too close to them in that affair, correct me if I am wrong, the French being further to the right. As Chris says, probably a bit of chat amongst themselves after arrival at a new area called Helles.

I was interested in what Bryn mentioned about the Ottoman Turk and Arab units, and who was it the Allied account rated more highly of the two.

Ian

(I am having trouble with the word editor.) My father fought at Gallipoli, as a volunteer Pionier, and he felt that the Turkish troops were the "best" troops he ever encountered in the whole war, from 1915 thru 1919, with the exception of first class German storm troopers. (He fought, later, in two of the top German storm units (Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Regiment (Flammenwerfer), and the famous Sturm=Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr), wounded four times with them.) I think he meant it in the sense of spirit and bravery, not technical training. Having read a lot about the Turkish / German side (although I have only read a tiny bit of Turkish, absolute murder) everyone was happy about the ethnic Turkish units, which were expected to and did perform very well defending the Turkish heartland. I have no specifics on the performance of Arab regiments there. Other ethnic units, like, not unsurprisingly, Armenian units, were disbanded or converted into labor battalions. There could be a variety of problems with units of ethnic makeup different than ethnic Turks.

[Guest]

HI Frev and Chris

It seems a recurring comment from the Australians towards the Indians and Gurkhas especially, and of course they did see a bit of them, especially the former.

Ian

The fact that one Australian unit (2nd Inf Bde AIF I believe) called themselves the White Gurkhas seems to say everything we need to know about the relationship between the Gurkhas and Australians. Clearly this unit saw the Gurkhas as some kind of benchmark to measure themselves by.

MG.

[phil andrade]

The French contingent gave an excellent account of itself.

I get the impression that they were the most accomplished and experienced of all the troops who fought the Turks at Gallipoli. Their effective use of the soixante - quinze barrage was especially effective.

Yup, they get my vote.

Phil (PJA )