On 16 Nov 2004 19:48:12 -0800, adamprtaylor@hotmail.com (Adam PR
Taylor) wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson <jhanson@northernlinks.com> wrote in message news:<aksip01cta0o
hd208m0ro0m7r0cnhthunl@4ax.com>.. 
>[snip] 
>
>Timelines, John. Timelines.
>Operation Market-Garden was WWII, nigh on 30 years later after WWI.
>While I am loathe to defend British commanders of NZ troops in WWI, it
>is hard for anybody to see 30 years into the future.

No shit.  He said, "The goal of these landings was a pincer movement
which if successful would have brought WWI to an end within a year of
its commencement, and in turned saved many lives (including many US
ones for the war would have been over before the belated US entry).",
which was basically the same goal of Market-Garden in WWII and we know
what an abysmal failure that was.

>
>You also fail to address the examples of British command errors and
>incompetence which thrust NZ troops into what (in hindsight) is a
>winless situation, for reasons that I have addressed and shall expand
>on in responding to your other misstatements, below.
>
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/gall.htm
The reasons for trying to force open that narrow strip of water that
separates Europe from Asia Minor were, on the surface, very simple.
The bloody impasse on the western front had led some to seek solutions
elsewhere and the war against the Turks seemed to offer one. The
scenario went something like this. The Royal Navy with Nelsonian
daring would blast its way through the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara
and then the Narrows reducing the defending forts to rubble as it
went. Then, anchoring in the shadow of Constantinople, its sheer
presence would lead to revolution in Turkey and cow the Turkish
government into surrender. The flank of Germany and Austria-Hungary
would be exposed and with the sealanes to the Black Sea open, Russia
could be supplied with much-needed munitions. Newly rejuvenated, her
massive armies would steamroller westward into Berlin. If it had only
been so.
The main opponents of the scheme, however, were the British
admirals who would have to carry it out. Ships fighting forts is
difficult at the best of times and in the horribly constricted waters
of the Dardenelles, probably madness. The place was heavily defended
with almost 200 guns, fixed torpedo tubes, submarine nets and hundreds
of mines. The admirals refused to allow their best ships to be used
and, apart from the newly built battleship Queen Elizabeth and the
battlecruisers Inflexible and Irresistible, most of the ships were
old, due for retirement and manned by mostly reserve crews. The same
was true of the French contingent. In spite of this it was still a
mighty fleet that began its attack on March 18th 1915. There were
sixteen capital ships with all their supporting vessels and with Queen
Elizabeth in the lead they entered the narrow strip of water.
According to all who saw it the sight was magnificent, the great grey
ships powering into the azure waters of the strait with the
dun-coloured hills of Gallipolli beckoning on their portside. It was
the ultimate expression of gunboat diplomacy as practised in the 19th
century and it failed.
The battle raged from 9.00am to 5.00pm when, like office
workers anxious to be off home, the British called it a day. All day
long they had pounded the shore batteries and forts but the Turks
never for a minute gave up returning fire. This was not how it should
have been and the Royal Navy, used to the immediate surrender of
natives overawed by the spectacle of naval power, seemed at a loss as
to what to do. Later in the afternoon, minesweepers were sent forward
with a view to freeing the waters ahead for the battleships to follow.
These minesweepers were not even warships at all, but fishing trawlers
fitted with mine cable-cutting equipment. They were crewed by
civilians and had never been expected to do their job under the kind
of fire they now experienced. It was to much for them and they turned
about and fled. Almost immediately the French battleship Bouvet struck
a mine, capsized and sank in just a few minutes. Then HMS Inflexible
was holed by a mine and limped back out to sea, listing heavily. HMS
Irresistible was abandoned after hitting another mine and HMS Ocean
saw her steering gear destroyed. The fleet withdrew. Not a single mine
had been cleared nor a single Turkish gun destroyed. Seven hundred
allied lives had been lost and three capital ships. Later reports
suggested that the Turks were at breaking point and almost out of
ammunition when the ships turned back out to sea and perhaps a
determined attack the next day might have succeeded. It was, however,
over; not only the battle but that myth of invincibility that had
clung to the Royal Navy for over a century.

> 
>[snip] 
>
>Again, this sounds very familiar doesn't it? (And the NZ and allied
>troops did not have body armour or armoured vehicles back in 1915).
>You also fail to support the ‘poorly' claim with any evidence.   I
>also note you dismiss my observation that these were men defending
>their homeland by not addressing it in a manner devoid of jingoism or
>hyperbole.
>

I recently received an e-mail from a Turkish gentleman chiding me for
disregarding the sufferings of the Turkish soldiers during the
Gallipoli campaign. He was right, of course, and I feel I should add
something here. The British Empire and Dominion troops who fought at
Gallipoli laboured under terrible conditions but for their enemy
things were, if anything, even worse. the Turkish army had no great
fleet to supply it and as British submarines were active in the Sea of
Marmora seaborne supply was not an option. A single railway line led
to the peninsula but it ran out far from the battlefronts and had
nowhere near the capacity to adequately service the Turkish army
fighting there. Sometimes the Turkish troops were starving and it is
said they would lick the traces of sauce they found inside cans of
food discarded by the British and Anzac troops. And yet they held on
and finally drove the invaders back onto their ships. The Turkish
soldier was poorly equipped and often badly led but his courage and
determination won the admiration of his foes. Before the landings the
Anzacs were just as racist as most Europeans at that time and felt
that the upcoming battle against a bunch of ‘asiatics?Ewould soon be
successfully completed. Such ideas didn’t last long and a respect for
their enemy grew amongst the Anzacs. They called the Turkish soldiers
‘Johnnie Turk?Eor ‘Mehmet?Eand these were terms not derogatory but
akin to the name ‘Tommy?Ethat the Germans used to describe the
British.
> 
>
>Prey tell, how do you derive that?
>What/who do you think the Turks were? Just what empire did they belong
>to, then?
>
From you cite above, "During the First World War, the Turks again
proved their fighting prowess. At Gallipoli, Turkish tenacity and
bravery won the day. In 1916, Turkish arms also proved victorious
against the British in Mesopotamia. Despite the bravery of the Turkish
soldier, however, Turkish forces were everywhere in retreat by early
1917. By 4 October 1918, the Turkish army was finished."  Even as
brave as they were, they were the end of the Ottoman Empire.


> 
>
>Ah, not quite.
>The British-planned land-based operation of which NZ troops were
>involved was to pave the way for a naval attack on other parts, not
>the other way around. It would appear you have not read the references
>below, of which http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery..rst-attacks.htm
>quite clearly states "Churchill also despatched the Royal Naval
>Division, a hotchpotch of Royal Marine and other units raised from
>surplus sailors … A military assault on the Dardanelles was not
>envisaged … A sustained attempt to subdue the forts and guns guarding
>the intermediate defences was made on 18 March, but this proved
>disastrous when six of the sixteen capital ships taking part struck
>mines, and three were lost. The minefields remained as a barrier to
>progress … An opposed landing was now proposed, with a view to
>capturing the Kilid Bahr plateau. From here the positions on both
>sides of the strait dominating the sea approaches could be
>neutralised, allowing the naval operation to proceed."
>Perhaps you would prefer another source
>(http://www.fact-index.com/b/ba/battle_of_gallipoli.html ) "A new
>attack was launched on March 18, targeted at the narrowest point of
>the Dardanelles where the straits were just a mile wide. A massive
>fleet containing no less than 16 battleships was initially successful,
>eliminating many Turkish artillery batteries. However, an undetected
>minefield laid along the Asian shore by the Turkish minelayer Nusret,
>sunk or damaged a number of ships as they turned about. Three
>battleships were sunk; the British HMS Ocean and HMS Irresistible, and
>the French Bouvet, while the battlecruiser HMS Inflexible and the
>French battleships Suffren and Gaulois were badly damaged … After the
>failure of the naval attacks, it had become clear that ground troops
>were necessary to eliminate the Turkish mobile artillery. This would
>allow mine sweepers to clear the waters for the larger vessels. In
>early 1915, Austrailan and NZ volunteer soldiers … "
>
>Translating that for you: an landing and campaign that was effectively
>unsupported.
>
From the same source you mention above:
"On the afternoon of April 27, Kemal launched a concerted attack to
drive the Anzacs back to the beach. With the support of naval gunfire,
the Turks were held off throughout the night. "

And from below:
"Despite the outcome of the previous two attacks, Hamilton agreed to a
further attempt being made at Helles. By now the situation was even
less advantageous for the attacker, since an elaborate trench system
would have to be overcome. By the use of heavy bombardment, a series
of attacks in June and July made small gains, at the cost of 12,000
British and French casualties. The Turks merely pulled back up the
slope and prepared to meet the next onslaught. "




As well as fresh troops:
"In June, a fresh division, the 52nd Division, began to land at Helles
in time to participate in the last of the major Helles battles, the
Battle of Gully Ravine which was launched on June 28. This battle
advanced the British line along the left (Aegean) flank of the
battlefield."

And more reinforcements:
"The Suvla landing was reinforced by the arrival of the British 53rd
and 54th Divisions. The unfortunate 29th Division was also shifted
from Helles to Suvla for one more push. The final British attempt to
resuscitate the offensive came on August 21 with attacks at Scimitar
Hill and Hill 60. Control of these hills would have united the Anzac
and Suvla fronts but neither battle achieved success. When fighting at
Hill 60 ceased on August 29, the battle for the Sari Bair heights, and
indeed the battle for the peninsula, was effectively over."

Also from a link you provided below:
"The more the situation at Helles seemed permanently stalemated, the
more attention focused on the position at Anzac. Early in May
reinforcements had arrived in the form of the New Zealand Mounted
Rifle Brigade (Brigadier-General A.H. Russell) and the 1st Australian
Light Horse Brigade, which had left their horses in Egypt. The RND
battalions were withdrawn."


> 
>
>And I did not say there was not.
>However, I was pointing out that NZ citizens have fought with
>distinction in many fields of battle (as part of foreign wars) and
>thereby providing evidence that disproves your claim. In fact in this
>particular instance, it was a NZer by the name of Keith Park (a
>Gallipolli veteren), who with "the rank of Air Vice-Marshal Park took
>command of 11 Group, responsible for the fighter defence of London and
>southeast England, in April 1940. He organized fighter patrols over
>France during the Dunkirk evacuation and in the Battle of Britain his
>command took the brunt of the Luftwaffe's air attacks."
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Park).
>
>Interestingly and to address your diversionary point, the number of
>Americans involved varies around 10, (one assumes origions could be
>somewhat flexible in these times) to NZ's 125-odd – the third highest,
>and you will recall the population of NZ at the time from your
>previous post, and I would hope you know the pouplation of the US at
>that point as well: I will leave the maths up to you.

The US wasn't a Commonwealth country and it wasn't our fight as we
were not at war at the time like New Zealand was.  The US pilots even
needed permission from the Secretary of War to even fight over there.
Having said that, the link below is for the men who fought from 10
July to 31 October, 1940.  The number of American Pilots who fought
for the RAF is higher than that.

>(Refs:
>1) Kenneth G Wynn, "Men of the Battle of Britain" (London 1999)
>pp.i-x,
>2) http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html)
>
>I have provided examples of many fields of battle with successful
>outcomes in which NZ troops have participated with disproportionately
>high numbers, and thereby rebuffed your unsupported argument.  Your
>not addressing my points and dodging the question at hand by raising
>spuriously related ‘points' of little relevance to the point at hand
>does not do your argument (or if I may say so, your credibility) any
>good.
>
> 
>
>This is idle speculation and therefore invalid, however it is
>interesting to note a tacit acceptance of failure of similar tactics
>in the past that are being employed again with your explicit approval.
>The reference to the son probably says more in its implications and
>unstated inferences than what you intend, too.
>
How so?  It is being run by warlords.  Why wouldn't a US marine of
Somali citizenship be that baddest warlord in the valley, so to speak?

What tactics are you referring to?
> 
>
>Indeed, a suggestion that I suspect was not acted on. Perhaps this
>time.

See above.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]