Newfoundland Regiment at Gallipoli, 1915

A little history form the NFLD Regt

The Newfoundland Regiment landed at Suvla Bay on the Gallipoli peninsula on the night of September 19th 1915 in order to reinforce the hard-pressed British 88th Brigade of the 29th Division. From the beginning the Regiment had a hard time; day and night the Turkish army in control of the high ground surrounding the beach poured a constant stream of artillery and sniper fire down upon the British line. Casualties mounted day by day and the constant enemy fire made re-supply difficult at best, and food and water shortages were common.

read the rest here

http://www.diggerhistory2.info/grave...wfoundland.htm

What do you believe was the cause of the failure of the Gallipoli campaign?

I think there was one reason... Turks were fighting for their independence against imperialism and Anzacs were fighting in an unknown place for them and fighting against an army which was trying to save its country from imperialists with a great belief...

As I have said before it was treated as a side show, the General in charge had not commanded much more than a desk for umpteen years. The Generals he requested to help him plan the attack were refused, but when they ran in to problems and wanted to get their troops out all Generals that had been requested were suddenly made available. We had to many Generals fighting a 20th Century War with 20th Century weapons but committed to 19th Century warfare. It took a few years for officers to start to rise to the top of pile who had different mind set on this. If you sit back and take a long hard look at what could have been achieved if it had been successful with better planning, then this attack was worth risk even though it did cause some high casualties in the attacking forces.

I don't really know how to vote on this one. I think it was the wrong battle at the wrong place at the wrong time, the Generals who planned this attack, IMO, are the most responsible for its failure, because their strategies were mad eobsolete by new advances in technology.

So which should I vote? Military strategy because it was out of date or military leadership because it was the leaders who divised the strategy?

Interesting that no one credits the leadership of Ataturk for the Turkish victory. The Eurocentric perspective of "how did the west lose" ignores the possibility that the Turks actually "won".

Or it just acknowledges that the west lost and the Turks won in a battle that should have been a victory for the West given all the internal strife in the Ottoman Empire.

I think it was the machine guns. Turkish army has lot of machine guns from Germany.

Yes they won at Gallipoli, there is no argument about this, but they lost war. There was some very heavy fighting in the Middle East during WW1 and it is inclined to be overlooked. Both ANZC and Britain were heavily involved in the fighting out there and fighting went from what is now Saudi Arabia right up through Syria and it was death knell for the Old Ottoman Empire.

If you dont get angry I wanna add somethin to this thread.

Turkish leader Kemal Atatürk's say about the Anzacs who dead in Gallipoli:

"After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well"

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Yes they won at Gallipoli, there is no argument about this, but they lost war. There was some very heavy fighting in the Middle East during WW1 and it is inclined to be overlooked. Both ANZC and Britain were heavily involved in the fighting out there and fighting went from what is now Saudi Arabia right up through Syria and it was death knell for the Old Ottoman Empire.

The primary perpetrators and combatants for that successful fight agaist the Ottomans were Arabs. Gallipoli did not magically extend itself into that field of the war. Gallipoli was a terrible failure and it is primarily the fault of those in charge of organizing the attack and those commanding it that it was such a failure.