Which was Churchill's biggest wartime blunder? - Page 11




 
--
 
December 5th, 2008  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The Galipoli campaign was ludicrous plan from day one, while its objectives were admirable it was never realistically possible due to the inadequacies of logistics at the time.

It isn't hard to see that it never really had a chance when close to 1/3rd of the supply train was shipping water and it only allowed hospital space for 500 casualties (The Allies took 5000 casualties on the first day).
Hard to see why you say this Monty, wasn't it true that a little more urgency could have swept the field before the Turks had the chance to reinforce their positions? Instead the troops relaxed on the beaches and lost their window of opportunity due to a failure of command. I believe there were other opportunities as well.
December 5th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
Hard to see why you say this Monty, wasn't it true that a little more urgency could have swept the field before the Turks had the chance to reinforce their positions? Instead the troops relaxed on the beaches and lost their window of opportunity due to a failure of command. I believe there were other opportunities as well.
There is no doubt that the lack of actions post landing led to the situation that occurred but even had the peninsula been taken the landing force would have still suffered from lack of water and supplies having to ship everything from Cairo, on top of this even had it been successful they would have only controlled one side of the straights and they are very narrow straights so shipping would not have been safe.

Even had they taken all objectives on day one all they would have achieved was possession of a barren rock miles from anywhere with insecure supply lines and a Turkish Army entrenched across the neck of the peninsula.

I am sorry but the Dardanelles campaign was a dumb idea right from the start.
December 6th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
All I can say is that I worked with survivors from Gallipoli, and it seems there were plenty of Brits involved.

To say that Winston was more uncaring than other leaders is ungracious, I feel, to a man without whom WW11 in Europe was unlikely to have been won, Hitler unlikely to have been stopped.

Remember that the Royal Navy cheered when they heard that 'Winnie was back' as 1st lord of the Admiralty.

What do his critics claim was his motivation for 'wasting' commonwealth troops to favour Brit forces deliberately?

Strikes me as pygmies attacking a giant.
--
December 6th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
All I can say is that I worked with survivors from Gallipoli, and it seems there were plenty of Brits involved.

To say that Winston was more uncaring than other leaders is ungracious, I feel, to a man without whom WW11 in Europe was unlikely to have been won, Hitler unlikely to have been stopped.

Remember that the Royal Navy cheered when they heard that 'Winnie was back' as 1st Admiral.

What do his critics claim was his motivation for 'wasting' commonwealth troops to favour Brit forces deliberately?

Strikes me as pygmies attacking a giant.
Haha I just read a funny quote about Churchill and Galipoli...
"Like a true loose canon, Churchill packed too much powder behind this mission, and it backfired horribly."

I think Churchill had a hard on for grandiose plans that had they ever been implemented would have failed dismally at high cost of life (for example Operation Cathrine).

One day I would love to scan my great grandfathers diaries from WW1 (he served in Galipoli and later in France as a Rifleman) he wrote some very blunt comments about good ole Winnie.
December 6th, 2008  
LeEnfield
 
 
Galipoli.................. First of all was the idea of the attack in Galipoli area sound, and had been achieved would it have taken Turkey out of the war and saved a few years of desert warfare.
The Planning for this mission............Now all the top brass had their eyes firmly fixed on the Western Front as that is were they thought all the credit was and where they could make their names and go down in the history books.
Now the chap they put in charge of this operation had only commanded a desk for the last 30 years. When this chap put forward a list of Generals to help him plan and execute this attack he was refused as they were wanted for the western front. When the operation went tits up they suddenly became available.
The Royal Navy....When the Navy arrived in Dardanelles a couple of their ships hit mines so the Navy with drew and in so doing took away the main artillery support for the army. I think this is why Churchill made this comment about the Navy as it was them that should have been giving the the artillery support. Land Artillery for the Army had been refused as the guns were required for the Western Front.
Security.......Well no one had given this much thought but there was a lot of talk about the operation long before it happened all over the place and this information could have been passed on by other embassies to Turkey
Turkey admitted that they were on the point of losing when the Allied forces with drew from Gallipoli, they were down to the last few shells for their artillery and probably could not have held of another sustained attack. Such are the quirks of life.
Churchill accepted that it was his idea that failed and left the government and joined the Army and went of to the trenches on the Western Front where he fought with courage, now can you just imagine one of todays political leaders doing the same thing, if you can I would like to know just who you think would do such thing.
December 6th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Haha I just read a funny quote about Churchill and Galipoli...
"Like a true loose canon, Churchill packed too much powder behind this mission, and it backfired horribly."

I think Churchill had a hard on for grandiose plans that had they ever been implemented would have failed dismally at high cost of life (for example Operation Cathrine).

One day I would love to scan my great grandfathers diaries from WW1 (he served in Galipoli and later in France as a Rifleman) he wrote some very blunt comments about good ole Winnie.
Monty - re your funny quote - Was he really like a true loose Roman Catholic priest, do you think?

Anyway - such is the nature of war, especially when you are the man with responsibility to win and to save your country and Europe. No-one else there was big enough. We know that WW! was not his greatest hour, but we all owe his memory a debt of gratitude nevertheless.

And win he did.

I remember that your great Grandaddy's bluntness never stopped you from using the great man's name as your signature of these boards; and regarding same, such is the nature of war.

I do not think that your latest response is anything like up to your usual standard, both in content and use of language. I am sure your next reponse will be much more relevant.
December 6th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
Monty - re your funny quote - Was he really like a true loose Roman Catholic priest, do you think?

Anyway - such is the nature of war, especially when you are the man with responsibility to win and to save your country and Europe. No-one else there was big enough. We know that WW! was not his greatest hour, but we all owe his memory a debt of gratitude nevertheless.

And win he did.

I remember that your great Grandaddy's bluntness never stopped you from using the great man's name as your signature of these boards; and regarding same, such is the nature of war.

I do not think that your latest response is anything like up to your usual standard, both in content and use of language. I am sure your next reponse will be much more relevant.
Don't get me wrong Churchill was a great orator and to his credit he saw the problems with Hitler and Stalin well before anyone else but he was a lousy strategist and should have left military matters to the likes of Montgomery, Alexander and even earlier Conners.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Galipoli.................. First of all was the idea of the attack in Galipoli area sound, and had been achieved would it have taken Turkey out of the war and saved a few years of desert warfare.
The Planning for this mission............Now all the top brass had their eyes firmly fixed on the Western Front as that is were they thought all the credit was and where they could make their names and go down in the history books.
Now the chap they put in charge of this operation had only commanded a desk for the last 30 years. When this chap put forward a list of Generals to help him plan and execute this attack he was refused as they were wanted for the western front. When the operation went tits up they suddenly became available.
The Royal Navy....When the Navy arrived in Dardanelles a couple of their ships hit mines so the Navy with drew and in so doing took away the main artillery support for the army. I think this is why Churchill made this comment about the Navy as it was them that should have been giving the the artillery support. Land Artillery for the Army had been refused as the guns were required for the Western Front.
Security.......Well no one had given this much thought but there was a lot of talk about the operation long before it happened all over the place and this information could have been passed on by other embassies to Turkey
Turkey admitted that they were on the point of losing when the Allied forces with drew from Gallipoli, they were down to the last few shells for their artillery and probably could not have held of another sustained attack. Such are the quirks of life.
Churchill accepted that it was his idea that failed and left the government and joined the Army and went of to the trenches on the Western Front where he fought with courage, now can you just imagine one of todays political leaders doing the same thing, if you can I would like to know just who you think would do such thing.

umm I think your time line is scewed...

The Dardanelles campaign was initially envisaged as a naval campaign and it wasn't until after that naval operation had failed with the loss of multiple ships (4 Battleships and 1 Battle cruiser - Of the 5 ships 3 were sunk outright and the other two survived but were scrapped due to damage received) that it was decided that troops would need to be landed (which they were one month later).

Incidentally one of the primary reasons the mine sweepers failed is because the Turks were re-laying the minefields behind them due to their control of both sides of the straights, in my opinion the only chance the ground campaign had was to have landed in the Gulf of Saros where the peninsula is at its narrowest not at Cape Helles.
December 6th, 2008  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Don't get me wrong Churchill was a great orator and to his credit he saw the problems with Hitler and Stalin well before anyone else but he was a lousy strategist and should have left military matters to the likes of Montgomery, Alexander and even earlier Conners..



Churchill was very impatient regarding the Western Desert during WW2. However, as I stated previously, Monty refused Churchill's demands to “get moving” before he had superiority in men and equipment. One thing I do hold against Churchill, he should have steped in when Hugh Dowding was given 24 hours to clear his desk over his handling of the Battle of Britain. Trafford Leigh Mallory along with Douglas Bader stabbed Dowding in the back. It was in my opinion a disgraceful episode against a man whom with Keith Parks I/C 11 Group handled the Battle impeccably and saved Britain from a fate the rest of Europe suffered.


I don't think another leader in Britain could have performed as well as did Churchill during WW2.
December 6th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Churchill was very impatient regarding the Western Desert during WW2. However, as I stated previously, Monty refused Churchill's demands to “get moving” before he had superiority in men and equipment. One thing I do hold against Churchill, he should have steped in when Hugh Dowding was given 24 hours to clear his desk over his handling of the Battle of Britain. Trafford Leigh Mallory along with Douglas Bader stabbed Dowding in the back. It was in my opinion a disgraceful episode against a man whom with Keith Parks I/C 11 Group handled the Battle impeccably and saved Britain from a fate the rest of Europe suffered.


I don't think another leader in Britain could have performed as well as did Churchill during WW2.
I agree with your assessment of Dowding and Parks, unfortunately Parks does not receive the attention he deserves in New Zealand either, the sad thing is that had Mallory's "Big Wing" plans been followed the RAF would have been finished within 4 weeks and yet it was successful later in the campaign because Dowding got the timing right.

But having said all this at least Fighter Command does get the recognition it deserves even if its leader didn't, Bomber Command on the other hand has recieved bugger all recognition due to its leader.
December 6th, 2008  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I agree with your assessment of Dowding and Parks, unfortunately Parks does not receive the attention he deserves in New Zealand either, the sad thing is that had Mallory's "Big Wing" plans been followed the RAF would have been finished within 4 weeks and yet it was successful later in the campaign because Dowding got the timing right.

But having said all this at least Fighter Command does get the recognition it deserves even if its leader didn't, Bomber Command on the other hand has recieved bugger all recognition due to its leader.

Quite frankly I am surprised Keith Parks didn't get the recognition he deserved in New Zealand, the man was a brilliant leader.

Bomber Command loses were without a doubt horrific, over 50,000 men died. The 617 Squadron Dambusters raid cost 54 lives out of 133 crew on the raid, a loss of 40%. People who worked with Barnes Wallis, stated after the raid that he was extremely affected by the loses, he swore he would never risk another mans life again.