Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gallipoli

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gallipoli

    Hey Guys i watched a doco last night the show was called Battlefield Detectives i think and they talked about all the factors in why the Gallipoli campaign failed but they had a bit in the show where the ANZACS fought they started making this tunnels to take turkish trenches because the territory was so rough that they fought in but strange enough I never knew this could this have given the Allies the idea to do the same in France where they tunneled under the enemy treneches and created this massive mines of explosives and blew them up with great succes in whic they won I can't remember the battle but could there of been a Aussie involved which did the same thing on Gallipoli?

    And also do you think the Viet Cong could of found out about this things when they started doing those tunnels which held a lot of fighting man to confuse the Americans and Aussies?
    http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

  • #2
    The fighting in France was already in high gear and their trench warfare was well established by Gallipoli. The Diggers didn't invent trench warfare, but dug in wherever they could to survive during the initial assualts. The trenches were then expanded as progress was measured in inches and feet after a hard fought battle. IIRC, the lines hadn't moved all that much by the time troops withdrew.

    Here is a pretty cool link to trench warfare in WWI. Pay special attention to the fun facts in the right-hand column.

    http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/chapters/ch1_trench.html

    Here's an unofficial history just about Diggers that you might enjoy. It looks like pretty good stuff.

    http://www.diggerhistory.info/00-pag...ster-index.htm
    Last edited by Biscuit; 13 Oct 07, 21:37.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
      The fighting in France was already in high gear and their trench warfare was well established by Gallipoli. The Diggers didn't invent trench warfare, but dug in wherever they could to survive during the initial assualts. The trenches were then expanded as progress was measured in inches and feet after a hard fought battle. IIRC, the lines hadn't moved all that much by the time troops withdrew.

      Here is a pretty cool link to trench warfare in WWI. Pay special attention to the fun facts in the right-hand column.

      http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/chapters/ch1_trench.html

      Here's an unofficial history just about Diggers that you might enjoy. It looks like pretty good stuff.

      http://www.diggerhistory.info/00-pag...ster-index.htm
      I didn't mean trench ware fare I meant tunneling under trenches and attacking them from under ground
      http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

      Comment


      • #4
        For a start, Google "Battle of the Crater" There is little if any thing that your idolized Aussie did first in warfare. After the Crater then you can look at the Battle of Vienna from 1623, ya that was the Turk diggers, before Australia was even discovered by Westerners.

        HP
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
          For a start, Google "Battle of the Crater" There is little if any thing that your idolized Aussie did first in warfare. After the Crater then you can look at the Battle of Vienna from 1623, ya that was the Turk diggers, before Australia was even discovered by Westerners.

          HP
          Australians tend to have a very skewed view of the Gallipoli campaign, much as I imagine the British have of the Peninsula War etc.

          OT: Am I the only person who on watching the film Gallipoli thought the only person to blame for the destruction of the 10th Western Australian Light Horse was their CO?
          "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
            For a start, Google "Battle of the Crater" There is little if any thing that your idolized Aussie did first in warfare. After the Crater then you can look at the Battle of Vienna from 1623, ya that was the Turk diggers, before Australia was even discovered by Westerners.

            HP
            The "Crater" was the first thing I thought of also. But, in reality, tunneling as a means of breaching lines and walls was old when Methusila was a Pup. Quite a popular way to bring down any nasty castle walls that may prove difficult to attack. Given enough time, Leaky will probably find evidence of it somewhere in the Great Rift.
            My Avatar: Ivan W. Henderson Gunner/navigator B-25-26. 117 combat missions. Both Theaters. 11 confirmed kills. DSC.

            Comment


            • #7
              There were a number of huge mines exploded at the beginning of Third Ypres. The noise was heard in London when they were exploded.
              If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 67th Tigers View Post
                Australians tend to have a very skewed view of the Gallipoli campaign, much as I imagine the British have of the Peninsula War etc.

                OT: Am I the only person who on watching the film Gallipoli thought the only person to blame for the destruction of the 10th Western Australian Light Horse was their CO?
                Well now you mention it even though in the movie it shows that a British General gave the oreder but it was actually a Aussie General who did just to set the record right and if you mean that teh CO was to blame would that be because of teh Naval artillary barrage ending 5 minutes before it should or that the CO watch wasn't set correct i'm not pointing fingers what happened, happened but I think some blam should be given to the CO for waiting so long before attacking but than you have to put you mind set like he had he might of thought that there might of been a problem and that barrage could of started again in any second and he didn't want his men get pulvarized by there own artillery.
                http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by freightshaker View Post
                  There were a number of huge mines exploded at the beginning of Third Ypres. The noise was heard in London when they were exploded.
                  I think I made referrence to that in my original post dunno if it came across or and to that tunneling thing I didn't really think it over when I posted this sorry but it is amazing th terrain the diggers, Britsh and Turks fought over dunno if anyone watched the show but it's amamzing how they could actually do front on charges in the area I think tunneling was the only way to really attack enamy positions and when the went into a tunnel I was amazed how many times other tunnel intersected it was very interesting
                  http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 67th Tigers View Post
                    Australians tend to have a very skewed view of the Gallipoli campaign, much as I imagine the British have of the Peninsula War etc.

                    OT: Am I the only person who on watching the film Gallipoli thought the only person to blame for the destruction of the 10th Western Australian Light Horse was their CO?
                    What I would like to know why was teh light horse even commited to that attack should of been left to the Infantry does anyone think that as well?
                    http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 150935 View Post
                      What I would like to know why was teh light horse even commited to that attack should of been left to the Infantry does anyone think that as well?
                      The 3rd LH Bde were dismounted as there was no use for a cavalry arm on that campaign. A quick google shows that most people blame the Bde Comd and his Bde Maj for the f*** up, for the simple mistake of failing to set his watch to GUNNERTIME and thus launching his Bde 7 mins late.

                      Edit: to explain

                      Without radio comms, the RA would promulgate the "correct" time to all units (GUNNERTIME). Timings were fixed to the fireplan, and everyone would syncronise to it. The movie shows the commanders simply failing to syncronise to gunnertime (as happened).

                      One thing the movie got very wrong was that the attack on the Nek was not to cover a landing, but to support another attack by the NZ Inf Bde, and was itself extracted when all went wrong by a British Bn.
                      Last edited by 67th Tigers; 15 Oct 07, 01:33.
                      "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 67th Tigers View Post
                        The 3rd LH Bde were dismounted as there was no use for a cavalry arm on that campaign. A quick google shows that most people blame the Bde Comd and his Bde Maj for the f*** up, for the simple mistake of failing to set his watch to GUNNERTIME and thus launching his Bde 7 mins late.

                        Edit: to explain

                        Without radio comms, the RA would promulgate the "correct" time to all units (GUNNERTIME). Timings were fixed to the fireplan, and everyone would syncronise to it. The movie shows the commanders simply failing to syncronise to gunnertime (as happened).

                        One thing the movie got very wrong was that the attack on the Nek was not to cover a landing, but to support another attack by the NZ Inf Bde, and was itself extracted when all went wrong by a British Bn.

                        I know the LH was dismounted but if so wouldn't you just use them as runnersmost of the time but if needed they could be used as infantry but couldn't there of been another Battalion of infantry accept for using the Light Horse?
                        http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          150935. The Light Horse were infantry. Mounted Infantry. The Light Horse advanced to their battle position on horseback and then dismounted for action. One of the best representations of this is in the film 'The Lighthorsemen'. It is part of the reason that the charge at Bersheeba worked. The Turks held their fire waiting for the Australians to dismount.

                          As to the competence of the Australians at Gallipoli. One should remember that this was the first action that the Australians saw in the Great War. They were in no way as accomplished during the Gallipoli campaign as the would become during their time on the Western Front. By late 1916 there can be no argument that the 'Colonial' forces, Kiwis, Canucks and Aussies, were the premier formations in the British army. It was these forces that became the spearhead of the later campaigns.
                          Last edited by leatchy; 17 Oct 07, 05:51.
                          War. Young men killing each other for the benefit of old men!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by leatchy View Post
                            150935. The Light Horse were infantry. Mounted Infantry. The Light Horse advanced to their battle position on horseback and then dismounted for action. One of the best representations of this is in the film 'The Lighthorsemen'. It is part of the reason that the charge at Bersheeba worked. The Turks held their fire waiting for the Australians to dismount.

                            As to the competence of the Australians at Gallipoli. One should remember that this was the first action that the Australians saw in the Great War. They were in no way as acomplished during the Gallipoli campaign as the would become during their time on the Western Front. By late 1916 there can be no argument that the 'Colonial' forces, Kiwis, Canucks and Aussies, were the premier formations in the British army. It was these forces that became the spearhead of the later campaigns.
                            ehhh man I've forgotten a lot fill like hitting my head against the wall but also to point out during th Gallipoli campaign the Turks threw most of there frontline troops to push teh Anzacs into the sea and also the Anzacs were facing one of the best Generals ever if you ask me

                            and Finaly my support has arrived on wards so the pommies that the Australia, Canada and New Zealand are the diamonds in teh Queens crown specially Australia being the largest diamond in the crown lol
                            http://g.bf3stats.com/pc/1LP76r6C/melba_101.png

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ataturk! The father of modern Turkey. Go to Canberra and visit the memorial near the Australian War Memorial. You have no soul if his words don't bring a tear to the eye.
                              War. Young men killing each other for the benefit of old men!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X