| |
Military History Journal - Vol 6 No 4
Gallipoli: The Landings of 25 April 1915
by S. Monick
On 6 June 1944 there occurred
widespread commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the
Allied invasion of France. However, the point is
frequently overlooked that the Allied invasions of enemy
territory in World War II (initiated by ‘Operation Torch’,
the landings in North Africa in 1943) were anticipated
by a major Allied landing on enemy territory in World
War I. The writer is referring, of course, to the
landings on the Gallipoli Peninsula by combined British,
French, Australian and New Zealand forces, with the
object of eliminating Turkey as an enemy power. The
strategic reasons motivating this invasion have been
discussed in a previous article.(1) The invasion of the
Gallipoli Peninsula may be said to represent the ‘second
key’ by which the straits of the Dardanelles were to be
‘unlocked’ by the Allied powers, with the resultant
access to the Black Sea, the ‘back door’ to Russia. The
first key had been the endeavour to force these straits
by purely naval assault, culminating in the ill-fated
action of 18 March 1915, which forms the theme of an
earlier article.(2) In the following article it is not
the intention of the writer to provide a detailed
analysis of the entire Gallipoli campaign from the time
of the landings of 25 April to the final evacuation of
January 1916. Rather, it is intended to analyze in depth
the events of the first day of this invasion, the
strategic failures of which may be considered to be the
root of the ultimate frustration of the Allied
endeavours in European Turkey. There are, indeed, few
episodes in military history, if any, which can compare
with the Gallipoli invasion of 25 April 1915 in
illustrating the long term strategic and political
disasters which may accrue from the personality weakness
of a commander; in this instance Lt Gen Sir Ian Hamilton.
The Objective: The Topography of
the Gallipoli Peninsula
The southern end of the Gallipoli
Peninsula is dominated by the relatively low bald hump
of a ridge known to the Turks as Achi Tepe and to the
British (as a result of a map error) as Achi Baba.
Although only approximately 210 m high, it bestrides the
peninsula and absolutely dominates the ground to the
south. The Achi Baba ridge rises in an extremely gentle
slope. To the east of the summit the Dardanelles is
hidden from view until one traverses the two kilometres
to the lesser summit of Tenkir Kepe. From here it is
possible to see most of the Dardanelles up to the
Narrows. But two deep-plunging gorges — the Soghanli and
Saghir Deres — lie between the Achi Baba ridge and the
Kilid Bahr plateau, some 6,4 km to the north-east. Thus,
although the distances on the Gallipoli Peninsula are
short, the ground is so broken and rough, and the paths
so few, that progress north of Achi Baba and the Kilid
Bahr plateau is very slow indeed.
Approximately 16,1 km to the north-west
from Achi Baba a much higher ridge, almost 300 m in
height, dominates the sky line. This is Sari Bair (Turkish
for the ‘yellow ridge’) which forms the vertebrae, so to
speak, of this part of the peninsula. It has three
summits, all of approximately the same height, separated
from each other by a kilometre of undulating crest line.
The most northern summit, 381 m high, is called Koja
Chemen Tepe; the next highest, Besim Tepe, became known
to the British as ‘Hill Q’; the third, 285 m high, is
called Chunuk Bair. Between the southern Sari Bair
foothills and the western extremities of the Kilid Bahr
plateau a low, bare and almost flat plain stretches
across the peninsula from the blunt promontory of Gaba
Tepe on the west coast to the small village of Maidos on
the Dardanelles shore. The Sair Bair hills climb gently
westwards away from the Dardanelles but, on the west
coast, they collapse suddenly from the triple crests
into an impossible range of steep ravines, washaways and
cliffs cascading abruptly down to the Aegean. To the
north of Sari Bair is Suvla Plain and a great salt lake.
A triangle of bleak hills surrounds Suvla Plain on three
sides, making it appear as an enormous natural
amphitheatre (Map 1).
Prelude to Invasion: Allied Delays
and Turkish Preparations
Kitchener ordered 70 000 troops to
the Aegean with the simple instruction ‘to help the Navy
to reap the fruits of success’. He had given command of
this force on 12 March 1915 to Lt Gen Sir Ian Hamilton,
whose force consisted of the experienced 29th Division,
the untried ANZAC, the Royal Naval Division, and the
French Corps. His senior commanders were Lt Gen Sir W.
Birdwood (ANZAC), Maj Gen Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston (29th
Division), and Maj Gen A. Paris (Royal Naval Division).
The French Corp was commanded by Gen A.G.L. d’Amade, and
comprised a motley collection of Zouaves and detachments
from the Foreign Legion. The full order of battle of the
Mediterranean Expeditionary Force in April 1915 was as
follows:
29th Division (Maj Gen A.G. Hunter-Weston)
86th Brigade
2 Royal Fusiliers
1 Lancashire Fusiliers
1 Royal Munster Fusiliers
1 Royal Dubtdn Fusiliers
87th Brigade
2 South Wales Borderers
1 King’s Own Scottish Borderers
1 Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers
1 Border Regiment
88th Brigade
4 Worcestershire Regiment
2 Hampshire Regiment
1 Essex Regiment
1/5 Royal Scots (Territorial Force)
XV Bde, Royal Horse Artillery (B, L and Y Batteries)
XVII Bde, Royal Field Artillery (13th, 26th and 92nd
Btys)
CXLVII Bde, Royal Field Artillery (10th, 97th and 368th
Btys)
460th (Howitzer) Bty, Royal Field Artillery
4th (Highland) Mountain Bde, Royal Garrison Artillery (Territorial
Force)
90th Heavy Bty, Royal Garrison Artillery
14th Siege Bty, Royal Garrison Artillery
1/2 London, 1/2 Lowland and 1/1 West
Riding Field Coys, Royal Engineers (Territorial Force)
Divisional Cyclist Coy
Total personnel: 17 649
Royal Naval Division (Maj Gen A.
Paris)
1st (Naval) Brigade (Brig Gen D. Mercer, RMLI)
Drake Battalion
Nelson Bn
Deal Bn, RMLI
2nd (Naval) Brigade (Cdre O. Blackhouse, RN)
Howe Rn
Hood Bn
Anson Bn
3rd (Royal Marines) Brigade (Brig Gen C.N. Trotman,
RMLI)
Chatham Bn, RMLI
Portsmouth Bn, RMLI
Plymouth Bn, RMLI
Motor and Maxim Sqn (Royal Naval Air Service)
1st & 2nd Field Coys, Engineers
Divisional Cyclist Coy
Total personnel: 10 007
Australian and New Zealand Army
Corps (ANZAC)
(Lt Gen Sir W. Birdwood)
1st Australian Division (Maj Gen W.T. Bridges)
1st Australian Brigade
1st (NSW) Battalion
2nd (NSW) Bn
3rd (NSW) Bn
4th (NSW) Bn
2nd Australian Brigade
5th (Victoria) Bn
6th (Victoria) Bn
7th (Victoria) Bn
8th (Victoria) Bn
3rd Australian Brigade
9th (Queensland) Bn
10th (S. Australia) Bn
11th (W. Australia) Bn
12th (5. & W. Australia and Tasmania) Bn
I (NSW) Field Artillery Bde (1, 2 & 3 Btys)
II (Victoria) Field Artillery Bde (4, 5 & 6 Btys)
III (Queensland) Field Artillery Bde (7, 8 & 9 Btys)
1, 2 & 3 Field Coys, Engineers
New Zealand and Australian Division (Maj Gen Sir A.
Godley)
New Zealand Brigade
Auckland Battalion
Canterbury Bn
Otago Bn
Wellington Bn
4th Australian Brigade
13th (NSW) Bn
14th (Victoria) Bn
15th (Queensland & Tasmania) Bn
16th (S. & W. Australia) Bn
New Zealand Field Artillery Brigade (1, 2 & 3 Btys)
New Zealand Field Howitzer Battery
Field Coy, New Zealand Engineers
Corps Troops
7th Indian Mountain Artillery Brigade
Ceylon Planters Rifle Corps
Total strength: 30 638
Corps Expeditionnaire D’Orient
(Gen A.G.L. d’Amade)
1st Division (Gen Masnou)
175th Regiment
Regt de Marche d’Afrique (2 bns Zouaves, 1 bn Foreign
Legion)
Colonial Brigade
4th Colonial Regt (2 bn Senegalese, 1 bn Colonial)
6th Colonial Regt (2 bns Senegalese, 1 bn Colonial)
6 Btys of artillery (75 mm)
2 Btys of artillery (65 mm)
Total strength: 16 762
Combined strength of total force: 75 056
The Royal Naval Division arrived at
Alexandria in March 1915 with a bizarre array of
equipment, including Rolls Royce armoured cars, motor
cars, motor cycles, some machine guns of varying degrees
of antiquity, two 12 pr guns, one 6.7 inch howitzer,
three 4.7 inch guns mounted on pontoons for river
operations and rifles of a different calibre from the
remainder of the Expeditionary Force. A curious feature
of the RND was the large number of literary men that it
attracted. The most famous of them was, of course,
Rupert Brooke, the darling of the ‘new Georgians’ who
died on a French hospital ship on 23 April off Skyros
from blood poisoning caused by an insect bite. Another
literary personality who was a member of the RND at
Gallipoli was Compton Mackenzie, who sailed for Cape
Helles in May 1915.
Apart from command, Hamilton was
given precious little else. He had a hopelessly out-of-date
map of the Dardanelles defences, an intelligence report
of the Turkish army as it was in 1903, and a phrase book
and a tourist’s guide for sightseers in Constantinople.
As one writer comments: ‘He might have been forgiven for
assuming that he was taking 70 000 troops for a spring
cruise in the Aegean followed by a pleasant summer
holiday overlooking the Golden Horn.’(3)
When Hamilton was given his command
he was General Officer Commanding the Central Force in
England. Such was the confusion prevailing in the higher
command regarding the Dardanelles Campaign that, when
Hamilton left Charing Cross station on 13 March, he had
one set of orders from Churchill (‘Land with all
available troops as soon as possible.’) and a completely
conflicting set of orders from Kitchener (‘Undertake
military operations only in the event of the fleet
failing to get through after every effort has been
exhausted.’).
This confusion extended from the
political establishment to infuse the counsels of the
military/naval commanders. At the root of this confusion
was the lack of a basic comprehension of combined
operations. Hamilton and de Robeck viewed combined
operations from two totally different and diametrically
opposed viewpoints. De Robeck was under the impression
that the Army would first occupy the peninsula and thus
allow his fleet to pass through the Dardanelles and
attack the defensive forts unhindered. Hamilton
conceived of a naval assault to first silence the shore
batteries. Moreover, there was no on-the-spot commander
to brief them. Only Maurice Hankey, Secretary to the War
Council, appears to have entertained any sensible doubts
concerning the operation. As he pointed out, no one had
yet even considered whether there were sufficient troops
available for a successful invasion. The Greeks, when
they had spoken of capturing the peninsula, had
submitted a plan involving an army of 150 000. Kitchener
had derisively said that half that number of British
troops would be ample and had added that, in any event,
whether there were enough or not, there were no more
available. He had in fact emphasized that the 29th
Division was only ‘on loan’ and must be returned after
use: ‘rather as if he saw it being shaken out of a
parcel, deployed in bloodless battle, then dusted off,
repacked and sent back again.’(4)
The War Council had ineptly decided
that the Greek island of Lemnos should be the military
base, apparently because it had a natural harbour large
enough to accommodate a fleet of troopships. It had
little else. There was a pier that would have served as
a landing stage for a pleasure launch and no other
facilities whatsoever for loading or unloading ships.
The entire population of the island was half that of the
Army of 70 000 it was proposed to base there; whilst the
water supply was totally inadequate. Rear Admiral Wemyss
was placed in command of the forces on the island of
which he was made Governor. Impossible as it was to
disembark and accommodate the forces required for the
operation, nobody in Whitehall had considered the need
of a depot ship or other means of supplying the needs of
70 000 men. As a result, many were returned to Egypt or
dispersed among the other Aegean islands. Those that
remained had to live aboard the troopships in the
harbour. However, it was gradually discovered that these
troopships themselves were in a state of chaos. They had
been packed for hurried departures from Egypt and
Britain, with no thought of rational packing and loading.
As a result, it soon proved impossible to locate needed
supplies, let alone organize the Army for action. Many
of the heavier weapons were hopelessly antiquated; less
than half the necessary artillery was present;
ammunition was of the wrong size; shells contained
shrapnel instead of high explosive; the redistribution
of troopships around the Aegean and Mediterranean had
separated men, vehicles and animals that belonged
together. In view of this rampant chaos it is not
surprising that Hamilton decided that he could only
reorganize his forces in the safety of Alexandria some
950 km distant. Accordingly, Hamilton embarked his
forces for Alexandria on 24 March 1915, intending to
return to Lemnos with his army and ready to launch the
attack on the peninsula on 14 April.
It was apparent that de Robeck and
Hamilton were embarking upon an enterprise in which none
of the essential elements of success were present. These
elements were undivided command, thorough knowledge of
the enemy defences and order of battle, precise details
of the terrain where troops were to be landed, surprise,
and a plan for the actual operation that was firm yet
flexible and understood by everybody. The absence of a
supreme commander is, in the circumstances,
understandable, for the War Council had never envisaged
a combined operation as such. However, what is neither
understandable nor forgivable is lack of intelligence
concerning the enemy. For four years prior to Turkey’s
entry into the war an unending stream of continuously up-dated
information had been communicated to the British War
Office from Constantinople. For the nine months
preceding the war Lt Col Cunliffe-Owen had held the post
of military attaché in Constantinople and had proved
himself to be a particularly astute and conscientious
officer. He had not only sent back the routine reports
that were required of him, but had made a complete
survey of the peninsula, reporting in full detail on gun
sites, mine-fields, torpedo tubes, and even the smoke
canisters that were later to cause such confusion during
the naval battle of 18 March. This information was
ignored, as indeed was Cunliffe-Owen himself, and
official quarters remained totally indifferent to both
throughout the campaign. Neither he nor his files of
detailed information were ever consulted. In a similar
manifestation of poor intelligence organization, the
only British admiral who had any local knowledge of
Turkish waters, Admiral Limpus, Chief of the pre-war
British Naval Mission to Constantinople, had been
withdrawn from the Dardanelles in September 1914, and
sent to manage the Malta dockyard.
If lack of intelligence was a most
serious deficiency in the Allied plan for the invasion
of the Gallipoli Peninsula, the lack of surprise was no
less so. The departure of the Allied fleet on 18 March
convinced the Turkish defenders under Gen L. von Sanders
that the — to them — inexplicable withdrawal of the
British/French naval forces heralded a land invasion.
Sanders’ initial supposition was strengthened by the
mass of intelligence he received daily concerning
British intentions, in the form of reports filtered back
from German agents in Alexandria, Greece and Syria. In
Alexandria itself the work of these German agents could
not have been simpler. Not only did the Egyptian
newspapers report fully on the movements of the British
military commanders, but as the ships were repeatedly
loaded and unloaded in the harbour and troops drilled on
the decks, every movement was blatantly noted and
photographed by reporters, fishermen and owners of dhows
who nightly sold their information in the alleys and
brothels. On the mainland of Greece and throughout the
numerous islands German agents were scattered in great
profusion. The King of Greece, Constantine, who was
married to the Kaiser’s sister, Princess Sophia, had
received his military training in Germany and held the
rank of Field Marshal in the German Army. Constantine’s
official policy of neutrality was opposed by Eleutherios
Venizelos, the Prime Minister, whose government favoured
the Allies. It was through Venizelos’ government that
the island of Lemnos had been seized as a naval base and
Rear Admiral Wemyss made Governor; and when Venizelos
government fell on 6 March 1915 it was replaced by a
strongly pro-German ministry. Thus, it should have been
no surprise to anybody that every move taken by Wemyss,
frantically preparing the harbour for the arrival of the
re-constituted Allied fleet, was known to Sanders almost
before it was made.
Through his Intelligence Section
Hamilton attempted to deceive the enemy by leading them
to think that the invasion would be made at Smyrna.
However, the enemy was not deceived in the slightest
degree. Whilst there was no activity to be discerned in
the direction of Smyrna, there was considerable activity
in the vicinity of the Gallipoli Peninsula and in the
Mudros harbour at Lemnos. British reconnaissance
aircraft flew over the peninsula daily photographing the
defences; a submarine attempting to scurry up the
Dardanelles (the B. 15) was detected, a lucky shot
killing the captain (T.S. Brodie) and six of her crew,
the remainder being taken prisoner. There was spasmodic
shelling from British warships; landing stages were
being built at Mudros; on the island of Imbros, close by,
there was a feverish assembling of troops; British
agents were known to be buying lighters and tugs whose
purpose could only be the transportation of the invading
army. Sanders was left in no doubt that the invasion
would be on an extensive scale. Indeed, he had even read
a newspaper interview with the French general, d’Amade,
in which the various methods of invading the peninsula
were freely discussed. With regard to intelligence, all
that the defenders lacked was a postcard from Hamilton
detailing the time, date and place of arrival. ‘Even
that’, one caustic historian subsequently commented,
‘would not have seemed outside the realm of possibility.’
Not only did Sanders have every
incentive to strengthen the defences of the peninsula,
but he was provided by the Allies with the time in which
to do so. This factor emanated from the appalling Allied
logistics. Hamilton’s arrival in Alexandria on 26 March
had left him only three weeks in which to meet his
deadline of 14 April. He had only a few inexperienced
general staff officers to translate his plans into
practical details. Moreover, he quickly learnt that he
was lacking sufficient engineers, artillery and landing
craft — three vital elements in his force. (It was the
lack of landing craft which forced Hamilton to resort to
the amateurish practice of sending agents shopping
through the Middle East, buying up lighters and tugs.)
Indeed, the improvisations forced upon Sanders in
preparing the defences (cf. below) were as nothing
compared with those to which Hamilton had to resort. As
no maps had been provided, cartographers were set to
work tracing the one with which Hamilton had been
provided in London, and attempts were made to add to it
the new details of the defences revealed by aerial
reconnaissance. An English bookshop in Cairo was found
to have a stock of Raedeker guides described by the
Egyptian sales assistant as ‘exactly the thing for the
soldiers visiting Turkey’. They were bought uninspected
and found to be guides of the Rhine Valley. At the last
moment it was recalled that the water supply on Lemnos
was quite inadequate and the bazaars of Alexandria had
to be ransacked for skins, tins, bottles and any other
containers that could hold water — to the great profit
and delight of the merchants. Further, whoever had
arranged for such transports as had been sent out from
England was clearly as ignorant as Hamilton of the
terrain of the peninsula and had provided lorries that
would have been eminently suitable for properly surfaced
roads. With the knowledge that the majority of roads in
the peninsula were, in fact, little more than cart
tracks came the necessity to provide mules in abundance.
These were eventually bought and formed into the Zion
Mule Corps.
Embarkation of the repacked and
reorganized army at Alexandria had commenced on 10
April, and it arrived uneventfully at Lemnos during the
following eight days. At this point in time, when the
last shipping had returned to an enormously overcrowded
Mudros Harbour, the deadline of 14 April had, of course,
been abandoned. In addition to the problems involved in
the reorganization of the invasion force at Alexandria
elucidated above, the weather now occasioned further
delays. The climate of the Aegean in spring is
unpredictable, and during most of March and April storms
had been capriciously alternating with fine days. On 21
April, when de Robeck hesitantly gave the signal to
prepare to leave harbour and set sail for the beaches to
launch the attack of 23 April, a gale descended upon the
invasion fleet. Doubtful of the weather-resistant
qualities of the miscellany of vessels involved (the
fleet involved a motley collection of 200 warships,
tramp and pleasure steamers, caiques, trawlers, liners;
in short, any vessel that could be pressed into service
as a troopship) de Robeck countermanded the signal. The
attack was to be launched on 24 April. Then he
countermanded that order too, the gale showing no signs
of abating. Finally, but still with hesitation and doubt,
he ordered that the fleet should raise steam and move
out from the harbour on 23 April, and launch the attack
on 25 April.
Liman von Sanders’ 5th Army of 80 000
men, formed in six divisions, was concentrated in the
places that Sanders thought most likely to bear the
brunt of the Allied invasion.(5) These were Kum Kale and
Besika Bay on the Asiatic shore and, on the peninsula
itself, the southern tip extending up to Chunuk Bair,
the towns of Gallipoli and Bulair, and the Gulf of Saros.
In these areas he placed five of his six divisions; the
sixth, under the command of Lt Col Mustapha Kemal (the
future Kemal Attaturk, the ruler of Turkey) was placed
inland around the village of Boghali (Map 1). Within
these areas the defenders were widely dispersed, some
troops being posted watchfully on the western and
southern coastline of the peninsula and on the eastern
side of the Narrows at Chanak Kale; others, like Kemal’s,
being held inland in order to prevent any successful
advance of the Allied forces across the peninsula —
which would, of course, have cut the 5th Army in two —
and to be available as reinforcements in any area as
called upon. Having effected these dispositions, Sanders
embarked upon a programme of the fortification and
strengthening of these positions. When Enver Pasha could
not respond to his persistant demand for supplies, due
to the requirements of the Turkish armies on the
Bulgarian, Syrian and Russian fronts, Sanders resorted
to improvisation. Under his supervision supply roads
were built across the hills of the peninsula, trenches
dug with spades commandeered from the villagers,
landmines manufactured from torpedo heads, farmland
fences torn down and submerged in the shallows bordering
the beaches. Searchlights were trained on the straits by
night, whilst sentries scanned the Aegean by day.
Continual movement of Allied ships could be seen. The
overcrowded harbour at Mudros was ablaze with the lights
of the Allied fleet by night, whilst by day there was a
continual festivity of military activity, bugle calls,
troop exercises and briefings. When, on 21 April, a
squadron of British aircraft bombed Maidos in the
Narrows setting it ablaze, Sanders was left in no doubt
that the invasion was nigh.
Planning
The Allied plan in its original
conception was almost absurd in its boldness and
simplicity: ‘take a good run at the peninsula and jump
on — both feet together’.
The ANZACs, an untried force
suspected of being little more than enthusiastic
amateurs, was to land at a kilometre-wide cove north of
Gaba Tepe, a supposedly heavily defended promontory 19
km up the west coast of the peninsula. The ANZACs’ task
was to fight their way eastwards across the ridge of
hills to Mal Tepe on the far side of the peninsula, thus
cutting the Turkish forces in two and preventing enemy
reinforcements reaching the south. It was the southern
tip of the peninsula which was to receive the brunt of
Hamilton’s attack. Here 29th Division was to land at
four ‘beaches’ spaced around Cape Helles. These beaches
were designated V, W, Y and X; V being the most easterly
beach at Sedd-el-Bahr, W in the centre and X
approximately 1 371 m up the west coast from Tekke Burnu
(Map 1). Whilst these landings were taking place, the
RND was to create a diversionary operation by striking
at Bulair in the extreme north of the peninsula. The
diversion was intended to keep the Turks fully engaged
in this vicinity and thus provide the ANZACs with time
to establish themselves across the range of hills and
thereby dominate both the Narrows and lines of
communication to the south. This plan did not meet with
the unanimous approval of Hamilton’s subordinate
commanders. Birdwood favoured a landing on the eastern
shore of the Dardanelles. (He had been C-in-C designate
for the Dardanelles Expeditionary Force before Kitchener
had finally chosen Hamilton. He accepted his new
position, but not entirely without resentment). Hunter-Weston
gloomily forecast disaster wherever the attack was made.
(One historian(6) has written of Hunter-Weston that he
‘was blimpish and slow thinking, and given to assuming
that every battle he directed would progress precisely
according to his design, and that once he had set
everything in motion he could retire to his headquarters’.)
Maj Gen Paris was extremely cynical concerning the plan
whilst Gen Sir John Maxwell, C-in-C of the forces in
Egypt, disapproved of the entire Gallipoli enterprise.
The French were to attack at Kum Kale, whilst a separate
force (one battalion) was to attack S Beach.
Execution
At dawn, on 25 April 1915, the
invading force landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula. The
main forces to land at V Beach were conveyed in the
River Clyde, a converted steam collier, and a fleet
sweeper. The River Clyde transported 1 Munster
Fusiliers; 2 Hampshire Regiment (less two companies); 1
Coy, 1 Royal Dublin Fusiliers; GHQ Signals Section;
Field Coy Royal Engineers; and one platoon of the Anson
Battalion, Royal Naval Division. It was planned to
bridge the intervening water space with a motor hopper,
the Argyle, supported if necessary by dumb
lighters. With regard to the disembarkation of the
troops, four sallyports had been cut in the River
Clyde, two on each side at lower deck level, where
the men would be waiting. The sallyports opened onto a
gangway, three planks wide, which led forward to the
bows where there was a hinged extension onto the
Argyle which, in turn, had a brow, or gangway, of
her own to connect with the shore. The Argyle was
to be towed from a gantry on the port side of the
River Clyde with a lighter inboard of the latter. A
second lighter was to be towed from the starboard side
of the River Clyde and others, plus some boats,
from aft. A covering force was to be landed ahead of the
River Clyde contingent from two fast sweepers,
the Clacton and Newmarket (railway packets, ex-Great
Eastern Railway). This covering force consisted of
approximately 500 men, comprising: 1 Royal Dublin
Fusiliers, commanded by Lt Col R.A. Rooth; one platoon
of the Anson Battalion, RND; and a second platoon of the
RND serving as a naval beach party. The covering force
was to be disembarked in six tows of boats and were
scheduled to land at 05h30, after half-an-hour’s
bombardment from Albion. The men from the
River Clyde were to follow at 06h30. Along the 274 m
of beach were well-sited entrenchments and dense
entanglements of barbed wire. The appreciation of the
General Staffs stated that these defences could be
demolished by the same bombardment from Albion
that was to cope with the defences of W Beach (cf. below).
The covering force did not precede
the main contingent, as was intended, but landed almost
simultaneously, due to the problems attached to
navigating the River Clyde whilst towing the
motor hopper Argyle, in addition to the various
lighters and boats. From the outset, before the first
troops could disembark, the plan seriously miscarried.
The Argyle sheered to port and grounded broadside
onto the beach. Thus, the distance between ship and
shore was left unbridged. At 06h00, after the cessation
of the hour’s barrage that was assumed would silence the
Turkish defences of V and W Beaches, the River Clyde,
her 2 000 men ready to run down the gangways and across
the bridge of boats, was ordered forward. An officer
aboard wrote confidently: ‘0622 hours. Ran smoothly
ashore, no opposition. We shall land unopposed.’ Indeed,
the shelling had been followed by an uncanny silence. It
was assumed that all the Turks were dead, according to
plan. The assumption was mistaken. As was the case at W
Beach, the Turks had retired during the barrage, and
crept back to their trenches when it had ceased. These
trenches contained three platoons (64 men) and one 37mm
(pom pom) battery (the pom poms were to be mistaken for
the four machine guns, which only arrived later). As the
River Clyde’s causeway of boats was linked to the
shore they held their fire and waited for the troops to
descend the gangway. As the first men descended from the
ramp, the frightful enfilading fire from 274 m distance
commenced. Alan Wykes(7) provides the following graphic
account:
‘It was not only on the gangway that
the men were mown down in dozens as they emerged, until
the narrow descent was piled with the wounded and dead;
those arriving in the cutters and row boats [i.e. those
disembarked from the fleet sweepers] were simply killed
en masse, helplessly, as they stood there. Their
bodies tipped grotesquely over the sides, like
mechanical acrobats, their boats, unhelmed and powerless,
drifted away from the shore and sank as they became
pierced with bullet holes.
The few who got away found shelter
beneath a ridge of ground below the castle walls; and in
the madness of desperation the dead were flung from the
gangway of the River Clyde so that more men could
be poured out to wade ashore and be killed in their turn.
It was if the men themselves had found the whole
situation unbelievable, as if by storming ashore hour
after hour they could change it, vanquish the defenders
by sheer weight of numbers if nothing else ... But the
defences were apparently impregnable. The machine guns
mounted behind sandbangs in the bows of the River
Clyde found no mark. The entrenched Turks spat out
their bullets at the faintest sign of movement. By 0930
hours, of 1 500 men who had attempted to land only 200
had reached cover. No spirit of conquest could overcome
the fact that no more could be done.’
A large proportion of the casualties
was sustained whilst endeavouring to position the
River Clyde’s lighters together to form a causeway
onto the beach. (This objective was attained at 07h07.)
Brig Gen H.E. Napier, commanding the main force, had
waited in the Clacton whilst the covering force
tried to land. He approached the River Clyde in a
watertight boat together with his staff and a number of
soldiers. He leapt into the grounded Argyle to
lead the men ashore whom he observed choking the
lighters, boats and gangways, not realizing that they
were all dead. He and his Brigade Major (J.H.D. Costeker)
were soon killed (as was Lt Col Rooth of the covering
force). On 26 April the survivors of the force from the
River Clyde stormed the village. The Turkish
contingent defending V Beach, under Sgt Yahja of Ezine,
was annihilated.
Six Victoria Crosses were gained by
members of the River Clyde’s forces, viz. Cdr E.
Unwin (commanding the ship); Midshipman G.L. Drewry (commanding
the motor hopper); Able Seaman C. Williams (who was
killed and gained the award posthumously); Able Seaman
G.M. Samson (the first RNR rating to gain the VC);
Midshipman W. Malleson; and Sub Lt A.W. St Clair Tisdall
(Officer Commanding 1 Platoon, Anson Battalion, RND).
The actions which were rewarded with this decoration
were involved either with the rescue of wounded troops
amidst the carnage or endeavours to secure the lighters
between the River Clyde and the shore. Tisdall was
subsequently killed in the Second Battle of Krithia on 6
May (cf. below) and his VC was gazetted posthumously.
On W Beach the brunt of the fighting
was borne by the Lancashire Fusiliers (who sustained 533
casualties, of whom six officers and 183 men were killed).
As was the case with V Beach, the heavy casualties
inflicted emanated from the Turkish forces whom, it was
mistakenly assumed, had been annihilated by the naval
bombardment. The barbed wire, which had remained intact
despite the bombardment, compounded the problems
besetting the attackers. The Turkish defenders had been
decimated but the survivors of the bombardment remained
in their trenches. Their orders were to allow the
invaders to land and advance within 41 m before opening
fire. The Turks realized with satisfaction that the
thick wire entanglements at the edge of the beach
remained untouched by the barrage. As the first boatload
of Fusiliers scraped onto the beach the defenders opened
fire. The men fell as they sprang from the boats, rifles
in hand. Their comrades who had miraculously escaped the
devastating fire attacked the wire with machetes and
cutters; but the wire would not yield. To quote the
words of one writer:(8)
‘Caught by hands and arms in the
barbs they died spread-eagled on the three-feet coils of
rusty farm fencing, their screams heard above the
ceaseless fire, their blood pouring down the beach. At
one point the wire was breached and a dozen men broke
through and tore for the cover of the dunes; and while
the Turkish defenders concentrated their incessant
firing on the fresh boatloads of men arriving — many of
whom died in the packed boats without ever setting foot
to shore — there were a few other breakthroughs by the
Fusiliers. But they were mown down as they ran for cover
and failed to reach the summit of the beach.’
Reinforcements were off-loaded from
the Euryalus and sent in cutters to the beach.
Brig Gen Hare, in command of the Helles covering force,
managed to lead the survivors of the carnage to a
relatively sheltered position under Tekke Burnu. From
here they could return the Turks’ fire, which was
gradually subdued whilst the boatloads of reinforcements
from Euryalus accumulated and consolidated the
landing. The Lancashire Fusiliers gained eleven awards
for gallantry; six Victoria Crosses, two Distinguished
Service Orders, two Military Crosses and one
Distinguished Conduct Medal.
Y Beach, which, as was the case with
S Beach, protected the flank of the invading force, was
captured on 25 April by a force consisting of 1 Kings
Own Scottish Borderers, one company of the South Wales
Borderers and the Plymouth (Marine) Battalion, RND. They
were conveyed in the battleship Goliath and the
cruisers Sapphire and Amethyst. The
landing was largely unopposed. A golden opportunity was
missed with regard to Y Beach. Cdre Keyes realized that
this unopposed landing promised success to Hamilton’s
plan to land 2 000 troops (the spearhead of 29th
Division) in this position for a thrust inland that
would cut off the Cape Helles defenders in the rear.
Keyes begged de Robeck to persuade Hamilton to send at
once for the RND, which was committed to nothing more
than a feint at Suvla Bay, and land them at Y Beach,
thus completely swamping the Turkish defenders. Hamilton,
however, resolutely refused to do so. Not only was he
loath to commit his only reserve, but would not
countenance the ungentlemanly act of interfering with
his subordinate commander, Hunter-Weston. The invading
force on this beach did not remain unopposed, however.
During the afternoon of 25 April the Turkish sniping
escalated into fierce attacks. The British casualties (which
included Lt Col A.S. Coe, OC of the force, who was
mortally wounded) became serious. The position became
untenable and the force was evacuated after nightfall.
Despite the heroism displayed and the service rendered
in stalling a larger Turkish force for 24 hours, the
effort at Y Beach proved a failure.
The landings at X and S Beaches
presented a marked contrast to those at V and W Beaches.
Two companies of the Royal Fusiliers had landed at X
Beach without a single casualty at 06h30 after an
intense naval bombardment and scaled the shallow cliff.
From the summit they could see right across the
peninsula to S Beach at Morto Bay, where a covering
force of South Wales Borderers had easily overcome the
slight opposition and was now digging in.
Thus, at this point in time (i.e.
early in the morning of 25 April) the main attacks at V
and W Beaches on the tip of the peninsula had been
halted and could not recover their momentum, while on
the flanks at X, S and Y three smaller forces had been
successfully landed. At Bulair, on 24—25 April the RND
executed its diversionary movement. Accompanied by the
battleship Canopus, the light cruisers
Dartmouth and Doris, plus destroyers and
trawlers, the Division (minus Anson Battalion, detailed
for V Beach and W Beach, and the Plymouth (Marine)
Battalion landed at Y Beach) had left Trebuki Bay,
Skyros, early on 24 April. They reached their rendevouz
8,5 km WSW from Xeros Island under cover of darkness.
During this manoeuvre a singularly gallant action was
executed by Lt Cdr Bernard Freyberg of Hood Battalion.
Painted brown and thickly oiled, he was lowered into the
water from a destroyer and swam ashore with a raft
carrying flares. Landing on the beach at midnight on 24
April, he crawled 365 m up to a trench and then heard
voices, thus proving that the trenches were occupied.
Returning to the beach unnoticed he lit three sets of
flares 320 m apart along the shore in the direction of
Bulair. Two destroyers at once opened fire, which the
Turks returned. Freyberg then swam out and was picked up
one hour later, unscathed.(9)
The ANZAC landings were made shortly
before dawn, and with surprisingly little opposition.
However, this initial light opposition mainly derived
from the fact that the landings had been made in the
wrong place. It was concentrated 3 km north of Gaba Tepe
at An Burnu instead of being extended along the cove
dividing Gaba Tepe from Hell Spit. Many reasons for this
error have been suggested, e.g. northerly eddies that
swept the boats off course; misinterpreted signals; last
minute alterations to the plan; deliberate misplacement
of a marker buoy by the Turks. Whilst it is profitless
to examine these factors in depth, it is apposite to
comment that upon this error pivoted one of the major
disasters of the first landings. It was Mustapha Kemal
who was principally responsible for this Allied disaster.
To reiterate, he had his 19th Division in reserve at
Boghali. Sanders ordered him to repel the ANZAC attack
with a single battalion; that was at 06h30 in the
morning. Kemal realized at once the strategic error of
trying to beat off the enemy with one battalion; for
once the ANZACs were established in the hills they would
be masters of the situation, since domination of the
heights was of the utmost importance. Kemal therefore
decided without hesitation — and without permission — to
employ his entire division for the task. A profound risk
was involved, as Sanders had no other reserves to call
upon, but it ultimately proved to be justified. The
day’s fighting ended in confusion and withdrawal for the
ANZACs. The narrow front on which they had been
mistakenly landed in the morning proved to be a
disastrous bottleneck, through which no troops or
supplies could be landed nor the wounded evacuated.
Utter chaos prevailed at the beach at An Burnu; and in
the surrounding hills, where the fighting was fiercest,
the isolated detachments into which the ANZACs had
dispersed could not be properly rallied and controlled.
Lt Gen Birdwood sent an immediate request to Hamilton to
be allowed to re-embark his demoralized forces. In reply
to this request Hamilton sent his famous message of
encouragement, telling Birdwood to appeal to his
Australians and New Zealanders to ‘dig,dig,dig’. By the
time this message arrived it was midnight and Birdwood
had already changed his mind and ordered his men to dig
themselves in and be prepared for a counter-attack in
the morning.
To reiterate, Y Beach was evacuated
at nightfall on 25 April, the defenders having suffered
some 700 casualties. At Kum Kale a withdrawal was
effected during the day. Although hesitantly authorized
by Hamilton, it was quite unnecessary. The French
landing had been made against inadequate resistance and
confused organization on the part of the Turks. The
Turks had been crushed by the French onslaught and were
in total confusion. So, apparently, was the mind of the
French commander, Gen d’Amade. Surpremely ignorant of
the fact that the Turks in the vicinity of Kum Kale had
suffered over 2 000 casualties and were surrendering in
their hundreds, he persuaded Hamilton to re-embark the
French forces. By the time that Hamilton realized the
true state of affairs (on the evening of 26 April) the
withdrawal was almost complete and arrangements were
being made to switch a French brigade to enter on the
right of 29th Division.
Aftermath of the Landings
The ensuing two days witnessed a grim
striving for possession of the inland hills, both at An
Burnu and further down the cape. The ANZACs, halted in
their plea for re-embarkation by Birdwood’s change of
heart and fortified by Hamilton’s message of
encouragement, had advanced slightly and recaptured some
of the ground that they had lost on 25 April. However,
neither they nor the Turks could wrest a decisive result
from the desperate forays and repulses that resulted
only in heavier losses. In Cape Helles the village of
Sedd-el-Bahr was captured, but the advantage of the
victory was lost because no one on the British side
realized the extreme weakness of the enemy forces in
this sector. Within this context it should be noted that
a crucial factor throughout the early stages of the
Gallipoli Campaign was the total lack of intelligence
regarding the Turkish strength. Numerically large
British forces were being poured into breaches that were
often held by isolated and ill-disciplined Turkish
platoons and companies. In point of fact an army of 75
000 was virtually held at bay by a tenth of that number
of defenders. Moreover, those defenders were poorly
equipped and fighting in a terrain that posed as many
difficulties for them as for the invaders.
The ensuing two days also saw
physical and moral exhaustion taking their toll.
Bureaucratic mismanagement and incredible stupidity had
resulted in utter chaos in the evacuation of the wounded
— to the extent that fully equipped hospital ships and
hospitals in the peninsula remained unused whilst the
casualties were being shipped back to Alexandria in
filthy transports in which, lacking attention, many died.
Those being fed into the firing line were confronted
with the sight of wounded lying in scores on the beaches
awaiting evacuation.
On the morning of 28 April the Allied
forces in Cape Helles extended in a straggling line
across the peninsula from X to S Beach, a line which had
been achieved at the cost of 10 000 casualties. Hunter
Weston gave the order to advance forward to capture
Krithia. A force of 14 000 men, inadequately supported
by artillery of which only 25 guns were ashore, pushed
forward into the hills. They were opposed by an
increasingly tenacious resistance that by the end of
that day had inflicted upon the Allies 3 000 casualties.
Complete confusion now reigned due to hopeless planning
and complete loss of control by Hunter-Weston. Supplies
were placed in jeopardy by a storm at sea and because
insufficient horses and mules were ashore to transport
them to the front. Liaison between the generals and
admirals was ruined by misinterpreted messages and poor
communications. Moreover, a large-scale Turkish counter-attack
was hourly awaited on the Helles front where a shortage
of ammunition was already being felt. Kitchener had been
misled by Hamilton’s over-optimistic despatches. (These,
indeed, were to remain a consistent feature of
Hamilton’s command throughout the Gallipoli Campaign.
His reports were of a consistently more confident tone
than the facts warranted; Hamilton reasoning that, if
they were too depressing, they would be seized upon by
those in London who wished to see the entire Campaign
abandoned). Hamilton had sent a despatch to Kitchener in
London on 26 April which stated:
‘Thanks to God who calmed the seas
and to the Royal Navy who rowed our fellows ashore as
cooly as if at a regatta; thanks also to the dauntless
spirit shown by all ranks of both services, we have
landed 29 000 upon six beaches in the face of desperate
resistance.’
On 27 April his despatches were of a
more cheerful hue, as is evidenced by this following
extract:
‘Thanks to the weather and the
wonderfully fine spirit of our troops all continues to
go well.’
However, in the light of these over-optimistic
despatches Kitchener was undoubtedly bewildered to
receive a hesitant request from Hamilton for
reinforcements ‘in case I should need them’.
Surprisingly, in view of his previous reluctance to
weaken Gen Maxwell’s forces in Egypt, Kitchener ordered
Maxwell to despatch the 42nd (East Lancashire)
Territorial Division to Gallipoli.
The direct consequence of the
strategic disasters of 25 April was the painful and
totally futile series of battles of attrition, which
characterized both the Helles and ANZAC fronts during
the ensuing three months. Between the initial landings
and the end of July the Allied forces in Gallipoli
generated a sick, mirror image of the conflict on the
Western Front in Europe, manifested by futile attacks
upon entrenched Turkish positions followed by enemy
counter-attacks. On the Helles front the Allies
concentrated their main efforts against the heights of
Achi Baba on the southern tip of the peninsula. The
efforts to break through the Turkish defences situated
on the inland hills barring the objective expressed
themselves in the four battles of Krithia, viz.
1st Battle of Krithia — 28 April
2nd Battle of Krithia — 6/8 May
3rd Battle of Krithia — 4/6 June
4th Battle of Krithia — 12/13 July (officially known as
the Battle of Achi Baba Nullah)
The responsibility for the futile
frontal assaults which characterized these actions must
lie with Hunter-Weston. Hamilton saw no future in such
costly attacks (in which the Allies were hampered by a
most serious deficiency in artillery), but failed to
impress his views upon Hunter-Weston and his staff.
Towards the end of July Hunter-Weston
was sent home, suffering from overstrain and sunstroke,
leaving the army at Helles in a state of almost complete
exhaustion. Since the beginning of July the Allies had
gained (very approximately) 457 m of ground in return
for 17 000 casualties. (The ultimate casualties
sustained by the Allies in the course of the entire
campaign may be approximately assessed at 265 000, of
whom some 46 000 were killed in action, in return for
some 300 000 Turkish dead.) Turkish casualties for the
same period amounted to some 40 000, but reinforcements
were continually arriving, and within a week of Achi
Baba Nullah they had made good their losses and
consolidated their positions. Sanders was adamant that,
despite the heavy Turkish losses, there should be no
withdrawal, and any officer suggesting such was liable
to dismissal.
The ANZAC Front: May 1915
Throughout this period the Dominion
forces clung tenaciously to the 400 acres of the parched,
scrubby coast that was ANZAC. Their bridgehead was in
the shape of a narrow triangle, with its base, extending
for approximately three km resting on the sea, and its
apex reaching to the slopes of Sari Bair, some 914 m
inland; a position later described in the Australian
official history as ‘theoretically untenable’. Kemal’s
initial tactics — bloody and unimaginative — were to
hurl his infantry suicidally against the ANZAC positions,
where they were mown down by the Dominion troops, and by
the British Marine battalions who arrived at ANZAC on
28—29 April. Turkish losses were, predictably, terrible.
After six days and nights of continual fighting the
majority of Turkish battalions were below half-strength,
losses among officers and NCOs being particularly
severe. Essad, therefore, forbade any further frontal
attacks for the immediate future. The battle developed
into a struggle for the head of the Monash Valley, where
the ANZAC positions at Pope’s Hill, and at Quinn’s,
Courtney’s and Steele’s Posts faced the Turks at
distances, in some places, of no more than a few metres.
In the rear of Quinn’s, Courtenay’s and Steele’s Posts
the ground dropped away sharply, so that troops moving
up to these posts could be exposed to the Turkish fire
from the enemy positions at the Nek, Baby 700 and Pope’s
Post, known as the ‘Chessboard’ (Map 2). On the other
hand the Australians positioned at Pope’s Post could
prevent an attack from the Nek or the Chessboard, and
were protected in turn by the troops on Russell’s Top
and Quinn’s Post.
New arrivals at ANZAC landed beneath
a hail of shrapnel, amidst scenes of indescribable
confusion. Stores were heaped on the beaches; mules
waited to ferry them to the front line; casualties
awaited embarkation; reinforcements awaited direction to
their sector of the line. Ashmead Bartlett, The Times
war correspondent, wrote: ‘The whole scene on ANZAC
beach reminded one irresistably of a gigantic shipwreck.
It looked as if the whole force and all the guns and
material had not landed, but had been washed ashore.
Gradually, however, order emerged from this chaos as the
organization at the beacheads began to function more
smoothly. Nevertheless, water was severely rationed,
every drop having to be carried to the front lines. (One
officer recorded having to use a pint a day for all
washing purposes.) Food, although plentiful, was as
monotonous as on the Helles front, being equally
unsuitable for the climate. Sanitary conditions were
literally appalling; latrines consisting merely of holes
in the ground, where the flies bred ceaselessly. By the
second week in May the ANZACs had lost 8 500 men, of
whom 2 300 had been killed. Many units urgently required
rest and re-organization, and the Dominion troops were
compelled to revert to defence, digging in and making
their positions secure against attack. There could be no
question of an advance and, indeed, Hamilton asked
Birdwood on 9 May to consider abandoning the bridgehead.
Birdwood refused, and the ANZACs clung to their
precarious positions.
The Turks finally recognized not only
that the ANZACs were not going to be dislodged from
their tenaciously held positions but also that their own
lines were impregnable. Accordingly, they reduced their
forces in the area, which thenceforth became
characterized by shelling, sniping and fierce skirmishes.
The ANZAC’s commander, Lt Gen
Birdwood was, justly, described by Hamilton as ‘the soul
of ANZAC’. His attention to detail and the example set
by his own personal courage deserves the highest praise,
as does his acknowledgement that ‘these colonials’ could
not be treated in the same fashion as British troops.
The New Zealander, Col Malone, described them as‘masterless
men going their own ways’. They frequently disconcerted
visiting Staff Officers by their indifference to
conventional military ritual, such as the salute.
Birdwood’s realization that the natural aggressiveness
and fighting spirit of the Dominion troops needed to be
tempered by the caution and discipline of British Army
tradition if the narrow bridgehead were to be held also
merits the highest commendation. However, although he
knew his men well, with their abilities and limitations,
his manner towards them remained constrained and formal,
with an obvious forced affability; he remained very much
the Englishman leading ‘colonials’.
Deepening despair
During June and July the heat became
unbearable. The flies swarmed from the corpses and
latrines over the men's food. Not surprisingly, dysentry
became endemic throughout the Expeditionary Force in
July, being particularly serious at ANZAC, where at one
point Birdwood was losing as many men in a fortnight
through disease as would be lost in a major attack. Sgn
Gen Birrell, in charge of medical services for the
campaign, did nothing to raise the low level of
confidence in the staff when he suggested that the
remedy resided in the hanging of fly paper from bushes
and incineration of the breeding grounds of the flies.
This impression that he did not fully appreciate the
situation was reinforced when he visited ANZAC for the
first time on 1 August and reported ‘a good deal of
diarrhoea among the Australians, possibly due to sea
bathing’. Helles was, however, rather more free of
disease than ANZAC, since in the former sector the
troops were not living in such crowded conditions, and
29th Division was accompanied by its own sanitary
detachments and provided with fly proof latrine boxes.
The ubiquitous lice were yet another pest, tireless and
ever-multiplying. In his vivid diary of the campaign Cpl
Riley wrote: ‘We itched and scratched until we were
tired with scratching, we turned our clothes inside out
and ran the burning ends of cigarettes up the seams. The
crackle of frizzled louse was one of the sweetest sounds
we knew.’ Men lay their clothing out on anthills so that
the ants might eat the lice, shaking the clothes free
afterwards; but still the lice multiplied relentlessly.
In these circumstances it was not
surprising that profound disillusion spread throughout
the Army. This despair was compounded by the enormous
casualties sustained on both Allied fronts. (Egerton,
who commanded the 52nd (Lowland) Division, which arrived
in late June-early July, was appalled at the losses
among his men incurred during the Gully Ravine offensive,
and made known his views to both Hamilton and Hunter-Weston.
He accompanied the former on an inspection of his
division, introducing each battalion as ‘the remains of
-th Battalion’, and earning a formal rebuke from
Hamilton.) Both officers and men looked upon themselves
in the same light as did the 14th Army in Burma prior to
the arrival of Mountbatten, i.e. as the ‘forgotten army’
betrayed by the politicians at home. Moreover, front-line
criticism of GHQ became widespread, with a great deal of
justification; the standard of senior officers was poor,
many having to be sent home with shattered nerves after
only a few weeks. However, the most intense resentment
of the troops at Gallipoli was reserved for the lines-of-communication
staff at Mudros whose task, undertaken with lamentable
inefficiency, was to supply the Army with its daily
needs. The lines-of-communication staff was inadequate
in terms of both numbers and quality; and a greater
burden thus fell upon the few efficient men. One officer,
for example, was responsible for administering the
temporary hospital ships, the shore hospitals at Lemnos,
the ferry service from Mudros to the peninsula, the
return of casualties to their units, and the despatch of
medical supplies. To execute these duties he possessed a
total complement of one staff sergeant. It is little
wonder, therefore, that the troops spoke scornfully of
‘Imbros, Mudros and Chaos.’
By the end of July the Mediterranean
Expeditionary Force had been fought to a standstill. The
ANZACs had been unable to break out of their tiny
bridgehead; the French forces were effectively broken;
the sole British division remaining with anything
resembling fighting strength was the 29th Division. Cpl
Riley wrote of Helles in terms that were equally
applicable to ANZAC: it ‘looked like a midden and
smelled like an open cemetery’.
Only the failure of the Suvla Bay
offensive of August 1915, and the destruction of the
artificial expectations which motivated it, separated
the Allied forces from the admission of defeat and final
evacuation. (The evacuation followed the dismissal of
Hamilton in October 1915.)
Analysis of the Failure of the
Gallipoli Campaign
Instrumental in the delays which
weighted the odds against Hamilton’s force (but not
decisively so, cf. below) was the failure of the naval
assaults which occurred in February-March 1915. As
intimated above, the root of this failure was the clear
lack of any real understanding of the concept of
combined operations by the higher command. The naval
assaults of February-March 1915 and the landings of
April 1915 clearly reflected a division of functions
between Army and Navy. Had the two operations been
combined in a closely co-ordinated and precisely planned
operation, the opportunity provided to the Turks to
strengthen their defences, during the period 18 March —
25 April would not have existed. It should be noted that
it was only on 25 March that Enver Pasha at last decided
to form a separate army for the defence of the
Dardanelles and place Sanders in command of it. However,
such a concept of combined operations — only falteringly
and indecisively approached during the naval assaults of
February-March — was clearly beyond the scope of the
military technology of the period. As discussed above,
further disastrous delays were imposed by the Allied
force having to be concentrated in Egypt, due to
disastrous failures in logistical planning.
In view of these factors, can one
state that the invasion of April 1915 was doomed? The
answer must be in the negative. It should be borne in
mind that the Turkish forces defending the Dardanelles
only numbered five divisions in the entire area. These
forces, moreover, had no knowledge of the precise
location of the landing zones. As Sanders himself later
wrote:
‘From the many pale faces of the
officers reporting in the morning of 25 April it became
apparent that, although a hostile landing had been
expected with certainty, a landing at so many points
surprised and filled them with apprehension because we
could not discern at that moment where the enemy were
actually seeking the decision.’
These comments clearly illuminate the
superior quality of Hamilton’s strategic concept. By
avoiding the anticipated approach and distracting the
enemy’s attention from the actual approach, Hamilton
assured his own troops of an immense superiority of
force at the actual landing points, although his overall
force was smaller than that of the Turks.
Hamilton’s achievement in this
respect is all the more noteworthy when one considers
that the Turks possessed the most detailed and extensive
intelligence of the Allied invasion, as has been
discussed above. He so fixed the Turkish Commander-in-Chief’s
attention and person on the feint assault at Bulair that
the Turkish defenders at the main points of attack were
denied reinforcements for two days. The ANZAC landings,
despite the problems attached to them, placed 4 000 men
by surprise, before 05h00, and a further 4 000 before
08h00, on a shore defended by only one Turkish company.
The supporting Turkish company was more than a kilometre
to the south, whilst the two battalions and one battery
in local reserve were located six km inland, and the
general reserve of eight battalions and three batteries
still further distant. At Y Beach 2 000 men of 29th
Division had been safely disembarked without any enemy
opposition whatsoever. There they were left entirely
undisturbed by the Turks, whom they outnumbered by at
least six to one, for eleven hours. As one authority(10)
states:
‘It is as certain as anything can be
in war that a bold advance from Y on the morning of the
25th must have freed the southern beaches that morning
and secured a decisive victory for the 29th Division,’
In his planning of the April
offensive Hamilton revealed a clearer concept of
combined operations than any of his colleagues, in so
far as the landings centred upon a bare equality of
force transformed into a potentially decisive
superiority with the assistance of sea power.
However, advantages which could well
have proved decisive to the outcome of the campaign were
shattered by the tactical vices of Hamilton’s
subordinates. On 25 April the poor generalship of Hunter-Weston
was mainly responsible for precious strategic assets
being totally wasted. Hunter-Weston completely ignored
the appeals of Col Matthews, the commander of Y Beach
force, for reinforcements and rejected Hamilton’s offers
of trawlers in which to land them. Thus, through inept
generalship, the Y Beach landing, which could have been
the key to total success, was abandoned the following
morning after it had been held for twenty-nine hours;
the force re-embarked when the Turks had actually been
evicted. The ANZAC opportunity was also lost, as the
country was so rough and the troops so inexperienced
that they were bewildered by the sporadic Turkish
counter-attacks and were only prevented from an
ignominous evacuation by Hamilton’s famous ‘dig,dig,dig’
message. (However, the ANZAC failure may be attributed
more to lack of training than poor generalship; even the
difficulties of ground might have favoured more than
handicapped such skilled skirmishers as the Australians
and New Zealanders were later to become.) This
reluctance to impose his authority — in this case upon
Hunter-Weston — was the source of the fatal and futile
offensives in Helles during June and July.
The fundamental responsibility for
the overall strategic failure must rest with Hamilton’s
lack of decisive leadership. One writer(11) projects the
following interesting analysis of the fundamental
contrast between the Turkish and Allied Commanders-in-Chief:
‘Liman von Sanders ... gave clear
explicit orders to subordinates at crisis moments in
action. When his important lieutenants doubted or
questioned the possibility of success he summarily
dismissed them from their commands. A little iron in the
soul of Sir Ian Hamilton might have been better for his
men than was gentlemanly conduct to his officers.
Courtesy and decisiveness need not be contradictory
characteristics, but over-scrupulousness and
decisiveness are in opposition ... he must follow his
own accurate surmise that his forces would be lightly
opposed in the area he had selected for his main attack,
and must bear it constantly in mind that this advantage
would diminish with the passage of every second of time.
This must have been obvious to a man of his intelligence.
It was he who must ensure that this transitory advantage
must not be wasted. The first 24 hours would be crucial.’
Thus, the deficiencies in Hamilton’s
leadership fundamentally accrued from personality; and
it was this personality defect (a serious problem in a
military commander) which ensured that his subordinate
commanders, when placed in positions which enabled them
to effect a decisive result, did not have their natural
indecisive and faulty leadership corrected. It is
certainly true that the April invasion of Gallipoli was
conceived in advance of its time, and that Hamilton’s
strategic brilliance was most inadequately supported by
the military technology available to the commanders of
World War I. The appalling logistical mismanagement and
maladministration — applying to both supplies and the
evacuation of the wounded — which has been discussed in
some detail above is clear evidence of this; as also is
the reliance upon the Western Front obsession with
artillery barrages (in this instance from ships) to
support the invading forces upon an exposed beach, which
resulted in such heavy casualties on V and Y Beaches.(12)
Nevertheless, it is the writer’s contention that,
despite the gross disadvantages in terms of
technological resources besetting the invaders (manifested
in the improvised landing craft, for example),
Hamilton’s strategic planning was such that victory
could have still been assured on 25 April 1915.
Conclusion
The consequences of the ultimate
failure of the Gallipoli offensive may be justifiably
described as monumental. Eventually, when Gallipoli was
abandoned, a total of 400 000 men was still diverted
from France as a defence against the new activities of
lesser enemies, viz. in Palestine and Mesopotamia
against Turkey set free from Gallipoli involvement; and
in Salonika and Greece (‘the largest allied internment
camp of the war’ was the popular description applied to
this theatre, in which the Allied forces were dubbed
‘the gardeners of Salonika’) against Bulgaria. The
Allies also sacrificed a small ally — Serbia — and, of
far greater consequence ultimately, their largest ally,
Russia. The failure to redress the strategic isolation
of Tsarist Russia by securing communication with her via
the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea imposed intolerable
strains upon the Russian war machine (which depended
upon a largely undeveloped agricultural economy),
ultimately resulting in the revolutions of 1917. What
the success of the campaign would have meant, at the
most conservative appreciation, to the Franco-British
cause is best revealed in the words of the German
commander, Falkenhayn:
‘If the straits between the
Mediterranean and the Black Sea were not permanently
closed to Entente traffic, all hopes of a successful
issue to the war would be very seriously diminished.
Russia would have been freed from her isolation which
... offered a safer guarantee than military success ...
that the forces of this Titan would eventually and
automatically be crippled.’
Footnotes
1. Monick, S. ‘The Naval Struggle for
the Dardanelles Straits’, Military History Journal
Vol 6 No 3 1984 pp. 73-77.
2. Ibid., pp. 73-85.
3. Wykes, A. First landings in Gallipoli in History
of the First World War (London, Purnell) Vol 2 p.
762.
4. Ibid., p. 765.
5. Sanders was offered, and accepted, command of the 5th
Army on 24 March 1915.
6. Wykes, A. First landings in Gallipoli in History
of the First World War (London, Purnell) Vol 2 p.
767.
7. Ibid., p. 772.
8. Ibid., p. 771.
9. Bernard Cyril Freyberg, a New Zealander, was destined
to have a most distinguished career in World War 1. He
was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his
actions at Bulair. Between 1915 and 1917 he commanded
the Hood Battalion. As a Lieutenant Colonel in the
Grenadier Guards he was awarded the Victoria Cross for
his actions on the Western Front (gazetted 16 December
1917). He subsequently commanded 173 Infantry Brigade in
58 Division in 1917 and 88 Infantry Brigade in 29
Division in 1918-1919. He was awarded a Bar to his DSO
for most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty in
France. He was also made a Commander of the Order of St
Michael and St George (CMG), awarded the Croix de Guerre,
and ended the war as a Brigadier General. During World
War II Freyberg commanded Allied forces in Crete and,
later, the New Zealand Corps in Tunisia and at Cassino.
10. Liddell Hart, B. ‘Gallipoli: judgement’, History
of the First World War (London, Purnell) Vol 3 p.
1139.
11. Schurman, D. Suvla Bay in History of the First
World War (London, Purnell) Vol 3, pp. 1050-1051.
12. It is a tragic irony that many of the lives lost on
V Beach could have been saved had the commanders
employed the ‘Beetle’ for this purpose. This armoured
landing craft was ready for use by 1915. There were no
exposed gangways, as on the River Clyde. On the
approach to the beach the mast could be removed and
stowed inside the hull; the landing tackle would only be
put up as the vessel approached the landing zone.
Bibliography
Bean, C.W. Official history of
Australia in the war (London, Angus & Robertson,
1921) Vols 1-2.
Masefield, J. Gallipoli (London, William
Heinemann 1935).
Moorhead, A. Gallipoli (London, Hamish Hamilton
1956).
Rhodes, James R. Gallipoli (London, B.T. Batsford
1965).
|
|