Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I reckon that Churchill confiscating those ships was a very poor decision which may have been instrumental in Turkey joining with Germany. I love it how the Churchill family is angry about the things Gallipoli guides are saying.

Ergodan annoyed me recently when he said how they ( the Turks ) whipped Australia and could do it again.

Yes they did do better than the Anzacs did, but there was a lot more to it than Ergodan said.

Actually, Turkey turned out to be maybe the only country that "won" WW1. They certainly came out of it better than when they entered.

 

  • Informative 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Actually, Turkey turned out to be maybe the only country that "won" WW1. They certainly came out of it better than when they entered.

 

Bruce I’d agree, but only in the sense that Mustafa Kemal’s statesmanship turned the “sick man of Europe” into a modern, secular democracy (although Erdovan is undoing much of Ataturk’s work).
 

Let’s not forget the huge numbers of Turks killed (about 90,000 at Gallipoli alone) and they lost their empire.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Posted

The casualties at gallipoli were horriffic on all sides but the Ottoman empire suffered the most by far with over 250,000 killed or wounded compared to 27,000 French and 115,000 British, NZ, Australian, Indian & new Foundland. A total of 392, 856 died for nothing.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Posted

They were poorly led, jerry.  They actually penetrated further on the first day than they did later. And yes, it was the ottoman empire which was fighting in Turkey in ww1. Turkey came afterwards, and they were the first country to beat a white army, so they were happy about that. Kemal Attaturk was their first leader, after having run the defence at gallipoli.

The Australians were suffering badly from malnutrition, so much so that they were deemed "unfit to fight" by a visiting general.

That this could have been the case when britain was by far the richest country on earth was a crime beyond comprehension.

  • Like 1
Posted

I reckon they only had the beach and the cliffs. Here's what I wish they served the governor general etc on anzac day....  tins of beef which have sat in the sun for weeks and served on plates which have never been washed. Flies need constant shooing or you can't see your plate. With the "beef" you only have hard biscuits made from salt and water and flour. A young person could break their teeth on these biscuits.

They could easily have a barge-load of vegetables from Cairo, but they were saving money. The pommy general in charge lived in a nice house on an island nearby.

The legacy, such as it was, was that the army learned that you need to feed your troops better. This helped them in France.

And, of course, as a result of breaker morant, the poms were no longer able to shoot australian troops for disciplinary reasons.

  • Informative 3
Posted

The highest point ever taken at Gallipoli was Chunuk Bair on the 8th of August 2015 by the Wellington Battallion of the Anzac division who arriived there just before dawn. They fought off constant attacks all day firing their rifles till the fully wooded stocks of their 303s became too hot to hold. Of the 760 men of the Wellingtons who reached the summit 711 became casualties. They were relieved that evening by British troops and Ottoman forces recaptured the summit on 10th of August. This was part of the famous battle of Lone Pine. There is a NZ movie from 1992 called Chuk Bair.

 

The Russians seem to have similar tactics that continued in Stalingrad when they lost over 1 million troops in 1942-43. Weight of numbers does work but the cost is horrendous. They are still using this century old tactic but at Stalingrad they were fighting for their motherland. In Ukraine they are in another country & many of them don't know what they are fighting for.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

Kg, I read that on the first day, army troops were unmet by defenders and wandered about everywhere before returning to the beaches for tea. I would like for somebody with your expertise to check this out.

  • Agree 1
Posted

The NZ story I liked best did not happen at Gallipoli but in London. Apparently the NZ prime minister lifted the pommy PM up by his lapels and told him the NZ boys had not been sent there " to die like rabbits".

Gosh, if only he had gone further and taken the NZ boys home with him.

For myself, I reckon Australia should have too.... it would have shortened the pom's enjoyment of their lovely war.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

I reckon we are seeing a competition between absolutism and democracy. Gosh I hope that democracy wins.

Dictatorships are so easy to slip into, we see how in Russia, as well as elsewhere, the leader gradually becomes a dictator.

BUT dictators are rarely told the truth and there is no way of getting rid of a crazy one.  Now Zelinski seems to be doing a good job, but until he retires, we won't know if he is becoming a dictator too. In the USA, Trump was on the way to being declared "President for Life" but thank goodness it didn't happen.

 

  • Confused 1
Posted

Canada is about to hand over to Ukraine a Volga-Dnepr An-124 that was impounded due to sanctions on Russia. Volga-Dnepr have about a dozen An-124's but they've ceased operations since the sanctions were introduced. It must put a dent in the heavy lift capacity around the world. Ukraine's Antonov Airlines has about five operating; two others were at Hostomel airport during the initial Russian attack and were damaged. Apart from those five flying, Maximus Air Cargo from the Emirates has one.

  • Informative 1
Posted

An excerpt from an interview with Ukraine's head of military intelligence, Major General Kyrylo Bunanov by ABC (U.S.) reporter Ian Pannell:

 

Pannell: You see the breakup of the Russian Federation.

Budanov: This is an artificially created mistake and now the moment has come for this country to collapse.

Pannell: You famously predicted the invasion.

Budanov: It’s my job.

Pannell: I know, but not everyone did. Given your prediction at the start was correct, what is your prediction about when this ends?

Budanov: in the very, very nearest future.

Pannell: Why are you so confident?

Budanov: Because I know this.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted

Budanov is a man of few words, but he's a smart cookie and usually gets things right. Let's hope he's right about victory coming soon. On the other subject of the RF breaking apart Balkan style, only time will tell. If they have internal unrest post war, Dagestan and Chechnya might be hard to hang on to.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2
Posted

Trying to look up the current Republics and Automomous Regions of Russia is like wading through a smorgasbord. So many disparate ethnic groups with little in common, held together by the brutal hand of the central government. If Putin loses in Ukraine, expect plenty of pressure from these units for more autonomy or even independence.

 

In neighbours still under Moscow’s boot, things might soon get sticky. Kazakhstan has been wriggling free of Russia and recent demonstrations in Georgia have seen the EU flag waving.

 

Russia’s last Civil War was 100 years ago; the next one might be worse.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Russia’s last Civil War was 100 years ago; the next one might be worse.

And will the USA beat them to the next civil war?

The way things are going, by xmas the only place likely to be united might be the United States of Europe.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Posted

The biggest blow for putler would be losing Crimea. A lot of people say it would be hard to survive politically if that happened. Losing the Donbass would be one thing, but Crimea is the jewel in the crown, and putin has put a lot of political stock into the annexation of it and moulding it into a matter of national pride. They've gone from taking Kiev in a matter of days, to digging a fortified trench system on the beaches where Russian tourists were sunbathing a year ago.

 

It's hard to see how the liberation of Crimea would pan out. Historically, Crimea has always been a tough nut to crack. An invasion force from Ukraine would have options of land and sea approaches or a combination of both. Ukraine doesn't have the naval landing capacity to make much of a seaborne assault. Attacking by land is very difficult as well with only three narrow access points from the Ukrainian mainland . The Syvash makes Crimea almost an island. The Arabat Spit between the Syvash and the Azov Sea is long and narrow and is a sandy track not much wider than a bridge in some places. West of there is a road bridge over the Chonhar Straight, the boundary between Crimea and Kherson Oblast.

 

The third and widest access is the Isthmus of Perekop, between the Syvash and the Black Sea. It's only about 7klm wide and is blocked by the historic trench and earth wall running across the full width. There's only one road in from Ukraine on the Isthmus, and to use that road after crossing the trench, they would have to fight through two cities before the road forks out into the main wider part of Crimea. All three options are choke points for land forces. Even if they cross the Syvash with inflatables, it won't add many numbers to the force.

 

Most of the northern part of Crimea is flat, but in the south there is very rugged and hostile terrain. The difficulties for an invading (liberating) army might also apply to the Russians trying to defend it. If the Ukrainians can take out the Kerch bridge and cut off the road and rail access from the Ukrainian mainland, Russian occupation would be unsustainable and at some point they would have to give it up. If the Ukrainian army can get to the northern Crimean boundary, every part of Crimea is within Himars range. The Black Sea Fleet and the airbases would have to evacuate back to Russia. Fingers crossed, here's hoping it will happen.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2
Posted

The Soviets bypassed the Crimea in 1943-44 and waited until German supply lines were too far away and they were in full retreat. On the 10th of April 1944 the Soviets took Odessa. The day before on the 9th they began their assault from the North on Crimea as well as from Kerch. By the 16th they were on the outskirts of Sevastopol & the Germans had evacuated 67,000 troops to Romania by then.

 

If Ukraine is able to completely cut Russian supply lines, they will isolate the Russians in Crimea & they will have no option other than to evacuate as the Germans had to. If that happens it is the beginning of the end for the Russian invasion. Why Russia has created all of the beach fortifications in Crimea seems to display a complete failure to understand how to defend the place.

  • Like 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...