Real time Discusion thread

   In terms of the comments from Peter Hart in Indies video I would have to disagree.  There were a lot of mistakes made in Gallipoli and too much optimism.  However the resources committed were minimal compared to what was on the western front and the same flaws of overoptimism and arrogance were displayed on the western front all the way through to 1917 at least.  One reason why the Gallipoli campaign was under-resourced was that the established military opposed any transfer of resources to anywhere other than the pointless bloodbath of the western front.  It should also be noted that while the allied position on the peninsula was very bad as it developed with the Turks having a huge positional advantage despite this most sources I've seen suggest that Turkish losses were heavier than those of the allies. 

  As it developed, with early opportunities to make ground and give the landings defensive depth misses, the operation had very limited success.  However it greatly tied down Turkish forces as well, helping both the British in the ME and the Russians, who were hard pressed in 1915 and seems to have delayed the Bulgarians joining the Central Powers.  Furthermore if all those men had been committed to the western front is there any evidence that they would have made any difference other than to be thrown away in the pointless attacks that the generals made on the western front.  That, until the armies had enough military strength and resources, was the area of pointless activity where no big victory could be won.  A successful Gallipoli that occupied the straits, which wasn't impossible - albeit more difficult than some supporters of the operation assumed - had huge potential for changing the war greatly.  An isolated Turkey would have been isolated, Bulgaria wouldn't have joined the CP, the western allies could trade a lot more easily with Russia, which would have greatly boosted both and Serbia would have continued to survive and probably with western support be an even greater problem for the CPs.  You might well see the war over in 1916 or probably 1917 at the latest.  You would probably have also avoided the Russian revolution, or at least the Bolshevik coup.

  On the WWII thread you have

  I think this is a mistake.  A lot of torpedoes were aimed at Repulse but it dodged many and 14 hits is unlikely as the 1st 4-6 would likely sink her quickly.  On one of the naval sites I was reading something about the attack where it was suggested 4 torpedoes hit both ships.  When the wreaks were examined 4 were found on PoW and they found 2 on Repulse although there could well be a couple more as much of the hull was submerged in the mud.  I suspect the above is either the number of torpedoes aimed at the ship or probably more likely a typo for 4.  See Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse_The_Japanese_air_attack which would seem to fit such a figure.

  Steve

  lordroel ,

  A few comments on today's WWII post.

a)  I like how Indie says he will be talking mainly about the German dow on the US rather than the Pearl attack as their already done 5 hours on that in other video's then still hardly mention it.

  The German declaration of war was probably a huge error by Hitler but other than his irrational ideas there was some merit to it.  Relations were already very tension with US forces openly acting against German naval units in the Atlantic.  Also Dönitz was urging for a dow on the US because it would allow U boats to attack shipping within the US Neutrality Zone, which was largely unprotected.  This was to see the so called 2nd Happy time for the U boats in the 1st half of 1942 as huge amounts of allied shipping was sunk, most of it on the US coast and in the Caribbean, with a large number of very scarce tankers especially being lost.  This was not helped by the US being totally unprepared for war with it being a long time before there was a proper coastal blackout imposed which highlighted the shipping at night and the USN being unwilling to introduce convoys and using the small number of escort vessels in the region on anti-submarine patrols - which the RN repeatedly told them they had already learnt didn't work.

b)  On:

  One of those times you would want the US torpedoes to fail as they did so often!  Good performance by the HNMS subs and just wish that we had mopped up N Africa earlier so the RN subs were back in the threatre.

c)  As said elsewhere

  A very impressive performance, especially given the level of training the Japanese pilots had and how relatively obsolete the P26 was.  Love the name of it as well although probably fairly accurate by this date.

  I noticed a couple of typos.  Small but might as well mention them. 

i)  "The USN heavy cruiser USS Pensacola departed Pearl Harbor 29 November 1941 with a convoy bound for Manila in the Philippines. Today, the U.S. troops aboard the troop transports are organized as Task Force South Pacific and placed under command of Brigadier General Julian F. Barnes. The convoy is ordered to proceed to Australian." - Presume that should be Australia or Australian waters possibly.

ii)  In c above there is an extra "s" in "fighterss".

  Steve

   lordroel ,

  I must admit I'm puzzled by?

  POWs suggest military men who have surrendered/been captured.  I don't see what 50 Japanese military personnel would be doing in Costa Rico or how they would be captured.  Could it be Japanese civilians who were in the country and rounded up by the local authorities?  Possibly, given the reference to the MV Albert they were crewing it, although that doesn't sound a very Japanese name so possibly it belonged to another nation, perhaps Germany?

  Not a matter of urgency but it does seem rather odd.

  Steve