michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on May 8, 2023 19:24:48 GMT
It was a fool's errand, when other accessible routes could be developed for far less costs and effort. I wonder if what better idea to use Greece as Start point instead Gallipoli, With British and French cavalry operating better in Bulgaria direction Constantinople... |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 8, 2023 19:57:09 GMT
It was a fool's errand, when other accessible routes could be developed for far less costs and effort. I wonder if what better idea to use Greece as Start point instead Gallipoli, With British and French cavalry operating better in Bulgaria direction Constantinople... That might actually work. You would have to coordinate with Romania somehow and maybe Russia, but a Bulgarian campaign gives you a reasonable sidestep. Let's look at that?  and  and  I am not happy about trying to crash through those mountains in southwest Bulgaria which is why I think Romania and Russia become important to the solution, but if you insist on this approach axis to Russia, it makes more sense than the Dardanelles. I just do not like the terrain and weather. I see Isonzo magnified by a factor of 1? |
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on May 8, 2023 20:18:56 GMT
That might actually work. You would have to coordinate with Romania somehow and maybe Russia, but a Bulgarian campaign gives you a reasonable sidestep. Sadly Romania was short episode in OTL Lured by France to join Entente was not match for Austrian-Hungary and Germany There Army personnel was mostly illiterate... But with Bulgarian campaign from Greece and same time Romania start fight central powers while Russian start attack at East front. there is chance that Entente install third frontline On Railroad muss look for 1914 map since last 100 years (50 under Communist) the Railroad network changes drastic... |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 8, 2023 20:49:20 GMT
On Railroad muss look for 1914 map since last 100 years (50 under Communist) the Railroad network changes drastic... How about 1877?  I think the Entente would need French railroad troops to upgrade a single line track, but there is an existent pathway. |
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on May 8, 2023 21:20:52 GMT
that much better map
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on May 8, 2023 23:10:36 GMT
I am not happy about trying to crash through those mountains in southwest Bulgaria which is why I think Romania and Russia become important to the solution, Good point - Bulgaria seems flatter and more 'approachable' from the north and east than the southwest. I mean in real life, it was ultimately beaten at the tail end in Macedonia, but the cartographic point remains. As an alternative, I would propose that at some point shortly after Bulgaria enters the war (October 1915) that Russia become an enthusiastic champion of early Romanian entry into the war, to get at that rascally upstart traitorous new Central Power, Bulgaria, and support Entente agreement to Romanian territorial demands against Austria-Hungary, while also pressing the Romanians to enter the war using their "Hypothesis B" operational plan for taking out Bulgaria first instead of Hypothesis Z, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_Z, which they finally adopted over spring/summer 1916 which focused on Transylvania first and defending versus Bulgaria. The Romanians wanted Russian troop help in Dobruja for "Hypothesis B" and they should get it ASAP. I wonder if with enough concentration, diplomacy, and planning, the Russians could have convinced the Romanians to join them for a winter 1915-1916 campaign across the Danube against the Bulgarians, counting on the Hungarians not being able to cross the Transylvanian alps that season. That could give a nasty shock to the Bulgarians occupying the part of their country north of the Balkan or Rhodope mountains, and pose a threat to the exhausted Ottomans again, barely a moment after the final evacuation of the Gallipoli force (9 January, 1916), or even a little before it. Romanian odds of surviving the 1916 campaign are better with attacking v. Bulgaria, defending v. Transylvania first rather than the other way around (as in OTL), because it better protects their capital and economic heartland on more level ground. An offensive sweep into northern Bulgaria while doing no more in Transylvania than trying to seize and hold the Transylvanian alpine passes is a better first phase operation for the operation for the Romanians and Entente as a whole, claiming the Transylvanian loot, the objective Romania really desires most, can come in a subsequent campaign after the south is secured. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2023 12:19:39 GMT
even wen the Gallipoli landing was different planned and Kemal Atatürk replaced by total incompetent superior The issue is to keep it under Entente controle north are Bulgarian, Austria-Hungary and German Armies, in East Germans and Ottomans Original planned as supply line to Russia and relief for Russian front This hier end in stalemate, The British and French fighting a lost cause in Gallipoli and unable to supply Russia
At this point Bulgaria is still neutral and is unlikely to change sides with the straits in allied control and the Ottoman/Turkish state either having come to terms or being greatly reduced in their ability to cause problems for the allies. That control has, as I think I've mentioned before big bonuses for the allies both in the Balkans and also in terms of ending problems elsewhere, such as in the Caucasus region, Iraq and Sinai. Also there is the chance, since the logistical links are in place for Russia to continue to export grain, at least for a while and far more easily import products that it needs for what's probably now its sole front, against the Germans and Austrians.
According to some reports Kemal, as he was at the time, very nearly died in the initial stages anyway. A desperate bluff when his forces were exhausted and out of ammo could easily have had them scattered and him dead or captured if it hadn't worked.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2023 12:43:08 GMT
even wen the Gallipoli landing was different planned and Kemal Atatürk replaced by total incompetent superior The issue is to keep it under Entente controle north are Bulgarian, Austria-Hungary and German Armies, in East Germans and Ottomans Original planned as supply line to Russia and relief for Russian front This hier end in stalemate, The British and French fighting a lost cause in Gallipoli and unable to supply Russia That is a succinct description of the geography and the force on force situation, not to mention the weather, the lack of a secure railroad from Greece to the Black Sea or the numbers and cargo volume of shipping to supply the million men needed to hold the route open on the European and Asia Minor shoreline sides of the strait, not to mention the additional sealift to supply the food, munitions and MEN needed to help the Russians stay in the fight. It was a fool's errand, when other accessible routes could be developed for far less costs and effort.
Balderdash is a mild reply to that.
a) Shipping of goods to Russia and food and other raw materials from it could save on the more dangerous alternative route to N America - especially for the French and Italians with ports on the Med. Especially until Germany started moving U boats to the Med it was also a lot safer than northern waters so shipping losses are likely to be significant smaller than OTL. [Apart from the local coastal shipping which you may have noticed from the WWI day by day were the primary victims of the U boats anyway since they couldn't easily be convoyed]. Since the already damaged Goeben and the rest of the Ottoman fleet are going to be without bases and supplies if not sunk in the fighting it also relieves pressure on Russia in the Black Sea for both military and civilian shipping.
b) Taking the basic assumption that some Turks retire into the interior to continue a fight the garrison needed to hold the region - which would very probably include Russian forces - then the insurgents, largely denied any heavy equipment and acting as little more than bandits could be kept distant from the straits by a relatively small force. Definitely not anything like a million men being needed. This ignores that continued resistance - especially if accompanied by attacks on the substantial Christian Greek minorities in Anatolia - coupled with the clear defeat for the CPs could well add Greece to the allied cause earlier and with markedly less internal division that OTL. Even if the entire garrison was supplied from British/French/colonial forces its likely to be less than was tied up OTL in Egypt and Iraq, let alone later at Salonika.
c) I don't know where you get the idea of sending large quantities of forces to Russia? The problem for Russia, until their morale collapsed anyway was abysmal leadership and poor equipment levels, coupled with the need to attack defensive positions to take the pressure off their western allies. It will take some time to get the artillery and munitions especially as the western powers are desperately short themselves but you can get a lot more, faster by this route.
d) As has already been pointed out this is wrong. By going through an allied controlled straits between well developed ports in the Med and in southern Russia - which was how Russia pre-war exported massive amounts of grain and other goods your got a reliable route with strong developed infrastructure. Shipping is more efficient than railways, provided its not being sunk. Going via Murmansk or Persian means much longer shipping routes and 1st building railways from scratch which took a couple of years in the north and would take even longer via Persia. Especially since those would likely be single track lines with limited capacity. Also the Black Sea ports, as well as having existing rail infrastructure are a lot closer to the eastern front than either Murmansk or S Persia so the distance the railways would have to carry material would be greater as well as the sea route by the alternative suggestions your made.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2023 12:53:57 GMT
It was a fool's errand, when other accessible routes could be developed for far less costs and effort. I wonder if what better idea to use Greece as Start point instead Gallipoli, With British and French cavalry operating better in Bulgaria direction Constantinople...
That would require getting Greece on side quickly, which while the civilian government was friendly the monarch, who had a lot of power was not. It also means either cowering Bulgaria or attacking them which adds another enemy who could link up with the Turks as by this route there's no threat to the straits until you go through Bulgaria.
As I've mentioned before there were plans in Greece - how seriously I don't know - for a pre-emptive war with Turkey before the two dreadnoughts could be delivered which included a Gallipoli like attack as well as landings in the Smyrna region and IIRC also in the Cilicia region to cut the only rail link between Anatolia and the rest of the empire. Possibly if the previous King George hadn't been assassinated a year or two before Greece would have been a willing ally but I suspect it would still have preferred going by sea. - I have read he intended to abdicate in favour of his eldest son anyway but in a situation as developed in 1914/15 he could have been a significant influence to persuade Constantine to join the conflict rather than taking a pro-CP stance.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2023 13:04:38 GMT
That might actually work. You would have to coordinate with Romania somehow and maybe Russia, but a Bulgarian campaign gives you a reasonable sidestep. Sadly Romania was short episode in OTL Lured by France to join Entente was not match for Austrian-Hungary and Germany There Army personnel was mostly illiterate... But with Bulgarian campaign from Greece and same time Romania start fight central powers while Russian start attack at East front. there is chance that Entente install third frontline On Railroad muss look for 1914 map since last 100 years (50 under Communist) the Railroad network changes drastic...
That was the case with a lot of recruits in this period, especially in eastern and southern Europe. When they did join the allies they were undone largely by the collapse of Russian morale which meant they couldn't rely on the Russians fighting alongside them and also the presence of Bulgarian and German forces in a secure position to the south. The latter wouldn't be an issue here but your still going to have to fight Bulgaria while the bulk of the German army is engaged against Russia and Austria is also some what stronger than later. Despite that Romanian forces fought determinedly, even if a very dire position in 1917/18.
Furthermore unless your going to rely on a markedly less efficient railway network, much of it through rugged and hostile territory your still going to have to occupy Constantinople and clear the straits for shipping, which is a hell of a lot more efficient that rail traffic, especially for bulk goods.
After King Carol I died in Oct 1914, who was stancely pro-German his son Ferdinand and the government were pro-allied but, especially once Gallipoli failed and then Bulgaria joined the CPs allowing Serbia to be finally crushed their position was very exposed. If you can clear the straits and ensure Bulgaria isn't a threat, plus with Serbia still fighting Romanian participation on the allied side in 1915 is very likely and would be a serious problem for the CPs but trying to getting them active earlier would be difficult.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2023 13:12:38 GMT
I am not happy about trying to crash through those mountains in southwest Bulgaria which is why I think Romania and Russia become important to the solution, Good point - Bulgaria seems flatter and more 'approachable' from the north and east than the southwest. I mean in real life, it was ultimately beaten at the tail end in Macedonia, but the cartographic point remains. As an alternative, I would propose that at some point shortly after Bulgaria enters the war (October 1915) that Russia become an enthusiastic champion of early Romanian entry into the war, to get at that rascally upstart traitorous new Central Power, Bulgaria, and support Entente agreement to Romanian territorial demands against Austria-Hungary, while also pressing the Romanians to enter the war using their "Hypothesis B" operational plan for taking out Bulgaria first instead of Hypothesis Z, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_Z, which they finally adopted over spring/summer 1916 which focused on Transylvania first and defending versus Bulgaria. The Romanians wanted Russian troop help in Dobruja for "Hypothesis B" and they should get it ASAP. I wonder if with enough concentration, diplomacy, and planning, the Russians could have convinced the Romanians to join them for a winter 1915-1916 campaign across the Danube against the Bulgarians, counting on the Hungarians not being able to cross the Transylvanian alps that season. That could give a nasty shock to the Bulgarians occupying the part of their country north of the Balkan or Rhodope mountains, and pose a threat to the exhausted Ottomans again, barely a moment after the final evacuation of the Gallipoli force (9 January, 1916), or even a little before it. Romanian odds of surviving the 1916 campaign are better with attacking v. Bulgaria, defending v. Transylvania first rather than the other way around (as in OTL), because it better protects their capital and economic heartland on more level ground. An offensive sweep into northern Bulgaria while doing no more in Transylvania than trying to seize and hold the Transylvanian alpine passes is a better first phase operation for the operation for the Romanians and Entente as a whole, claiming the Transylvanian loot, the objective Romania really desires most, can come in a subsequent campaign after the south is secured.
Its a decent point but once Bulgaria has actually joined the war and with German forces located there Serbia is quickly crushed and Romania is itself threatened from the south. It can't rely on any western aid so would be dependent on Russia. Which is in a markedly better state in 1915 or 1916 than 1917 but still heavily pressed in the former.
The plan IIRC was to secure the Transylvanian passes and hold out during the winter but a lot of the damage was done via German forces attacking from the south, which would be in place once Bulgaria entered the war. Also unless you also get Greece willing to commit fully in 1915 - which is unlikely without a successful Gallipoli/Constantinople campaign there's no southern force to act as either hammer or anvil.
Plus you would still need to clear the straits else your relying on limited railways through rough terrain.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 9, 2023 13:29:21 GMT
Balderdash is a mild reply to that.
a) Shipping of goods to Russia and food and other raw materials from it could save on the more dangerous alternative route to N America - especially for the French and Italians with ports on the Med. Especially until Germany started moving U boats to the Med it was also a lot safer than northern waters so shipping losses are likely to be significant smaller than OTL. [Apart from the local coastal shipping which you may have noticed from the WWI day by day were the primary victims of the U boats anyway since they couldn't easily be convoyed]. Since the already damaged Goeben and the rest of the Ottoman fleet are going to be without bases and supplies if not sunk in the fighting it also relieves pressure on Russia in the Black Sea for both military and civilian shipping.
b) Taking the basic assumption that some Turks retire into the interior to continue a fight the garrison needed to hold the region - which would very probably include Russian forces - then the insurgents, largely denied any heavy equipment and acting as little more than bandits could be kept distant from the straits by a relatively small force. Definitely not anything like a million men being needed. This ignores that continued resistance - especially if accompanied by attacks on the substantial Christian Greek minorities in Anatolia - coupled with the clear defeat for the CPs could well add Greece to the allied cause earlier and with markedly less internal division that OTL. Even if the entire garrison was supplied from British/French/colonial forces its likely to be less than was tied up OTL in Egypt and Iraq, let alone later at Salonika.
c) I don't know where you get the idea of sending large quantities of forces to Russia? The problem for Russia, until their morale collapsed anyway was abysmal leadership and poor equipment levels, coupled with the need to attack defensive positions to take the pressure off their western allies. It will take some time to get the artillery and munitions especially as the western powers are desperately short themselves but you can get a lot more, faster by this route.
d) As has already been pointed out this is wrong. By going through an allied controlled straits between well developed ports in the Med and in southern Russia - which was how Russia pre-war exported massive amounts of grain and other goods your got a reliable route with strong developed infrastructure. Shipping is more efficient than railways, provided its not being sunk. Going via Murmansk or Persian means much longer shipping routes and 1st building railways from scratch which took a couple of years in the north and would take even longer via Persia. Especially since those would likely be single track lines with limited capacity. Also the Black Sea ports, as well as having existing rail infrastructure are a lot closer to the eastern front than either Murmansk or S Persia so the distance the railways would have to carry material would be greater as well as the sea route by the alternative suggestions your made.
1. How many ships did the USN escorted convoys lose? Not many. 2. Asia Minor? Both sides of the Strait, both shorelines, have to be taken and held from the Dardanelles to Bosporus. 3. Why do the Russians need troops? Because the Germans and Austrians were killing them at a rate of 2 to 1 exchange ratios, maybe? 4. See 2. You do not control a strait unless you control BOTH sides of it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2023 14:18:57 GMT
Balderdash is a mild reply to that.
a) Shipping of goods to Russia and food and other raw materials from it could save on the more dangerous alternative route to N America - especially for the French and Italians with ports on the Med. Especially until Germany started moving U boats to the Med it was also a lot safer than northern waters so shipping losses are likely to be significant smaller than OTL. [Apart from the local coastal shipping which you may have noticed from the WWI day by day were the primary victims of the U boats anyway since they couldn't easily be convoyed]. Since the already damaged Goeben and the rest of the Ottoman fleet are going to be without bases and supplies if not sunk in the fighting it also relieves pressure on Russia in the Black Sea for both military and civilian shipping.
b) Taking the basic assumption that some Turks retire into the interior to continue a fight the garrison needed to hold the region - which would very probably include Russian forces - then the insurgents, largely denied any heavy equipment and acting as little more than bandits could be kept distant from the straits by a relatively small force. Definitely not anything like a million men being needed. This ignores that continued resistance - especially if accompanied by attacks on the substantial Christian Greek minorities in Anatolia - coupled with the clear defeat for the CPs could well add Greece to the allied cause earlier and with markedly less internal division that OTL. Even if the entire garrison was supplied from British/French/colonial forces its likely to be less than was tied up OTL in Egypt and Iraq, let alone later at Salonika.
c) I don't know where you get the idea of sending large quantities of forces to Russia? The problem for Russia, until their morale collapsed anyway was abysmal leadership and poor equipment levels, coupled with the need to attack defensive positions to take the pressure off their western allies. It will take some time to get the artillery and munitions especially as the western powers are desperately short themselves but you can get a lot more, faster by this route.
d) As has already been pointed out this is wrong. By going through an allied controlled straits between well developed ports in the Med and in southern Russia - which was how Russia pre-war exported massive amounts of grain and other goods your got a reliable route with strong developed infrastructure. Shipping is more efficient than railways, provided its not being sunk. Going via Murmansk or Persian means much longer shipping routes and 1st building railways from scratch which took a couple of years in the north and would take even longer via Persia. Especially since those would likely be single track lines with limited capacity. Also the Black Sea ports, as well as having existing rail infrastructure are a lot closer to the eastern front than either Murmansk or S Persia so the distance the railways would have to carry material would be greater as well as the sea route by the alternative suggestions your made.
1. How many ships did the USN escorted convoys lose? Not many. 2. Asia Minor? Both sides of the Strait, both shorelines, have to be taken and held from the Dardanelles to Bosporus. 3. Why do the Russians need troops? Because the Germans and Austrians were killing them at a rate of 2 to 1 exchange ratios, maybe? 4. See 2. You do not control a strait unless you control BOTH sides of it.
The interior of Anatolia means exactly that. You can't interrupt traffic through the straits from a couple of hundred miles inland! Such interruption would also need at least artillery - which any Turkish opposition would be very short of.
Escorted convoys didn't lose many ships in WWI. Beside the point. As I pointed out the main loses were among ships that couldn't be escorted in convoys. Things like coastal traffic and fishing vessels.
The Russians, especially if they had been better lead, supplied and equipped - and the latter two can be helped here - would have done better but of course the Germans and Austrians were also fighting on other fronts. [As were the Russians in the Caucasus region which should be significantly diminished in scope here.] Historically they didn't run out of men. They ran out of morale. That didn't happen until mid-1917. Here if this operation works its extremely unlikely the war would last that long. If Bulgaria is kept neutral, Turkey effectively out of the war and Serbia in it - especially if this in turn was to bring either/both of Romania/Greece into the war then Austria is unlikely to make it through 1916 and Germany can't fight long alone.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 10, 2023 2:58:59 GMT
The interior of Anatolia means exactly that. You can't interrupt traffic through the straits from a couple of hundred miles inland! Such interruption would also need at least artillery - which any Turkish opposition would be very short o I do not see the connection between Anatolia and the Bursa area. And where did you get the idea that anyone mentioned Anatolia?    scorted convoys didn't lose many ships in WWI. Beside the point. As I pointed out the main loses were among ships that couldn't be escorted in convoys. Things like coastal traffic and fishing vessels.
That is exactly what I said. Obviously; it is what I referred when I scoffed at the dangers of North Atlantic traffic. As to the third point, if you are dying and achieving nothing that damages morale, but if you are running out of ammunition that also ruins the morale. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 10, 2023 16:46:46 GMT
The interior of Anatolia means exactly that. You can't interrupt traffic through the straits from a couple of hundred miles inland! Such interruption would also need at least artillery - which any Turkish opposition would be very short o I do not see the connection between Anatolia and the Bursa area. And where did you get the idea that anyone mentioned Anatolia? scorted convoys didn't lose many ships in WWI. Beside the point. As I pointed out the main loses were among ships that couldn't be escorted in convoys. Things like coastal traffic and fishing vessels.
That is exactly what I said. Obviously; it is what I referred when I scoffed at the dangers of North Atlantic traffic. As to the third point, if you are dying and achieving nothing that damages morale, but if you are running out of ammunition that also ruins the morale.
1) That was what some of the YT leadership was talking about in this period if the straits region and Constantinople fell.
2) For assorted reasons convoying was not implemented until 1917 and barring a major naval defeat for Germany that wasn't likely to change. However ship transportation was a hell of a lot easier and more efficient than even the best railway networks. As I said that's besides the point.
3) Since your proposals mean [much] less supplies to Russia than what is being suggested by a successful Gallipoli operations then that reinforces my point.
|
|
