It was like hell.In some places the distance between the trenches were as short as 5 meters.To be on the front line was a certain death to both sides.
The war field in Gallipoli is a natural park now and i have been there several times.It is hard to believe that over 200.000 men fought and died in a 10 km2 area.
2007-07-28 04:27:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by mertev 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Conditions At Gallipoli
2016-11-07 07:28:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Better than watching director Peter Weir's 1981 movie 'Gallipoli' (starring Mel Gibson and Mark Lee) -- try reading a book.
1. Gallipoli: The Fading Vision, John North, Faber, 1936
2. Gallipoli, Robert Rhodes James, Pan, 1974
3, Gallipoli, Alan Moorehead, Wordsworth, 1997
2007-07-27 23:04:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by WMD 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The British utilizes forces from their colonies namely Australia and New Zealand to form the ANZAC forces. Although a formidable fighters, they were poorly equipped and even more poorly led by their British leaders.
Conversely, the Turks saw losing the land at Gallipoli a turning point because this is the inlet to Istanbul, then capitol of the Ottoman Empire. In terms of vantage points, whomever controlled Gallipoli controlled Istanbul. Whomever controlled Istanbul ultimately controlled Turkey and that portion of the axis forces in WWI. Controlling Gallipoli for the Allied forces meant allowing battleships to enter the Dardenelles and then the Strait of Bosphorous. The British knew the land forces by the Ottoman Empire would be too strong as compared to their supreme navy.
Similarly, they were led by German forces who cared little for their welfare throughout the battle. The German commanders would often force their troops to enter battle usually with few supplies and no protection.
The land of Gallipoli is unforgiving itself - it's a series of sharp rocks and even sharper mountains which provide the inlet to the Dardanelles.
Again due to poor British leadership, the ANZAC forces established a beachfront in the worst position conceived. They were essentially sitting ducks from moment one of that portion of the war. The ANZAC forces were entrenched between the sharp rocks during the course of the war and between the extremely rough terrain and rough warfare, little survived.
That portion of the war ended at best a stalemate; in the course of the war, very little advancement by either the ANZAC or Turkish soldiers ever occurred. However this "military tie" - if you will - resulted in the deaths of thousands of men in brutal, brutal war which neither side has ever forgotten.
When you visit a place like Gettysburg, you see the expanse of the fields and the relative flatness - terrain is no issue here. Imagine - being plucked from your home to fight on the side of a mountain with few supplies and even less support.
2007-07-29 01:30:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by atg28 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Conditions were very nearly hopeless for the ANZAC attackers because there was no preliminary naval bombardment and the Turkish defenders had a high ground very well suited to repulsing any attack, although at very high cost. ANZAC and other Allied casualties (killed and wounded) were about 140,000, while the Turkish casualties were nearly double that at 250,000 over an 8 month unsuccessful invasion and fight for the area. Finally, by January 6, 1916, the attackers were evacuated.
2007-08-04 15:22:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Captain Atom 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Turks held the high ground. There was no pre-landing bombardment from Naval ships' batteries to "soften up" the beaches. In short, none of the techniques and doctrine later worked out by U.S. Marines in the 1930s and used with great success in the South West Pacific in the early 1940s.
The British poured thousands of troops into a certain death trap. Most of those were Australian and New Zealanders. To this day, both of those nations commemorate Anzac Day to remember that slaughter and the Aussies refer to the British as "Pomies" (Prisoners of Mother England).
2007-07-27 18:56:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Watch a young Mel Gibson in the movie "Gallipoli."
2007-07-27 20:01:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Horrendous. You really need to look it up on their website. You will see it as a poorly planned operation by incompetent British Generals who didn't have a clue as to what the conditions would be like.
They sacrificed the lives of thousands of mainly colonial troops, mainly Australian and New Zealanders with total disregard.
2007-07-28 07:50:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Shocking they were basically like lambs to the slaughter a young Churchill made a strategic naval error and sent these young men ashore where they were trapped on the beaches with huge cliffs confronting them it was a disaster.
2007-07-28 00:16:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by molly 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The soldiers lived in trenches that were constantly bombarded by each other. During the summer it was blisteringly hot, and during the winter the soldiers froze, as they still wore issued summer kit and the rain flooded their trenches.
2016-03-19 07:56:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋