raharris1973
Well-known member
What if the the Gallipoli landing works in terms of the Alled forces establishing their beach-head, getting supplying going, being able to finish taking the peninsula and then expand beyond the peninsula, and destroying the Ottoman guns and forces in the way...
...but not having a 'cooperative' enemy that panics and gives up the war over this.
Instead the Ottoman enemy continues to feed reinforcements from wherever it can to the battle, especially urban warfare, defends additional bottlenecks after Gallipolli and fires upon the Entente from the Asian shore?
Would the Entente need to do a series of consecutive serious operations, from Gallipoli east across Thrace to besiege Constantinople --> storming Constantinople------> crossing the Bosporus into the Asian side at Istanbul Bogazi to clear Turkish infantry and slience Turkish guns ------> cross from Gallipoli to the Asian side in Cannakale to clear the Turkish infantry and silence the Turkish guns----> and possibly unite the Asian wings to seize the back-up Ottoman capital at Bursa, in order to:
1. Restore the straits as a reliably working waterway
2. Destroy completely the Turkish ability to resist Allied terms or to contest the straits
What are the longer and shorter timeframes this might take?
Once the British led Entente forces capture (and repair) any loading docks or wharves at the Bosporus/Black Sea end of the straits, would the Russians transport any infantry units to the city or Thrace to take part in the remaining clean-up of Ottoman resistance? Or to take on garrison duties in areas where fighting is done?
Or would wartime operations and garrisons be left entirely to the British led forces that did most of the conquering, with the Russians awaiting handover of the straits at the end of the war, per treaty.
If the Russians do send reinforcements or garrisons in wartime, would it be more because of them volunteering, or the British asking?
If there is no Entente agreement to send Russians in wartime to the straits, will that be because of Russia being lazy or Britain being exclusionary?
If it is Russia being lazy but still expecting a hand over at the end of the war, is that not super naive on their part?
If it is the British being is exclusionary, what does that mean for Russian morale and Entente relations overall for the rest of the war?
With great achievements come great problems. Or at least questions.
...but not having a 'cooperative' enemy that panics and gives up the war over this.
Instead the Ottoman enemy continues to feed reinforcements from wherever it can to the battle, especially urban warfare, defends additional bottlenecks after Gallipolli and fires upon the Entente from the Asian shore?
Would the Entente need to do a series of consecutive serious operations, from Gallipoli east across Thrace to besiege Constantinople --> storming Constantinople------> crossing the Bosporus into the Asian side at Istanbul Bogazi to clear Turkish infantry and slience Turkish guns ------> cross from Gallipoli to the Asian side in Cannakale to clear the Turkish infantry and silence the Turkish guns----> and possibly unite the Asian wings to seize the back-up Ottoman capital at Bursa, in order to:
1. Restore the straits as a reliably working waterway
2. Destroy completely the Turkish ability to resist Allied terms or to contest the straits
What are the longer and shorter timeframes this might take?
Once the British led Entente forces capture (and repair) any loading docks or wharves at the Bosporus/Black Sea end of the straits, would the Russians transport any infantry units to the city or Thrace to take part in the remaining clean-up of Ottoman resistance? Or to take on garrison duties in areas where fighting is done?
Or would wartime operations and garrisons be left entirely to the British led forces that did most of the conquering, with the Russians awaiting handover of the straits at the end of the war, per treaty.
If the Russians do send reinforcements or garrisons in wartime, would it be more because of them volunteering, or the British asking?
If there is no Entente agreement to send Russians in wartime to the straits, will that be because of Russia being lazy or Britain being exclusionary?
If it is Russia being lazy but still expecting a hand over at the end of the war, is that not super naive on their part?
If it is the British being is exclusionary, what does that mean for Russian morale and Entente relations overall for the rest of the war?
With great achievements come great problems. Or at least questions.