Anzac Day 100th

People don't realise that the Gallipoli landings were the largest amphibious landing in modern warfare up until that point.
Steam and oar powered landing craft, think about that, rowing a wooden boat into enemy machine gun fire.

 
pardus said:
People don't realise that the Gallipoli landings were the largest amphibious landing in modern warfare up until that point.
Steam and oar powered landing craft, think about that, rowing a wooden boat into enemy machine gun fire.


Click to expand...

Rather similar thinking about pre D-Day in WW II. The plan to attack thru Italy, "The soft under-belly of Europe". Granted, the WW I plan included control of the water route, and put more cards on the table. Second, the locals, Italians, were not taking up arms in the same manner of "Johnny Turk" did in The Great War.
 
CQB said:
One stat that was brought up during the week: 96% or so of Kiwis where either killed or wounded. That. Is. Profoundly. Sad.
Click to expand...

Hmm, not quite accurate from my understanding. The usual quote based off of Gen Hamilton's figures of Kiwi troops on Gallipoli has the casualty rate at about 87%.

Hamilton wrote that a total of 8556 New Zealanders landed on the peninsula – of whom 7447 were killed or wounded, a staggering casualty rate of 87%.
Click to expand...

However Hamilton's figure was just the initial 8.5K Kiwi troops landed and didn't add the thousands of reinforcements to the total number.
New number and stats are far from perfect as they don't account for the Kiwis who were evacuated and sent back to Gallipoli (sometimes several times) which would detract from the final figure and also some small units were not added for reasons I know not why.
So, the revised figure according to the 2005 book Bloody Gallipoli (which I just ordered) is 13,977.

In 2005, Richard Stowers published Bloody Gallipoli, a meticulous account of the human cost of New Zealand’s involvement. Stowers calculated that about 14,000 Kiwis served on Gallipoli – his precise number was 13,977, 63% higher than the accepted figure.
Click to expand...

This brings the revised casualty rate to 53%.

reducing the New Zealand casualty rate to 53%, similar to that of the Australians whom they fought alongside.
Click to expand...

This comes from David Green - Historian at the Ministry for Culture & Heritage, New Zealand.

The discrepancy in numbers could be confusion with the casualty figures from the Wellington Infantry BN who during the defensive battle on Chunuk Bair.

During this battle the Wellingtons who started the battle with 760 men, were relieved with only 70 men unhurt. A casualty figure of roughly 91% if my shoddy calculations are correct.
Chunuk Bair was the ultimate goal of the ANZAC landings, and the Kiwi's finest hour during the campaign. The taking of Chunuk Bair was the reason why the Aussies were sent to successfully attack Lone Pine and were needlessly slaughtered at the Nek (as depicted in the movie Gallipoli), this was all done as a diversion to allow the Kiwis to take Chunuk Bair, which was the highest point in the area.

A couple of photos from my private collection, taken on ANZAC day 2001 in Gallipoli.

Turk trench on Chunuk Bair that the Kiwi's occupied and defended, looking back towards Suvla bay if I'm not mistaken. So that means while 91% of the Kiwis on this point were being slaughtered, they could look down and watch the British troops (who had just landed in order to take advantage of the taking of the high ground), stop, make tea, have a swim and rest because they were "tired"... (Brit commander's fault, not the troops).
Chunuk Bair 1.jpg

Modern day Turk Soldier standing on the heights of Chunuk Bair as his ancestors had done all those years ago.
Chunuk Bair 2.jpg

Pardus in a Turk covered trench that the Aussies captured on Lone Pine.

me Lone Pine.jpg
 

Similar threads

digrar
Sergeant Brett Wood MG 2 Commando Regiment
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
x SF med
x SF med
Back
Top