Historical Gallipoli {was: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] More about Au cooking than I ever knew I knew.}

[Andrew MacIan]

Greetings from Andrew!

Sorry to break in, but it seems my understanding is
incorrect in re the title battle.  Or so it seems from
the poster's comment......
--- storm <miss_megan at dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
{snip}
> The  history (or alleged history) is that women made
> them for the men who were
> at galloplli (where the british sent the ANZACs -
> Austalian and New Zealand Army
> Corp - to die).
{snip}

Per my reading of Eggenberger's classic _An
Encyclopedia of Battles_, the disaster (for it can be
considered little, IMO) was due in large part to bad
operational execution of an otherwise acceptable plan.
 The landing took place a mile further north than was
planned, and to make a long story short, things went
downhill from there.  Secondary to this was that the
Turkish force had achieved positional superiority on a
headland that permitted their artillery to dominate
the British/ANZAC position.  One reaming question is
how well the officers on the ground handled things,
but this, as is the case with every battle reviewed in
history, is a classical example of hindsight always
being perfect.

Also, the set of operations maps and commentary put
out by the US Military Academy on WWI indicates a
similar theme.  The design of the operation was OK,
but the execution was hardly that.

Having said all that, could I ask you for your sources
as to your statement above?  I have relied on the
above two; if there are any, particularly since you're
in Australia, I'd love to know what they are.

Cordially,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/