"Celebrating" the ANZACs

Remove this Banner Ad

The battle of "the Nek" was August 7 1915. I think Gasometre is referring to the start to the Battle of the Somme.
Soldiers were ordered to have no bullets in the breach in a charge because the Commanders believed if they were reloading in a bayonet charge they would be slowing them selves down to reaching their objectives(enemy trenches) the Generals (generally veterans of Crimean war where the machine gun was not present) had no idea of the effectiveness of strategically placed weapons. Wasn't until later in the war when the creeping barrage come into play as did tank warfare.

Ah, rightio!

I'm pretty sure the charge at the Nek had the soldiers unload and leave all ammo behind too.
 
Ah, rightio!

I'm pretty sure the charge at the Nek had the soldiers unload and leave all ammo behind too.
I've never heard that before Edgie, as it turned out those that weren't shot and killed in their first movements from the Aus line lay wounded in nml until night, those that fell lay there till 1919 when the cwgc returned to bury them
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It was, I remember thinking "Wtf are you doing that for???" as a youngster watching it. I assume it is historically accurate... if not that's pretty big "artistic liberty"
Historically accurate sort of, portrayed as a feint attack to divert British landings at Suvla, more so to aid the Malone's NZ attack at Chunick Bair. Portrayed in the movie as English Colonel to "push on" but no he was Australian Colonel Antill. Weir got some of right, was made to look a little anti British.
 
Historically accurate sort of, portrayed as a feint attack to divert British landings at Suvla, more so to aid the Malone's NZ attack at Chunick Bair. Portrayed in the movie as English Colonel to "push on" but no he was Australian Colonel Antill. Weir got some of right, was made to look a little anti British.

Yes I know that part was wrong, I was talking about the specific act of taking the bullets out.

There's a school of thought that argues that higher up Australians, the kind that would become officers, had strong English style accents during that time, and that the so called English officers in Gallipoli may actually be aussies.

Highly doubtful, but an interesting tidbit.
 
I do have a problem with the pre-game coverage of the ANZAC day match becoming longer and longer every year. Just start with the basic formalities, last post, the anthem, we don't need a hour by hour blow of how each individual player and coach spent their ANZAC morning.
 
For us to try to even understand the ANZACs is near on impossible.

Culturally there was no internet, computers, phones and cars minimal, aeroplanes still basic, it took weeks to get to England by boat and more importantly the majority of Australians were from English heritage and had a close affinity with the Empire.

It wasn't also an invasion of the sovereignty of Turkey.

Try to understand the ANZACs on an individual level. Look at the photos of these young blokes and rows of photos of the young boys every Saturday and Sunday and just say thanks.....
 
Today I saw an ad for a big bank organizing a fun run through Kings Park "in memory of the ANZACs". Pay your money, wear a shirt with the bank's logo on it so they profit from it all....FFS its just so wrong
 
Ive always wondered why there is never any recognition of the 87,000 Turks we killed in Gallipoli who were just trying to defend their nation and families (10 times more casualties than Australia)
 
Ive always wondered why there is never any recognition of the 87,000 Turks we killed in Gallipoli who were just trying to defend their nation and families (10 times more casualties than Australia)
It might surprise you but in dead alone at Gallipoli the British lost 34,000, the French nearly 10,000 and then Australia came in third in the casualty count. This excludes the Indians and the NZers as well.The losses of the allies were spread over a number of countries....
 
Australian losses were much lower across the board in absolute numbers, but huge in relation to Autralias population at the time. I can't remember the exact stat, but I recall something along the lines of 25% of Australian men aged 17-30 were killed or wounded - think of the flow-on effect that has on society after the war. Also unique to the Australian forces is that they were all volunteers. Those sort of factors are a big part in why its remembered the way it is (corporate exploitation aside).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

These poor young naive blokes who never had a shot at life, sent to the other side of the world to die painfully and probably petrified, in no small part due to the incompetence of their own superiors.

I've often thought about why this reality is not told or acknowledged. I think if nothing else it is important to highlight the bravery and achievement that goes along with being a soldier so that a nation can continue to both recruit soldier and keep the existing ones in a state of mind where they can do their job.


And yes, the incompetence of the superiors did play a big part - WW1 saw a big advance in the technology of warfare but not so big an advance in the strategy - a reather horrible combination.
 
Sorry but there is a bit of retrospective garbage about the Anzacs.

Firstly they were volunteers who believed in what they were doing.

Secondly Australians were under their own command which meant that their officers can andusually did look after them and were largely competent. Men such as Monash.

Thirdly there was no death penalty for desertion or mutiny in the Australian army. The English, theFrench, the Germans were to a great degree conscripts and actually shot 100s of their own troops to,as the French said, encourager les autres. So much so that the English commanders complained about how they could not discipline the Australians themselves.

Yes Australian men died, some were rogues others cruel but they were in better fighting conditions than most.
 
It might surprise you but in dead alone at Gallipoli the British lost 34,000, the French nearly 10,000 and then Australia came in third in the casualty count. This excludes the Indians and the NZers as well.The losses of the allies were spread over a number of countries....

I'm aware of the casualty numbers. Australia was 4th overall.

The Turks have more casualties never found than we have dead. :(

They have done so much for us in preserving Anzac cove and accommodating Anzac day commemorations. I just feel we could do more for them. At least acknowledge their losses.
 
Last edited:
Anyone watch the Australian drama 'Gallipoli' lately?

I thought it was really good. Surprised it didn't get the ratings. People more interested in the dramas of renovating a house which is sad.
 
is ANZAC Day a big thing in New Zealand?

Do heaps of Kiwis go to Gallipoli each year dressed in All Black jumpers and wrap themselves in flags?

Genuine question
Sometimes their pollies give the poms bloody good sprays at the official dawn ceremonies.
 
Sorry but there is a bit of retrospective garbage about the Anzacs.

Firstly they were volunteers who believed in what they were doing.

Secondly Australians were under their own command which meant that their officers can andusually did look after them and were largely competent. Men such as Monash.

Thirdly there was no death penalty for desertion or mutiny in the Australian army. The English, theFrench, the Germans were to a great degree conscripts and actually shot 100s of their own troops to,as the French said, encourager les autres. So much so that the English commanders complained about how they could not discipline the Australians themselves.

Yes Australian men died, some were rogues others cruel but they were in better fighting conditions than most.
Initially Australia wasn't in command of its own troops early in ww1. It wasn't until '17 or possibly as late as '18 that Monash was given control of his own troops after much rallying from the Australian Gov of the time. Believe it or not Monash was and is still considered one of the most successful strategists of all the Allied Generals mainly because he would at least venture to the front line.
 
Anyone watch the Australian drama 'Gallipoli' lately?

I thought it was really good. Surprised it didn't get the ratings. People more interested in the dramas of renovating a house which is sad.

Not according to the 'Media & Entertainment Board' or myself...I couldn't get over how shitful Ep 01 was...and I saw it twice.
 
My understanding of the purpose of the Gallipoli campaign by the allied forces was to enable a supply line from the Mediterranean to Russia. So no direct threat to Australia.
No direct threat but Australia as part of the Commonwealth committed ( I can't recall how many troops exactly) , those recruited initially were the fittest and thought it would be over before they got to France where they thought they were going. Anyway the were committed to British control and the new battle front of The Dardenelles
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top