Talk:Naval operations in the Dardanelles campaign

About Turkish generals

Mustafa Kemal was low ranking officer back then. He had many superiors, like Von Sanders..

Sources?

From what I see, there are none listed, and the links below do not provide all of the information given in the article. Should this article be marked as not citing sources? Akallabet 06:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've also re-assessed it as start class as it fails the referencing requirements for B-class. This is a pity because it is otherwise a very good article. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather silly that, really, categorising a lengthy and informtive article simply as 'start' just because no one inserted refs? Sandpiper (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The numbers indicated are total casualties, not killed. This is a gross mistake for both sides. On the Turkish side total killed in this particular campaign were about 90,000. 15,000 of them in the hospitals, behind the lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How do 6 battleships have 252,000 casualties, even including wounded. And why are the figures for both sides almost identical ? The casualty figures look made-up to me.Eregli bob (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some lazy person just copy-pasted the casualties from the entire Gallipoli_Campaign onto this page. But the article doesn't state the casualties so I wouldn't know what else to put there.134.58.253.57 (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I forgot to login. lol. Anyways I removed the casualty counts, I do not believe they have a meaning for this article, if anyone can find a casualty count that fits this article better, that'd be great.Andreas Willow (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath

In the section "Aftermath":

"De Robeck was reported to be distraught from the losses [22]. He wrote on 18th March: After losing so many ships I shall obviously find myself superseded tomorrow morning.[23] He had been in charge of a fleet that had suffered the most serious loss to the Royal Navy since Trafalgar"

Yet in the Wikipedia entry "The Battle of Trafalgar":

"The French and Spanish lost 22 ships, while the British lost none in the most decisive naval engagement of the Napoleonic Wars." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.211.131 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This section, like the rest of the article, seems to be representing mostly the Allied views and the post-mortem elaborated over the years, mostly unchallelenged. It is not a foregone conclusion that one "more" push and the fleet would have sailed through Canakkale. They had not even touched the ten layers of mine fields protecting the narrow part. In addition the more numerous short range guns had not seen much action and they would have been a lot more effective. There is no basis for the myth that just one more push would have turned Gallipoli into a victory. Turkish will and determination was a huge factor in the outcome, not the number of guns or Allied strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.158.17 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Loss figures

In the infobox there is a misinterpretation of loss figures. Since the article is about the naval operations, the human loss figures should be given accordingly. The human loss of both sides is under 1000, and not more. The figures given in the box are 252 000 and 253 000 . These figures refer to land battles after troop landing (which is not the subject of this article). So the human loss figures must be replaceds by correct figures. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Title

The title should have read "Allied Naval Operations", as it covers only and only the Allied naval operations. Ottomans did have a navy and limited as it was, they had operations, some with siginificant results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.162.40 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919145649/http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr:80/muze/turkish/Fsergi_alanlari.htm to http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/muze/Turkish/Fsergi_alanlari.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

Imported the background section of Gallipoli Campaign and edited it to fit existing text, tidied citations and references, rm dupe wikilinks altered a few headers. Keith-264 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Added some detail from OH G I and did some tidying.Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Found citations for all bar one detail.Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Gibson, Isham WorsleyKeith-264 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Got fed up waiting for the Turkish task force to alter their class rating and did it unilaterally.Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Did some copy-editions and tinkered with section layout, still not quite satisfactory.Keith-264 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Naval air operations

Seems like this is a missing topic. They were not substantial, but both sides utilized sea planes in various roles. Worth a section I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.176.219 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)