SHIPS VERSUS FORTS.
No part of the Dardanelles is more famous in history than the "Narrows."
Across the narrowest part of the Narrows Xerxes[32] flung his bridge of
boats when he set out to conquer Europe. Herodotus, "the father of
history," tells us that his Persians took seven days and seven nights,
going continuously without any pause, to cross the bridge. A century and
a half later Alexander the Great[33] re-bridged the channel when he
began his great march into Asia. An old story tells us that every night
Leander used to swim the Narrows from the Gallipoli side to visit Hero,
his lady-love, who dwelt at Sestos, on the Asiatic side. The lighthouse
at Sestos guided him; but one stormy night the light failed, and Hero
waited for him in vain. Lord Byron swam the straits at this point in
1810. It was on the Asiatic shore of the Narrows that St. Paul heard the
cry from Macedonia, "Come over and help us."
We need not proceed further with our voyage. The whole problem of
forcing the Dardanelles centres on the "Narrows." Once they are safely
passed, the broad, deep Sea of Marmora is easily traversed, and there is
no obstacle between us and Constantinople. But how to pass the Narrows?
There's the rub.
[Illustration: A Turkish Fort on the Asiatic side of the entrance to the
Dardanelles.
_Photo, Central News._]
You may be sure that the Turks jealously guard these narrow waters. As
early as 1460 forts were erected to defend them. Now both sides of the
Narrows fairly bristle with powerful forts, in which big modern guns are
mounted. You have already heard that the forts are provided with
searchlights, which play across the water at night, and reveal the
movements of even the smallest craft. Not only are the shores studded
with forts, but batteries of big guns are concealed on the heights
behind, and hidden torpedo tubes are ranged along the water's edge.
Nature has also played her part in the defence of this dangerous and
difficult channel. Swift currents sweep through the Narrows, and not
only make navigation difficult, but carry along drifting mines. An enemy
warship venturing into the channel must run the gauntlet of big guns on
the shore and deadly explosives in the sea. While the defences remain
intact the waterway is barred to her. To reduce the forts was,
therefore, our first task.
* * * * *
I have already told you that when Britain declared war on Turkey
(November 5th, 1914) a long friendship was broken. Our support of Turkey
arose out of our deep distrust of Russia, now our good friend and loyal
ally. We distrusted Russia because we knew that ever since the days of
Peter the Great she had coveted Constantinople, and we feared that if
she gained possession of that city our Far Eastern possessions would be
threatened. We therefore threw in our lot with Turkey, and more than
once saved her from being wiped off the map of Europe. During the
present war we have reaped the bitter fruits of Turkish ingratitude.
About the year 1840 it seemed clear that Turkey was going to pieces, and
that the break-up of her empire was only a matter of time. The Tsar
Nicholas said to one of our ambassadors, "We have on our hands a sick
man--a very sick man. It would be a great misfortune if one of these
days he should slip away from us before the necessary arrangements have
been made." He therefore proposed to divide up the Turkish dominions,
taking Constantinople for himself, and offering us Crete and Egypt as
our share of the spoils. The bribe was, of course, refused.
A few years later Greek and Latin priests quarrelled as to who should
take charge of the holy places in Palestine. The Tsar Nicholas supported
the Greeks, and the French became the champions of the Latins. Then the
Tsar put forward a claim that the Sultan should recognize him as the
protector of all Christians within the Turkish Empire. This demand was,
of course, resisted, and in 1853 Russian armies invaded Turkey. We were
not in the least interested in the trivial dispute, but we hated and
feared the prospect of the Russians in Constantinople. Further, as a
great trading nation, we wished to keep the Dardanelles open for
peaceful commerce, and we thought that this could best be done if the
straits remained in the hands of a weak Power such as Turkey. So we
joined the French, and fought the Russians in the Crimea. We lost 24,000
men in the course of the war, and added £41,000,000 to our national
debt; but we prevented the Russians from overwhelming the Turks.
Even this poor success was not lasting. Strife, tumult, and murder
reigned in the Balkans under the cruel and blighting government of the
Sultan, and twenty-four years later Russia again sent her armies into
Turkey. The Russians drove back the Turks, and early in 1878 they were
within a short distance of Constantinople. A cry of alarm and
indignation broke out in England, and people went about the London
streets shouting a popular song with the refrain, "The Russians shall
not take Constantinople."
So strong was public feeling that a British fleet was ordered to the
Dardanelles. The admiral was instructed to pass the straits, and, "if
fired upon and his ships struck, to return the fire, but not to wait to
silence the forts." On February 13, 1878, seven ships of war, under
Admiral Hornby, steamed up the Dardanelles. The Turks manned the forts
at the Narrows; but when the ships came up against a strong current and
in the face of a blinding snowstorm, they forbore to fire their guns.
There was an anxious moment when the _Alexandra_, which led the line,
ran aground on the Asiatic side, within easy range of Turkish batteries.
She was, however, unmolested, and managed to get off after four hours'
hard work. She then joined her consorts in the Sea of Marmora, and the
guns of the ships were trained on the domes and minarets of the Turkish
capital.
No doubt the presence of a British fleet within striking range of
Constantinople had its effect upon the Russians. They did not enter the
city, but agreed to make a treaty with the Powers, by which Serbia,
Montenegro, and Rumania became independent states, and Bulgaria was
granted a form of Home Rule. The Christian states which have been carved
out of Turkey in Europe owe everything to Russia. As you know, the
Christians of the Balkans are Slavs, and are akin to the Russians both
by race and religion. Russia has always been their friend and champion,
and Serbia and Montenegro have stood by their benefactor during the
present war. Rumania had, so far, determined to remain neutral; but
Bulgaria, as we shall learn later, played a traitor's part, and before
the year 1915 was out she had joined the Central Powers.
Britain has suffered greatly for her mistake in bolstering up the Turks,
and in preventing the Russians from becoming masters of Constantinople.
Had they been in possession of that city when the present war broke out,
the work of overcoming the Germans and Austrians would have been shorn
of half its difficulty. The Dardanelles would have been in the hands of
our friends, and there would have been an open sea road by which Russia
could have carried on her overseas trade, and received munitions and
supplies from her Allies. There would have been no need for that naval
attack on the forts of the Dardanelles which I am about to describe; nor
should we have undertaken that land campaign in the Gallipoli peninsula
which cost us more than 117,000 casualties, and ended in failure, only
redeemed by the splendid gallantry of our men.
[Illustration: Map of the Dardanelles.]
You have heard how Admiral Hornby's fleet threaded the Dardanelles in
1878 without firing a shot. Now let me tell you very briefly how a
British squadron forced its way through the straits in spite of strong
resistance. In the year 1807, when we alone of all the European nations
were holding out against the French, it was thought that if a British
fleet were sent to Constantinople the Turks might be forced to break
with Napoleon. So a powerful squadron under Admiral Duckworth sailed for
the Dardanelles, with orders to demand the surrender of the Turkish
fleet. If the demand was refused, he was to bombard Constantinople.
Those were the days of sailing ships, and it was not easy to get
men-of-war and frigates up the narrow winding waters, where the winds
were irregular and the currents were baffling. The "castles" at the
entrance and the forts at the Narrows opened fire on the ships; but
little harm was done, and they passed through and anchored off
Constantinople. It now seemed likely that under the muzzles of British
guns the Sultan would give way. The French agents, however, persuaded
him to "play for time," so that heavy batteries might be set up on the
shores of the straits, and Duckworth's ships might be bombarded as they
tried to return to the Mediterranean. Duckworth, you will notice, was in
a very tight place. He was cut off from the open sea, and he could
obtain no fresh supplies of food, water, or ammunition. It was clear
that when his stores were exhausted he would be at the mercy of his
enemies. So, before he could come to any agreement with the Sultan, he
was forced to retire. His ships sailed slowly across the Sea of Marmora,
and when the Narrows were reached the Turkish batteries opened fire with
huge balls of marble, said to be hewn out of columns found amidst the
ruins of Troy. One enormous stone shot cut the mainmast of the flagship
in two; a second, that hit another vessel, knocked three gun ports into
one, and killed or wounded sixty men. Finally, by good luck, the ships
reached the open sea in safety. All on board were convinced that the
experiment was too risky to be repeated.
* * * * *
Our greatest sailor, Nelson, always believed that strong, heavily armed
forts could resist the attack of ships. When he was asked to reduce
certain forts in Corsica by means of gun fire, he pointed out that stone
walls were stronger than wooden walls, and that red-hot cannon balls
from the guns of the forts might set his ships on fire. Since his day
wooden walls have been replaced by armour plate, and red-hot shot by
high-explosive shells. Nevertheless it is still true that shore
batteries are more than a match for the heaviest armed battleships
afloat. Of course, weak or badly-manned forts have been overcome by the
guns of ships, as in the case of those at Alexandria, which were
silenced by a British fleet in 1882; but as a rule ships run a great
risk in attacking forts at close range, and are more than likely to come
off second best.
While a fort can only be put out of action by gun fire, a ship can be
sunk not only by gun fire, but by mines or torpedoes. Forts can be
strengthened to almost any extent, and protected by earthworks of all
kinds, but there is a limit to the thickness and weight of the armour
plate with which ships can be clad. Further, while shore batteries can
be so hidden that they cannot be detected even from aeroplanes, a ship
in action is in full sight of the fort, and is thus a good target. Then,
again, hits made on the outer slopes of forts do but little damage. The
only hits that really count are those which destroy or dismount guns,
and such "direct hits" are few and far between. On the other hand, every
shot that hits the ship is bound to tell, and the ship may be put out of
action without a single gun being hit. You must also remember that while
the fortress gunner is aiming at a wall twenty or thirty feet high and a
hundred feet long, the ship's gunner can only fire at a low mound, or at
a battery not more than four and a half feet in height.
Even more difficult is the task of a ship's gunner when he is aiming at
forts or batteries on high ground. It is not easy for a naval gun to
bring an effective fire to bear on a target at a high level above the
sea. Batteries on rising ground are difficult to reach, and when they
are "spotted" they can be shifted to other positions, in which case the
ship's gunners have to find the range all over again. When the shells
from the ship's guns strike the ground they throw up columns of dust,
and it is difficult for observers on board the ship or in the air to see
exactly where the shells fall; but shells from the forts or land
batteries drop into the sea, and throw up fountains of water which are
clearly visible, and enable the observers on land to discover and set
right all errors of range.
A ship attacking a fort from the sea may silence it for a time; but when
the ship draws off, as it is bound to do, the fort may be repaired and
new guns may be mounted. Unless a landing-party goes ashore and utterly
destroys the fort, there is no guarantee that the ship's work will not
have to be done all over again. Even if forts are blown up, land
batteries can be established, and resistance can be continued. Without
land forces to occupy the shores on which the forts are situated, no
really lasting result can be obtained by the ships.
Now that you understand the disadvantages under which a fleet attacks
forts, you will naturally ask why the British Government only sent ships
to break down the defences of the Dardanelles. Why was not an army
landed on the Gallipoli peninsula, to get behind the forts, or to
attack them in the rear while the ships bombarded them from the sea? In
the first weeks of February we were not ready to fit out and send a
sufficiently strong army to the Gallipoli peninsula. Why, then, were the
naval attacks not postponed until the army _was_ ready? Probably it was
thought that if we hastened to show our strength in Near Eastern waters
Greece, Bulgaria, and perhaps Rumania, might be won over to our side,
or, at least, persuaded to turn a deaf ear to the tempting voice of the
Kaiser. Further, some of the rulers of our navy really believed that the
armament of our warships was now so powerful that the straits could be
carried by gun fire alone. The idea of our Admiralty was to silence the
forts at the entrance to the straits, then with a fleet of mine-sweepers
from the North Sea to clear the inner waters so that warships could
steam sufficiently near to the forts at the Narrows to concentrate a
fierce fire on them. When they were silenced the ships would dash
through.
But even supposing the forts could be thus silenced, and our warships
could slip through the straits, what then? So long as the Turks held the
shores they could repair the damage to their forts, mount new batteries,
strew the waters with mines, and take a heavy toll of our ships when
lack of supplies forced them to return. Those who planned this naval
attack probably thought that the Turks would give in as soon as
Constantinople was shelled. But such a happy ending to the adventure was
very doubtful.
So you see that unless the ships were supported by land forces
sufficient to hold at least one of the shores of the straits, all the
efforts of the fleet were likely to prove fruitless. Nevertheless an
unsupported naval attack was decided upon, and this was the first of the
many costly mistakes which were made at the Dardanelles. When our ships
began bombarding the forts, the Turks and their German advisers knew
that we should have to make a land attack sooner or later. With feverish
haste they therefore began to dig trenches and make gun pits on the
Gallipoli peninsula. Thus, the Turks were afforded a breathing space in
which to make any future land operations doubly difficult.
[Footnote 32: King of ancient Persia from 485 to 465 B.C. He crossed the
"Narrows" with a vast army in 481 B.C.]
[Footnote 33: King of Macedonia from 336 to 323 B.C. He conquered all
Western Asia, and even the north of India. As a soldier few of the great
generals of history can compare with him.]