GALLIPOLI AIR WAR

[David B]

Just finished reading a book from the local library, which for a change barely mentions ground based operation on Gallipoli but is concentrated on air operations prior to the landings in April 15 and continues

until after the ground withdrawal in Dec 15. I was amazed at the extend of the operations carried out by the RNAS and some of their squadrons in what were, at the start, somewhat flimsy aircraft but during the

whole operation very few of them were lost due to enemy action. This is quite a large book of nearly 400 pages, well written by its author Hugh Dolan, and well worth a read by any one interested in the air

aspect of that operation.

[b3rn]

I really enjoyed it - want to watch the TV doco.

[wheelsjbl]

The TV doco by Dolan has more to do with the ground war as seen from the air than the aviation side of things and does not cover the air war in anything like the detail of the book.

I saw it a couple of time BEFORE I got the book and was left with the impression that there were a couple of aircraft just generally flying about particularly over the Forts.

After reading the book I too was surprised by the extent of the aerial aspect of the campaign.

It certainly is not highlighted anywhere else I have seen and although I knew there were a "couple" of aircraft at Gallipoli, after reading the book I have had my eyes opened.

There was much more going on upstairs than I thought.

Brian

[Dolphin]

The book is certainly the best (only?) account of the air battle over the Gallipoli battles, and is to be prized for that. However, I found the author's style just a little annoying, especially the use of nicknames, rather than proper names, for the personnel involved. The author didn't know them personally, so it seems a touch presumptuous. The frequent comparisons with the author's experiences in Iraq didn't do much to advance what was, after all, a history of events 99 years ago.

Perhaps it's just my choice, but I thought the style tended to spoil an essentially fascinating insight into a little known aspect of the campaign.

Gareth

[David B]

Have to agree with you Gareth, I was lost for a while early in the book when the author reverted to time in Iraq, wondered whether he had changed planets. However it covers an aspect of the Gallipoli campaign

that I personally didn't know existed. It is also a refreshing change from the wall to wall Gallipoli ground war tomes that one finds in the public libraries.

[b3rn]

The TV doco by Dolan has more to do with the ground war as seen from the air than the aviation side of things and does not cover the air war in anything like the detail of the book.

Damn - thought it was the book in moving pictures.

The book is certainly the best (only?) account of the air battle over the Gallipoli battles, and is to be prized for that. However, I found the author's style just a little annoying, especially the use of nicknames, rather than proper names, for the personnel involved. The author didn't know them personally, so it seems a touch presumptuous. The frequent comparisons with the author's experiences in Iraq didn't do much to advance what was, after all, a history of events 99 years ago.

Perhaps it's just my choice, but I thought the style tended to spoil an essentially fascinating insight into a little known aspect of the campaign.

It jarred at first. I almost put it aside after a few pages, but glad I didn't.