Were they good, bad, mediocre?Also which Aussie historian is in the right here?Well /his/?
They were the second best at land warfare for the British Empire during WW1. The best being the Canadians of course.
>>17416705>canadiansOperation Rake couldn’t come any sooner. Hurry Trump hurry.
>>17416705>became famous for losing against the roachesYeah I don't think so
>>17415994Here in Australia we are only taught about Gallipoli and that pisses me off because it was a fucking DEFEAT and FAILURE, whereas, for example, we performed admirably on the Western front and more importantly we fucking steamrolled in North Africa and the Middle East and were famed for our cavalry (having some of the best horses in the world) and we were, if I recall correctly, the first troops to enter either Jerusalem or Damascus, having rode ahead of the rest of the army and captured the city from the Turks. It's an intense source of pride for me, as an Aussie, that Australian troops recpatured such an ancient city from the Turks, the ones that defeated none other than the Romans. The Turks were worthy enemies.
>>17417058They then curb stomped the roaches across the Middle East. Also did well on the Western Front, such as the Battle of Hamel, the Battle of Amiens (Black day of the German Army).What this guy says >>17417091
Bump
>>17417091>>17417133Gallipolis terrain seriously benefited the Turks. ANZAC bravery can’t be blamed as the attack was a fools errand
