Time Astra

Schematic plan · World War I (Turkish Fronts 1917)

Third Battle of Gaza

All battlesThe event in the chronicleWikipedia
A schematic plan, generated from the statistics of the CAA Database of Battles: the armies' size and width, the hours of fighting, the plan of attack and the outcome are as recorded; the ground and the positions are not.
Rolling, Mixed groundCentreLeft wingRight wingReserveCentreLeft wingRight wingReserveGunsGuns010 km20 kmN

Great Britain (Br Army of Egypt, 72,000 men under Gen Allenby) attacked Ottoman Empire (Tk 7th & 8th Armies, 34,400 men under Gen Kress von Kressenstein) in Palestine. The CAA Database of Battles records 144 hours of fighting on a front of 32 km, a frontal attack, single envelopment, left rear against fortified defense, and that Great Britain won. Losses: Great Britain 2,696 (4%), Ottoman Empire 2,950 (9%).

This plan is generated from those figures. It shows the shape of the battle the database describes: the size and width of the armies, the plan of attack and the outcome. It does not show where the units actually stood.

The armies

Great Britain

Gen Allenby

UnitArmMen
Great Britain left wingInfantry15,869
Great Britain centreInfantry21,158
Great Britain right wingInfantry15,869
Great Britain reserveInfantry13,224
Great Britain artillery (392 guns)Artillery5,880
Gen AllenbyCommander—
In this plan72,000

Ottoman Empire

Gen Kress von Kressenstein

UnitArmMen
Ottoman Empire left wingInfantry7,320
Ottoman Empire centreInfantry9,760
Ottoman Empire right wingInfantry7,320
Ottoman Empire reserveInfantry6,100
Ottoman Empire artillery (260 guns)Artillery3,900
Gen Kress von KressensteinCommander—
In this plan34,400

What the sources report

Great BritainOttoman Empire
Strength, this plan72,00034,400
Losses, this plan2,6962,950

In the CAA Database of Battles

CDB90 no. 328, “Gaza Iii”, compiled for the US Army to study what decides battles. These are the figures a what-if engine can be calibrated against.

Fighting
144 hours
Winner
the attacker
Terrain
Rolling, Mixed
Weather
Dry, Sunny, Temperate, Autumn, Temperate
Defender’s posture
Fortified defense
Front width
32 km (attacker), 48 km (defender)
ForceStrengthLossesHorseGunsPlan and outcome
Great Britainattacker72,0002,6960392Frontal attack; Single envelopment; Left rear; Penetration; Pursued
Ottoman Empiredefender34,4002,9500260Defensive plan; Withdrew with heavy losses

Attacker’s advantages leadership +1 · initiative +1 · surprise +2 · air superiority +1 · combat effectiveness +1

CDB90 (US Army Concepts Analysis Agency, 1990), tidy edition by Jeffrey B. Arnold; data under ODC-BY 1.0.

Notes

On this reconstruction

Generated automatically from the statistics in CDB90. Frontages, depths, distances, the order of events and the terrain are schematic: they follow the recorded strengths, front widths, hours of fighting, tactical plan and outcome, not maps or accounts of the battle. The sources give no hours; the timing is conjectural.

Sources

Facts gathered from Wikidata (CC0), Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0) and Wikimedia Commons (licence per file); the plan and its text are timeastra’s own.