WW1

Hmmmm, old myths die hard. The means to fight a firepower war didn't last long because of the unprecedented ammunition use especially by artillery. Most armies fired their prewar stock in 1914 and had to vastly increase production. The methods of overcoming firepower were entrenchments and obstructions but these are defensive. To restore mobility to the battlefied firepower needed to be superior to that of the enemy. All armies struggled with the need for gargantuan increases of ammunition, heavy guns and howitzers, siege warfare equipment and specialisation. For example it wasn't until the Battle of Arras in april 1917 that the British army was ready for industrial warfare.

Amazon.co.uk: Instructions for the Training of Divisions for Offensive Action 1916, Instructions for the Training of Platoons for Offensive Action 1917: British Infantry Tactics in World War 1: Books: S. Corkerry isn't all that different to the German 'stosstrupp' concept. Unfortunately the war didn't wait for British industry to catch up with the expansion of the army so it was committed to the Battle of the Somme to take pressure off the French at Verdun and to conform to the synchronised attack strategy agreed at the Chantilly Conference in late 1915.

Attack technique changed from breakthrough attacks intended to gain lots of ground to short range advances inside artillery range intended to capture points of tactical significance and use them to impose attrition on the German army - hence the lack of movement until the German army was too weak to stop the Allies.

Far from being futile slaughters the Somme was 'The muddy grave of the German field army' and 3rd Ypres 'reduced the German army to a militia'.

WWI wasn't an aberration except in the absence of voice control. Allied infantry losses in Normandy 1944 were proportionately higher than in WWI.Amazon.co.uk: The Smoke and the Fire: Myths and Anti-myths of War, 1861-1945: Books: John Terraine gives the ultra-revisionist view of the war.

 

I must say I've read the topic and I'm happy I found some ww1 here.

in ww1 they thought: bloody nice, a war!! well see you guys later I'm gonna get me some medals and honour.

silly way of thinking no?

well when the war started they realised it wasn't like that. Belgium was being run over by the brutal germans and France was in danger too. Britain came in and helped us allot. but when they flooded the yser (the river) and the germans where stuck then the digging in started. firts on Belgium/French/Brit side later on German side.

throughout the war you can see the devolipment of the threnches. whats weird is the fact that the british high-commands kept on thinking after 1,2 years that this trench war wouldn't keep on going on.

" Enough men would do the trick." but it didn't. why? well the germans where quite happy too with the situation. they even made their trenches like little citties. good shelter,a kitchen,windows in the bunkers with protection,... and not to forget they where the first to really understand the importance of a machine gun against man attacking from straight ahead.

untill 1917 british high-command forbidded to expand the machine-guns per batallion because it wasn't "effective" enough.

thank god for you 'yanks' that you came in the war because you gave a new influence in the war and deploided some new tactics (later on in the war in the beginning, it was dramatic.)

and yes the marne 'der kaiserslacht' the germans were run out of ammo,food and will to fight. from then on whe had a moving war again. but the four years before where tragic. think about the somme and passchendaele.

 

So wasn't the British inventions of the tank, creeping barrages etc etc enough to change the way the war was fought?
As for the Yanks winning the war, rubbish, the Germans were worn out before the AEF became effective.
As soon as Haig saw how effective tanks were in Sept 1916 he wanted a thousand more.
He also planned an amphibious landing on the belgium coast but it never happened.

It has been proven, although I can't find a link to it, that you had more chance of becoming a casualty in the infantry in Normandy 1944 than the on the Somme in 1916.

 

The open and semi-open warfare of 1914 and 1918 were much more lethal than the years of trench warfare. Infantry casualties in Normandy were so high that a new category 'double intense' was used to describe them in the British army.

 

they were all worn out. at the end of 1917. after the battle of the somme and the battle of paschendaele. everybody needed some rest at that time in the war.

you cant really say that tanks were being fully deploided in ww1. right you've got cambrai but for the rest?

I know that usa didn't won the war. but they helped with fresh men.

 

No, the tank proved not to be a war winner on its own for the Allies. There were literally well over 100 actions in which tanks (British and or French) participated in WW 1. With a couple of exceptions like Cambari Allied offensives relying on tanks failed to achieve a breakthrough. What the tank did do was bring Allied casualties to "acceptable" levels to allow them to resume offensive operations.
It was more a combination of hard fighting and the economic and moral collapse of Germany that brought an end to the war. What else could one expect when in 1918 the Germans were pulling up the lead pipe plumbing in Berlin to make bullets and people everywhere in Germany were starving? If anything, the British naval blockade was having more effect than tanks were.
If you look critically at battles where tanks were used enmasse in WW 1 you find in most that casualties among the vehicles ran 30 to 50% per day of running vehicles. In most big operations where maybe 300 to 500 tanks were available on the opening day of an offensive (say like Soissions / 2nd Marne or Cambari) by the third or fourth day there are literally just a handful of tanks still running and fighting.
If anything, the paradigim shift in systems that was revolutionary was the German adoption of Stroßtruppen tactics. Their failure in the West had far more to do with lack of resources on the part of the Germans than anything intrinsic in the system itself. Had Germany had more resources the British and French, I firmly believe, would have lost WW 1 in 1918 to the Kaiser offensives just as Italy and Russia were knocked out of the war before them by the Germans using the same methods.

 

I believe it was Sir Douglas Haig's mistakes and obsession of having some sort of victory. He had no care in the world for the lives of his soliders on the front. That is what the problem was. He didn't care about the lives of thousands of soliders. He just kept on barking the orders out to keep on sending the men "over the top". If Haig loses his post (as he almost did in early 1918) I think there is a mild change in tactics. Even a mild change would of saved thousands of lives!!

 

TA.
I wasn't saying the tank won the war.
I was arguing several peoples points on here that no-one thought of new ideas in the way of fighting.The tank was one of them.

JTF-2
As for Haig not caring about the lives of his soldiers I disagree.
Parts of France and most of Belgium were occupied by by an invader.
How else are you going to get rid of that invader without fighting?
Ask them politely to leave?
Of course he wanted a Victory and he got one.
Funny that I never hear the French or German Generals being slagged off, only Haig.

 

Here's a reason why the British and Commonwealth Forces took so many casualties in WW1.
It's because it fought the main body of the German Army.
One of the most professional and well organised armies in the world at that time.
The British had never fought a war on that scale before.
Even in WW2 Britain never fought the MAIN BODY of the German Army.
It was the French in 1940 and then the Soviets in 41-45.
To compare British and Commonwealth losses in WW1 to WW2 is in error.
Maybe compare them to Soviet losses in WW2 would be better and we come out better in that.

1916
The BEF fought 95 1/2 identified German Divisions.
43 1/2 twice, 4 three times.

1917
The BEF fought against 131 identified Divisions.

1918
The Germans attacked the British front alone with 109 Divisions, 50 on day one, 21st March.
Then in the Final Offensive the BEF engaged 99 Divisions.
Some up to four times.

This is the British and Commonwealth Forces taking on and destroying the German Army in the field.
A superb acheivement. In that time they were lead by Haig.
In any other war he'd be hailed as the greatest British General ever.
He isn't, to many he is thought of as a heartless butcher.
Not to me he isn't.

 

Wessex,

I do respect your opinion on Sir Haig, and I might of been a bit overboard with the statement of saying "he did not care for the lives of his soliders" But I do stand behind my statemen that he might of been the problem for all the failures in 1917 and early 1918. We all know that he has been blasted in his tactic and strategic decisions. One that comes to mind is the battles of Somme and Passchendaele. Where he sent thousands of young men to fight to obtain a impossible achievment. Passchendael in particular where he sent thousands to gain a mere 6 kms, just to lose it to the german offensive a short 6 months later in the spring of 1918!
I think if it was anyone else in command he would of been sacked after that, but being close to the King, I think saved his job.

I think you might agree in saying that he was under great pressure to show a victory of some sort in 1917. And by ordering the attack of Passchendaele was a complete waste of lives and resources for such a small gain (6kms).

 

I think we have to realise that for long periods the war on the western front was not about capturing ground but destroying the enemy.
How do you destroy the enemy? Engage them in battle and grind them down.

 

>Richard asked
>I still don't really know what were the reasons for digging in? It's like all sides were trying to work out where they go from here onwards. Ok that's a bit lame I know that so what was the real thinking behind it all?

I am far from an expert, at age 55 just beginning to learn about my grandfathers experience on the western front... but one truth I have always understood inalienable.

The Germans were prepared for the war on the western front well before the allies. They had secured positions on all the high ground and had dug in 30m + deep with entire tunneled living communites and concrete fortifications. When the allies entered the war they had no choice. The Germans could not be moved out of position.

 

I was surfing tonight and found this great picture site that has stuff I have not seen before such as gas masks for horses, a trench digging machine, and a great sniper observation post, plus many more rare pictures.

Photos from The Great War - Military Photos