waffenlandser

[Black Watch]

Sorry Kate, I deleted my post after I read further and saw other's stating these facts. Now your reply to me looks a bit silly

[dutchbarge]

In calling their sacrifice a waste you deny that sacrifice and demean their deaths.

Not necessarily.....imagine that you are told that there are children trapped in a burning building. You run in to save them and searching for them you are overcome by smoke, pass out and die. Turns out there weren't any children in the building. Your death was pointless, but, it is still unquestionably an heroic sacrifice.

Cheers, Bill

[Ian grant]

You never answered my comments on your second quote. The tanks that were off loaded at Omaha beach sank in water too deep for them. The flotation collars were a total failure. The same went for the tanks on the Somme. They got mired down in the mud and easily destroyed by German gunners.

Unfortunately on the Somme, tanks were used as battering rams, as were the infantry. Never as encircling weapons to get into open country.

This was reseved for the poor horses and their hapless riders. I believe the British lost about 250,000 horses in WW1.

Enfield, i'm going to poke my nose in here.

Taking your last post bit by bit..... The tanks off loaded at Omaha did not sink in water too deep for them, they would have done just fine in mid atlantic, and the floatation collars were not a total failure, they did exactly what was expected of them keeping a tank afloat that was full of air, not WATER !! they were unloaded in water that was too rough for them, the waves were continuously swamping the tanks, and not being water tight and so heavy ..... well Archimedes law took care of the rest.

As far as the tanks employed on the western front, i don't see how you can make a fair comparison with those at Omaha.

Tank technology and more importantly tactics were not even in their infancy, they were embryonic. Yes they were used as battering ram's - we are not talking Tiger tanks here, able to fire shells several thousand metres with acuracy, the british Mk1 ( male ) had two 6 pdrs and 4 hotchkiss MG's, the female four vickers .303, and two Hotchkiss, with the available armament what else would you expect of them ? By 1918 i think the lessons were beggining to be learnt though or am i missing something. The infantry being used as battering rams, yes if you want to use that terminology, always have been always will be - 'the poor bloody infantry'. Attacking a well prepared & dug in enemy will always be a bloody affair, and in those days neither side had access to air support of the kind we've seen in later conflicts, even then i could give you examples when even with that advantage infantry casualties have been hideous.

250,000 horses lost, i'll assume that figure is correct, and i admit i'm not talking from a position of knowledge here, so i'll apply logic, and you may disagree so feel free to correct me, your last comment infers that these losses were largley as a result of Cavalry actions, but as far as i'm aware with the exception of a very few instances, the Brithish Cavalry regts were employed in that role mainly at the beginning, and the end of the war, in between the British staff knew full well the impotency of the cavalry used for the purpose it was intended. As a result only a small fraction of the horses killed were as a result of classic cavalry actions, and i would say that the vast majority died as a result of shelling, being stuck in mud and disease. Of neccesity the Horse was the backbone of all the armies transport logistics, and in a war the scale of the Great War, i would have said that losses of that nature would be inevitable. As far as Field Marshall Douglas Haig goes, those that remember a previous thread sometime back will know i'm no great fan of his for reasons i'm not going to resurrect here, but those opinions are of the man not particularly the General, imo he was as were all the staff of both sides in that war trying to deal with a style of war, and on a scale the world had never seen before, and without the technology available in later wars, and sitting still was not an option. Hindsight is a wonderful thing yet even so would any of todays generals do any better given the situation that faced both sides, and with the technology available to them, i think not i think the military of both sides found themselves in a situation they had no answer to, and yet faced with an aggressive enemy could not stand and do nothing. The Kaiser was an expansionist who wanted to dominate Europe, the events at Sarajevo, i believe gave him exactly the opportunity he was waiting for, making peace with him was most certainly not an option, and Parliment knew it, so did the French. A few years back i was in the school of Lions led by Donkeys, ....... and no doubt there were many instances of that, mainly caused by a class system where the talents of many working class men who were potential officer material were ignored, and who would have made excellent officers. Horrific officer casulties forced the army into rethinking it's position out of neccesity it's true, but the lessons were learn't as shown by another topic on this forum concerning Walter Tull. The allied armies were coming out of the dark ages, and it was not anywhere near the fault of tactics, rather that imo the technology of the time had overtaken them, even the advent of the bolt action rifle was a factor (consider the American Civil war which was fought with Muskets, single shot carbines, and cannon), without the Vickers and Maxim guns, and artillery that could fire shells over distances untinkable 30 years before, this is what caused the carnage, and the lack of further technologies to answer it. Haig the General i think had a thankless task, pressured by parliment to produce results, and yet lacking the technological know how and resources to achieve them, the only answer was to keep pressing the enemy with the only resource he had available to any real extent - manpower, had he had a few squadrons of Hawker Typoons and Lancaster bombers i'm sure he would have made good use of them, and the story would have been very different. With the benefit of hindsight come rose coloured glasses, fancy flanking manouvers through hundreds of yards of barbed wire wasn't really an option, though i'm sure when possible that tactic was employed to good effect. on the first day of the Somme i think there were 46 Tanks available, many of those broke down, the pressures on Haig at the time to do something to take the pressure off Verdun was not something he could ignore, he had to answer to his superiors, and that is just plain fact, besides at that time the French at Verdun were in a state of near collapse, had the Germans broke through the French may well have folded, so from that point Haig was committed like it or not, and though the cost from the point of the Brithish Army was hideous, it was a succsess. In my opinion the Battle of the Somme was always going to happen, and at the time it did - circumstances at the time dictated that that it would, whether under Haig or any other GOC. Enfield i do believe your opinions are heartfelt, i was where you are now, and never thought my opinions would change, however as a result of 4 years researching, as a result of being sidetracked researching my family history, my opinions have changed, not of the man i have to be honest and say they have not, but of his leadership i have to admit that i was wrong, i now firmly believe, he was as good a leader as anyone available at the time, there may well have been somewhere in the ranks of the British Army a brilliant strategist who would have saved all those casualties, i very much doubt it though, if there was it was a very great pity he was never discovered.

Regards to you all

Ian.

[SiegeGunner]

The tanks off loaded at Omaha did not sink in water too deep for them, they would have done just fine in mid atlantic, and the floatation collars were not a total failure, they did exactly what was expected of them keeping a tank afloat that was full of air, not WATER !! they were unloaded in water that was too rough for them, the waves were continuously swamping the tanks, and not being water tight and so heavy ..... well Archimedes law took care of the rest.

They were launched too far offshore into rough water and then struck out towards a landmark on shore (steeple) that necessitated them travelling diagonally across the wave-front, with the result that most of them were swamped and sank. Two of them actually made it. Most of the DD Shermans launched off the other beaches reached the shore safely.

[dutchbarge]

Enfield Collector,

For the vast majority, if they've even heard of him (or WW1), Haig is the poster boy for callously wasting human life in unimaginative, fruitless attacks; the living incarnation of Einstein's definition of madness (doing exactly the same thing over and over again expecting different results). However, there is another view that says he was about all that could be expected of the times and circumstances which shaped him. The more I read the more I am inclined to dismiss the 'blackadder viewpoint' and agree with the latter view of Haig. It's easy and lucrative for authors to cater to the popular view of Haig as monster, less so to portray him as who he really was. Neither monster nor genius. Just a soldier paying for the inevitable learning curve of a new type of war with the lives of his soldiers. In this respect he is no different than any of history's generals. Yet few, if any, are singled out for the scorn that has been heaped on Haig. Pershing persued very much the same tactics as Haig (with the same high casualties) yet you don't hear people condemning Pershing. If you would condemn Haig for high casualties rates surely you can give him the credit for seeing the British through to victory?

Cheers, Bill

[Paul Hederer]

Bill wrote:

...yet you don't hear people condemning Pershing...

Bill,

I've seen Perhing come in for some serious criticism. Have you seen the thread on this forum under "worst General?" Someone also posted a comment made by another officer (French, British?) that Pershing was the dumbest man he'd ever met, or something along those lines. Not saying I agree, just that the criticism is out there.

Paul

[Waffenlandser]

Haig was not on the steep end of the learning curve. The British army learned their lesson the hard way from the Boers. They learned from an army inferior in numbers and equipment that static warfare was a dinosaur. It violated the basic principles of war fare. Attacking an enemy on high ground was not a learning experience. It violated the basic principles of attack strategies.

This thread in no way insults the abilities of the British soldier. It does not bring disrespect to the memories of the gallant dead. It was the foolhardiness of the Generals of that time who had them die in vain. We cannot allow history to glorify the men who were responsible for so many deaths of brave young men who put their trust, and their lives in the hands of these incompetent commanders.

[Kate Wills]

Attacking an enemy on high ground was not a learning experience. It violated the basic principles of attack strategies.

Then where else do you attack the enemy if that is where they are sitting?

[Waffenlandser]

Then where else do you attack the enemy if that is where they are sitting?

You dont take them head on at a walking pace. You outflank them and take them from behind. Eg. Eben Amel, The Bulge and 1941 at Sedan.

Basic military tactics that were practiced by the Zulu armies in the 1700s.

[Kate Wills]

Bit of a conundrum if you have sea on one flank and a neutral territory by the other.

[Waffenlandser]

Bit of a conundrum if you have sea on one flank and a neutral territory by the other.

Sea near the Somme battlefield.

mmmm got to remember that one.

By neutral territory I presume you refer to Sweden or Switzerland or Luxembourg??

A little long way from The Somme.

[4thGordons]

Sea near the Somme battlefield.

mmmm got to remember that one.

I think what Kate was referring to was the absence of obvious flanks on a front that stretched from the Belgian coast to the Swiss border!

I suppose you could try an outflanking move....through the Dardanelles perhaps? (oooh there's an idea! )

[Kate Wills]

Thanks 4th Gordons, that is my point exactly.

How can you look at the Somme sector in isolation? You cannot outflank it because of the little matter of the continuation of the enemy lines on both sides - to the sea in one direction, and the mountains and woods of the Swiss border on the other.

[Steven Broomfield]

And, surely, at the Bulge and at Sedan in '40, the Germans outflanked no-one. They picked a weaker part of the front and smashed through it, then exploited. Which is excatly what the British/Empire troops and generals did in 1918 (and to an extent at Cambrai in '17). The point is simply that you cannot outflank a flank that doesn't exist (from your comment to Kate, you obviously imply there was a flank on the Somme: I'd love to know where), unless you either invade neutral territory (Switzerland), or go by sea.

Eben Emael I'll give you, but then again, if the Allies (or the Germans) had been in possession of divisions of paratroops in the Great war, you'd probably be complaining that they weren't used properly.

The simple, unavoidable fact is this: the Great War was a war like no other. A war where modern technology to wage war was nearly there, but not quite perfected.

Could I suggest you read Peter Hart's 1918, A Very British Victory? You might not like it, but it would give you a useful insight into what happened when we started gettig it right.

[Waffenlandser]

The British forces made their best gains in the Southern sector where the ground was flatter and the defences better reduced by French heavier calibre field guns. There was opportunity here to breach the defences and come at the northern sectors from behind.

This flank did exist. It was an opportunity lost.

[Kate Wills]

Where precisely?

[Waffenlandser]

Where precisely?

My late Grandfather was a popular singer at the front. He took part in many concerts.

[Kate Wills]

Excellent, I would like to hear more about him - and the location of the flank on the Somme sector.

[Waffenlandser]

I dont know where the flank was , but it was not at Beaumont Hamel or Gommecourt.

Where the weak points were was the responsibility of the Generals of that time and not a forum participant 90 years later.

[Kate Wills]

The British forces made their best gains in the Southern sector where the ground was flatter and the defences better reduced by French heavier calibre field guns. There was opportunity here to breach the defences and come at the northern sectors from behind.

This flank did exist. It was an opportunity lost.

I don't make any claims to being a strategist but if, as you say, "There was opportunity here to breach the defences" it means those defences were still in place, and a flank did NOT exist, so it is hardly surprising that you cannot provide a location.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I dont know where the flank was , but it was not at Beaumont Hamel or Gommecourt.

Where the weak points were was the responsibility of the Generals of that time and not a forum participant 90 years later.

I spot an arguement full of holes.

[Waffenlandser]

I spot an arguement full of holes.

as were the strategies of Haig in 1914-1918

[Kate Wills]

I spot an arguement full of holes.

But none in the frontline.

[Waffenlandser]

The British forces made their best gains in the Southern sector where the ground was flatter and the defences better reduced by French heavier calibre field guns. There was opportunity here to breach the defences and come at the northern sectors from behind.

This flank did exist. It was an opportunity lost.

I don't make any claims to being a strategist but if, as you say, "There was opportunity here to breach the defences" it means those defences were still in place, and a flank did NOT exist, so it is hardly surprising that you cannot provide a location.

There is ALWAYS a weak point. The Germans were masters at this in 1940-1941. The Ardennes proved this.

Haig did not bother to find the weak points. He paid heavily for this. Not with his life, but the lives of others

[Kate Wills]

If "there is always a weak point", that must apply to both sides. Agreed?

So why didn't the Germans find our weak point until 21 March 1918?

(PS I'll be away for a bit as I have to make a string vest. Please carry on without me)