waffenlandser

[Waffenlandser]

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)

they found our weak point. It was called the Battle of the Somme on July 1, 1916.

String vest?????

mmmmmmmmm. sounds interesting

[SiegeGunner]

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

Tell me more - who were the Zulu armies fighting in the 1700s ...?

[Waffenlandser]

Tell me more - who were the Zulu armies fighting in the 1700s ...?

The Xhosa and anybody who crossed the Tugela river.

The classic Zulu formation was the Ox head Half moon. The central mailed fist and the encircling arms. This is the tactic that Heinz Guderian and Von Manstein used centuries later. They forgot this at Rorkes Drift and thats why they were massacred. They did this at Islandwana and that why they won.

Its a pity Haig and company did not follow the same example.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Unlike the first day of the Somme, the Allies quickly learned from their mistakes.

No they didn’t as you say your self:

Ring a bell anybody??????

I didn't think it was worth a comment after your 02:02AM post.

[AlanCurragh]

The Xhosa and anybody who crossed the Tugela river.

The classic Zulu formation was the Ox head Half moon. The central mailed fist and the encircling arms. This is the tactic that Heinz Guderian and Von Manstein used centuries later. They forgot this at Rorkes Drift and thats why they were massacred. They did this at Islandwana and that why they won.

Its a pity Haig and company did not follow the same example.

Funny, I thought the classic Zulu formation was the Horns of the Buffalo. Can you provide any links that mention the "Ox Head Half Moon", or for that matter, Zulu-Xhosa wars in the 1700's?

Anyway, as you would say, off topic

[per ardua per mare per terram]

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.

DDay was 28 years after the Battle of the Somme yet, as you argue, the American commanders had not learnt about MG nests and blockhouses. That is butchery! The point about flotation skirts has been well made by others; it does no alter the fact that out of the technology available, the Americans choose not to even deply most of it and let their PBI walk into the defences. Sound familiar?

I didn't realise that any tanks had been used on the First Day of the Battle of the Somme (the day you have told us before is your sole interest). Where were they deployed, how many were there and how advanced were they?

When you say tanks were not used as an encircling weapon (although you don't have a single example of where they could encircle in 1916) are you ignoring the 100 days again? Tanks got mired in the mud and broke down. They were a revolutionary new weapon, which at Cambrai were used very effectively. I believe the losses in horses were higher, they were the principle means of transport, not just cavalry animals.

[IanA]

I dont know where the flank was ,

I do. It was the Belgian coast. Haig's preferred battlefield, where he had planned joint operations with the army and navy.

[Waffenlandser]

Funny, I thought the classic Zulu formation was the Horns of the Buffalo. Can you provide any links that mention the "Ox Head Half Moon", or for that matter, Zulu-Xhosa wars in the 1700's?

Anyway, as you would say, off topic

The Vootrekker description of the Zulu enciclement formation.

Die Os Kop halwe maan = the ox's head half moon.

[Steven Broomfield]

In a bizarre way I'm enjoying this discussion: Enfield Collector really is a game old bird.

A flank turns into a weak spot; 90 years on (with 20/20 vision in hindsight) we can't see what should have been apparent to Haig in 1916; tanks should have come out of the factory with the tactical manual written...it goes on and on.

Wonder if Kate needs a hand with her knitting?

[Black Watch]

They were a revolutionary new weapon, which at Cambrai were used very effectively.

Up to the point where a breakthrough was possible, then it all went pearshaped.

Neil

[ian turner]

Well, well, Ladies and Gentlemen - been away on holiday these last couple of weeks and I come back to a Haig debate!

I feel I am getting rather fond of these in my old age.

EC is indeed fighting his corner, and good for him. I prefer the reasoned response rather than the high-handed rebuff. I've no idea of EC's academic prowess, but I reckon he has read a lot more than me. But nonetheless I fear he is letting two things get in the way of his reasoning - emotion, and coming at the problem already loaded with military knowledge from the latter conflict of WW2.

It takes quite a leap of imagination to place yourself in the context of WW1 and the technological situation at that time, without turning to the lessons learned (from WW1) and the technological and tactical improvements of subsequent wars as a solution to the stalemate of the trenches.

The more you debate and consider the situation of WW1 the more philosophical become the answers. Ultimately it comes down to whether one believes in waging war or not. If you do, then you end up with WW1 and all its horrors, wastage, etc., and the looser being worn down by attrition. (No disrespect to winning generals intended).

If you do not believe in war then it would be a question of turning the other cheek, and submitting to foreign dominance for as long as it lasts - perhaps with a Ghandi-like passive resistance. (And even that incurred its losses).

Looking at history, most take to military resistance, wishing to have their way within their own lifetimes rather than sitting out a period of domination that may last generations.

It was indeed the latter course which France and its allies took in response to the German invasion. With all the bright minds in all the participating countries (of both sides) no-one could come up with a winning solution that did not involve massive loss of life. Death rays, spaceships and secret weapons are all a fantasy of the future. When the chips are down and you are standing in front of your opponent it is what you have to hand and your tactical ability which counts. Neither side had the physical/technological ability to deliver a knockout blow. Perhaps the only real criticsim that could be levied would be the possibility of sitting things out whilst letting a blockade strangle the German economy. But there again, that would take a long period of determined activity on the part of a coalition of allies - something we know does not often last long enough to do the trick.

So I cannot blame Haig in particular - he did not launch the Great War. He may have had the strength to knowingly sacrifice lives for the end result, but you have to conclude that all the other participants had a likewise courage to see it through despite the losses. Right or wrong? That is a question of pro or anti war, as I have mentioned above.

So, EC, why would you have the monopoly of clever solutions? There were no doubt great brains at work on the problem at the time, and we know the result of their deliberations. There have been great brains working on the problem ever since, and I have not seen any new and workable solution which evaded the beligerents at the time.

To use the American idiom, it is all too easy to be a Monday Morning Quarter-back!

But thanks for the debate, and I am glad that the pals on here have managed to curb their excesses enough to answer you.

Ian

[Waffenlandser]

In reply to many of the replies from the Old sweats, whose knowlege regarding WW1, I respect and admire, and, from you I have learned a great deal, all I have to say is.

1. Haig was not a newcomer to the new kind of war fought on the Somme. This was not his first test in the prowess of the Maxim gun. He had the lessons of Loos and Ypres1 to have learned from. He saw what the Howitzer and heavy calibre artillery could do to infantry. He knew what happens when you send infantry against concrete bunkers. By planning cavalry charges against machine guns and Howitzers there was going to be another disaster as was seen in the Crimea. He did not seem to appreciate the old rule of never sending cavalry against artillery. Thank God the only real cavalry charge was at Delville wood and thus more slaughter of man and beast was avioded.

2. Any General worth his salt would have been in touch with the forward lines and immediately taken action when the obvious slaughter started taking place. The fact is that the huge losses were not appreciated till days after the 1st of July. Haig, in fact, was optimistic and seemed as ill informed as the British press was with their enthusiastic headlines.

3. I reiterate my views of lessons learned and ignored from the Boer War where superior numbers of British were soundly thrashed by inferior numbers of mobile Boers who practiced hit and run tactics and not the usual set battle patterns of the past.

4. In his book, Mud Blood and Poppycock, Mr Corrigan defends the executions at dawn, 360 of them to be exact. This is indeed strange coming from a citizen of a country that has banned the death penalty as inhumane punishment. Mr Corrigan feels the firing squad is the answer to "Blue Funk" and is an example to other "Shirkers". He seems to be out of synch with the rest of the UK as well as modern military justice. You can, according to Corrigan, be a serial killer in civvie street, but heaven help you if you go AWOL in battle or, in the case of the Leutenant from the Hawke battallion, lose you way in the dark.

5. The Great war achieved little as did the Somme. Haig marched triumphantly down Whitehall on his charger over the dead of hundreds of thousands of young men. German soil was never conquered. Germans never experienced terror bombing as did the British from the Zepplins. Germany, as was the Allies, bled white, but her infrastructure was intact. Her armamaments industry was unharmed. Her leaders were all safe and sound and did not see the retribution of Nuremburg or the gallows of Spandau. Germany was ready and ripe for the Hitlers and the Himmlers. In 1918, the seeds of 1939 were sown and the Treaty of Versaiiles was made a laughing stock.

6. The butcher's bill of WW1.

Britain : 750,000 soldiers killed; 1,500,000 wounded

France : 1,400,000 soldiers killed; 2,500,000 wounded

Belgium : 50,000 soldiers killed

Italy : 600,000 soldiers killed

Russia : 1,700,000 soldiers killed

America : 116,000 soldiers killed

Those who had fought against the Allies suffered heavy casualties as well:

Germany : 2,000,000 soldiers killed

Austria-Hungary : 1,200,000 soldiers killed

Turkey : 325,000 soldiers killed

Bulgaria : 100,000 soldiers killed

The total deaths of all nations who fought in the war is thought to have been 8.5 million with 21 million being wounded.

Alongside these statistics, was the fact that vast areas of north-eastern Europe had been reduced to rubble. Flanders in Belgium had been all but destroyed with the ancient city of Ypres being devastated. The homes of 750,000 French people were destroyed and the infrastructure of this region had also been severely damaged. Roads, coal mines, telegraph poles had all been destroyed and such a loss greatly hindered the area's ability to function normally for decades.

Lloyd George of England privately wanted to "hang the Kaiser" but relented as he was more concerned with his fears of the Red Peril and Communism's shadow over Europe. He, as opposed to Clemencau's feelings of making Germany pay for her deeds, let Germany eventually be taken over by the Nazis and another product of WW1, Herr Adolf Hitler of Austria.

WW2 gave peacetime many advances. Radar, nuclear power,antibiotics, blood transfusion, emergency trauma care, vascular sugery, VHF and HF radio, the jet engine,rocket technology that sent us to the moon, the computer.

WW1 gave nothing besides cemeteries, ossauries and more war.

Despite the reasoned arguments and rebuttals. I hold my ground and will defend my position. Every time I stand alone at the Sunken Lane I close my eyes and say a prayer for those whom so gallantly died in vain and also for those who sent them to their Valhalla.

[59165]

[quote name='Enfield Collector' date='Nov 20 2008, 12:53 AM' post='1057344'

Lloyd George of England privately wanted to "hang the Kaiser"

Despite the reasoned arguments and rebuttals. I hold my ground and will defend my position. Every time I stand alone at the Sunken Lane I close my eyes and say a prayer for those whom so gallantly died in vain and also for those who sent them to their Valhalla.

Oh,sometimes I dunno if you are 12 or 112 years old.I like this thread.You remind me so much of forum pal Arnie.

Don't go the same way as him,I like having people of a steadfast mind on here.No mistake but,DLG was & always will be ,Welsh.

Just for me,try & lose the Somme fixation.More troops were killed around Lens/Neuve Chapelle or Ypres than there & you should read up on that,just to get a good spread sheet on the unnecessary slaughter.

If you could post a few photo's of your sunken lane visits,It'd be great as I'm a big photo fan(if you check out some of my threads).

Keep the faith & keep entertaining the troops.

Dave.

[Waffenlandser]

[quote name='Enfield Collector' date='Nov 20 2008, 12:53 AM' post='1057344'

Lloyd George of England privately wanted to "hang the Kaiser"

Dear Monseur Frog. I am not insulting you here, using the derogatory term the British officers called the French, but refering to your avatar.I am, alas, not 12, or anywhere near to that age.

I am old enough, however to have been around more WW1 ex servicemen than many on this revered board. Yes, I am fixated on the Somme. Yes I am fixated on the first day of the Somme. Yes, I do stand opposite Beaumont Hamel on July 1st and, with others around me, look misty eyed at No mans land. I am only interested, and this is all I have the emotional time for, in the Somme. No matter how many were sacrificed elsewhere.

From many conversations with the old soldiers of the trenches, I have learned a bit about the horrors of the trenches, no matter how blandly the revisionist crowd oppose these accounts. Maybe I am just an old bitter man too absorbed with rusty old rifles and bayonets.

Most of the photographs I have taken on the Somme are with my heart. Most of the memorials I have in my heart. In my young manhood there were hundreds of WW1 vets in my area. Many of my school teachers were old soldiers and many of my University professors were RAMC heros.

I am no Monday morning armchair quarterback. I know war first hand. I know what sudden and violent death is like. To me a dead soldier is more than a medal card or a marble slab.

Regards.

EC.

[59165]

Then carry on,young'un.

We won't be getting any new info here ,it's all old news to the old sweat's but, if it's as heart felt as that,go on.

but please try & listen to the others now & again,eh?

Old as we may be,soldiers maybe but,keep an open mind.It helps stop wars n things

Dave the froganglais

[Waffenlandser]

but please try & listen to the others now & again,eh?

I do listen to them Mon Ami. I do. They are the conscience of history. As am I.

[Guest]

The disaster at Gallipoli cannot be put on Churchill's shoulders. TThere were too many other blunderers there to share the honour.

Try telling that to the dead of Gallipoli.

If you are trying to be so correct, it might be well to remember that British army was made up of not only Brits. The Colonials have their own views on who was what, and what they did.

You might like to explore that a bit more. It might give you some idea of what was achieved by the Brass, and how they did learn as they went along.

You say you listen to others. Well, look to the East and then remember that those who fought in the east took with them lessons learnt and applied them in the West. And Vice versa.

WW1 was a sharp learning curve for all, and it is easy to be armchair generals in 2008.

In WW1 they did not know of WW2. It was bloody, it was new, it was nature, it was........., and they won.

Simplistic, yes. At a mind staggering cost, yes.

But let us see it through their eyes, not what we know now.

And the ghosts may be heard,

Kim

[Waffenlandser]

If you are trying to be so correct, it might be well to remember that British army was made up of not only Brits. The Colonials have their own views on who was what, and what they did.

You might like to explore that a bit more

I am of South African descent. I understand the sacrifice of so called "colonials. Family fought alongside the British at Delville Wood.

Believe you me I have explored this issue for the past 45 years.

[IanA]

Well, I don't know....

Where's the flank? Everyone's looking for the flank. They waddle around, sticking their lower lips out as far as they can go and shrugging their shoulders expansively and rather recklessly. After cudgelling the old brain pan for, ooh, an entire mo (as opposed to half a mo) I come up with the answer. Am I lauded and feted? Is my name put forward for a prestigious prize and a small honorarium? Is it 'eck as like (as my old grandma {the pipe-smoking one, who wore clogs and could hit a spitoon at twenty paces} used to say). Courtesy, these days, is going to the dogs. Before you know it, AA men will stop saluting smartly, lieges will forget all the words of the National Anthem bar the first verse, and grand flocks of Oxford Sandy and Blacks will eclipse proud Phoebus.

Where will it all end?

[Waffenlandser]

Well, I don't know....

Where's the flank? Everyone's looking for the flank.

Where will it all end?

Flank steak is quite a delicacy here in Texas. We call it Fajitas. Grilled with peppers and onions and a hearty ale to wash it down with.

I hope it never ends.

[IanA]

Flank steak is quite a delicacy here in Texas.

I refuse to be drawn in to a discussion of Texan comestibles. Such a subject is bound to be inflamatory, causing alarm and general despondancy amongst the mods. We should restrict the thread to the safe and harmonious area of Haig and his management of the Battle of the Somme. Not much cause for dissention there, methinks.

[Althouse]

3. I reiterate my views of lessons learned and ignored from the Boer War where superior numbers of British were soundly thrashed by inferior numbers of mobile Boers who practiced hit and run tactics and not the usual set battle patterns of the past.

I'm not sure they were completely ignored. Although they most likely did not borrow from the Boers tactical manual, hit and run tactics such as trench raids and limited actions were practiced with great skill in the BEF. I've just finished reading Tim Cook's second volume on the CEF and he describes raids involving almost 1,000 men.

Unfortunatley if you really want to take a peice of ground, you have to stay and hold it in large numbers. Trench raids nor Boer raids result in the "attacker" holding the field, that's the run part or "hit and run."

They figured out a way to do so in 1917 and 1918.

[wcfree2]

sorry if the truth hurts that much mate.

Show me the great industrial complexes and large cities in Picardy.

Show something besides cemeteries and sleepy little villages.

In participating in this thread I have tried to be as respectful and sensitive to the feelings of the old sweats of the forum. Mostly, I try to respect the memory of our Dead. Criticising the generals of the time, is in no way showing a lack of respect to the Dead.

This thread has brought back some memories of times spent with my grandfather and his cronies around remembrance day when I was around 13 years old. Somehow the topic of Haig came up and ALL believed he should have been executed for treason for the way he sacrificed the soldiers for little gain. While I know little of the subject I do remember the mutual hatred of these old soldiers for a man who they felt had caused much suffering. The vehemence of these gentlemen has remained with me since (I am now 60) and has probably coloured my perspective ever since.

Warren

[Waffenlandser]

The vehemence of these gentlemen has remained with me since (I am now 60) and has probably coloured my perspective ever since.

Yes indeed. I am a year or two more decrepit than you and well remember my Grandpa and Uncle Jim who fought with the AEF on the Somme, discussing their joint experiences. Both of these old survivors were mutual in their contempt for Haig. Uncle Jim called him a "bloody murderer". My Grandpa in his old striped shirt, stained with mucus from his chlorine ravaged respiratory tract, nodded in agreement.

Mute testimony as to my condemnation, also fostered by the stories of those actually there and NOT armchair quarterbacks.

Boer hit and run tactics won battles. Trench raids won nothing. The most important trench raid of the Somme was the night of June 31st when raiders brought back the news that the wire was uncut and were accused of "having the jitters"

[PGL]

Boer hit and run tactics won battles.

I've been reading this thread with great interest and sitting on my hands for the most part trying not to get involved. The quote above though is just plain wrong.

Hit and run tactics never win battles because by the very nature of that tactic, no battle takes place - the enemy is engaged, casualties are inflicted and then, and this is the very essence of hit and run, the attacker withdraws without engaging in a set-piece action. If just such a prolonged action (ie a battle) were to take place, the tactic has failed.

Boer hit and run tactics may have helped "win the war" but they never, never won battles.

I, myself, am not a big fan of Haig. He in no way measures up to the likes of the Duke of Wellington for instance but then not many do. Yet, even Wellington found it impossible to avoid throwing men at the walls of Badajoz to produce the greatest concentrated carnage of the age. The irony there being that while the breech was not carried, the escalade (designed as a mere diversion) did. Would the escalade have been a success if the breech was not stormed? No.

I have yet to find a valid criticism of Wellington's tactics despite the fact that he "butchered" so many men at the "mouth of Hell". He could ill afford the losses but had no other choice.

Getting back on topic (apologies to the mods), do I consider Haig to be a butcher? Yes, he sent a lot of men to their deaths but did he do so just for the sake of it? No, I don't believe he did. In my opinion, he fought the war with the technology and tactics he had at his disposal and in many cases that meant spending the lives of his men.

I don't think Haig had the genius of the Duke, but would he really have ignored a glaringly obvious opportunity or avoided a war winning tactic? I don't believe so.