Fire-Power: The British Army Weapons & Theories of War 1904-45

[Guest]

Hello - has anyone reviewed this book? Just arrived yesterday and it is a very interesting read, particularly on the 1904-1914 period and Artillery doctrine, or lack thereof. MG

[centurion]

Does it have anything that has not already been covered by Spencer Jones (From Boer War to World War) and Bowman and Connelly (The Edwardian Army) ?

[Mark Hone]

I presume that we're talking Bidwell and Graham. A seminal book in its day, much admired by the 'new wave' of Great War historians who came to prominence n the 1980s and afterwards. It was one of the first works to concentrate on the nuts and bolts of British tactics and demonstrate that they did change and develop during the conflict. Focuses on the artillery, quite correctly as far as the Great War is concerned. Possibly one of the earliest major examples of the 'learning curve' interpretation of the British Army's role in the First World War.

[paulgranger]

Does it have anything that has not already been covered by Spencer Jones (From Boer War to World War) and Bowman and Connelly (The Edwardian Army) ?

Well, it pre-dates them by a long way, so the question is, do they have anything not already covered by Bidwell?

[Guest]

Does it have anything that has not already been covered by Spencer Jones (From Boer War to World War) and Bowman and Connelly (The Edwardian Army) ?

Yes... quite a lot.....I bought it because I was particularly interested in the RA doctrine at the time, following the thread on Le Cateau. It struck me that the positioning of the guns on the right flank was nearly suicidal and given most of the guns were lost, I thought it would be interesting to explore RA doctrine of forward positioning v reverse slope (or 'back') positions. There was some suggestion that this was a topic of polarised debate in the years between the Boer War and the Great War, particularly in the light of the RA experience at Colenso. They cover the debate well and in some good detail. It appears that RA docritine was non-existent if I read their chapter correctly...and the CRA 5th Div who deployed the guns on the right flank at Le Cateau was at the forefront of the debate about doctrinal change, so doubly interesting.

Deep bibliography too - often a good indicator in my view.

As you know I am a big fan of Bowman and Connelly .... and Spencer Jones' book arrived (having see the video of one of his talks posted recently) with 'Fire-Power'. Lots of overlap but the venn diagram still has areas where each of these books covers their own ground. MG

Well, it pre-dates them by a long way, so the question is, do they have anything not already covered by Bidwell?

A jolly good point.

I was cautious because Pen and Sword did not always strike me as publishers of very detailed books on the War. This really surprised me. Only half way through it but it is a good read. MG

[MikeMeech]

Hi

Yes a good book in its day (1982) and I would suggest it is a good book to read. However, it does pay to read later books and see how research into specific developments have moved on (or not). That, as we all know, applies to any book on WW1 or other history as something 'new' can turn up in the archives long after a subject has been 'fully covered' by authors!

Mike

[Guest]

Hi

Yes a good book in its day (1982) and I would suggest it is a good book to read. However, it does pay to read later books and see how research into specific developments have moved on (or not). That, as we all know, applies to any book on WW1 or other history as something 'new' can turn up in the archives long after a subject has been 'fully covered' by authors!

Mike

Any recommendations for further reading would be welcome.

[MikeMeech]

Any recommendations for further reading would be welcome.

Hi

J B A Bailey has covered some of the same ground as Bidwell & Graham. Bailey had a book published in 1989, 'Field Artillery and Firepower' that covers the whole of the 20th C. I have not read that but have read his 'British Artillery in the Great War', which is Chapter 2 in 'British Fighting Methods in the Great War', Cass, 1996. edited by Paddy Griffith (also see Griffith's Artillery chapter in 'Battle Tactics of the Western Front', Yale, 1994.) Bailey has also written 'The First World War and the Birth of the Modern Style of Warfare' this is Number 22 from the 'Strategic & Combat Studies Institute', 'The Occasional', 1996. (he still had some copies of this last month at a WW1 conference I attended). In 'The British Army Review' Number 120 (year unknown) he had 'Two Complementary Articles' - 'Deep Battle 1914-1941: The Birth of the Modern Style of Warfare' and 'The Century of Firepower'. There are quite a few books that have artillery development as part of the overall development of warfare in WW1.

Also note a recent article by Georgina Natzio (nee Bidwell), 'Two Gunners' Friendship in Military History'. In this she looks back at Graham and Bidwell's writing partnership. RUSI Journal, June/July 2014, Vol 159 No.3.

I hope that is of use.

Mike

[David Filsell]

Actually it still stands up very well indeed.

[charlesmessenger]

Bidwell and Graham were experienced Gunners and thought outside the box. Graham won two MCs in WW2 as a battery commander. Bailey, too, is a Gunner of great experience. Both books definitely not outrdated and well worth reading.

Charles M

[MikeMeech]

Bidwell and Graham were experienced Gunners and thought outside the box. Graham won two MCs in WW2 as a battery commander. Bailey, too, is a Gunner of great experience. Both books definitely not outrdated and well worth reading.

Charles M

Hi

I agree with the above. However, if you want to actually go into detail on the various aspects Bidwell and Graham cover you will find there are differing opinions. For example page 35-36 they discuss the opposite sides of the debate over the four company organisation pre-war, with Brig-Gen. Ivor Maxse, "commanding the 1st (Guards) and later an outstanding commander of the 18th Division and XVIII Corps and the Director-General of Training in the Expeditionary Force in 1918" and Capt. R. J. Kentish "later to command a brigade of the 9th (Scottish) Division on the Somme".

While Maxse is mentioned quite often in the book, Kentish does not get another mention, so obviously not very important. However Kentish was Commandant of the Third Army Infantry School at Flixecourt, Novenber 1915 - April 1916, where he was involved in developing the Army School system for training troops in France. He later became the Commandant of the Senior Officers' School in Aldershot, October 1916 - November 1917. Important in using the experiences of 1916 to improve training. (In my own research on Air/Ground co-operation he comes up in wanting to improve training in the subject of air-infantry co-operation from July 1915 onwards.)

However, like many authors they have concentrated on Maxse's role in improving training and have ignored many other officers' involvement, see 'British Generalship on the Western Front 1914-18' , Chapter 6, 'Training for Victory',pages 83-97, by Simon Robbins. Routledge, 2005.

There are a few things like that in the book but that does not detract from the overall text it is still good, but like many books it will not give the full picture, which is why we all need to read widely and go back to the archives if possible.

Mike