I just got to ask this one why did it take so long for the western front allies to wake up and see they needed a new method to drive the Germans back? From 1914-1917 it was just well you know and then in 1918 at long last they got their act together.
After the German defeat at the second battle of the Marne, I think, the Germans had no troops left. They had thrown all their resources into a battle and barely lost outside Paris near the Marne river. (Funny how history repeats itself. Stalingrad, Belgium, Normandy...) The allies were able to push toward Germany with little problem once the enemy had been routed.
Good question Richard. I always wondered why they went over the top into people sitting in a trench with machine guns. I could figure out that would not work the first time they tried it. But they kept doing it over and over with the same horrible waste of good men.
Thanks TA, why are generals kept doing this from 1915-1917 to gain very little ground and hundreds killed I am trying to find why. And then in 1918 they seem to wake up and finally do something different so why did it take so long to change the tactics?
Well not sure, I am trying to understand the generals whom, what I have read up on were using this same old tactic shell the enemy then stop troops over the top walk calmly towards the enemy and get shot up. What kind of thinking was that from 1915-1917. Only in 1918 the generals saw this tactic got no where, and then they changed to a better idea.
My understanding is that at the beginning of the war, when German and French troops were facing off, to protect themselves from artillery, they dug trenches. There would be short charges in between prolonged periods of shelling. When troops on the western front began fighting, they took this stand-offish situation to an extreme, digging three hundred mile trenches from the channel to Switzerland. These Generals, while knowing that this was no way to fight a war, had no imagination, and because this was the first industrialized war, had nothing to fall back on. It never occured to them that maybe they should send squads and platoons to divide and conquer like they did in WWII. In short, the Generals were just ignorant. They had no idea how to fight an industrialized war. They thought it would be a cake walk that would be over by Christmas. They didn't realize that the American Civil War was a foreshadow to future warfare. On the Eastern front, however, things were much more mobile, and until the Russians withdrew from the war in '17, there was actual firefighting, and not so much trench warfare. Hope this helps.
I agree with Lucky. There was very little imagination on the part of the generals. They had never dealt with the kind of destructive power that machine guns had. The worst part was that occasionally they would succeed with these wasteful tactics. When they did, it was because the men had been brave enough and lead well enough. When the men were chewed up and the advance failed it was the men's fault. The generals thought they had the right idea, it just wasn't being executed properly. What idiots. If only they had gone out and lead a few of their charges there could have been enough turnover to allow a quicker realization that new methods were needed.
I agree the thing, which I just cannot comprehend, is why it took so bloody long for these generals to wake up and realise, the method of warfare they tried was not working. My conclusion is this they were ridged they did not understand and did not want to understand. In addition, these generals had very strong Victorian values and did not comprehend how to wage a modern war. So to 1918 what caused them to sit down and have a good hard think, and realise they had to adapt to a new tactic which finally worked. Did the German advance in 1918 give them a clue perhaps?
You just answered your own question. But in 1918, with German forces routed at the Marne, all they had to do was push toward Germany.
Thanks all, while we are on the subject of WW1 who was the real winner of the battle of Jutland in your view.
Opps forgot to state the facts as we all know both sides claimed victory; Germany inflicted a higher casualty’s on the British. The British chased off the German fleet which never came out of port again.
I think anouther motivation for a change of tactics was the French Army mutany in 1917 after a bloody battle that gained nothing. The French were angry at their poor leadership and quit fighting for awhile. This got the leader's attention. I can't remember the battle off hand.
I think there’s a better understanding of why things happened the way they did Richard, if you put yourself into the mindset of the time. You correctly mention Victorian values which includes the incumbent authority in the hierarchy of command and the modus operandi of the armed forces. The men at the top, the old boys, had mostly fought wars in the past, and if celebrated for victories always claimed the glory for ‘their’ courage and planning. They won, they were right and therefore they knew best. A younger officer could not possibly know better than they and ‘freelancing’ was tantamount to insubordination. An order was very definitely ‘an order’, not to be challenged and certainly not to be disobeyed – unless you want a Court Martial and possibly end up shot and your family dishonoured. This doesn’t, BTW, excuse the fact that there was more than a smattering of talentless, arrogant tossers in command. Douglas Haig to the British press, May 1916 However, also fair that none had experienced such a war as The Great War before, and they did try to be innovative even thought the book on how best to use modern weapons had not been written yet – they were contributing to this as they went along at the expense of the field operatives. They did experiment with aircraft, tunnelling/land mines, poison gas and tanks. The machine gun they were aware of, (viz. Omdurman – the one we’re not supposed to talk about these days), but they thought of it in the context of artillery? And, while the war may be thought of as ‘mechanised’, there was still an enormous reliance on animals, not to mention our glorious cavalry – even if actually the lowest resort for an Army officer. Less than a decade before, our troops still wore red tunics and officers went out of their way to look as distinguishable as possible in battle. Conversely, the Second World War was a war for the ‘freelancer’, ‘pirate’ and ‘private armies’. No.9
No 9's point about the mindset of the time is very apt ; it makes WW1 very difficult for our generations to understand. Generally ( no pun intended ) speaking, the upper echelons of the Army were imbued with the 'cavalry spirit', constantly dreaming of the day when the infantry would break through, allowing the cavalry to 'do their stuff'. A delusion, of course. Everything had changed but these men had not - and their mental and physical distance from the 'action' didn't help matters. We're not alone in grappling with this - a few years ago I met the renowned historian Sir John Keegan whose history of WW1 had just been published. He admitted that he'd found that war very difficult to write about for this among other reasons - far harder than WWII.
I suppose it´s pretty hard to change the military attacking method like that. Something that was considered the best strategy ever which was also shown in "war games" to be effective- you probably get sacked if you suggest changing the tactics! Also the tactics of blockading Germany started to make results. The civilians were suffering from hunger and also the German Army was not doing well. As I read of the German 1918 spring offensive once through the lines the soldiers started robbing food and drinks and other stuff instead of taking the advantage of continuing the attack.
The attack ran out of steam no planning for a follow on. Your right Kai thats was one of the reasons it failed the Germans stopped because on their side of the line food was is in very short supply. I suppose the average solider thought he hit jackpot when they found all that food and drink, more so with alcohol.
What No 9 says makes sense. I remember in the air war and naval war there was some sense of chivalry and fair play during most of the war.
I have been reading a book called "The War the Infantry Knew 1914-1919" by Captain J.C. Dunn and it helps you understand somewhat how that war was fought. I just read about the 1915 battle of Cambrin and how the BEF used gas on the Germans only to have it blow back on the British and kill many wounded men in the trenchs. Some of the numbers are unreal. Forty officers and 800 men shot down in 5 mins. There was always great confusion during the battles and mistrust amoung the different units. Even the German troops fought together in the early part of the war as Barvarian or Prussian or Saxon ect. and did not care for each other. The Calavery officers were promoted but it was a trench war of mud, cold and hunger. I have not finished the book yet but does help me understand some of the war. It is written in early 20th centery "England" style english and is not the easiest to figure out but I am learning some of it. Some gas numbers; http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWgas.htm
Another good book for you TA is Bloody Red Tabs (forget the author unfortunately). This book tells the story of the many British officers of General rank who were killed by direct enemy action in the Great War! Many were killed by shellfire while inspecting front-line trenches (strictly against orders; so many were killed this way that Haig officially forbade it). Many more were killed by snipers. Around 200 were killed, wounded or taken prisoner during the war. Compare that to the accepted dogma of them skulking in chateaux 20 miles behind the lines....
