Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
The Western Front
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 9th December 2005
The generals on the western front seem to have been largely incompetent who seemed unable to think beyond attritional warfare. Could a great commander have done better? The Somme - a futile waste of life that achieved nothing but was the plan sound given the need to relieve pressure on the French and Russians with an almost untrained army? Once the trenches were built by the end of 1914, was there a means of winning the first world war before 1918?
-
Message 2
Posted by Battlegroup (U1908324) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Hi Mahros.
The problem with the Generals of WW1 was lack of Battle Experience, and a Total lack of Confidence in the British Army.
When the advance troops did achieve their objective, the follow up troops were so far behind, that the original troops had to defend their position with reduced numbers, so lost the position.
The same thing happened time after time.
It makes me weep to think of the total futility of their actions
Cheers
Bazz -
Message 3
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 9th December 2005
"The problem with the Generals of WW1 was lack of Battle Experience, and a Total lack of Confidence in the British Army."
On the contrary, their was so much confidence that the the army and nation alike thought that it would all be 'over by Christmas'.
As for lack of experience, the Boer War certainly gave many of the British First World War generals a taste of what modern warfare is about. -
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 9th December 2005
The Boer War was a very different animal. Indeed, it has been said that the big problem with strategy in WWI was that - in terms of tactical thinking - the British still thought they were fighting the Boer War, and the Germans and French still thought they were fighting the Franco-Prussian War.
-
Message 5
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 9th December 2005
I agree thatth emain problem was that th egenerals had failed to appreciate the difference that new technologies brought. Given the superiority granted to defences by the machine gun, it was going to take a very different style of attack to have any chance. Unfortunately, technology was not good enough, as the first tanks showed.
Only the German Spring Offensive in 1918 showed what could be done with different tactics.
The worst failing of the generals was to keep on sending men into meat grinder battles when the objectives had clearly not been met, purely in the hope of gringing the nemey down. -
Message 6
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 9th December 2005
The Somme wasn't helped by the fact that it was a last minute change of plan, which became necessary to try and take the heat off the French at Verdun. The majority of the soldiers were inexperienced volunteers, and to make matters worse the officer class underestimated their ability to act on initiative - hence the ludicrous 'walk' across no-man's land.
It seems the strength of the German deep-dugouts and wire was also underestimated (German barbed wire was up to 3 times as thick as the type the British used, and much of the wire entanglement was not destroyed by the artillery bombardment).
It is fair to say many in the high command underestimated the importance of the machine gun, especially early in the war. A huge majority of them were from a cavalry background, in a war where artillery and infantry were far more important. They simply didn't understand the strategic requirements of a modern war.
In a sense, the importance of artillery and machine guns should have been learned from the American Civil War; but it seems this didn't happen. -
Message 7
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Thanks for the replies.
What was the solution? Attacks with limited objectives instead of a breakthrough like those of 1918, although the daily loss rate was higher than in 1916. -
Message 8
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Monday, 12th December 2005
When you say "what was the solution" I presume you mean to ending the First World War.
The solution to ending the First World War was never really found on the batlefield. The so called solution seemed to be to starve the German population into defeat. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Well,
I think I'll going to have to have a rant here based on the British Generals. IMO they were incompetent, unimaginative, upper-class idiots, who were promoted into their lofty commands purely on contacts and their family connections rather than through military leadership skills.
Haig is my favourite example of this. Had it not been for a combination of his Royal contacts (his wife was a lady in waiting to the Queen) and the idiotic propaganda lies published in the Northcliffe press.
"Great Victory on the Somme!!!" screams the headline, but the reality was 20,000 dead, 40,000 missing or wounded. Haig was a man lacking in military imagination, an old school cavalry officer who refused to attempt to comprehend that a cavalry charge is useless against machine guns and barbed wire, and who is guilty of ordering the Somme and Passchendaele bloodbaths. They failed to breakthrough, so they became battles of attrition (in otherwords mass slaughter). The whole concept of attrition was barbaric and inhuman, and the idea of trying to "attack machine guns with the chests of men" is obscene. Haig a great General? No, he should have been shot at dawn for incompetence, stupidity and well, just getting so many man killed. The other generals in the war (with the exception maybe of Plumer-Messines Ridge 1917-and DurchbruchMuller, the German) were not much better. Careless with their men's lives, and for this they should have been punished, not venerated.
Cheers
DL -
Message 10
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Any opinions on the Australian general Monash? He seems to be one of the few Allied generals (or at least British Empire generals) who showed some talent and he also stood up to the British hierarchy
-
Message 11
Posted by WarFanatic (U2676733) on Monday, 12th December 2005
The tactics of the First World War were brutal and uncivilised as well as barbaric and uncalled for. But what has to be understood is that the trench warfare of 1914-18 was nothing like ever seen before. It is true at first some generals preferred the cavalry charge but as the war got on the only tactics available were to go over the top otherwise both sides would continually just look at each other for years on end. Although sending men to their deaths in large numbers into convential warfare is downright disgraceful. Personally I think the starving of the German Population was a good move as we would not have ended the war on the battlefield for a large number of years.
-
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Stoggler,
Agreed on Monash. He did actually show a lot of guts to stand up to the upper class twits in the British Imperial General Staff, and no doubt that was made even harder by the fact that they undoubtedly considered him "a mere colonial".
He stood up for his men, and did a damn good job when he was in direct command.
DL -
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 12th December 2005
He's revered in modern Australia too - he has a good university named after him, and he appears on one of their bank notes. And loads of other things are named after him too.
Surprisingly his father was a Prussian immigrant to Australia, yet he saw no conflict of interests. Did any of his peers though? -
Message 14
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 13th December 2005
One of the few British Generals on the Western Front to have any respect from the troop was Horace Smith-Dorrien. His men distinguished themselves at Mons and Le Cateau during the early retreats, but he fell out with Sir John French and was sent home for recommending a strategic withdrawal around Ypres. His replacement recommended the same thing and this time, French agreed. Th every fact that he disagreed with French marks Smith-Dorrien out as a general who might have tried to avoid the battles of attrition had he been given the chance.
-
Message 15
Posted by allanfrancis (U2751499) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
The generals and senior commanders especialy
general haigh never visited the trenches during the whole 4 years of war and were billited in chateau's often 40 miles behind the front lines
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.