Poll |
 |
Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation? |
Yes |
 
|
50% |
[ 28 ] |
No |
 
|
30% |
[ 17 ] |
Don't Know |
 
|
20% |
[ 11 ] |
Total Votes : 56 |
|
 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 14:00:09
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
TheMeanDM wrote: Paradigm wrote:And as for port cities, it's quite hard to launch a naval invasion of Germany, what with it being landlocked and all...
Germany is not landlocked...and wasn't during WW 1. It is accessed by the North Sea and Baltic Sea.
But for all practical intents and purposes no one had the gear and ships to pull it off. The Russian Baltic navy wasn't up to anything such, and the stronger UK navy would have had to get through the German navy at great cost. Plus the German submarines would have had a field day with the passenger ships pressed into service as troop carriers.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 14:42:21
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Short answer: YES, but it didnt apply to all of them.
Not every general sat in a mansion living it up while he sent tens of thousands to their deaths for nothing, but Haig did and that was enough.
Haig also sacked any general who disagreed with his methods, this resulted in the one or two good things he did by accident, such as shipping Allenby off to a sideshow action in Palestine where he could perform.
Haig didn't operate in a vacuum, the civil service was behind him, as was the King, and this prevented Lloyd George from replacing him.
It wasn't just the British generals who were incompetent though, nearly all the belligerent powers with notable exception of the United States suffered same. The Americans watched and learned, and the army they shipped to France in 1917 was probably the finest the US has ever had.
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 17:28:01
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
Spetulhu wrote: TheMeanDM wrote: Paradigm wrote:And as for port cities, it's quite hard to launch a naval invasion of Germany, what with it being landlocked and all...
Germany is not landlocked...and wasn't during WW 1. It is accessed by the North Sea and Baltic Sea.
But for all practical intents and purposes no one had the gear and ships to pull it off. The Russian Baltic navy wasn't up to anything such, and the stronger UK navy would have had to get through the German navy at great cost. Plus the German submarines would have had a field day with the passenger ships pressed into service as troop carriers.
The problems with a close blockade were many, but there wasn't much doubt that forces could be protected whilst landing (assuming you literally weren't trying to land under the guns of Wilhelmshaven). It was ruled out more due to the overwhelming superiority of German Army numbers vs the BEF in the earlier years; combined with the belief that it would simply drain troops from the main front, be a bloody nightmare to resupply, and just trap them into supporting a small easily shelled pocket that would just end up having another trench network dug around it. Had the Dardanelles been sucessfully forced we might have gotten somewhere; but that failure was really the point at which the second front died as a possibility (though they didn't know it at the time).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/07 17:28:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 17:33:46
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
TheMeanDM wrote:I never understood the WW I tactic of throwing millions of men headlong directly at each others trench.
FFS invade somewhere there wasn't a trench to hurtle into...
Take a port city and stage a mainland invasion...
Invade from a connected country (you mean, like the Germans did?!?)
I just never got it. As Sun Tzu said:
* If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
* So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.
Well the basic idea is that you can overwhelm the enemy defenses with sheer numbers and pour through the gap before he can bring up reserves to stop you. It is a solid idea because when defending a huge trench line, your troops are by necessity spread out relatively thinly. You're entirely reliant on having enough machine guns to push back far greater numbers of the enemy. And if its not enough you are hosed. Your only safety net is reserve forces kept behind the lines to react to any breakthroughs.
As for striking at the enemy's weak points. That was not quite possible.
Trench lines literally stretched from the Alps all the way to the sea. Crossing the alps with an army would have meant invading neutral countries or somehow securing passage through them, which they would not have agreed to.
This only left invading from the sea. Which would have been even more costly as it would have forced a confrontation between the Royal and German navies. The Royal Navy would have most likely won, but at the same time they would have lost a lot of ships and men just attempting a landing. In the days before you had specialized landing craft and when the enemy will still likely be opposing the landing. It might have worked, but it would just as likely have resulted in another front of trench warfare. While simultaneously severely weakening the Royal navy, Britan's main source of international power projection.
It's relatively easy to through up a quick trench line to stop an enemy advance, and that buys you time to keep adding layers and depth onto the trench so you can get really dug in. And by the time the enemy has brought up artillery you will have brought up yours too. And you've just made yet another trench front.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/07 17:36:13
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 17:45:30
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
That is kind of my point...actually.
The entire line was well defended....and yet they kept sending their men to the slaughter because, in my opinion, thry hadn't progressed mucy beyond the "march into battle in formation and get shot at for honor" kind of mentality that the Napoleonic, Franco Prussian, etc. wars were fought like.
Don't get me wrong...I know that in some cases you need to throw bodies in overwhelming numbers in order to secure an objective....but WWI was really the worst kind of war that they cpuld habe tried to do that with.
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 17:49:06
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
TheMeanDM wrote:
The entire line was well defended....and yet they kept sending their men to the slaughter because, in my opinion, thry hadn't progressed mucy beyond the "march into battle in formation and get shot at for honor" kind of mentality that the Napoleonic, Franco Prussian, etc. wars were fought like.
Then with all due respect, your opinion is ill founded and utterly incorrect.
Seriously. Go and pick up a book on the pre-war British Army/Navy and strategic planning.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 18:00:48
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
However, as it's been pointed out by others, storming the trenches was not the problem - it's fighting off the counter-attacks. The enemy could quickly bring up reserves, so you need artillery to break this up. As the war developed, the British became very good at this, but it was a hard learning curve.
Wasn't the counter attack defense "helped" when us Yanks started "cheating" in our warfare by using shotguns in the trenches??
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 18:23:05
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Black Captain of Carn Dûm
Were there be dragons....
|
They failed to learn from the various German Unification wars + the Franco-Prussain War and the American Civil War. The ineffectiveness of attacking dug in infantry, supported by Artillery elements without sufficient support was already a known factor. The fatality rates from some of those conflicts are truly horrifying in themselves. The only difference is the rapid manner both sides were able to mobilise in WW1 removed any chance of it remaining a war of maneuver past the first few months on the Western Front.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/07 18:24:00
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze
"All politicians are upperclass idiots"
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 21:13:18
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
However, as it's been pointed out by others, storming the trenches was not the problem - it's fighting off the counter-attacks. The enemy could quickly bring up reserves, so you need artillery to break this up. As the war developed, the British became very good at this, but it was a hard learning curve.
Wasn't the counter attack defense "helped" when us Yanks started "cheating" in our warfare by using shotguns in the trenches??
No.
When I say counter-attacks, I literally mean division sized counter-attacks. 10,000 men +
For example, the British gains at Cambrai on the first day put a boot up the German rear, but then the Germans counter-attacked with 3-4 divisions
Unless that shotgun has the fire power of the deathstar, it can only do so much!
On a serious note, the shotgun was excellent for storming trenches, close quarters, night time trench raids etc etc
But the best way to stop a counter-attack was machine guns, organised defence, and of course, artillery.
By 1918, the British had it perfected:
scout planes to spy on German reinforcements massing. Supply tanks to trundle up and drop off badly needed ammo for the defenders. Better comms between the front-line and HQ. And of course, more artillery in reserve to launch another bombardment. The guys who fired the prep bombardment would be fatigued and out of ammo by the time they finished, so fresh guns with fresh gunners and plentiful ammo was the obvious common sense thing to do. By that stage of the war, British war production was cranking out the guns and shells.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Optio wrote:They failed to learn from the various German Unification wars + the Franco-Prussain War and the American Civil War. The ineffectiveness of attacking dug in infantry, supported by Artillery elements without sufficient support was already a known factor. The fatality rates from some of those conflicts are truly horrifying in themselves. The only difference is the rapid manner both sides were able to mobilise in WW1 removed any chance of it remaining a war of maneuver past the first few months on the Western Front.
True, but bear in mind that poison gas was supposed to be the solution for solving the problem of dug in infantry.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the Germans developed some particularly nasty poison gas
Blue cross? was small enough to by- pass gas mask filters, and it made you cough = take off gas mask
and that was fired alongside yellow cross? or mustard gas to get you when you had panicked and taken off your gas mask...
Very nasty stuff, but it was believed to be a solution to dug in troops.
The Germans also had flame-throwers as well. In short, they had tech that nobody had in the American Civil War, so believed they could solve the problem of dug in infantry.
Anecdotal story. When my father first started working as a young apprentice after WW2, some of the old-timers at his factory, who were WW1 vets, had suffered gas attacks in the trenches.
The lenses in their glasses were as thick as milk bottles...
Even after the terrible slaughter of the recently finished Second World War, people were still suffering the effects of the First world war
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/07 21:22:03
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 22:32:14
Subject: Re:Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Everybody had developed various types of nasty gases.
Ironically, that was the one weapon Hitler was utterly reluctant to use as an offensive weapon as he had been a victim of it during WW1, even though it would have helped Germany a lot had they used it.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 22:34:29
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Ketara wrote: TheMeanDM wrote:
The entire line was well defended....and yet they kept sending their men to the slaughter because, in my opinion, thry hadn't progressed mucy beyond the "march into battle in formation and get shot at for honor" kind of mentality that the Napoleonic, Franco Prussian, etc. wars were fought like.
Then with all due respect, your opinion is ill founded and utterly incorrect.
Seriously. Go and pick up a book on the pre-war British Army/Navy and strategic planning.
Whenever someone says "With all due respect" they really have none...so just save the stupid empty platitude and man up to simply say "I think you are wrong and here is why".
While not as up on my WWI history, it still doesn't take away from the fact that they *did* fight some of WWI with the same mentality and approach they did prior wars in the prior century.
"The Armies that marched off to war and clashed in August 1914 operated on essentially 19th century doctrines, large units of riflemen were screened by cavalry and supported by artillery."
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/07 22:45:07
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
TheMeanDM wrote:
Whenever someone says "With all due respect" they really have none...so just save the stupid empty platitude and man up to simply say "I think you are wrong and here is why".
Okay. You are wrong. You are a random commentator in the twenty first century with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the matter, or you wouldn't be making the pronouncements you are.
I highly recommend you pick up a book or two before making grandiose statements about how the British Army maintained Napoleonic mentalities; and research things like the Cardwell reforms, the Haldane reforms, the Committee appointed to learn from the Boer War, the Imperial Defence Planning Committee, and a vast multitude of various other such details before doing so again. Seriously.
I'm not saying these things to be nasty, in fact, I positively encourage interest and learning about this period. But as people have said earlier in the thread, there were many of the greatest military and scientific minds bent to trying to break the deadlock in WW1. It's somewhat presumptuous to assume that their problems could have been involved with amateur strategic insight/solutions on the level granted by a Total War game.
For a basic introductory course in the British Army pre-war, I'd recommend:-
Edward Spiers, 'The Army and Society 1815-1914' (Longman Group, 1980)
John Gooch, "Adversarial Attitudes: Servicemen, Politicians and Strategic Planning, 1899-1914" in Government and the Armed Forces in Britain 1856-1990, ed. Paul Smith (Hambledon Press, 1996)
'A Military Transformed: Adaptation and Innovation in the British Military 1792-1945' ed. Michael Locicero (Helion, 2014)
That should get you a core understanding from which you can expand your knowledge.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/07 22:58:18
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/08 03:34:33
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
TheMeanDM wrote:I never understood the WW I tactic of throwing millions of men headlong directly at each others trench.
Probably the best mindset you can have when looking at any period of history is that if something just does not make any sense at all, then you're probably misunderstanding what happened.
And that's the case here. There was never a plan to throw masses of infantry straight at a trench. From the earliest days of trench fighting there was constant experimentation in doctrine to find the best ways of capturing trench lines.
Now, many of those doctrines failed. For instance at the Somme the offensive was preceded by an incredible artillery barrage that was was expected to cripple the defenses. But it was unknown that artillery drops in effectiveness the longer it continues, particularly the morale impact. So over time, even over the course of the Somme campaign, doctrine changed towards shorter artillery attacks with infantry assaults following closely behind - a far more effective tactic, but one that wasn't always executed perfectly (infantry assaults being delayed often gave defenders time to react).
FFS invade somewhere there wasn't a trench to hurtle into...
Take a port city and stage a mainland invasion...
Invade from a connected country (you mean, like the Germans did?!?)
Trying to advance around the enemy defenses was the whole reason for the race to the sea. Once that phase was finished there was no connected country you could attack through. And a seaborne invasion was near impossible given the tech of the time - look at the debacle of Gallipoli, and note the Turks there had nothing like the equipment the Germans could bring to bear to defeat an invading force.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/08 03:48:31
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
sebster wrote:
Trying to advance around the enemy defenses was the whole reason for the race to the sea. Once that phase was finished there was no connected country you could attack through. And a seaborne invasion was near impossible given the tech of the time - look at the debacle of Gallipoli, and note the Turks there had nothing like the equipment the Germans could bring to bear to defeat an invading force.
You seem more well read on WW1 than I, so perhaps can answer this question. As you mention there being no connected country you "could" attack through. . . Yet we know that Switzerland exists. Would an invasion into Switzerland (which is what any flanking maneuver would be seen as) rally even your own allies against you, or was the Swiss military just that damn good in their own borders?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/08 05:53:01
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:True, but bear in mind that poison gas was supposed to be the solution for solving the problem of dug in infantry.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the Germans developed some particularly nasty poison gas
As Grey Templar notes, everyone had lots of nasty gas. The problem was the gas wasn't really that helpful in clearing a trench because direct casualties were limited and not often fatal. As a tool of supression it would have been good as enemy troops wearing bulky facemasks are way less effecive, but your troops would be advancing in to that gas, so they'd also have to wear masks, and their effectiveness dropped way more than the defender.
As a result gas was more often used as an area denial weapon, covering an area you were retreating from. As with so much in the war, it was another tech that ended up aiding the defender.
Though it was also in counter-artillery work. The aim wasn't to kill the enemy artilery crew, but making them put on their chemical gear dropped the rate of fire enormously. Automatically Appended Next Post: TheMeanDM wrote:Whenever someone says "With all due respect" they really have none...so just save the stupid empty platitude and man up to simply say "I think you are wrong and here is why".
While not as up on my WWI history, it still doesn't take away from the fact that they *did* fight some of WWI with the same mentality and approach they did prior wars in the prior century.
"The Armies that marched off to war and clashed in August 1914 operated on essentially 19th century doctrines, large units of riflemen were screened by cavalry and supported by artillery."
And the war at that time was a war of mobility. When both sides have room to flank the enemy then cavalry screens and infantry trained mobility made sense. But after the Germans were beaten at Marne, and the race to the sea ended with neither side rolling their enemy's flank, then both sides were facing a new, static war. At which point tactics rapidly evolved.
That doesn't mean doctrine was perfect in all ways at the start. But it's really not at all like the situation you're claiming.
And note in the East, where they had rifles, trenches, machine guns and all the rest it was a mobile war throughout. The difference was space. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ensis Ferrae wrote:You seem more well read on WW1 than I, so perhaps can answer this question. As you mention there being no connected country you "could" attack through. . . Yet we know that Switzerland exists. Would an invasion into Switzerland (which is what any flanking maneuver would be seen as) rally even your own allies against you, or was the Swiss military just that damn good in their own borders?
Enough of Switzerland is mountainous that attacking Switzerland is nightmarish enough, trying to attack through Swtizerland in to another country would be near impossible.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/08 06:26:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/08 07:48:30
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote: sebster wrote:
Trying to advance around the enemy defenses was the whole reason for the race to the sea. Once that phase was finished there was no connected country you could attack through. And a seaborne invasion was near impossible given the tech of the time - look at the debacle of Gallipoli, and note the Turks there had nothing like the equipment the Germans could bring to bear to defeat an invading force.
You seem more well read on WW1 than I, so perhaps can answer this question. As you mention there being no connected country you "could" attack through. . . Yet we know that Switzerland exists. Would an invasion into Switzerland (which is what any flanking maneuver would be seen as) rally even your own allies against you, or was the Swiss military just that damn good in their own borders?
Switzerlands greatest defence throughout history has always been physical geography. Getting through Switzerland and then into Austria or Germany would be a nightmare. Also, violating their neutrality would severely damage the UK diplomatically.
|
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 09:45:59
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Sorry to be so salty previously...super long shift dealing with super frustrating folks and I took it out on you. Apologies!
I get that the powers involved didn't start off with the intention of fighting a trench war.
I think my thought/opinion is bes described in the encyclopedia entry: "At the start of the war, most of the world's armies had tactical doctrines based on combat operations consisting of vast sweeping maneuvers and meeting engagements."
That is what I have been trying to show, and how the generals were slow to adapt to the vastly different battlefield and the technology that changed the lethality of war.
The generals couldn't adapt their thinking and tactics to the changes. In fact, in some cases, they *wouldn't* adapt...instead trying to "[concentrate] on ways to restore the old paradigm, failing to understand that the central paradigm of war itself had shifted."
For years these generals and commanders threw men (needlessly and ignorantly) into battles that couldn't be won..or if won, had outrageous body counts.
Did the generals and commanders eventually learn? Yes...of course...but the sheer idiocy, stubbornness, and willfull ignorance of some cost many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of lives than may had been necessary to win the war sooner.
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 11:25:39
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
TheMeanDM wrote:
That is what I have been trying to show, and how the generals were slow to adapt to the vastly different battlefield and the technology that changed the lethality of war.
Slow compared to who and when? For them to be slow, somebody else has to have done it faster; otherwise there's no standard of comparison for judgement.
You have to remember that large scale offensives took considerable time and resources to build up; and each major battlefield was different. A level of firepower which would likely have carried the day in 1914 would have been bludgeoned into the ground by oppositional counter-attacks in 1917. The British Army learned from each and every major attack it launched; the Marne was different to Neuve Chapelle was different to the Somme was different to Cambrai. You keep hanging on to this idea that WW1 battles and strategy consisted of nothing but throwing men over the top Blackadder style to walk calmly into machine gun rounds. And it just isn't true.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 11:45:54
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller
|
Ketara wrote: TheMeanDM wrote:
That is what I have been trying to show, and how the generals were slow to adapt to the vastly different battlefield and the technology that changed the lethality of war.
Slow compared to who and when? For them to be slow, somebody else has to have done it faster; otherwise there's no standard of comparison for judgement.
You have to remember that large scale offensives took considerable time and resources to build up; and each major battlefield was different. A level of firepower which would likely have carried the day in 1914 would have been bludgeoned into the ground by oppositional counter-attacks in 1917. The British Army learned from each and every major attack it launched; the Marne was different to Neuve Chapelle was different to the Somme was different to Cambrai. You keep hanging on to this idea that WW1 battles and strategy consisted of nothing but throwing men over the top Blackadder style to walk calmly into machine gun rounds. And it just isn't true.
Just go slightly off topic, that last scene in Blackadder is ruddy good though.
|
Brb learning to play.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 11:50:20
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
3 years is "slow" in my opinion...especially when there *were* otherscin the leadership that were advocating different approaches and tactics.
The German artillary general from the east front (Bruchmuller) for example...he accomplished a great many things on that front and was very innovative (a pioneer as they say).
He took that with him into the western front and while the spring offensives under Ludendorff were a failure, you could say that it wasnt a failure due to his tactics (but that of Ludendorff's leadership overall). Automatically Appended Next Post: There were leaders in both sides that advocated different tactics and strategies but were cast aside by the leadership because it didnt fit their "vision" of how a war should be fought......how many tens of thousands did Haig send to their death needlessly over and over, eh?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/09 11:52:57
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 12:11:21
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
TheMeanDM wrote:3 years is "slow" in my opinion...especially when there *were* otherscin the leadership that were advocating different approaches and tactics.
In your opinion as a bloke sitting here with very little knowledge about the subject a century later. I'm not sure your endorsement (or lack thereof) counts for much here.
There were leaders in both sides that advocated different tactics and strategies but were cast aside by the leadership because it didnt fit their "vision" of how a war should be fought......how many tens of thousands did Haig send to their death needlessly over and over, eh?
Basic historical revisionism. Happens very regularly and is not true as often than it is. Everyone has an axe to grind; and just because you manage to get it into print doesn't mean anything necessarily. Look at Beatty's attacks on Jellicoe post-WW1. Christ, look at Churchill rewriting Gallipolli. Even Haig had an axe to grind against French; let alone J.F.C. Fuller against Haig.
I think I'm going to stop now though; because with the best will in the world; you know nothing about the subject but what you're pulling from an encyclopedia. And trying to argue against that is just making me look like a condescending arrogant prig (well, I do that to myself most likely, but still). Mistakes were certainly made in WW1; but the British high command (and those of other nations) were not guilty of what you appear to think they were.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/09 12:15:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 12:26:53
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
And what makes you such an expert and your opinions so much better than mine?
I use *some* information from a credible source that better expresses my thoughts on the subject and you say I don't know anything...or that I don't know enough.
I give up trying to have a conversation
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/09 12:47:02
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 12:39:08
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
I'm pretty sure Ketara is a professional Historian, based on memories of previous posts in other threads.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/09 13:31:51
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 13:25:26
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
TheMeanDM wrote:And what makes you such an expert and your opinions so much better than mine?
I use *some* information from a credible source that better expresses my thoughts on the subject and you say I don't know anything...or that I don't know enough.
I give up trying to have a conversation
I'm not trying to put you off having a conversation and if that's what comes off, I apologise for that. What I'm trying to do is demonstrate that the subject really isn't as simple as it might superficially appear to someone who knows the beginning and end, and direct you towards sources/trains of thought which would allow you to begin critically assessing the first world war more effectively. The first step here isn't to declare that they were all doctrinally bound sheep leading lions, but to try and understand more accurately what actions the high command /did take and why they made those decisions.
Otherwise you're just making up opinions with no real factual basis or understanding, which is rarely a good thing.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 14:39:45
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
TheMeanDM wrote:Sorry to be so salty previously...super long shift dealing with super frustrating folks and I took it out on you. Apologies!
I get that the powers involved didn't start off with the intention of fighting a trench war.
I think my thought/opinion is bes described in the encyclopedia entry: "At the start of the war, most of the world's armies had tactical doctrines based on combat operations consisting of vast sweeping maneuvers and meeting engagements."
That is what I have been trying to show, and how the generals were slow to adapt to the vastly different battlefield and the technology that changed the lethality of war.
The generals couldn't adapt their thinking and tactics to the changes. In fact, in some cases, they *wouldn't* adapt...instead trying to "[concentrate] on ways to restore the old paradigm, failing to understand that the central paradigm of war itself had shifted."
For years these generals and commanders threw men (needlessly and ignorantly) into battles that couldn't be won..or if won, had outrageous body counts.
Did the generals and commanders eventually learn? Yes...of course...but the sheer idiocy, stubbornness, and willfull ignorance of some cost many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of lives than may had been necessary to win the war sooner.
As I said earlier, people forget how fast the early battles of 1914 were. There was a lot of rapid movement and manoeuvre going on. Tannenberg, where the Germans defeated the Russian invasion of East Prussia, is one such example. Austria's invasion of Serbia was quite quick, but was repelled by stout Serbian defence.
And of course, 1918, with the German Spring offensive, and the Allies 100 days campaign, was also speedy.
It was the in-between that was slow.
And let's not forget that WW2 had lengthy battles as well. The siege of Leningrad was 3 years. Stalingrad was 4-5 months, it took the Allies till August to break out of Normandy after landing in June, and it took the Red Army 2 years to get from Kursk to Berlin.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 18:09:23
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Lets see...
Lloyd George was a leader that disagreed with Haig's strategy.
Churchill, I feel, was actually less than supportive/approving of his tactics especially after Somme (as was much of England, really.
But what I have been trying to simply state, that Haig carried out antiquated tactics and really didn't adopt new strategies that may have saved lives, is confirmed by the man himself even years after the war had ended:
"I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse—the well-bred horse—as you have ever done in the past."
|
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 18:27:18
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
That is just demonstrably false. It is true that a lot of British military thought went 'backwards' after the war, that was a product of the belief that the First World War would was horrific enough that another major European conflict would be unlikely to occur. The British turned their attention back to The Empire, and in terms of policing a colony or putting down rebellion, the statement that aircraft and armour are auxiliary to infantry and cavalry is a fair one. Planes and tanks even at the time were massively more expensive to produce and maintain than infantry and cavalry units, and when facing native forces, small insurgencies or local unrest, of very limited use. To judge the performance of Haig (and his contemporaries) during the First World War, you must examine their record in the war itself, and there, the claims you've made are just untrue. As Ketara mentioned above, each major offensive was conducted in a way that reflected the lessons of the previous ones, and while it's possible to suggest that at times, the 'wrong' lessons were learned, to say there was no change at all and to accuse the generalship of pig-headed stubbornness and refusal to adapt is just wrong. To illustrate, let's examine the evolution of the use of armour. The first use of tanks by the British comes on the Somme in 1916. Here, they are employed in too small a number and spread too thinly. Many have mechanical issues, and the infantry fail to exploit the breaches made by armour. This can probably be considered a failure by the metric of ground gained, though as mentioned before, it was not without strategic value given the nature of attrition on the Western Front. Now, look at Cambrai, 1917. Tanks are deployed in much more concentrated formations. Cavalry are employed in an attempt to exploit the gaps made, should the infantry get bogged down and be unable to do so. This attack is a success at first, though a German counter-offensive retakes much of the lost ground. The British overextended here, and lacked the staying power or momentum to hold the ground they had taken. Finally, Amiens, 1918. Tanks are used s the spearhead of an combined-arms assault. Infantry advance with rather than behind them, holding ground as they take it. Aircraft are used to provide more efficient communication, spot concentrations of anti-tank weaponry for the artillery or observe enemy forces massing for a counterattack. The aims of this offensive are limited and local, which prevents the British from overextending and to take only the ground they can comfortably hold. This is perhaps one of the most successful Allied operations of the war, as part of the Hundred Days offensive that ultimately led to victory over Germany. Across these three battles, you can observe a clear learning curve, which sits fundamentally at odds with the idea that British command were backwards-thinking buffoons unable or unwilling to adapt or learn. The evidence is right there. If you want further reading on this subject, I suggest taking a look at the work of Jonathan Boff, Tim Travers and Gary Sheffield; they represent a lot of the work that's been done to dispel the myth of British incompetence and stagnation on the Western Front.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/09 18:28:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 19:11:16
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
TheMeanDM wrote:
Lloyd George was a leader that disagreed with Haig's strategy.
Churchill, I feel, was actually less than supportive/approving of his tactics especially after Somme (as was much of England, really./
I actually process a lot of stuff with Churchill's signature on from his time as First Lord of the Admiralty; and whilst remarkably prescient in many ways, he tended to have blind spots just as large. Like most people really. A bit like how Lloyd George insisted that any factory should be able to turn out a shell during the munitions crisis, roped in a lot of non-specialist firms, and ended up essentially instigating the creation of vast quantities of unusable shell. Both were ultimately politicians who had a limited understanding of military matters; and their opinions should always be taken with a degree of salt. Churchill especially, as he deliberately set out to pervert the couse of history and aggrandise himself.
But what I have been trying to simply state, that Haig carried out antiquated tactics and really didn't adopt new strategies that may have saved lives, is confirmed by the man himself even years after the war had ended:
Paradigm has laid out quite well where you need to be looking in terms of major engagements and relevant authors if you want to learn about British strategical development over the course of the war (don't ever give Gary Sheffield too much to drink though, or you'll learn more than you ever wanted to know on the subject  ).
"I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse—the well-bred horse—as you have ever done in the past."
I believe horses carried out most of the logistical backbone in the subsequent world war; so he wasn't actually incorrect.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/09 19:11:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 19:32:05
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
You keep saying that the tactics changed.
I don't 100% disagree with you there.
I keep saying that the "throw more men at the enemy, and keep throwing" tactic essentially didn't change quickly enough...and was repeated.
The casualty numbers speak for themselves in just 2 campaigns.
Somme (400k+ Brit casualties) was the first major Brit offensive.
Third Ypres (250k min Brit casualties) was Haig's second major offensive. The numbers are fuzzy, as some estimates of Brit casualties go upward of nearly 500k.
Regardless...it was the *same* attrition strategy. With the same bloody results.
But finally toward the end (the 100 Days Campaign) new tactics were adopted and they finally proved effective (as evidenced by the end of the war).
Again...all I have been saying is that the tactics didn't evolve fast enough due to the stubborn mentality of the overall commamder of British forces.
Show me what he did differently in Somme and TY. I woukd like to know....because I am really only seeing a difference later. Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: looks like you did go into an explanation.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/09 19:34:03
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/02/09 19:44:41
Subject: Do WW1 generals deserve their bad reputation?
|
 |
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine
My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!
|
Ketara wrote:
I believe horses carried out most of the logistical backbone in the subsequent world war; so he wasn't actually incorrect.
Yes, but Haig wasn't talking about horses as beasts of burden. His vision of war was centered on cavalry assaults as a direct factor in battle, which they pretty much stopped being during the American Civil War. It just took Europe fifty more years to wake up to the fact. True, the Russians got some use out of their cavalry on the Eastern Front, but that front was a different animal compared to the Western Front, and even still, they took a bunch of casualties.
Frankly, not every general in WWI deserves a reputation as an idiot or a fool. But some do. Cadorna, von Falkenhyn, Potiorek, Enver Pasha, and I would propose Haig. His subordinate officers in the Canadian and Australian divisions were figuring out new tactics that were showing promise and were worth developing further, and he was sitting back fantasizing about horse charges. He spent as much time fighting political enemies in London as he did the German army and he was far more successful against his countrymen than against the Kaiser.
Lastly, I want to mention something an earlier poster touched on; about Verdun being a plan by the Germans to bleed the French army out of the war... There is some evidence that shows that may not have been von Falkenhyn's plan at all. All of the available writings from the war itself indicate von Falkenhyn was planning a standard, by the book, let's try to break through the enemy lines, style of attack. His actions during the battle seem to bear this out, as well. If the plan was to fight defensively and force the French to knock themselves out of the war with futile counter attacks, why didn't the Germans go on the defensive until the last minute? They were on the offensive for almost the entire battle. That's a tactic that kills more of your men than it does the other guy when you're in trench warfare. They had taken enough of the Verdun territory and outer forts (though not the town proper) to achieve a solid defensive position in the first few weeks, but they kept pressing forward in the face of stiffening French resistance. When it became obvious the French weren't going to be pushed back any further, the Germans kept pushing forward and getting thrown back. The conduct of the German army during the battle don't seem to indicate a plan of "let's let them kill themselves on our defenses" at all. In addition, the only documents that indicate von Falkenhyn's plan was to bleed France come from his own writings made *after* the war. Nothing written during the war corroborates his plan to force France into a decisive battle of attrition at Verdun.
It seems that von Falkenhyn, like a lot of generals, tried to rewrite history to make himself look better.
|
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) |
|
 |
 |
|