Jump to content

"lions Led By Donkeys" - Topic Close To Billb's Heart


DB

Recommended Posts

...so its not as if the Germans were THAT much more innovative, even if they had developed infiltration tactics...

Both Bulgarian and Serbian army used those, along with dedicated assault troops in the siege of Adrianople. Germans had observers present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We will never know if they saw idea or liked it, or were developing it already individually and what they saw confirmed their thinking.

Anyway, genesis of the assault troops and infiltration tactics had a long history, from a late medieval siege warfare to the WW1 trenches.

Both Bulgarian and Serbian army were quite forward thinking in trench warfare, eg. widely issuing hand grenades "before it was cool" and training soldiers for a close combat fighting other than a standard "move forward and stab a dummy with a bayonet" due the experience of 1st and 2nd Balkan wars..

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the difference between 1917/18 Anglo French small unit tactics and German storm trooper tactics?

 

Ubermench vs Donkeys as far as I can tell.

One can't argue with the German success in 1918, but it's rarely contextualised.

The Germans stripped their army to form a corps de elite to punch through the worst defences in Europe.

The Anglo-French developed methods to allow 'everyman' to defeat the best defences in Europe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember hearing a lecture on Auftragtaktik and fall gelb, and it does seem that Storm trooper style infiltration does suit the Prussian style of war. But I can certainly see they would buy in other concepts from other groups. Which means the genesis of WW2 german concepts is considerably wider than JC Fullers Plan 1919, who we Brits usually credit the Germans with reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics

 

It does seem on a small unit basis, the Germans were better than us in WW1. But in that kind of war,it doesnt seem usually to have made much difference. Ok, in 1914 and in early 1918 for short periods, maybe. But it only seems to have come into the fore during the era of what we now called Blitzkrieg, when mobility gave far greater opportunity to small units, and small unit leaders.

 

 

Is that a wholly misguided appreciation of what was going on, on my part?

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haig, for all his faults, immediately saw the potential of the tank, and was one of the driving forces in getting it to the front line. Before probably it ought to have been, but give the guy credit,he could see the potential it had in getting casualties down. He was quite right.

 

 

Invention of the tank here,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank#British_development

 

The word "Haig" does not appear the in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested he invented them. Try reading 'Devils Chariots'. Its very clear that Haig, when he heard about about the tank, actually modified the battle of the Somme to incorporate them.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Devils-Chariots-Birth-Secret-Battles/dp/0750941529/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=devils+chariots&qid=1598031066&sr=8-2

 

Sir Albert Sterns 'Memoirs of a Tank Pioneer' may mention it as well, I cant recall. Worth reading anyway as a primer for how badly British AFV procurement has always been.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested he invented them. Try reading 'Devils Chariots'. Its very clear that Haig, when he heard about about the tank, actually modified the battle of the Somme to incorporate them.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Devils-Chariots-Birth-Secret-Battles/dp/0750941529/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=devils+chariots&qid=1598031066&sr=8-2

 

Sir Albert Sterns 'Memoirs of a Tank Pioneer' may mention it as well, I cant recall. Worth reading anyway as a primer for how badly British AFV procurement has always been.

 

Isn't Haig supposed to have seen Mother demonstrated and immediately demanded a couple of hundred as soon as they could be built?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something like that. He was deeply enthusiastic. Ive never had much time for him before, but my attitude towards him changed when I read that. He was only launching offensives because there was nothing else that could be done. When he saw there was potential alternatives, he jumped on them, even if he wasnt initially very good at integrating them in the plan. Well, nobody was at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember hearing a lecture on Auftragtaktik and fall gelb, and it does seem that Storm trooper style infiltration does suit the Prussian style of war. But I can certainly see they would buy in other concepts from other groups. Which means the genesis of WW2 german concepts is considerably wider than JC Fullers Plan 1919, who we Brits usually credit the Germans with reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics

 

It does seem on a small unit basis, the Germans were better than us in WW1. But in that kind of war,it doesnt seem usually to have made much difference. Ok, in 1914 and in early 1918 for short periods, maybe. But it only seems to have come into the fore during the era of what we now called Blitzkrieg, when mobility gave far greater opportunity to small units, and small unit leaders.

 

 

Is that a wholly misguided appreciation of what was going on, on my part?

 

Which small units are we talking about though? Elite stosstrupen or some guy in the Landwehr with a Gewehr 88?

 

One of these guys is not like the other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Regarding Haig - it is true he was an early tank enthusiast and highly influental getting the weapon fielded, but same was true for Joffre. He proposed order of 400 tanks already in January 1916, which was realized, followed by another 400 tanks from Saint-Chamond. Whole program might have started out sooner if Joffre's staff had not thrown Estienne's first proposals to thrash bin. Petain, too, kept an eye on tank development early on (he followed very first trials in 1915), and Nivelle was probably the biggest tank mark of all C-in-C's in WW1. If anything, his over-expectation about the new weapon almost led them to go down with him when he fell in 1917.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

As I get more reading done since I have retired, I have somewhat started to re-appraise some of the commanders involved.  I am coming to the conclusion the Kitchener was both an asset, and the greatest impediment to the British war effort.  Perhaps more so than Haig, Kitchener epitomises both the best and the very worst of the British Army of the 19th and 20th Centuries.  Arguably Kitchener's death was possibly the best thing that could have happened to the British war effort.  

I will also state that while British regimental level officers were brave, and tried to adjust to the changing conditions, the higher ups took longer to make the mental adjustment to the new paradigm of war as show in WWI.  But I also think that the British political class bears a LOT of blame for things, and I think that Lloyd George was perhaps the most destructive politician involved in the war being both petty, vindictive, and too ready to place blame on others for his cock ups.

Edit: I decided to add more meanderings here:  I think also there were British Generals who did have a completely horrifying disregard of casualties such as the aforementioned Aylmer Hunter-Weston who was quoted as saying: "Casualties, What do I care for casualties?"  Look also at the generals in the Mesopotamian campaign with their egos which led to fine troops being destroyed.  Plus on the Western Front, you have those who wanted to move their drinks cabinets six inches closer to Berlin :D  

But I have come to the conclusion that most of the generals on the British side (and American for that matter), would have done remarkably well fighting the Boers, or re-fighting the Malakand Campaign, but faced with the new technology of slaughter just could not adapt fast enough to prevent horrific casualties.

Also the commanders in East Africa seem to an uninspiring lot who got run around by Lettow-Vorbeck and never really could defeat him until the very bitter end when they had a quarter of a million men running around in the bush looking for him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Murph said:

As I get more reading done since I have retired, I have somewhat started to re-appraise some of the commanders involved.  I am coming to the conclusion the Kitchener was both an asset, and the greatest impediment to the British war effort.  Perhaps more so than Haig, Kitchener epitomises both the best and the very worst of the British Army of the 19th and 20th Centuries.  Arguably Kitchener's death was possibly the best thing that could have happened to the British war effort.  

I will also state that while British regimental level officers were brave, and tried to adjust to the changing conditions, the higher ups took longer to make the mental adjustment to the new paradigm of war as show in WWI.  But I also think that the British political class bears a LOT of blame for things, and I think that Lloyd George was perhaps the most destructive politician involved in the war being both petty, vindictive, and too ready to place blame on others for his cock ups.

Edit: I decided to add more meanderings here:  I think also there were British Generals who did have a completely horrifying disregard of casualties such as the aforementioned Aylmer Hunter-Weston who was quoted as saying: "Casualties, What do I care for casualties?"  Look also at the generals in the Mesopotamian campaign with their egos which led to fine troops being destroyed.  Plus on the Western Front, you have those who wanted to move their drinks cabinets six inches closer to Berlin :D  

But I have come to the conclusion that most of the generals on the British side (and American for that matter), would have done remarkably well fighting the Boers, or re-fighting the Malakand Campaign, but faced with the new technology of slaughter just could not adapt fast enough to prevent horrific casualties.

Also the commanders in East Africa seem to an uninspiring lot who got run around by Lettow-Vorbeck and never really could defeat him until the very bitter end when they had a quarter of a million men running around in the bush looking for him.  

Since you are working hard for the King Sargent Chair of Military History, let me suggest: 

Pyrrhic Victory
French Strategy and Operations in the Great War
Robert A. Doughty

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674027268

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/3/2021 at 12:08 PM, Rick said:

Did the U.S. contribution cause Germany to lose? IIRC, Stuart said most likely?

Would the U.S. have been as efficient in W.W.2 if it did not get involved in W.W.1?

US involvement did not cause Germany to lose the war. They lost because they had too many enemies to no useful allies. 

Germany just used up all their resources until they could not continue the war effort anymore.

Ww 1 decisive battle was the kaiserschlacht, where USA committed only 2 divisions. Which is as little as Portugal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just started re-reading A Peace to End all Peace, and it appears that Winston got unfairly blamed for somethings, but he was also completely at fault for the seizure of the two Turkish battleships.  What would have happened if the UK had responded favorably to Turkish requests for help in 1912+ and did what they could to keep Turkey neutral?  Could the UK have told the Greeks to "pound sand", and kept Turkey out of the war, or was the British Empire, and France too eager to slice up the pie of the Ottoman Empire?  

Also it looks like Gladstone with his holier than thou stance really mucked up British-Turkish relations, and indirectly set the stage for tragedy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...