My Great Uncle turned a corner on a tow track next to a canal in Belgium in 1915. He immediately saw a group of German's setting up a machine gun. He charged shooting his SML from the hip and after mounting the embankment finished off the rest with his bayonet after emptying his magazine. He was awarded the VC, he was my grandfather's twin brother and a real character. Michael O'Leary......VC.
As an Australian who had relatives on the western front, I will of course point to General Monash's use of combined arms, the coordinated use of tanks artillery, aircraft and infantry, tried out at the brilliant Battle of Hamel on July 4 1918, timed to take 90 minutes and completed in 92. This was repeated on a larger scale at the Battle of Amiens on August 8, Ludendorff's Black Day of the German army, which began the 100 day advance, finishing with the armistice of November 11.
Absolutely! Both ANZAC and Canadians were used as 'stormtroopers' during the 100 days with great success. Most of the Artillery, all the Tanks, and most of the other support was British and other Empire troops, but the ANZAC and Canucks were used very well.
The British were shocked when they saw the physical stature of the colonial troops was so much more impressive than the working class British men who were conscripted out of the slums of london, Glasgow and Manchester. British working class people were generally undernourished, sickly and weak. Many of them were delighted when they discovered the army intended to feed them several meals a day, and would look after their teeth and other aspects of healthcare.
Monash was indeed a great general as were the Anzac troops who definitely fought way above their size . It is a shame the Aussies contribution at Gallipoli often overshadows their much more important bravery on the western front . Often criticised for their bad behaviour when it come to a fight all this was forgotten and they should also be applauded for their stance on not shooting men who were suffering from shell shock as the other empire troops were prone to.
My grandfather was a diabetic with terrible eyesight yet he volunteered and found himself in a pioneer company. In downtimes He would carve dice and other thing's from ivory. I still have a set of poker dice that He carved in a trench in Belgium in 1915. He served again in WW2......one of many Irishmen.
My Great Grandfather was in the Leinsters. shot but thankfully (for me) only wounded at 3rd Ypres. He never told anyone and I only found out through a book called "Stand To!" written by his commanding officer Captain F.C. Hitchcock where he is mentioned twice.
It’s so strange that in the U.K. the history “ learning “ emphasis was always on the less successful aspects of 1916 and 1917 not on the successful learn and change tactics lessons , but especially “ strange “ was that subsequent histories ignored the incredible success of the holding the German March offensive so that there was no real chance of German victory And the subsequent spectacular Victory of the 100 days when the Imperial forces swept all before them with their innovative offensive tactics by integrated troop , artillery, tank and air support and constant changing of target so they always had the initiative at the places they attacked…….truly war winning but almost totally ignored in post WW I U.K. history .
Because Lloyd George and Churchill got into a battle of Autobiographies after the war in order to justify their actions and decry others. Haig as a professional soldier was of the "never complain, never explain" school, did not put his views and experience to paper,l. Perhaps if he had Clarks fiction of Lions led by donkeys, would not still be accepted as gospel
I think part of the issue was the massive impact the war had on the psyche of the British public. It was the first time the country was involved in a war on the continent that saw a massive death toll. In the past Britain had taken part in military actions but they were always very much on the periphery, leveraging the Royal Navy or as members of a grand coalition. This was the first time they were in a European war and having to carry a lot of water for the Allies.
@@LoneWolf-rc4go Not a new phenomenon - already in the 1930s, Orwell commented that the battles of 1918 that broke the German Army were almost forgotten - but the Somme and Ypres certainly were not.
Only doing so without much of modern communication. So inside the tank is a messenger pigeon. There is a dude with a long line of field phone wire. A whole lot of runners. Someone with flags.
More like "charge them with a bunch of men trained to follow closely behind a creeping barrage made up of hundreds of thousands of shells fired according to precise timetables" but OK
Thank you for continuing the effort in getting the message out there... It's always an uphill battle despite the evidence available. Speaking of which your references are top shelf!
And yet it has actually made the landscape of war in 2024 more similar to 1917 than to 1944. The predominant way drones are used today is surprisingly reminiscent of aviation in the last couple of years of 1914, with reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition still predominating over strike capabilities (although the latter might be gradually catching up with 1930s/40s dive bombers).
@@LafayetteCCurtisDive bombers? Try a good ol' semi auto shotgun. Wouldn't need a stock, just a decent optic and solenoid trigger. 1 guy could run multiple platforms. Or just a cheapo drone with some C 4.
@@nomadmarauder-dw9re Dive bombers were also historically not that difficult to shoot down once people figured out that they were highly vulnerable at the top and bottom of the dive. And on the other hand far more FPV drones simply miss their target than were shot down, just like dive bombers and fighter-bombers back in the day.
While the video is concerned with the "learning curve" of the BEF (and I include British, British and Imperial troops in that) one of the truly innovative aspects of the war was the harnessing of a total logistics effort to achieve the aim. The British Army had had to sustain forces across the globe for centuries and had learnt the lessons of being able to feed and sustain personnel (sometimes omitting it cost them dearly). It did take until 1916 to get their act together - from the making of munitions to supplying them to the troops at the various fronts. It was not until Sir Eric Campbell Geddes GCB GBE PC (26 September 1875 - 22 June 1937) was brought into first Director General of Munitions (1915) that more began to be made than could be delivered to the front. He was then made Director General of Transportation and reorganised that movement. By 1918 the BEF had more equipment, food and munitions than it could effectively use! The Germans in the March Offensives could not believe the foodstuffs available to the Allies and it became one of the legends that many just sat down and gorged themselves on things they had not seen since the start of the war. This supply situation meant that the BEF could recover quickly from the losses of equipment (over 1,000 artillery pieces destroyed or captured were replaced within weeks for instance and no shortage of shells). This same logistics effort (and equipment !) meant that instead of a single attack front followed by a delay of weeks while material was redeployed to open a new attack, there were only a few days and even even near simultaneous attacks. The Germans were not left in peace! (An interesting event not mentioned is the attack across the St Quentin Canal by 46th (North Midland) Division in September 1918. It had not had a good reputation in the war to date but taking life-belts from cross Channel ferries and collapsible boats it crossed the canal and subdued the opposing positions to continue the BEF advance. It is one of Prof Gary Sheffield's favourite actions - showing the fruits of the "learning curve")
It wasn't just the BEF learning in isolation. The Germans were doing it as well. That gets forgotten. What also gets forgotten is that Haig only took command at the end of 1915,and the problems with previous attacks was put down(by French) as a lack of artillery. Haigs answer to that was the 7 day bombardment before the somme.
A brilliant presentation Chris. So glad you mentioned Machine Guns being used in the indirect fire - something that is often overlooked and not discussed. When reading through the War Diaries, it's fascinating to study the detail and evolution of systems and processes throughout the war. So well done Chris!
As I have learnt also from the Western Front Association and Dr. Spencer Jones, the BEF was also subject to the needs and wishes of the French - the Somme could not be called off for it was providing assistance to the Battle of Verdun, and Passchendaele was covering the mutinies in the French Army. Superb presentation.
I was annoyed when I went to see the new Australian movie “Before Dawn”. It said in the promo it was about the Australians breaking the Hindenburg Line in 1918 (Under John Monash). So I was looking forward to seeing a combined arms battle with tanks, planes and infantry working in combination. But no, men with 303’s charging machine-guns head on. Not a Lewis Gun in sight, no one used a Mills Bomb or tossed a smoke grenade. Not a single indication of combined arms warfare. Just soldiers led by a Sergeant being directed by a distant officer who was not seen on the battlefield and sending little boys with rifles to charge machine guns. Very disappointing.
Maybe look up who the Producer/script writers were. They may have simply been repeating the lying narratives created by Non Australian Historians following WW1.
At least the 'Official' Australian War History also includes the 'Fact' that the Turks attacked the Russian areas being Crimea and Odessa and NOT Ukraine, in 1914.
More than very disappointing also very socialist misinformation to depict it the way their anti establishment propaganda after war convinced the world that was how it was. A lot of nonsense was peddled with one aim in mind. Demoralize the working class British, stimulate foment and divide ever further the working class from the middle class and the ruling class. It was highly successful in doing so.
I still play combat missions Barbarossa to Berlin😊. Just re-watched Journeys End😢. I remember seeing Aces High in the movie theater, Journeys End with airplanes.
When Sir Ian Hamilton was sent to capture Gallipoli by Kitchener, he was provided with a single tourist guide book to Gallipoli and sent on his way. Pure professionalism.
To be fair, Kitchener probably didn't have detailed maps and intel that he could have passed to Hamilton. It's not like they deliberately held it back.
One of my Great Uncles was on HMS Hampshire transporting Kitchener at the time it hit the mine. He went down with the ship. Another was wounded at 3 Ypres and was subsequently left between the trenches believe to be dead, he was saved by a German medic who heard him moaning and went out to tend his wounds. He then attracted a British patrol and handed his patient over to them. My Grandad served RN throughout both wars and was invalided out after his ship was bombed in Tobruk harbour in 1942. He never fully recovered from his wounds and died in the mid 70's. My other G/Father served in the Royal Artillery from 1915 to 1918 and survived. Another Gt Uncle served and survived both wars in the RN. and my Gt/Gt Grandfather was killed on the 2nd Somme in 1918.
Monash trained the Germans by dropping a few artillery barrages on them using gas with the idea that men in gas masks can't fight effectively, when the actual attack was on Monash used artillery and the Germans put on their gas masks expecting a gas attack. Which compromised their ability to defend their postions.
The Germans developed combined gas attacks where they used one gas that made troops vomit,meaning they were forced to take their masks off and another gas to kill. In the spring 1918 offensive there were 8500 gas injured only 30 fatalities,though.
@robertstallard7836 Thing is that that was just one of the innovations Monash used at that battle. He took them all and put them together in a way that nobody else had by that point. Pretty well wrote the book on combined arms in the process.
@@twrampage he didn't create it. He built off of the plans,etc of others. They pored over all the battles to try to find the lessons then implemented them. Monash was just the one that was in charge of that battle.
The Allied forces don't get enough credit for what they were able to accomplish in 1918, they had their tactics down to perfection by then and the Germans had no answer. Problem is general history focuses on the big trench battles of earlier years, general public never seems to ask how the war was actually won if the Generals and tactics were so bad.
"The Allied forces don't get enough credit for what they were able to accomplish in 1918, they had their tactics down to perfection by then and the Germans had no answer." That´s just another Britaboo-myth. It implies the Germans in WW1 were beaten by superior tactics. This is in fact wrong. The Central Powers lost the war due to exhaustion not because of some super-duper-British-Australian-John Monash-Rambo-tactics as the Britaboos like to believe.
May I recommend the book White Heat by John Terraine. A persistent theme. WW 1 was the first war fought outside the visual realm of commanders and verbal/written communication but before radio could overcome this.. The frontages were vast. Wellington could ride from one end of the Waterloo battle to the other. WW1 generals could not.
The Last Hundred Days was a classic series of battles by the entire British and Empire forces. There five armies attacking which rolled up the German army to end the war. Armies decided the outcome, not corps.
Good shout for the Territorial Force/Army most of my family were in 50 Div 1908 - 1967.... my father continued with what followed for 38 years, I became War Disabled after 20 years of service. I wasn't the only casualty, and some didn't make it. Most people don't realise that the Territorial Force was larger than the Regular Army before WW1, and likewise, the Territorial Army was much larger than the Regular Army before WW2.... All you usually here is the Regular Army hung on until the Pals Battalions were ready. Another little known fact of the Cold War. The 22 SAS, had a Regimental HQ & 4 Squadrons to be deployed as and when by Director Special Forces. The whole of 1 Br Corps, Long Range Reconnaissance, and Patrol Group was made up of 21 & 23 SAS (v) (the(v) denotes TA) each had a RHQ and 5 Squadrons, so the TA SAS was 2.5 times larger than the Regular SAS. We had cracking instructors, both TA and each Squadron had two experienced 22 SAS veterans just before their retirement.
A little known factoid is that in WW1 the Northumberland Fusiliers produced a huge amount of battalions, more that could be expected of the the area - I believe only London churned out more. Obviously at that time Tyneside was heavily industrialised, did they have 'reserved occupations' as per WW2?
Hello Chris glad to see your channel is getting stronger than ever. My apopogies i havent been anle to interaçt and really devote the time i should do with a subject that is the one of the very few things that inspires me and others like yourselves. I have had alot of family and health issues but i really need to get that redcoat back on and look to my front
If you go there the Canadian students who volunteer to “educate” the visitors will tell you how this was a crucial position that the Germans had to hold. But if you point out that the successful storming of vimy ridge took place in April 1917 and the war went on till November 1918, so it was hardly all that crucial then, was it? - don’t expect a lucid reply.
Vimy was a success because of a number of factors one of which was luck. There was a heavy snow storm and the wind was blowing in the Germans’ faces. This made a substantial difference. But also, the crucial innovation was that the artillery had devised means to accurately bombard without needing the use of spotters. At the Somme only a few months previous, each artillery piece had to be individually honed in onto a target by use of aircraft who would spot the shot, see where it landed, and fly back and drop a message saying “100 yards short” or whatever. Thus, surprise was impossible unless you wanted to attack a prepared position without artillery support. Different weather makes a major impact on heavy long range artillery. These calculations were finally codified mathematically. The other main innovation was the use of tunnels. Previously (and subsequently at Messines) they were stuffed with explosives and blown. But at vimy they were used as a means to marshal troops and then get them across no man’s land safely and allow resupply of the men who had occupied enemy positions.
@@intelligenthorsemanshipwit1330thats not really how that works. The decisive battle of WW2 is widely agreed to be Stalingrad. In the Pacific, Midway. These are both before the halfway point in time. You can argue its a later battle but it really isnt, its the high tide of the attacker and without disabling or taking the strategic objective there is no real way forward.
While on the subject of revolutionary infantry tactics; I was wondering if you’ll do a video on Robert Rogers? Although he didn’t have the most successful military career (mainly due to the fact that he was developing a regiment who specialized in irregular warfare at a time when that was extremely frowned upon), most of his ‘Rogers Rules of Ranging’ are not only still used, but are now standard doctrine for infantry units in the US, UK and most western militaries
There's a video of historians commenting on WWI scenes in movies. One pointing out how 1917 showed a mass of disorganized troops charging the enemy. The historian argued that there should have been officers and NCO's directing them into a coordinated assault.
Its the argument of John Terraine - "no other way", in which the hard lessons were learned in the middle of the war and the Germans were compelled after the Marne to fight a defensive war, a strategy that put both British & Commonwealth/French forces through the mincer. I would also like to point out, that Lloyd George faced a near collapse of Itally after the disaster of Caporetto and the French army in 1917 was in a state of mutiny. Thus compelling Britain to not only take up more of the line but to also shoulder more of the actual burden of war. Thus forcing a mind to both defence and awaiting reinforcements from the United States who had yet to deploy in full strength. The problems would also multiply, with Russia's withdrawal from the conflict, due to the revolution. That all being said, the hard experience gained plus the more modern thinking and considered commanders such as Monash, Currie, Plumer and Rawlinson (yes I know about the latter from the Somme) had established a fighting force and tactics that would bear abundant fruit in the last 100 days before the wars end, producing significant victories against an exhausted enemy, that was witnessing a collapse in morale at the home-front, caused by the slow strangulation of the 'blockade' and the intervention of the US Army, whose presence and build up impressed upon Germany its futile resistance.
Thanks Chris for an excellent podcast. Good call mentioning Paddy Griffiths' book, I bought my copy soon after it was published in the mid 90s. I have been visiting the Western Front on guided tours since 1999, most recently earlier this month to the so-called "Forgotten Front" of the battlefields of 1915. On all my visits the guides made a point of showing the graves of senior British officers killed on rhe front line, thereby debunking the myth of Château Generalship.
@redcoathistory I'm sure that you will do it very well. Are you back in RSA now? We met at the Zulu War exhibition in London last year. I subsequently went on a guided Boer War battlefield tour with Ian earlier this year. Absolutely brilliant.
I remember reading Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves, and him talking about tactics and being blown away that what he was talking about was pretty modern.
We have an understandable interest in the Somme and Passchendeale, but it has always been curious that we are seemingly less interested in the British Army's greatest victory in 1918, when the Germans were stopped and then routed. In this regard Professor Gary Sheffield has been to the fore in correcting this amnesia and reappraisal of Haig, through his history "1918: Forgotten Victory".
Your presentation is truly spot on. Facts delivered in a conversational, everyday tone which makes it easier to retain. Well sourced and backed up material with an abundance of good photography all help to create a picture and relay your info in a cohesive and engaging way. If your videos were source material in schools, I reckon we would have a different youth of tomorrow, a better one. Keep up the sterling work. 👌🏻
The Anzacs came out when I was a kid. It showed the futility of the Somme, but it also showed the late-war innovations. A scene I well remember is the Diggers lining up on the white line in the darkness, waiting for the whistle and the sound of artillery starting up and my father, who quit the Reserves as a young man, telling me "it's a walking barrage, the men stay just behind it so they reach the Germans immediately after the artillery hits them."
One of my main bugbears, this. My grandfather who somehow survived the trenches (he only did six months before getting a Blighty, but that was as good as experience got... almost no one survived more than six months) and if you badmouthed Haig he'd have bitten your arm off. Airpower, gas, mining, artillery co-ordination, French whores, World War One ushered in the modern age of warfare. Granted, it did sting a bit... but those involved were not halfwits.
My Grandfather got a "Blighty" on Sept 8, 1918 at Cambrai. 10th Canadian Bn - He was there around 6 months, too..... Came out with 4 GSW (Gun Shot wounds), and hit by a Whizz-bang. He walked 5 km to an Aid Station, and was holding in his own intestines when he got there (Yes - I have his Medical docs that state that!). He survived, and died later in an oilfield accident saving 2 other men's lives. MY HERO.
If you think almost nobody survived the trenches, try reading "Mud, Blood and Poppycock". Statistics get a bad name, and indeed can be dehumanizing, but you will find that the truth is that becoming a casualty at all was in reality a minority experience. But please don't take my word for it, read the book.
gas shells mixed with coloured smoke shells. Then during attacks fire just the smoke so they put gas masks on and obscure their vision was another tactic used.
Absolutely correct. The British Expeditionary Force of 1914 was well-versed in fieldcraft and fire and maneuver following the Haldane Reforms after the Second Boer War. During the Battle of the Aisne, German Artillery observers noted the spacing and rush tactics employed by British infantry, a consequence of which was that the gunners were only able to hit two or three men with each shell.
German Stormtrooper tactics already existed in 1915 and by 1916 already through fourther theorization had been improved to a point they were far more sophisticated than the british infantry tactics of 1917.... also they were handpicked men under the age of 25 chosen for their mental strength, physical fitness, agressive personality and their overall effectiveness in combat as they were handpicked by their officers for those characteristics.... they were also far more mobile than most entente units and operated independently from the artillery as well as other frontline units, in addition to this their equipment wasn't ment to be able to contain an enemy position through fire superiority but to get close to the enemy in order to engage him effectively in CQB (they were specialized on the "Nahkampf" or CQB as well as melee with trench clearing and shock attacks being their priority and the only reason they have been created in the first place)..... to refer to them as some brave amateurs with no skill is more of an insult than an objective analysation.
As always, great video. If you’re looking for a new idea, might I suggest the War of 1812, if you haven’t touch on it yet, particularly the Canadian campaign. I think it’s interesting how the American army thought it could just steam roll and even recruit Canadians to fight the British. It’s amazing what a small contingent of British regulars and determined Canadian soldiers could do. I also find it interesting from the Canadian perspective, the war is often cited as the catalyst for forging the Canadian identity. Prior it was a convoluted mix of American but mostly British, after it was most certainly Canadian
One other thing that always needs to be rememebered is that the Germans weren't just sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They were constantly developing new defensive tactics to thwart the new offensive tactics of their enemies. One of the best exampes is around the Battle of Arras. In areas like Vimy Ridge the Germans were still largely using the defensive systems and plans of 1916, and there was significant success for the British. However, where they faced the newer German defensive strategies with a well implemented Hindenberg Line, such as Bellecourt, they were pretty reliably stopped.
My grandad was in the war , born 1901 and joined in 1915 . I used to ask him about the war because i saw old photos and some medals and things , so he did not lie to me would tell me stories ! One story he wore on the side of his head as a scar . Sad , brutal , and makes me laugh because it was crazy how he was able to survive .
Good work mate on this vid. And it wasnt just the british, there was huge innovation all round as each side adapted, evolved and overcame. Its tragic how poorly underatood ww1 is. Im a wargamer and myself and a colleague are developing a new set of wargaming rules for ww1 called 1918, partly as ab educational tool.
Good video with one unfortunate error. You repeat the common myth that the BEF of 1914 were almost wiped out. In reality the large majority survived those early days. This is evidenced by the huge number of Mons Stars awared and the fact that most of its recipients, my great grandfather included went on to wear Pip, Squeak, and Wilfred.
Black Adder replying to the general 'We'll be right behind you.' 'Yes, about 30 miles behind you.' In reality, numerous generals did visit the front... some being killed there.
Altogether there were at least 78 known senior officers of General ranks (Brigadier-General, Major-General, Lieutenant-General &/or General status) of the British & Imperial Forces, who became fatalities or were later classified as missing in action, while inspecting or operating on-duty in front line positions that were then in direct contact with the enemy, during the ‘First World War!’ So much for the “well-worn & now threadbare myth” of them being all ‘chateau generals,’ remaining 30 + miles behind frontlines?!!
Senior officers were regularly exposed to enemy fire. If you wanted to see what was happening across a brigade area, you had to ascend a vantage point and scan the battlefield with binoculars or a telescope. It was dangerous work.
All Nations adapted to modern warfare. It is rarely shown in media but the armies of 1918 were very modern and had more in common with todays Militarys than the ones of 1914.
You should look at the Battle Hamel, which was the first set piece all arms battle, planned and direct by the Australian General Monash and his staff and approved by General Haig. It was at this battle that the Canadians and Australians fought side by side. General Haig then encouraged the adoption of the principles of the all arms battle, throughout the British and Empire Armies, after this outstanding success. Incidently, some Americans fought with the Australians at Hamel, in their first battle in France. Some Australian historians accuse General Monash of hubris in the last battle the Australians fought in France. While reasonably successful, the Australians suffered such high casualty rates, as to render many battlions ineffective. This was because of the lack of staff planning and the limited availability of tanks and supporting arms as the troops broke forward through the German lines and into open country.
I agree with your thesis that the British Army doesn't get enough credit for its coming up with and implementing innovative tactics throughout WWI. You leave out that the Germans were doing the same throughout the war and seemed a step ahead until the second half of 1918. In fact, it doesn't seem like the British were able to bring off the combined arms aspect of their developing doctrine until the Germans showed them how it was done in the Spring and Summer of 1918. The Stosstruppen were more than just assault troops but a system of Infantry-Artillery coordinated echeloned assaults. The fact that the British were finally able to bring it all together in the second half of 1918 was because of all the hard work creating the pieces necessary to unlock the puzzle of Trench Warfare up to that point when they got the last missing bit. Good show.
Eg around 07:00 I think to much commentary is in silo form, the Somme for example was inextricably linked to the French crisis, stopping after day 1 just wasn’t an option. Well, unless leaving the entire French army to continue taking the strain being decimated and bled white was acceptable per German strategy anyway. We know lots of this stuff through architecture too. The German trenches were deep and defensive, resilient to artillery as per their doctrine of hold on. British trenches were shallow and rudimentary in comparison due to our doctrine of moving on asap. Hence the “lessons” learned were more like a “how to” not a “what to” on the job training. Other apparently mad tactics, like the famed walking across no man’s land and being cut down can be contrasted with the movie Gallipoli - there’s no point in being the fastest and getting there in your own, assuming you weren’t shot on the way, you needed to get there as a group. That might sound very napoleonic warfare style but it was still a factor. And bearing in mind tanks were deployed in day 1 of the Somme albeit token due to lack of reliability, it did have a psychological potentially battle winning effect and to my point shows we were planning the “what to” long before we could cobble together the “how to” . Anyhow all interesting stuff.
The general popular view of the Empire forces in WW1 is largely incorrect, and you point out this out well...the bulk of the problems stem from the operational and strategic levels. People overlook the fact that the Boer war saw the Brit Empire deploy a force of nearly a million men, from across a global empire, into South Africa in a matter of months, and wage a war in hostile territory over a period of several years. No one else had ever done that. Tactically, the Empire forces were constantly training and reworking doctrine, and introducing new equipment. Monash's attack at Hamel achieved its' objectives in 90 minutes, using the standard Empire attacking doctrine, he followed the doctrine to the letter...using methods that had been in use in the Middle East nearly a year earlier with the push into the Sinai and into the Levant (contrary to popular australian thought, monash was no military genius, he was simply a thorough planner - he was outshone by Harry Chauvel, the cavalry commander in the Mid. East).
A little described area (of the professional army of the Great War) is the amount of re-equipping and retraining which took place before an offensive, both in the use of the new equipment and the specifics of the objectives for (probably) companies and their commanders and no doubt reports on effectiveness of the new kit, tactics and plans. Occurring as part of the normal rotation out of the front. Healthy, rested, medically and physically fit men with all the new gucci gear in their battle formations (combined arms often as not) working together with good food, high fidelity training areas and instructors to set them up perfectly for the task ahead. Whilst at the same time communications equipment being installed, light railways built for logistics, aerial photo-reconnaissance and other intelligence gathering taking place. Not the stereotypical sequence of trench life, followed by a whistle and mass slaughter. Just a thought.
You say fix and flank. It sounds like a Zulu horns of the buffalo,. The horns were younger men throwing spears, which feels like machine gun armed infantry on your flanks, and the buffalo head being bayonet armed infantry
Flanking is a classical, practical, and long thought up idea. Alexander utilized similar. Works in MMOs too. Had quite the success using packs of wargs to gank healers. Lord of the Rings Online was a blast in its heyday.
Plus, I would not be so quick to dismiss the German Storm Troopers. They pushed two major British armies miles past former battlefields like the Somme. Yes, the Germans were eventually stopped, but that was more from outrunning their artillery support and exhaustion. And it was not luck, as we are talking about miles long breeches of British lines in Spring 1918. So tactically, the Germans were brilliant. Grand Strategy not so much. Talking about strategy, Supreme Allied Commander Foch realized that Plumers's Bite and Hold strategy could not win the war. You cannot Bite and Hold several hundred yards at a time all the way to Berlin. It was Foch who developed, and pushed against Haig's resistance, the Allied effort to counterattack in 1918 after the German Offensive failed. Certainly, the British were better than the Americans (who had a lot of learning to do), but not better than the French or Germans or Canadians for that matter. In my opinion, the biggest British innovation was the tank, although British historians tend to omit the part about how the Germans counterattacked after the tank success at Cambri and retook all the gains the tanks had made. The book Pyrrhic Victory by Robert A. Doughty does an interesting job about pushing back on the British idea that it was the British Army that won WW1. The book also did a good job of describing the evolution of tactics on the Western Front. I used to think all these WW1 generals were complete idiots. After the book I have a greater appreciation for the hardships generals had in WW1. Basically, WW1 tactics can be boiled down to this: how to cross No Mans Land with enough troops surviving to fight off the eventual counterattack and hold what you gained.
The British Artillery were the reason for success. They outperformed every other Army in its use and innovation. The tank remained a sideshow through out the war.
There was nothing special about the German "stormtrooper" tactics that distinguished them from what both the British and French were doing with their infantry tactics at the time. Pretty much all the armies arrived at a similar solution to the same problem. The main difference was that the allies were better at the operational level and their offensives didn't run out of steam like the Germans. Also the British in particular used their artillery in a much more flexible way than the Germans.
@@bilgerat6060 How were the Allies better at the operational level? In 1917 both the Nievelle and Passchendaele Offensives were disasters for the Allies. The 100 Days was greatly helped by Germany deciding to put its best troopers into the Stormtrooper units leaving a lot of third rate units to defend. Defeating Germany and lowering German Army morale and raising Allied morale had more to do with the immiment arrival of millions of Americans. Not to say the British Army did not fight hard, but British and French units were at half strength and pretty beat up from the 1918 German Offensive.
I think WW1 was an event in warfare where the prevoius tactics met a new age. Very much like Ukraine where the use of drones is taking over the battlefield and having to learn to adapt. Great video as aways.
The pod is about British Army tactics , and the reality vs the public perception. Sometimes the best laid plans can go awry because being too ambitious or innovative . An example of this is the 1st Battle of Cambrai , Infantry backed by Tanks , Supported by mobile artillery and Aircraft for grounf attack . After initial success it was pushed back by German counter offensive. But the idea was so good that 22/3 years later the Germans adopted the exact tactics and called it Blitzkrieg .
@@andrewhart6377 They can't have considering Hamel took place in 1918 while Megiddo ( Allenby's victory over the Ottomans) happened in 1917. Maybe the British did in fact have dashing commanders? I find it amusing how those of you look down on the British as "Lions lead by donkeys" yet WW2 produced guys like Bill Slim, Richard O Connor, Brian Horrocks and Richard McCreery all great commanders.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The Battle of Megiddo employing the Tactics of Monash was unleashed between Sept. 19-25 1918. If the Ottoman/Germans had been defeated there in 1917 why would Allenby have to do it all over again? Please retract your incorrect statements.
Much as I always love bigging up Britain, I feel it should be pointed out that everyone else was also innovating constantly, which is part of why the British innovations didn't end the war sooner. The Germans became adept at drawing enemy attacks into positions where they could be destroyed by brutal counterattacks for relatively low cost, the French constantly developed their artillery tactics and even the Russians did some innovative things with hurricane bombardments. Note: The above does not apply to the Italians.
I don't think General Hague would have had nearly as impressive a turnout of mourners in his funeral if he'd been as awful as modern rumors claim. He was popular among the people.
Worth noting that many rumors come from Lloyd George, who conveniently punished his 'criticisms' a day after Haig's passing. Edit: dead men cannot defend themselves.
A wonderful resume. Paddy Griffiths book is first rate so glad it gets quoted. For my money the British Army was at its best in Marvh and April 1918 desperately out gunned and outnumbered, it never broke. The punishment inflicted on the Germans contributed (with the effects of the blockade) to their defeat in the 100 days.
@@andrewhart6377 Thanks! I am sure that in local areas the line did, that is units mostly dead or prisoner, but 5th Army didn't, despite a very serious defeat it stayed in business, and with help from allies and other reinforcements eventually stopped the Germans (arguably perhaps they just ran out of puff). We might have different definitions of 'broken'.
@@chrisjones6736 'Help from Allies' ? The Australians had to rally the thousands of British soldiers fleeing the battlefield in March of 1918 because certain British Commanders could not. What would you expect when another million German soldiers were added to the Western front following the Russian collapse at that time.
A myth mentioned is that Germans believed rapid rifle fire was machine guns. An unmentioned myth is that Scots were referred to as "Ladies from Hell or Devils in skirts" by Germans. Otherwise a very interesting video.
Both were a little self promotion on the side of the British. The Germans often referred to Scottish troops as English soldiers from Scotland, which isn't very polite.
@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle I don't believe tartan trews were used in combat. As a generalisation Scottish Lowland units wore normal service dress trousers, and Scottish Highland units wore the kilt. It could be worn alone or with a khaki apron (introduced after the Boer War) which I've seen both just covering the front of the kilt and also wrapped all the way around it. Kilts weren't the best in trench warfare conditions, a mud caked or icy hem could irritate the skin, the knees weren't protected from the cold or when crawling through no-man's land, it offered less protection to gas attack, and the pleats offered cosy protection for lice. A concession made from 2016 was that kilts were replaced by service dress trousers in the winter. Late in the war there may have been moves to phase out the kilt. Some Canadian units also wore kilts.
'Never mention the Canadian Corp.' In their first battle with the Germans in the 2nd battle of Ypres(the first German major gas attack), the Canadians halted them, counterattacked and drove them back. The first time a Territorial force defeated a European force on European soil, as noted by French Fieldmarshal Foch. It wasn't long before the Germans developed a policy of NEVER attacking the Canadian line.They had some regimental specialists they called stormtroopers, and they viewed the whole Canadian Army as similar to one of those.
there is some debate as to weather the Germans specifically viewed the Canadians as "elite stormtroopers" the moniker is most probably a post war rumor. then again in the later war period the Canadian corps was in essence the only entente force that still employed trench raids regularly. this could be the source of the "storm trooper" rumor. what we do know however is that the Germans viewed the Canadians as being brutal and uncompromising even amongst other nations soldiers in a war where uncompromising brutality was the norm. i remember reading an anecdote where a German officer was beating a Canadian pow because of how savage the Canadians had acted towards his own men. mayhap it is for this reason that the Germans "feared" the Canadians. i would imagine that in the years after the war popular imagination either intentionally or unintentionally sanitized the actions of the Canadian soldiers, making them seem more humane then they likely were. what was once a brutal, uncompromising army which gave no quarter retroactively sanitized over time to become a proud and elite fighting force.
@@_Yomoholo_The Canadians heard a rumour that their compatriots were being shot out of hand by the Germans which had some truth to it and from then on showed no fear or favour. In the Kaiserslautern in March 1918 the Canadians had two separate benefits over other empires troops , they were on a quiet part of the front where training was rigorous and unlike all other divisions they were not forced to lose a battalion in each brigade because the French wanted us to hold more of the front. Haig knew of the esprit de corps of the Canadians and allowed their commander Currie much more leverage than other commanders to prepare his own plan of attack and more importantly when he would attack. The Canadians were fine troops however .
@@pincermovement72 you are right the Canadians were not brutal for no reason, it could be argued that their enemies gave the Canadians many reasons to be brutal towards German soldiers. (imagined or truthful) the first usage of gas for example was against a line the Canadians were holding. 2nd battle of Ypres if i remember correctly then there is the myth of the crucified Canadian which appeared to be common at this time, among others. and you are also right about the corps organization, much of the Canadians corps success was due to its excellent leadership (curie and Haig were both excellent commanders), organization along with the fact that it was allotted a higher than average ratio of artillery for a formation of its size. among other things. even so its difficult to determine wither or not the average Canadian soldier could have been considered genuinely "elite" and such calling them elite is probably inaccurate.
@@_Yomoholo_No the Canadians were elite groups as attested by their battle successes and the reactions of the Germans when facing Canadians...the victory of Vimy ridge is a time example..training ,tactics, and excellent planning won the day when no one else could..it was also a pivotal and great moral booster for the whole allied front...it got the war out of the trenches and onto own ground where the allies could handle the germans
One reason the Canadians and many commonwealth forces were seen as more "special forces" was that many were volunteers. So unlike the conscripted soldiers from Britain they were more dedicated.
I re-visited my book White Heat. It mentions that far from keeping out of risk 20 British generals were killed . Also the HQ's. It made total sense to have them well to the rear of the front. Although not perfect HQ's relied on telephone communication and were partly telephone exchanges. Place them near the front line ? If they were destroyed by artillery the whole command system on that sector of front would be wrecked.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the British lost nearer 70 officers of Brigadier-General and above. These losses were so damaging that Commanders were ordered to stop taking risks.
I think the late war British Army was the most effective fighting force - relatively speaking it was the strongest the British Army has ever been. In terms of size, training, capability and equipment...the best in the world.
The Lewis gun was christened the Belgian rattle snake for its ability CTO spit out rounds at 550/600 rounds per minute..it was light enough to be carried by one soldier and able to do a thing called "walking fire" . keeping heads down while the slowly advanced. Very good in the latter stages of the war with the artillery in coordination.
I'm not completely convinced that all of the criticism of continued attacks is warranted. To reassess a complex situation properly under those conditions would take a day or more. Halting an offensive for this length of time allows the enemy to consolidate and bring in reinfircements, guaranteeing that the offensive fails. With incomplete information, continuing as planned may have been the wisest strategy at the time, rather than simply wishful thinking or "trying to snatch victory....". It is pointed out that one battle "failed" because the reserves were not brought up to reinforce and exploit the breakthrough. It is contradictory to argue against putting the reserves in elsewhere, when the fog of war makes it uncertain whether it is warranted or not. Criticism with the benefit of hindsight?
Although Britain, France & Germany were better equipped & better trained than their 19th century counterparts. All sides were going into unknown territory. No one had fought a war like this one. There is a saying that each general fights the last war. That was the case with many generals. A lot of those generals did however learn and adapt. Haig gets a lot of stick, sometimes justifiably, but there was no one better for the job. French seemed the ideal person for the job before the war, but he was constantly undermined by Kitchener, had to navigate a political minefield, Those things plus the defeats, broke him. Haig had similar problems, minus Kitchener but seemed better equipped to handle them. All countries sent observers to the Russo Japanese war and one of the 'lessons' they learned was that modern warfare could be quick and decisive. So all sides expected the war to be over in about 18 months. In 1914, No country, not even the British Empire, had the resources to sustain a protracted war.
The tactical situations in WWl once the conflict on the Western Front bogged down in trench warfare from the channel to the Swiss Border. It required changes in tactics and weapon systems. To restore mobility required a breakthrough. Achieving a breakthrough required the use of tactics and new technologies. Some of the tactics may have been up to the challenge. Unfortunately the emerging technology wasn't.
There was a book written in the 1930's by a famous british writer who i cant remember at the moment. He did an interesting critique of the first world war. He talked about innovative generals, not a popular sentiment later. One of his clàims, that i havnt checked, was that in 1915 the british assembled more guns, ammunition and soldiers than ever before in history. It didnt work. So the next year thay assembled ten times that number and it still didnt work. Thats when they realised the needed something else. I'm going to track down that author and let you know as it was an interesting different view of the war.
Not realy fair. Standard procedure was to reassess after every significant actio It's easy to forget that you can run a recruit through basic training more quickly than you can build a bunch of gun factories
The tactics of 1918 weren't much different to 1917, what changed was the condition of the German army, the increased length of the frontline and that the Germans weren't fighting on the Hindenburg line but recently gained poorly defendable ground
The British infantry tactics of 1918 are the foundations of modern warfare recognisable to every modern infanteer. WW1 is probably the most misunderstood conflict due to the severe rewriting of history in the 60's and 70's to create the "lions led by donkeys" myth . It's unfair to judge 1916 as nothing but a disaster and you very fairly point out it was the year the new army gained it's education. It was a year when increasing pressure was put on the British to relieve the increasingly struggling French Armies through offensive action, when incompetent officers of all ranks were being weeded out and where we were learning to beat the industrial warfare with new tactics. Had Germany not have surrendered in 1918 it would have faced a far more comprehensive battlefield defeat due to new tactics, weapons and an increasing American presence in the planned offensives of 1919 including all arms co-operation and better logistics. This may have changed the history of the 1930's and 40's if a BAOR style occupation had stabilised a defeated Germany. Great content, please keep it up. 🏴🇬🇧
I did notice that when you talked about innovative tactics you didn't about how they were all put together and used to take Vimy Ridge. Also that is was the Canadian Corps that used them to great success. At wars end the Canadians were called the Masters of War.
I think there is a little national myth making their sir. Though undoubtedly the Canadian Corp was exceptional. Here is a quote from Paddy Griffith that may be of interest - The BEF can certainly boast more than a dozen 'élite' divisions which originated in the British Isles; but to these we must also add the ten ANZAC and Canadian divisions which have always clamoured very stridently and insistently for a still higher recognition. These colonial formations enjoyed many organisational advantages over their UK col-leagues, not least their independent political status which allowed their commanders to question GHQ policy at almost every turn. Still more to the point, perhaps, was the fact that both the Australian and the Canadian corps eventually managed to establish themselves as permanently self-contained formations. They cut themselves free from the normal BEF (and German) practice whereby a corps might take in any division almost at random, only to spit it out again a few weeks later." Within both the Australian and Canadian corps, by contrast, the order of battle very soon became permanently fixed at the same five and four divisions, which gave them an enviable continuity of leadership downwards from their respective corps HQs." Only the New Zealanders and South Africans were cast loose to take their chance within the more complicated rough-and-tumble of the 'normal' BEF arrangements. The frequency with which a particular division would be sent into action naturally depended in part upon the length of time it was in France; but it also depended to a very great extent upon the approval or favouritism of the high command. Thus all five of the original infantry divisions of August 1914 went into serious action more than thirty times, although the 2nd Division, with 44 occasions, seems to have been specially favoured. The 9th (Scottish) Division was the first New Army division to take the field in France, and for much of the war it incorporated the lively South African brigade. It produced more genuine tactical innovations than any other division, partly because more of its commanders wer trained in the artillery than was true of any other division and, as the most senior, it was the first New Army formation allowed to join the occupation forces in Germany after the armistice. In the long view of history it probably deserves to be seen as the most 'élite' of all the British divisions - not least because it managed to create a potential breakthrough on three separate occasions, without any help from tanks whatsoever. P80/81.
Overall, a good watch. However, in your discussion of 3rd Ypres, you play into a couple of counter myths that are almost as problematic as the ones you are attempting to dispel. Both your promotion of bite and hold and complaints about the delay have a couple of fatal flaws within the argument, both linking back to the central issue of a war of materiel, logistics. Contrary to the implication within your presentation, the delay between Arras and 3rd Ypres was largely necessary. Offensive operations require an extreme amount of artillery, roughly 275 kg of shells per meter trench to be taken according to Dr. Sean Faulkner's research. It takes time to move that much artillery from one place to another and build up a sufficient supply of shells. Given the transportation technology of the day, six weeks is roughly what was needed to move that much materiel from Arras to Passchendaele. Bite and hold is inherently superior in a lot of ways; however, it has two significant limitations, one of which was clearly demonstrated at 3rd Ypres. The Great War was an artillery war. As stated above, the big guns would clear a section of trench and then the infantry would secure it. This works wonderfully as long as your operations remain within the range of your guns and you have enough ammunition to keep up the pressure (thus reinforcing the necessity of the delay as discussed above). Once you have reached the limit of your artillery's ability to support the infantry, it becomes necessary to move up the guns. However, by putting the requisite amount of explosives into the enemy lines, you fundamentally change the face of the earth. Before and after aerial photographs show a stark difference in the nature of any particular piece of ground. For a clear numerical example, Cote 304 at Verdun is now less than 290 meters high. Guns require a relatively smooth surface for long distance movement, so you have to repair the ground that you have just spent so much time and ammunition destroying. This gives the enemy time to drop back to the next ridge line and force you to do it again. I could go deeper into the logistical and political problems of bite and hold, but I believe that doing so at the moment is unnecessary.
@@redcoathistory bite and hold is, like he says, limited by the range of the guns. Cavalry could and did take advanced positions ahead of the infantry objectives, but these could only ever be held if the guns came up in time to hold off the enemy or engage in counter battery fire. Otherwise... a town like monchy le preux would become one big lump of rubble and men.
@@redcoathistoryI am impressed by your apparent humility and desire to learn. (You do know this is the internet, though, don’t you?? This isn’t how it’s done!!)
I find your reply somewhat nonsensical. I have no problem with what you say about the artillery support problem. I totally agree, what you eloquently describe was the fundamental problem of WW1. Any substantial advance took your troops away from the artillery and materiel you needed to hold ground, and closer to the enemy’s logistical hub. The logistical hubs, not geographical features, were the really key positions in this war. Railheads! If the British had lost Amiens we were fucked! To win at Ypres required somehow disabling the railway at Roulers behind the German lines. But the whole concept of bite and hold, as opposed to grand sweeps of cavalry and mobile warfare behind the trench lines, was specifically developed to permit gains to be consolidated because you DIDN’T advance beyond the point where your heavy artillery could support you. And then your guns would smash the inevitable German counter attack. They’d move up and you’d do it all again.
This was tedious and could never be spectacular - which is why there isn’t even a decent name for the offensive that won the war in 1918 - there was no one place where there was a decisive battle, instead it happened in many diverse locations. But it was effective, or at least far more so than massive attacks and breakthroughs. The German spring offensive in 1918 is a good example of why. Their main attack ran out of steam and was halted because of this exact reason. The Germans had still got a lot of troops and artillery, they still could do several more huge attacks, but they couldn’t effectively exploit the offensive around Amiens because the battlefield of the Somme prevented them being able to bring up guns and munitions. 40 miles of devastation had to be crossed! So their infantry had to attack with less and less artillery support and was decimated. Meanwhile the British could roll up fresh troops and guns on the railway almost to the front line.
Interesting! Indeed, I am happy that historians have fought back against the anti-Haig revisionism of the 1960s, as well as other myths about the war of the time. There is still more work to do among the public imagination, but we are making progress. Say, I am reading 'For Valour: Canadians and the Victoria Cross in the Great War' by Series Editor Gerald Gliddon now. I thought if you were interested in talking about VCs in a Commonwealth context, you could start with this resource. Cheers from across the pond! 👑🇬🇧🍻🇨🇦👑
War is who can adapt and evolve quicker. Think Romans versus Hannibal, the Romans repeatedly lost but adapted then overcame Hannibal. WW1 was the same by the end of the war tactics and strategy had evolved. We are seeing it now in Ukraine with the use of drones and precision munitions. Russias tank blitz’s have been halted by these new technologies.
Ok. My poor understanding is that Hannibal was always outnumbered and without supply, and Rome's greater population and economic power guaranteed its eventual victory.
It was the Australians who developed combined arms, which was first successfully used at Hamel. After Hamel the Australians took charge of the August offensive to lead it and the result was the Armistice. If it wasn’t for the Armistice, Lloyd George and the King planned to replace Haig with Monash as both had realised the British high command didn’t have the intellectual capacity to adapt to a modern war of movement, they were stuck with the tactics of static warfare with victory set by attrition. As Rawlinson confirmed, the Australians were the most effective fighting force on the Western Front.
Loyd-George's view on Haig cannot be trusted. Keep in mind that WW2 was as much a war of materiel and logistics as it was of tactics. The Allies did not have that supply and logistics capability in 1916. NONE of the major commanders had a solution prior to 1918. As an Australian, I'm a fan of Monash, but the British High Command must be given credit for recognising the benefits of Monash's methods, adopting them and using them on the scale required.
@@peterwebb8732 The British high command by mid 1918 consisted of Rawlinson at the fore who ensured that Haig was pushed aside for Monash. It was Rawlinson who also ensured that Monash’s plan was carried out. As for Lloyd-George, he had the backing of the King to have Haig replaced, which is more trust than Haig could muster. The King recognised the superior skills of Monash, its one of the reasons he knighted him in the field so that the military would have to acknowledge his position.
And we here, well government and military, have failed to acknowledge the great work of Monash. If any one deserves a posthumously awarded Field Marshall title it would be Monash. He was amazing on so many levels. 🇦🇺🦘👍
Leaving the trenches in to artillery and machine gun fire was itself a learned lesson, it sounds stupid to us but European observers had seen it work in the Russo Japanese war, large casualties for the Japanese spent at Russian fortifications that were eventually taken. Just picture Imperial Russia, a storied great power, vs Imperial Japan that only 50 years earlier was isolationist with zero modern(for the time) weaponry or ships, when a victory as unlikely as that takes place people notice and we were watching. The fighting of WW1 was the RJ war in macrocosm.
For anyone wanting to understand how the best soldiers in the world worked their way through the worst war the world had ever seen, I THOROUGHLY recommend “Tommy” by the late, great, Richard Holmes.
I remember an interview where an old Veteran from WW1 said that "The British Army in 1918 was the finest army ever to exist in the world" and I probably would agree.
I really recommend the Western Front association lectures to anyone interested in WW1 , it has really opened my eyes to the Blackadder myth of this war. From knowledge they have given me I find your ideas to be spot on .
Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/fkxubjyd
Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
I've been playing Supremacy for years!!! love the game, good sponsor Chris 💋
@@maryannedouglas Fantastic! Thanks for letting me know.
Oh hell, no! What an awful sponsor.
My Great Uncle turned a corner on a tow track next to a canal in Belgium in 1915. He immediately saw a group of German's setting up a machine gun. He charged shooting his SML from the hip and after mounting the embankment finished off the rest with his bayonet after emptying his magazine. He was awarded the VC, he was my grandfather's twin brother and a real character. Michael O'Leary......VC.
As an Australian who had relatives on the western front, I will of course point to General Monash's use of combined arms, the coordinated use of tanks artillery, aircraft and infantry, tried out at the brilliant Battle of Hamel on July 4 1918, timed to take 90 minutes and completed in 92.
This was repeated on a larger scale at the Battle of Amiens on August 8, Ludendorff's Black Day of the German army, which began the 100 day advance, finishing with the armistice of November 11.
Absolutely! Both ANZAC and Canadians were used as 'stormtroopers' during the 100 days with great success. Most of the Artillery, all the Tanks, and most of the other support was British and other Empire troops, but the ANZAC and Canucks were used very well.
Yep, the tanks, Canadians, British and French followed the Australians.
The British were shocked when they saw the physical stature of the colonial troops was so much more impressive than the working class British men who were conscripted out of the slums of london, Glasgow and Manchester. British working class people were generally undernourished, sickly and weak. Many of them were delighted when they discovered the army intended to feed them several meals a day, and would look after their teeth and other aspects of healthcare.
Monash was the greatest General in the British Empire. A truly brilliant man.
Monash was indeed a great general as were the Anzac troops who definitely fought way above their size . It is a shame the Aussies contribution at Gallipoli often overshadows their much more important bravery on the western front . Often criticised for their bad behaviour when it come to a fight all this was forgotten and they should also be applauded for their stance on not shooting men who were suffering from shell shock as the other empire troops were prone to.
My grandfather was a diabetic with terrible eyesight yet he volunteered and found himself in a pioneer company. In downtimes He would carve dice and other thing's from ivory. I still have a set of poker dice that He carved in a trench in Belgium in 1915. He served again in WW2......one of many Irishmen.
My Great Grandfather was in the Leinsters. shot but thankfully (for me) only wounded at 3rd Ypres. He never told anyone and I only found out through a book called "Stand To!" written by his commanding officer Captain F.C. Hitchcock where he is mentioned twice.
It’s so strange that in the U.K. the history “ learning “ emphasis was always on the less successful aspects of 1916 and 1917 not on the successful learn and change tactics lessons , but especially “ strange “ was that subsequent histories ignored the incredible success of the holding the German March offensive so that there was no real chance of German victory And the subsequent spectacular Victory of the 100 days when the Imperial forces swept all before them with their innovative offensive tactics by integrated troop , artillery, tank and air support and constant changing of target so they always had the initiative at the places they attacked…….truly war winning but almost totally ignored in post WW I U.K. history .
Very true!
Because Lloyd George and Churchill got into a battle of Autobiographies after the war in order to justify their actions and decry others. Haig as a professional soldier was of the "never complain, never explain" school, did not put his views and experience to paper,l. Perhaps if he had Clarks fiction of Lions led by donkeys, would not still be accepted as gospel
I think part of the issue was the massive impact the war had on the psyche of the British public. It was the first time the country was involved in a war on the continent that saw a massive death toll. In the past Britain had taken part in military actions but they were always very much on the periphery, leveraging the Royal Navy or as members of a grand coalition. This was the first time they were in a European war and having to carry a lot of water for the Allies.
@@LoneWolf-rc4go Not a new phenomenon - already in the 1930s, Orwell commented that the battles of 1918 that broke the German Army were almost forgotten - but the Somme and Ypres certainly were not.
British history education is extremely anti-British, they teach basically every bad thing and none of the positive things
My favourite innovation is "charge at them with a bunch of men AND tanks AND planes," really got things moving, you know?
erm yep thats kind of how it works. You must be a military man!
If only they'd managed to overcome the technical challenges of mounting bayonets onto tanks & planes it'd have been all over by Christmas
@@redcoathistory Damn, how'd you guess? I'll have you know I am the Chief of Staff for Made-Up-On-The-Flyland.
Only doing so without much of modern communication. So inside the tank is a messenger pigeon. There is a dude with a long line of field phone wire. A whole lot of runners. Someone with flags.
More like "charge them with a bunch of men trained to follow closely behind a creeping barrage made up of hundreds of thousands of shells fired according to precise timetables" but OK
Thank you for continuing the effort in getting the message out there... It's always an uphill battle despite the evidence available. Speaking of which your references are top shelf!
Thanks Rob, always great to hear from you. Glad you also agree with some of the points in this video.
Tactics have changed lots over the years. It's an extremely difficult job now for a frontline soldier with the fear of drones looking down at you.
Yeah that certainly adds a new and terrifying dimension to the life of a frontline soldier. Thanks mate
And yet it has actually made the landscape of war in 2024 more similar to 1917 than to 1944. The predominant way drones are used today is surprisingly reminiscent of aviation in the last couple of years of 1914, with reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition still predominating over strike capabilities (although the latter might be gradually catching up with 1930s/40s dive bombers).
@@LafayetteCCurtisDive bombers? Try a good ol' semi auto shotgun. Wouldn't need a stock, just a decent optic and solenoid trigger. 1 guy could run multiple platforms. Or just a cheapo drone with some C 4.
@@nomadmarauder-dw9re Dive bombers were also historically not that difficult to shoot down once people figured out that they were highly vulnerable at the top and bottom of the dive. And on the other hand far more FPV drones simply miss their target than were shot down, just like dive bombers and fighter-bombers back in the day.
Drones have made things like covert surveillance very hard to do. Any dug in SF chaps can be spotted much more easily. Nightmare!
While the video is concerned with the "learning curve" of the BEF (and I include British, British and Imperial troops in that) one of the truly innovative aspects of the war was the harnessing of a total logistics effort to achieve the aim. The British Army had had to sustain forces across the globe for centuries and had learnt the lessons of being able to feed and sustain personnel (sometimes omitting it cost them dearly). It did take until 1916 to get their act together - from the making of munitions to supplying them to the troops at the various fronts. It was not until Sir Eric Campbell Geddes GCB GBE PC (26 September 1875 - 22 June 1937) was brought into first Director General of Munitions (1915) that more began to be made than could be delivered to the front. He was then made Director General of Transportation and reorganised that movement. By 1918 the BEF had more equipment, food and munitions than it could effectively use! The Germans in the March Offensives could not believe the foodstuffs available to the Allies and it became one of the legends that many just sat down and gorged themselves on things they had not seen since the start of the war.
This supply situation meant that the BEF could recover quickly from the losses of equipment (over 1,000 artillery pieces destroyed or captured were replaced within weeks for instance and no shortage of shells).
This same logistics effort (and equipment !) meant that instead of a single attack front followed by a delay of weeks while material was redeployed to open a new attack, there were only a few days and even even near simultaneous attacks. The Germans were not left in peace!
(An interesting event not mentioned is the attack across the St Quentin Canal by 46th (North Midland) Division in September 1918. It had not had a good reputation in the war to date but taking life-belts from cross Channel ferries and collapsible boats it crossed the canal and subdued the opposing positions to continue the BEF advance. It is one of Prof Gary Sheffield's favourite actions - showing the fruits of the "learning curve")
It wasn't just the BEF learning in isolation. The Germans were doing it as well. That gets forgotten. What also gets forgotten is that Haig only took command at the end of 1915,and the problems with previous attacks was put down(by French) as a lack of artillery. Haigs answer to that was the 7 day bombardment before the somme.
A brilliant presentation Chris. So glad you mentioned Machine Guns being used in the indirect fire - something that is often overlooked and not discussed. When reading through the War Diaries, it's fascinating to study the detail and evolution of systems and processes throughout the war. So well done Chris!
Thanks Cam - glad you’ve enjoyed it and found it interesting mate
As I have learnt also from the Western Front Association and Dr. Spencer Jones, the BEF was also subject to the needs and wishes of the French - the Somme could not be called off for it was providing assistance to the Battle of Verdun, and Passchendaele was covering the mutinies in the French Army. Superb presentation.
Absolute terrific channel.
I was annoyed when I went to see the new Australian movie “Before Dawn”. It said in the promo it was about the Australians breaking the Hindenburg Line in 1918 (Under John Monash). So I was looking forward to seeing a combined arms battle with tanks, planes and infantry working in combination. But no, men with 303’s charging machine-guns head on. Not a Lewis Gun in sight, no one used a Mills Bomb or tossed a smoke grenade. Not a single indication of combined arms warfare. Just soldiers led by a Sergeant being directed by a distant officer who was not seen on the battlefield and sending little boys with rifles to charge machine guns. Very disappointing.
I haven’t seen it mate - sounds like it plays straight into the myth. Thanks for letting me know.
Maybe look up who the Producer/script writers were. They may have simply been repeating the lying narratives created by Non Australian Historians following WW1.
At least the 'Official' Australian War History also includes the 'Fact' that the Turks attacked the Russian areas being Crimea and Odessa and NOT Ukraine, in 1914.
@@redcoathistory Never rely on films to get the history right.
More than very disappointing also very socialist misinformation to depict it the way their anti establishment propaganda after war convinced the world that was how it was. A lot of nonsense was peddled with one aim in mind. Demoralize the working class British, stimulate foment and divide ever further the working class from the middle class and the ruling class.
It was highly successful in doing so.
I still play combat missions Barbarossa to Berlin😊. Just re-watched Journeys End😢. I remember seeing Aces High in the movie theater, Journeys End with airplanes.
When Sir Ian Hamilton was sent to capture Gallipoli by Kitchener, he was provided with a single tourist guide book to Gallipoli and sent on his way. Pure professionalism.
To be fair, Kitchener probably didn't have detailed maps and intel that he could have passed to Hamilton. It's not like they deliberately held it back.
One of my Great Uncles was on HMS Hampshire transporting Kitchener at the time it hit the mine. He went down with the ship. Another was wounded at 3 Ypres and was subsequently left between the trenches believe to be dead, he was saved by a German medic who heard him moaning and went out to tend his wounds. He then attracted a British patrol and handed his patient over to them. My Grandad served RN throughout both wars and was invalided out after his ship was bombed in Tobruk harbour in 1942. He never fully recovered from his wounds and died in the mid 70's. My other G/Father served in the Royal Artillery from 1915 to 1918 and survived. Another Gt Uncle served and survived both wars in the RN. and my Gt/Gt Grandfather was killed on the 2nd Somme in 1918.
Monash trained the Germans by dropping a few artillery barrages on them using gas with the idea that men in gas masks can't fight effectively, when the actual attack was on Monash used artillery and the Germans put on their gas masks expecting a gas attack. Which compromised their ability to defend their postions.
The Germans developed combined gas attacks where they used one gas that made troops vomit,meaning they were forced to take their masks off and another gas to kill. In the spring 1918 offensive there were 8500 gas injured only 30 fatalities,though.
@robertstallard7836 Thing is that that was just one of the innovations Monash used at that battle. He took them all and put them together in a way that nobody else had by that point. Pretty well wrote the book on combined arms in the process.
@@twrampage he didn't create it. He built off of the plans,etc of others. They pored over all the battles to try to find the lessons then implemented them. Monash was just the one that was in charge of that battle.
@robertstallard7836 You have to remember the Australians think they won WW1.
@@twrampage You need to get out more and learn more history in detail. Rawlinson was a huge influence.
The Allied forces don't get enough credit for what they were able to accomplish in 1918, they had their tactics down to perfection by then and the Germans had no answer. Problem is general history focuses on the big trench battles of earlier years, general public never seems to ask how the war was actually won if the Generals and tactics were so bad.
The thing was that it wasn't one side learning and another side doing nothing. Defence in depth,pillboxes,etc all required time to learn and adapt.
The problem is the internet has a hard on for Germany because of "cool Hugo Boss uniforms, panzer tanks, Bismarck, and Austrian painter man"
"The Allied forces don't get enough credit for what they were able to accomplish in 1918, they had their tactics down to perfection by then and the Germans had no answer."
That´s just another Britaboo-myth. It implies the Germans in WW1 were beaten by superior tactics. This is in fact wrong. The Central Powers lost the war due to exhaustion not because of some super-duper-British-Australian-John Monash-Rambo-tactics as the Britaboos like to believe.
@@kodor1146 cope harder
May I recommend the book White Heat by John Terraine. A persistent theme. WW 1 was the first war fought outside the visual realm of commanders and verbal/written communication but before radio could overcome this.. The frontages were vast. Wellington could ride from one end of the Waterloo battle to the other. WW1 generals could not.
Dear old Canada and the last 100 days. Arthur Currie, one of the best at the time.
The Last Hundred Days was a classic series of battles by the entire British and Empire forces. There five armies attacking which rolled up the German army to end the war. Armies decided the outcome, not corps.
Good shout for the Territorial Force/Army most of my family were in 50 Div 1908 - 1967.... my father continued with what followed for 38 years, I became War Disabled after 20 years of service. I wasn't the only casualty, and some didn't make it. Most people don't realise that the Territorial Force was larger than the Regular Army before WW1, and likewise, the Territorial Army was much larger than the Regular Army before WW2.... All you usually here is the Regular Army hung on until the Pals Battalions were ready.
Another little known fact of the Cold War. The 22 SAS, had a Regimental HQ & 4 Squadrons to be deployed as and when by Director Special Forces. The whole of 1 Br Corps, Long Range Reconnaissance, and Patrol Group was made up of 21 & 23 SAS (v) (the(v) denotes TA) each had a RHQ and 5 Squadrons, so the TA SAS was 2.5 times larger than the Regular SAS. We had cracking instructors, both TA and each Squadron had two experienced 22 SAS veterans just before their retirement.
A little known factoid is that in WW1 the Northumberland Fusiliers produced a huge amount of battalions, more that could be expected of the the area - I believe only London churned out more. Obviously at that time Tyneside was heavily industrialised, did they have 'reserved occupations' as per WW2?
@@ronhall939452 battlions if my Regiments history serves me right
Hello Chris glad to see your channel is getting stronger than ever. My apopogies i havent been anle to interaçt and really devote the time i should do with a subject that is the one of the very few things that inspires me and others like yourselves.
I have had alot of family and health issues but i really need to get that redcoat back on and look to my front
Hi, thanks for that. No need at all to apologise…You are always welcome here when you are able and your comment is really appreciated.
No worries mucker. cheers.
If you haven't already you should look in depth at the innovation, tactics and preparation for the battle of Vimy Ridge.
Yes, that would be a good one. Thanks. Which sources would recommend?
If you go there the Canadian students who volunteer to “educate” the visitors will tell you how this was a crucial position that the Germans had to hold.
But if you point out that the successful storming of vimy ridge took place in April 1917 and the war went on till November 1918, so it was hardly all that crucial then, was it? - don’t expect a lucid reply.
Vimy was a success because of a number of factors one of which was luck. There was a heavy snow storm and the wind was blowing in the Germans’ faces. This made a substantial difference.
But also, the crucial innovation was that the artillery had devised means to accurately bombard without needing the use of spotters. At the Somme only a few months previous, each artillery piece had to be individually honed in onto a target by use of aircraft who would spot the shot, see where it landed, and fly back and drop a message saying “100 yards short” or whatever. Thus, surprise was impossible unless you wanted to attack a prepared position without artillery support.
Different weather makes a major impact on heavy long range artillery. These calculations were finally codified mathematically.
The other main innovation was the use of tunnels. Previously (and subsequently at Messines) they were stuffed with explosives and blown. But at vimy they were used as a means to marshal troops and then get them across no man’s land safely and allow resupply of the men who had occupied enemy positions.
@@intelligenthorsemanshipwit1330thats not really how that works.
The decisive battle of WW2 is widely agreed to be Stalingrad. In the Pacific, Midway. These are both before the halfway point in time. You can argue its a later battle but it really isnt, its the high tide of the attacker and without disabling or taking the strategic objective there is no real way forward.
While on the subject of revolutionary infantry tactics; I was wondering if you’ll do a video on Robert Rogers? Although he didn’t have the most successful military career (mainly due to the fact that he was developing a regiment who specialized in irregular warfare at a time when that was extremely frowned upon), most of his ‘Rogers Rules of Ranging’ are not only still used, but are now standard doctrine for infantry units in the US, UK and most western militaries
Good video and spot on with your views and assessments. Thank you.
There's a video of historians commenting on WWI scenes in movies. One pointing out how 1917 showed a mass of disorganized troops charging the enemy. The historian argued that there should have been officers and NCO's directing them into a coordinated assault.
Its the argument of John Terraine - "no other way", in which the hard lessons were learned in the middle of the war and the Germans were compelled after the Marne to fight a defensive war, a strategy that put both British & Commonwealth/French forces through the mincer. I would also like to point out, that Lloyd George faced a near collapse of Itally after the disaster of Caporetto and the French army in 1917 was in a state of mutiny. Thus compelling Britain to not only take up more of the line but to also shoulder more of the actual burden of war. Thus forcing a mind to both defence and awaiting reinforcements from the United States who had yet to deploy in full strength. The problems would also multiply, with Russia's withdrawal from the conflict, due to the revolution. That all being said, the hard experience gained plus the more modern thinking and considered commanders such as Monash, Currie, Plumer and Rawlinson (yes I know about the latter from the Somme) had established a fighting force and tactics that would bear abundant fruit in the last 100 days before the wars end, producing significant victories against an exhausted enemy, that was witnessing a collapse in morale at the home-front, caused by the slow strangulation of the 'blockade' and the intervention of the US Army, whose presence and build up impressed upon Germany its futile resistance.
Thanks Chris for an excellent podcast. Good call mentioning Paddy Griffiths' book, I bought my copy soon after it was published in the mid 90s. I have been visiting the Western Front on guided tours since 1999, most recently earlier this month to the so-called "Forgotten Front" of the battlefields of 1915. On all my visits the guides made a point of showing the graves of senior British officers killed on rhe front line, thereby debunking the myth of Château Generalship.
Thanks a lot. Yes, my understanding is that the number of senior officers killed was actually very high. Maybe that's for a future video?
@redcoathistory I'm sure that you will do it very well. Are you back in RSA now? We met at the Zulu War exhibition in London last year. I subsequently went on a guided Boer War battlefield tour with Ian earlier this year. Absolutely brilliant.
Oh yes, great stuff. What a week that was. Im jealous of your tour with Ian that must have been excellent! Speak soon mate
Well researched, written and presented. Thank you.
Another brilliant video, Chris. Very informative and well put together.
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks a lot.
I remember reading Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves, and him talking about tactics and being blown away that what he was talking about was pretty modern.
We have an understandable interest in the Somme and Passchendeale, but it has always been curious that we are seemingly less interested in the British Army's greatest victory in 1918, when the Germans were stopped and then routed.
In this regard Professor Gary Sheffield has been to the fore in correcting this amnesia and reappraisal of Haig, through his history "1918: Forgotten Victory".
Your presentation is truly spot on. Facts delivered in a conversational, everyday tone which makes it easier to retain. Well sourced and backed up material with an abundance of good photography all help to create a picture and relay your info in a cohesive and engaging way. If your videos were source material in schools, I reckon we would have a different youth of tomorrow, a better one. Keep up the sterling work. 👌🏻
Thanks a lot. Appreciate such a nice compliment.
Another great, eye-opening (at least for me) video! Keep 'em coming!
Thanks a lot - More to come!
The Anzacs came out when I was a kid. It showed the futility of the Somme, but it also showed the late-war innovations. A scene I well remember is the Diggers lining up on the white line in the darkness, waiting for the whistle and the sound of artillery starting up and my father, who quit the Reserves as a young man, telling me "it's a walking barrage, the men stay just behind it so they reach the Germans immediately after the artillery hits them."
One of my main bugbears, this. My grandfather who somehow survived the trenches (he only did six months before getting a Blighty, but that was as good as experience got... almost no one survived more than six months) and if you badmouthed Haig he'd have bitten your arm off. Airpower, gas, mining, artillery co-ordination, French whores, World War One ushered in the modern age of warfare. Granted, it did sting a bit... but those involved were not halfwits.
My Grandfather got a "Blighty" on Sept 8, 1918 at Cambrai. 10th Canadian Bn - He was there around 6 months, too..... Came out with 4 GSW (Gun Shot wounds), and hit by a Whizz-bang. He walked 5 km to an Aid Station, and was holding in his own intestines when he got there (Yes - I have his Medical docs that state that!). He survived, and died later in an oilfield accident saving 2 other men's lives. MY HERO.
@@normmcrae1140 It sounds to me like he was lucky not to develop peritonitis.
Correct, the great book TOMMY by Richard Holmes corrects that historical assassination of the British army in effigy.
If you think almost nobody survived the trenches, try reading "Mud, Blood and Poppycock". Statistics get a bad name, and indeed can be dehumanizing, but you will find that the truth is that becoming a casualty at all was in reality a minority experience. But please don't take my word for it, read the book.
The safest Army to be in was the British and Commonwealth Army and most people did survive it. Just think about your statement there.
gas shells mixed with coloured smoke shells. Then during attacks fire just the smoke so they put gas masks on and obscure their vision was another tactic used.
Absolutely correct. The British Expeditionary Force of 1914 was well-versed in fieldcraft and fire and maneuver following the Haldane Reforms after the Second Boer War. During the Battle of the Aisne, German Artillery observers noted the spacing and rush tactics employed by British infantry, a consequence of which was that the gunners were only able to hit two or three men with each shell.
This video came up on my TH-cam stream. I’m so glad it did. This is excellent, subscribed 😊
Welcome aboard!
German Stormtrooper tactics already existed in 1915 and by 1916 already through fourther theorization had been improved to a point they were far more sophisticated than the british infantry tactics of 1917.... also they were handpicked men under the age of 25 chosen for their mental strength, physical fitness, agressive personality and their overall effectiveness in combat as they were handpicked by their officers for those characteristics.... they were also far more mobile than most entente units and operated independently from the artillery as well as other frontline units, in addition to this their equipment wasn't ment to be able to contain an enemy position through fire superiority but to get close to the enemy in order to engage him effectively in CQB (they were specialized on the "Nahkampf" or CQB as well as melee with trench clearing and shock attacks being their priority and the only reason they have been created in the first place)..... to refer to them as some brave amateurs with no skill is more of an insult than an objective analysation.
Many thanks for your comment. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to share a different take on the subject. All the best.
More to the point, the Germans regularly succeeded in gaining ground whereas the allies failed tactically until the very end of the war
Lloyd George was a dangerous war-leader.
Like all socialists then?
Read Corrigan’s book “Mud, Blood & Poppycock.” It busts a lot of myths that have permeated culture from “Oh what a lovely war!” & Black Adder.
As always, great video. If you’re looking for a new idea, might I suggest the War of 1812, if you haven’t touch on it yet, particularly the Canadian campaign. I think it’s interesting how the American army thought it could just steam roll and even recruit Canadians to fight the British. It’s amazing what a small contingent of British regulars and determined Canadian soldiers could do. I also find it interesting from the Canadian perspective, the war is often cited as the catalyst for forging the Canadian identity. Prior it was a convoluted mix of American but mostly British, after it was most certainly Canadian
Hi I have one video on it you’ll enjoy about the Colonial Marines - escaped American slaves who fought for the British
I always love the WWI content! I'd love to see more in the future!
Thnaks a lot. Interestingly it doesn’t get a lot of views for my channel but Ill continue to persevere as I find it very interesting.
One other thing that always needs to be rememebered is that the Germans weren't just sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They were constantly developing new defensive tactics to thwart the new offensive tactics of their enemies.
One of the best exampes is around the Battle of Arras. In areas like Vimy Ridge the Germans were still largely using the defensive systems and plans of 1916, and there was significant success for the British. However, where they faced the newer German defensive strategies with a well implemented Hindenberg Line, such as Bellecourt, they were pretty reliably stopped.
Freyberg with the hood and drake battalions at beamont hamell fresh from gallipoli
My grandad was in the war , born 1901 and joined in 1915 . I used to ask him about the war because i saw old photos and some medals and things , so he did not lie to me would tell me stories ! One story he wore on the side of his head as a scar . Sad , brutal , and makes me laugh because it was crazy how he was able to survive .
09:20 description is still very similiar to a platoon attack to this day
Good work mate on this vid. And it wasnt just the british, there was huge innovation all round as each side adapted, evolved and overcame. Its tragic how poorly underatood ww1 is. Im a wargamer and myself and a colleague are developing a new set of wargaming rules for ww1 called 1918, partly as ab educational tool.
10:45. Imperial Commissar Yarrick and Ibram Gaunt approve
Mr Redcoat History, could it be possible to do a Vlog on the Anglo Zanzibar war of 1896. it might mean your Vlog last's longer than the war itself ?
That is crazy that you asked for this as next week's video is exactly that! You will enjoy it for sure.
Good video with one unfortunate error. You repeat the common myth that the BEF of 1914 were almost wiped out. In reality the large majority survived those early days. This is evidenced by the huge number of Mons Stars awared and the fact that most of its recipients, my great grandfather included went on to wear Pip, Squeak, and Wilfred.
Black Adder replying to the general 'We'll be right behind you.' 'Yes, about 30 miles behind you.'
In reality, numerous generals did visit the front... some being killed there.
The number of Generals killed was quite remarkable. Officers of all ranks were casualties in much higher proportions than other ranks.
Altogether there were at least 78 known senior officers of General ranks (Brigadier-General, Major-General, Lieutenant-General &/or General status) of the British & Imperial Forces, who became fatalities or were later classified as missing in action, while inspecting or operating on-duty in front line positions that were then in direct contact with the enemy, during the ‘First World War!’
So much for the “well-worn & now threadbare myth” of them being all ‘chateau generals,’ remaining 30 + miles behind frontlines?!!
Senior officers were regularly exposed to enemy fire. If you wanted to see what was happening across a brigade area, you had to ascend a vantage point and scan the battlefield with binoculars or a telescope. It was dangerous work.
All Nations adapted to modern warfare. It is rarely shown in media but the armies of 1918 were very modern and had more in common with todays Militarys than the ones of 1914.
Got my grandads lewis machine gun manual with his name, number and regiment in the back. Any one got any tips on tracing military service?
Great video.
You should look at the Battle Hamel, which was the first set piece all arms battle, planned and direct by the Australian General Monash and his staff and approved by General Haig. It was at this battle that the Canadians and Australians fought side by side.
General Haig then encouraged the adoption of the principles of the all arms battle, throughout the British and Empire Armies, after this outstanding success.
Incidently, some Americans fought with the Australians at Hamel, in their first battle in France.
Some Australian historians accuse General Monash of hubris in the last battle the Australians fought in France.
While reasonably successful, the Australians suffered such high casualty rates, as to render many battlions ineffective. This was because of the lack of staff planning and the limited availability of tanks and supporting arms as the troops broke forward through the German lines and into open country.
Where did you get that clip at around 14:00 it looks sick as
I agree with your thesis that the British Army doesn't get enough credit for its coming up with and implementing innovative tactics throughout WWI. You leave out that the Germans were doing the same throughout the war and seemed a step ahead until the second half of 1918. In fact, it doesn't seem like the British were able to bring off the combined arms aspect of their developing doctrine until the Germans showed them how it was done in the Spring and Summer of 1918. The Stosstruppen were more than just assault troops but a system of Infantry-Artillery coordinated echeloned assaults. The fact that the British were finally able to bring it all together in the second half of 1918 was because of all the hard work creating the pieces necessary to unlock the puzzle of Trench Warfare up to that point when they got the last missing bit. Good show.
Thanks for the input...I always enjoy hearing from interesting people who take the time to explain their perspective.
The British got their act together in 1917 and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the German offensives of 1918. Wehraboos everywhere even in WW1.
Quality Content!
Eg around 07:00 I think to much commentary is in silo form, the Somme for example was inextricably linked to the French crisis, stopping after day 1 just wasn’t an option. Well, unless leaving the entire French army to continue taking the strain being decimated and bled white was acceptable per German strategy anyway.
We know lots of this stuff through architecture too. The German trenches were deep and defensive, resilient to artillery as per their doctrine of hold on. British trenches were shallow and rudimentary in comparison due to our doctrine of moving on asap. Hence the “lessons” learned were more like a “how to” not a “what to” on the job training.
Other apparently mad tactics, like the famed walking across no man’s land and being cut down can be contrasted with the movie Gallipoli - there’s no point in being the fastest and getting there in your own, assuming you weren’t shot on the way, you needed to get there as a group. That might sound very napoleonic warfare style but it was still a factor.
And bearing in mind tanks were deployed in day 1 of the Somme albeit token due to lack of reliability, it did have a psychological potentially battle winning effect and to my point shows we were planning the “what to” long before we could cobble together the “how to” .
Anyhow all interesting stuff.
Great video as usual!
Glad you enjoyed it thanks a lot.
@@redcoathistory you're welcome, keep up the great work
The general popular view of the Empire forces in WW1 is largely incorrect, and you point out this out well...the bulk of the problems stem from the operational and strategic levels. People overlook the fact that the Boer war saw the Brit Empire deploy a force of nearly a million men, from across a global empire, into South Africa in a matter of months, and wage a war in hostile territory over a period of several years. No one else had ever done that.
Tactically, the Empire forces were constantly training and reworking doctrine, and introducing new equipment. Monash's attack at Hamel achieved its' objectives in 90 minutes, using the standard Empire attacking doctrine, he followed the doctrine to the letter...using methods that had been in use in the Middle East nearly a year earlier with the push into the Sinai and into the Levant (contrary to popular australian thought, monash was no military genius, he was simply a thorough planner - he was outshone by Harry Chauvel, the cavalry commander in the Mid. East).
A little described area (of the professional army of the Great War) is the amount of re-equipping and retraining which took place before an offensive, both in the use of the new equipment and the specifics of the objectives for (probably) companies and their commanders and no doubt reports on effectiveness of the new kit, tactics and plans. Occurring as part of the normal rotation out of the front. Healthy, rested, medically and physically fit men with all the new gucci gear in their battle formations (combined arms often as not) working together with good food, high fidelity training areas and instructors to set them up perfectly for the task ahead. Whilst at the same time communications equipment being installed, light railways built for logistics, aerial photo-reconnaissance and other intelligence gathering taking place. Not the stereotypical sequence of trench life, followed by a whistle and mass slaughter. Just a thought.
Blobs of teams bounding forward by team!
You say fix and flank. It sounds like a Zulu horns of the buffalo,.
The horns were younger men throwing spears, which feels like machine gun armed infantry on your flanks, and the buffalo head being bayonet armed infantry
Flanking is a classical, practical, and long thought up idea. Alexander utilized similar. Works in MMOs too. Had quite the success using packs of wargs to gank healers. Lord of the Rings Online was a blast in its heyday.
Plus, I would not be so quick to dismiss the German Storm Troopers. They pushed two major British armies miles past former battlefields like the Somme. Yes, the Germans were eventually stopped, but that was more from outrunning their artillery support and exhaustion. And it was not luck, as we are talking about miles long breeches of British lines in Spring 1918. So tactically, the Germans were brilliant. Grand Strategy not so much. Talking about strategy, Supreme Allied Commander Foch realized that Plumers's Bite and Hold strategy could not win the war. You cannot Bite and Hold several hundred yards at a time all the way to Berlin. It was Foch who developed, and pushed against Haig's resistance, the Allied effort to counterattack in 1918 after the German Offensive failed. Certainly, the British were better than the Americans (who had a lot of learning to do), but not better than the French or Germans or Canadians for that matter. In my opinion, the biggest British innovation was the tank, although British historians tend to omit the part about how the Germans counterattacked after the tank success at Cambri and retook all the gains the tanks had made. The book Pyrrhic Victory by Robert A. Doughty does an interesting job about pushing back on the British idea that it was the British Army that won WW1. The book also did a good job of describing the evolution of tactics on the Western Front. I used to think all these WW1 generals were complete idiots. After the book I have a greater appreciation for the hardships generals had in WW1. Basically, WW1 tactics can be boiled down to this: how to cross No Mans Land with enough troops surviving to fight off the eventual counterattack and hold what you gained.
The British Artillery were the reason for success. They outperformed every other Army in its use and innovation. The tank remained a sideshow through out the war.
There was nothing special about the German "stormtrooper" tactics that distinguished them from what both the British and French were doing with their infantry tactics at the time. Pretty much all the armies arrived at a similar solution to the same problem. The main difference was that the allies were better at the operational level and their offensives didn't run out of steam like the Germans. Also the British in particular used their artillery in a much more flexible way than the Germans.
@@dulls8475 Interesting. What book do you recommend reading that talks about artillery tactics?
@@bilgerat6060 How were the Allies better at the operational level? In 1917 both the Nievelle and Passchendaele Offensives were disasters for the Allies. The 100 Days was greatly helped by Germany deciding to put its best troopers into the Stormtrooper units leaving a lot of third rate units to defend. Defeating Germany and lowering German Army morale and raising Allied morale had more to do with the immiment arrival of millions of Americans. Not to say the British Army did not fight hard, but British and French units were at half strength and pretty beat up from the 1918 German Offensive.
Gordonn Corrigan's Mud Blood and Poppycock' is excellent on this subject.
So “Blackadder Goes Forth” isn’t a documentary? How disappointing.
the book "mud blood and poppycock" covers this issue well.
This is an excellent short form explanation of the British and commonwealth tactics in ww1. I’m going to use this as intro explainer to people. Thx.
Thnaks a lot
I feel Lord's Blackadder's strategy of avoiding conflict worked very well 😁
But in the end he still went over the top
I think WW1 was an event in warfare where the prevoius tactics met a new age. Very much like Ukraine where the use of drones is taking over the battlefield and having to learn to adapt. Great video as aways.
It is interesting to see that "Bite and hold" have become a standard metod in Ukraine, both sides using variations of it.
The pod is about British Army tactics , and the reality vs the public perception.
Sometimes the best laid plans can go awry because being too ambitious or innovative . An example of this is the 1st Battle of Cambrai , Infantry backed by Tanks , Supported by mobile artillery and Aircraft for grounf attack . After initial success it was pushed back by German counter offensive.
But the idea was so good that 22/3 years later the Germans adopted the exact tactics and called it Blitzkrieg .
Their Blitzkrieg was based on the Monash innovations.
@@andrewhart6377 Yes I am sure the British and German generals studied some obscure Imdian tactic. Where did they get the aircraft from ,Kali ?
@@jameswebb4593 Even Allenby in North Africa adopted the Tactics used by Monash within a few months of the European Success.
@@andrewhart6377 They can't have considering Hamel took place in 1918 while Megiddo ( Allenby's victory over the Ottomans) happened in 1917. Maybe the British did in fact have dashing commanders?
I find it amusing how those of you look down on the British as "Lions lead by donkeys" yet WW2 produced guys like Bill Slim, Richard O Connor, Brian Horrocks and Richard McCreery all great commanders.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The Battle of Megiddo employing the Tactics of Monash was unleashed between Sept. 19-25 1918. If the Ottoman/Germans had been defeated there in 1917 why would Allenby have to do it all over again? Please retract your incorrect statements.
Much as I always love bigging up Britain, I feel it should be pointed out that everyone else was also innovating constantly, which is part of why the British innovations didn't end the war sooner. The Germans became adept at drawing enemy attacks into positions where they could be destroyed by brutal counterattacks for relatively low cost, the French constantly developed their artillery tactics and even the Russians did some innovative things with hurricane bombardments.
Note: The above does not apply to the Italians.
I don't think General Hague would have had nearly as impressive a turnout of mourners in his funeral if he'd been as awful as modern rumors claim.
He was popular among the people.
Worth noting that many rumors come from Lloyd George, who conveniently punished his 'criticisms' a day after Haig's passing.
Edit: dead men cannot defend themselves.
Pretty sure Haig was popular with his troops aswell contrary to popular myth.
Internet tries to understand that people can learn from past mistakes challenge *impossible*
A wonderful resume. Paddy Griffiths book is first rate so glad it gets quoted.
For my money the British Army was at its best in Marvh and April 1918 desperately out gunned and outnumbered, it never broke. The punishment inflicted on the Germans contributed (with the effects of the blockade) to their defeat in the 100 days.
Sadly you are misled, the British lines did break in March of 1918.
@@andrewhart6377 Thanks! I am sure that in local areas the line did, that is units mostly dead or prisoner, but 5th Army didn't, despite a very serious defeat it stayed in business, and with help from allies and other reinforcements eventually stopped the Germans (arguably perhaps they just ran out of puff). We might have different definitions of 'broken'.
@@chrisjones6736 'Help from Allies' ? The Australians had to rally the thousands of British soldiers fleeing the battlefield in March of 1918 because certain British Commanders could not. What would you expect when another million German soldiers were added to the Western front following the Russian collapse at that time.
Sounds like excellent help to me! @andrewhart6377
A myth mentioned is that Germans believed rapid rifle fire was machine guns. An unmentioned myth is that Scots were referred to as "Ladies from Hell or Devils in skirts" by Germans. Otherwise a very interesting video.
Both were a little self promotion on the side of the British. The Germans often referred to Scottish troops as English soldiers from Scotland, which isn't very polite.
Did the Scots actually fight in kilts during WW1 or did they wear troos?
@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle There are numerous WW1 photos of kilts being worn in combat.
@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle I don't believe tartan trews were used in combat. As a generalisation Scottish Lowland units wore normal service dress trousers, and Scottish Highland units wore the kilt. It could be worn alone or with a khaki apron (introduced after the Boer War) which I've seen both just covering the front of the kilt and also wrapped all the way around it. Kilts weren't the best in trench warfare conditions, a mud caked or icy hem could irritate the skin, the knees weren't protected from the cold or when crawling through no-man's land, it offered less protection to gas attack, and the pleats offered cosy protection for lice. A concession made from 2016 was that kilts were replaced by service dress trousers in the winter.
Late in the war there may have been moves to phase out the kilt. Some Canadian units also wore kilts.
@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle There are numerous WW1 photos of kilts worn in combat.
'Never mention the Canadian Corp.'
In their first battle with the Germans in the 2nd battle of Ypres(the first German major gas attack), the Canadians halted them, counterattacked and drove them back. The first time a Territorial force defeated a European force on European soil, as noted by French Fieldmarshal Foch.
It wasn't long before the Germans developed a policy of NEVER attacking the Canadian line.They had some regimental specialists they called stormtroopers, and they viewed the whole Canadian Army as similar to one of those.
there is some debate as to weather the Germans specifically viewed the Canadians as "elite stormtroopers" the moniker is most probably a post war rumor.
then again in the later war period the Canadian corps was in essence the only entente force that still employed trench raids regularly. this could be the source of the "storm trooper" rumor.
what we do know however is that the Germans viewed the Canadians as being brutal and uncompromising even amongst other nations soldiers in a war where uncompromising brutality was the norm.
i remember reading an anecdote where a German officer was beating a Canadian pow because of how savage the Canadians had acted towards his own men. mayhap it is for this reason that the Germans "feared" the Canadians.
i would imagine that in the years after the war popular imagination either intentionally or unintentionally sanitized the actions of the Canadian soldiers, making them seem more humane then they likely were. what was once a brutal, uncompromising army which gave no quarter retroactively sanitized over time to become a proud and elite fighting force.
@@_Yomoholo_The Canadians heard a rumour that their compatriots were being shot out of hand by the Germans which had some truth to it and from then on showed no fear or favour. In the Kaiserslautern in March 1918 the Canadians had two separate benefits over other empires troops , they were on a quiet part of the front where training was rigorous and unlike all other divisions they were not forced to lose a battalion in each brigade because the French wanted us to hold more of the front. Haig knew of the esprit de corps of the Canadians and allowed their commander Currie much more leverage than other commanders to prepare his own plan of attack and more importantly when he would attack. The Canadians were fine troops however .
@@pincermovement72 you are right the Canadians were not brutal for no reason, it could be argued that their enemies gave the Canadians many reasons to be brutal towards German soldiers. (imagined or truthful)
the first usage of gas for example was against a line the Canadians were holding. 2nd battle of Ypres if i remember correctly
then there is the myth of the crucified Canadian which appeared to be common at this time, among others.
and you are also right about the corps organization, much of the Canadians corps success was due to its excellent leadership (curie and Haig were both excellent commanders), organization along with the fact that it was allotted a higher than average ratio of artillery for a formation of its size. among other things.
even so its difficult to determine wither or not the average Canadian soldier could have been considered genuinely "elite" and such calling them elite is probably inaccurate.
@@_Yomoholo_No the Canadians were elite groups as attested by their battle successes and the reactions of the Germans when facing Canadians...the victory of Vimy ridge is a time example..training ,tactics, and excellent planning won the day when no one else could..it was also a pivotal and great moral booster for the whole allied front...it got the war out of the trenches and onto own ground where the allies could handle the germans
One reason the Canadians and many commonwealth forces were seen as more "special forces" was that many were volunteers. So unlike the conscripted soldiers from Britain they were more dedicated.
I re-visited my book White Heat. It mentions that far from keeping out of risk 20 British generals were killed . Also the HQ's. It made total sense to have them well to the rear of the front. Although not perfect HQ's relied on telephone communication and were partly telephone exchanges. Place them near the front line ? If they were destroyed by artillery the whole command system on that sector of front would be wrecked.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the British lost nearer 70 officers of Brigadier-General and above. These losses were so damaging that Commanders were ordered to stop taking risks.
I think the late war British Army was the most effective fighting force - relatively speaking it was the strongest the British Army has ever been. In terms of size, training, capability and equipment...the best in the world.
The lewis gun, was a fantastic. Weapon..section weapon.
The Lewis gun was christened the Belgian rattle snake for its ability CTO spit out rounds at 550/600 rounds per minute..it was light enough to be carried by one soldier and able to do a thing called "walking fire" . keeping heads down while the slowly advanced. Very good in the latter stages of the war with the artillery in coordination.
I'm not completely convinced that all of the criticism of continued attacks is warranted.
To reassess a complex situation properly under those conditions would take a day or more. Halting an offensive for this length of time allows the enemy to consolidate and bring in reinfircements, guaranteeing that the offensive fails.
With incomplete information, continuing as planned may have been the wisest strategy at the time, rather than simply wishful thinking or "trying to snatch victory....".
It is pointed out that one battle "failed" because the reserves were not brought up to reinforce and exploit the breakthrough. It is contradictory to argue against putting the reserves in elsewhere, when the fog of war makes it uncertain whether it is warranted or not.
Criticism with the benefit of hindsight?
No problem - the beauty of history is that we don’t have to agree…it’s just nice that we care.
Although Britain, France & Germany were better equipped & better trained than their 19th century counterparts. All sides were going into unknown territory. No one had fought a war like this one. There is a saying that each general fights the last war. That was the case with many generals. A lot of those generals did however learn and adapt. Haig gets a lot of stick, sometimes justifiably, but there was no one better for the job. French seemed the ideal person for the job before the war, but he was constantly undermined by Kitchener, had to navigate a political minefield, Those things plus the defeats, broke him. Haig had similar problems, minus Kitchener but seemed better equipped to handle them.
All countries sent observers to the Russo Japanese war and one of the 'lessons' they learned was that modern warfare could be quick and decisive. So all sides expected the war to be over in about 18 months. In 1914, No country, not even the British Empire, had the resources to sustain a protracted war.
The tactical situations in WWl once the conflict on the Western Front bogged down in trench warfare from the channel to the Swiss Border. It required changes in tactics and weapon systems. To restore mobility required a breakthrough. Achieving a breakthrough required the use of tactics and new technologies. Some of the tactics may have been up to the challenge. Unfortunately the emerging technology wasn't.
The industry needed to produce that technolgy at scale didn't exist either , not the logistics infrastructure to deliver it.
Is it just me, or did anyone else look at the graphic in the thumbnail and immediately think of the iconic Airfix HO/OO WWI British soldiers box?
There was a book written in the 1930's by a famous british writer who i cant remember at the moment. He did an interesting critique of the first world war.
He talked about innovative generals, not a popular sentiment later.
One of his clàims, that i havnt checked, was that in 1915 the british assembled more guns, ammunition and soldiers than ever before in history. It didnt work.
So the next year thay assembled ten times that number and it still didnt work.
Thats when they realised the needed something else.
I'm going to track down that author and let you know as it was an interesting different view of the war.
Not realy fair. Standard procedure was to reassess after every significant actio It's easy to forget that you can run a recruit through basic training more quickly than you can build a bunch of gun factories
The tactics of 1918 weren't much different to 1917, what changed was the condition of the German army, the increased length of the frontline and that the Germans weren't fighting on the Hindenburg line but recently gained poorly defendable ground
The British infantry tactics of 1918 are the foundations of modern warfare recognisable to every modern infanteer. WW1 is probably the most misunderstood conflict due to the severe rewriting of history in the 60's and 70's to create the "lions led by donkeys" myth .
It's unfair to judge 1916 as nothing but a disaster and you very fairly point out it was the year the new army gained it's education. It was a year when increasing pressure was put on the British to relieve the increasingly struggling French Armies through offensive action, when incompetent officers of all ranks were being weeded out and where we were learning to beat the industrial warfare with new tactics.
Had Germany not have surrendered in 1918 it would have faced a far more comprehensive battlefield defeat due to new tactics, weapons and an increasing American presence in the planned offensives of 1919 including all arms co-operation and better logistics. This may have changed the history of the 1930's and 40's if a BAOR style occupation had stabilised a defeated Germany.
Great content, please keep it up. 🏴🇬🇧
Thanks a lot - appreciate the feedback and input.
British artillery in 1918 was the ‘Gold Standard’ until the innovation of computers in the 1970s.
I did notice that when you talked about innovative tactics you didn't about how they were all put together and used to take Vimy Ridge. Also that is was the Canadian Corps that used them to great success. At wars end the Canadians were called the Masters of War.
I think there is a little national myth making their sir. Though undoubtedly the Canadian Corp was exceptional. Here is a quote from Paddy Griffith that may be of interest - The BEF can certainly boast more than a dozen 'élite' divisions which originated in the British Isles; but to these we must also add the ten ANZAC and Canadian divisions which have always clamoured very stridently and insistently for a still higher recognition. These colonial formations enjoyed many organisational advantages over their UK col-leagues, not least their independent political status which allowed their commanders to question GHQ policy at almost every turn. Still more to the point, perhaps, was the fact that both the Australian and the Canadian corps eventually managed to establish themselves as permanently self-contained formations. They cut themselves free from the normal BEF (and German) practice whereby a corps might take in any division almost at random, only to spit it out again a few weeks later." Within both the Australian and Canadian corps, by contrast, the order of battle very soon became permanently fixed at the same five and four divisions, which gave them an enviable continuity of leadership downwards from their respective corps HQs." Only the New Zealanders and South Africans were cast loose to take their chance within the more complicated rough-and-tumble of the 'normal' BEF arrangements.
The frequency with which a particular division would be sent into action naturally depended in part upon the length of time it was in France; but it also depended to a very great extent upon the approval or favouritism of the high command. Thus all five of the original infantry divisions of August 1914 went into serious action more than thirty times, although the 2nd Division, with 44 occasions, seems to have been specially favoured.
The 9th (Scottish) Division was the first New Army division to take the field in France, and for much of the war it incorporated the lively South African brigade. It produced more genuine tactical innovations than any other division, partly because more of its commanders wer trained in the artillery than was true of any other division and, as the most senior, it was the first New Army formation allowed to join the occupation forces in Germany after the armistice. In the long view of history it probably deserves to be seen as the most 'élite' of all the British divisions - not least because it managed to create a potential breakthrough on three separate occasions, without any help from tanks whatsoever. P80/81.
Alfred Oliver Pollards book depicts the use of assault bomb troops. He describes training americans later in the war.
Great book.
Overall, a good watch. However, in your discussion of 3rd Ypres, you play into a couple of counter myths that are almost as problematic as the ones you are attempting to dispel. Both your promotion of bite and hold and complaints about the delay have a couple of fatal flaws within the argument, both linking back to the central issue of a war of materiel, logistics.
Contrary to the implication within your presentation, the delay between Arras and 3rd Ypres was largely necessary. Offensive operations require an extreme amount of artillery, roughly 275 kg of shells per meter trench to be taken according to Dr. Sean Faulkner's research. It takes time to move that much artillery from one place to another and build up a sufficient supply of shells. Given the transportation technology of the day, six weeks is roughly what was needed to move that much materiel from Arras to Passchendaele.
Bite and hold is inherently superior in a lot of ways; however, it has two significant limitations, one of which was clearly demonstrated at 3rd Ypres. The Great War was an artillery war. As stated above, the big guns would clear a section of trench and then the infantry would secure it. This works wonderfully as long as your operations remain within the range of your guns and you have enough ammunition to keep up the pressure (thus reinforcing the necessity of the delay as discussed above). Once you have reached the limit of your artillery's ability to support the infantry, it becomes necessary to move up the guns. However, by putting the requisite amount of explosives into the enemy lines, you fundamentally change the face of the earth. Before and after aerial photographs show a stark difference in the nature of any particular piece of ground. For a clear numerical example, Cote 304 at Verdun is now less than 290 meters high. Guns require a relatively smooth surface for long distance movement, so you have to repair the ground that you have just spent so much time and ammunition destroying. This gives the enemy time to drop back to the next ridge line and force you to do it again.
I could go deeper into the logistical and political problems of bite and hold, but I believe that doing so at the moment is unnecessary.
@@lebverderben Please do go deeper I’m very interested in your perspective
@@redcoathistory bite and hold is, like he says, limited by the range of the guns. Cavalry could and did take advanced positions ahead of the infantry objectives, but these could only ever be held if the guns came up in time to hold off the enemy or engage in counter battery fire. Otherwise... a town like monchy le preux would become one big lump of rubble and men.
@@redcoathistoryI am impressed by your apparent humility and desire to learn. (You do know this is the internet, though, don’t you?? This isn’t how it’s done!!)
I find your reply somewhat nonsensical. I have no problem with what you say about the artillery support problem. I totally agree, what you eloquently describe was the fundamental problem of WW1. Any substantial advance took your troops away from the artillery and materiel you needed to hold ground, and closer to the enemy’s logistical hub. The logistical hubs, not geographical features, were the really key positions in this war. Railheads! If the British had lost Amiens we were fucked! To win at Ypres required somehow disabling the railway at Roulers behind the German lines.
But the whole concept of bite and hold, as opposed to grand sweeps of cavalry and mobile warfare behind the trench lines, was specifically developed to permit gains to be consolidated because you DIDN’T advance beyond the point where your heavy artillery could support you. And then your guns would smash the inevitable German counter attack. They’d move up and you’d do it all again.
This was tedious and could never be spectacular - which is why there isn’t even a decent name for the offensive that won the war in 1918 - there was no one place where there was a decisive battle, instead it happened in many diverse locations. But it was effective, or at least far more so than massive attacks and breakthroughs. The German spring offensive in 1918 is a good example of why. Their main attack ran out of steam and was halted because of this exact reason. The Germans had still got a lot of troops and artillery, they still could do several more huge attacks, but they couldn’t effectively exploit the offensive around Amiens because the battlefield of the Somme prevented them being able to bring up guns and munitions. 40 miles of devastation had to be crossed! So their infantry had to attack with less and less artillery support and was decimated. Meanwhile the British could roll up fresh troops and guns on the railway almost to the front line.
Interesting! Indeed, I am happy that historians have fought back against the anti-Haig revisionism of the 1960s, as well as other myths about the war of the time. There is still more work to do among the public imagination, but we are making progress.
Say, I am reading 'For Valour: Canadians and the Victoria Cross in the Great War' by Series Editor Gerald Gliddon now. I thought if you were interested in talking about VCs in a Commonwealth context, you could start with this resource.
Cheers from across the pond! 👑🇬🇧🍻🇨🇦👑
Thanks a lot for the comment. I haven't read that book but will check it out. Any other books you reccomend?
I can’t recommend Paddy Griffith’s book on the British Army;s tactics in WWI highly enough,
War is who can adapt and evolve quicker. Think Romans versus Hannibal, the Romans repeatedly lost but adapted then overcame Hannibal. WW1 was the same by the end of the war tactics and strategy had evolved. We are seeing it now in Ukraine with the use of drones and precision munitions. Russias tank blitz’s have been halted by these new technologies.
Ok. My poor understanding is that Hannibal was always outnumbered and without supply, and Rome's greater population and economic power guaranteed its eventual victory.
It was the Australians who developed combined arms, which was first successfully used at Hamel. After Hamel the Australians took charge of the August offensive to lead it and the result was the Armistice. If it wasn’t for the Armistice, Lloyd George and the King planned to replace Haig with Monash as both had realised the British high command didn’t have the intellectual capacity to adapt to a modern war of movement, they were stuck with the tactics of static warfare with victory set by attrition. As Rawlinson confirmed, the Australians were the most effective fighting force on the Western Front.
Loyd-George's view on Haig cannot be trusted.
Keep in mind that WW2 was as much a war of materiel and logistics as it was of tactics. The Allies did not have that supply and logistics capability in 1916.
NONE of the major commanders had a solution prior to 1918. As an Australian, I'm a fan of Monash, but the British High Command must be given credit for recognising the benefits of Monash's methods, adopting them and using them on the scale required.
@@peterwebb8732 The British high command by mid 1918 consisted of Rawlinson at the fore who ensured that Haig was pushed aside for Monash. It was Rawlinson who also ensured that Monash’s plan was carried out.
As for Lloyd-George, he had the backing of the King to have Haig replaced, which is more trust than Haig could muster. The King recognised the superior skills of Monash, its one of the reasons he knighted him in the field so that the military would have to acknowledge his position.
And we here, well government and military, have failed to acknowledge the great work of Monash. If any one deserves a posthumously awarded Field Marshall title it would be Monash.
He was amazing on so many levels.
🇦🇺🦘👍
@@robertthomas3777Monash was ahead of his time. The Gustavus Adolphus of the Western Front.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 long overdue for a posthumous Field Marshall promotion. He wasn’t regular army and was a Jew. So what?
Leaving the trenches in to artillery and machine gun fire was itself a learned lesson, it sounds stupid to us but European observers had seen it work in the Russo Japanese war, large casualties for the Japanese spent at Russian fortifications that were eventually taken.
Just picture Imperial Russia, a storied great power, vs Imperial Japan that only 50 years earlier was isolationist with zero modern(for the time) weaponry or ships, when a victory as unlikely as that takes place people notice and we were watching.
The fighting of WW1 was the RJ war in macrocosm.
For anyone wanting to understand how the best soldiers in the world worked their way through the worst war the world had ever seen, I THOROUGHLY recommend “Tommy” by the late, great, Richard Holmes.
World War I really is understudied. This was an interesting insight into the tactics used by British and Commonwealth forces.
I remember an interview where an old Veteran from WW1 said that "The British Army in 1918 was the finest army ever to exist in the world" and I probably would agree.
It was certainly the most effective army on the 1918 battlefield.
Absolutely!
I really recommend the Western Front association lectures to anyone interested in WW1 , it has really opened my eyes to the Blackadder myth of this war. From knowledge they have given me I find your ideas to be spot on .
Yes The WFA is the place to be. Just Google Western Front Association lectures and learn about real unbiased military history.