ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by ugly

Yes but by 1918 we had the combined arms attacks sorted, what we didnt have was the Germans deep defensive positions sorted. The 1918 bns were about a 3rd lighter in manpower but 100 times stronger in firepower. The Australian attacks across the Albert Canal proved that even without artillery advancing to keep pace outpost defences could be isolated and removed by lmgs and riflegrenade teams.

(my bold)

My Grandfather (maternal) got a MM at Meteren being in such a team.

Originally Posted by Wordsmith

You could argue that they were halted through a mixture of Ludendorff's faulty strategy and exhaustion/lack of resources. My point was that the Germans initially broke clean through the Allied lines. If Haig were a great battlefield general, he could have come up with something similar - the German breakthrough was purely down to good tactics with no new weaponry used. Instead he relied on week long artillery bombardments and brute force.

Contrast the tactics of the German storm troopers with the long lines of British infantry walking forward at the Somme and Passchendaele because the British high command did not think British troops could be trained to advance in a series of short rushes.

Wordsmith

Wasn't the German assault initially successful because the 5th Army (I think) was fucked and had been put in a quiet area to rest and come back up to strength and because the trenches they'd taken over from the French hadn't been maintained as well as they should have been?

The Germans were never really sporting enough to leave a big stretch of line without proper trenches.

Aside from that, yes the German tactics were good but they took away the best best soldiers from half their divisions to form the Stormtroopers and overall only really achieved getting their most experienced soldiers killed and leaving the sprogs to defend the Reich when the British (and Empire, of course) blitzkreiged back into them.

Originally Posted by sidrct

The British Army in World War 1 learnt a new type of warfare the hard way by trial and error, mainly error. By 1918 we had infantry, tanks, artillery and aircraft working together in a new type of warfare which was successful. Haig was the man in charge when things went wrong but I think history has judged him wrongly.

Then in the inter war period the outdated generals took over and by 1939 they'd well and truly ruined it.

Originally Posted by Ruckerwocman

It's your fault you know. All he really wanted was a commission in the British Army. You could have made him a colonel in a colonial unit that would have meant nothing in London instead of a famous Home Regiment of Foot and he would have been happy with that but NOOOOOoooo you had to fuck him around.

My fault? I wasn't even there. George was a natural-born, gifted, two-faced cunt just waiting for a suitable opportunity to explode all over the American continent, smearing it with his indelible eau-de-twat for the next few hundred years. I blame the French, they should have hanged him when they had the opportunity.

GW is almost the opposite of Haig in that he has deluded revisionist historians rewriting everyone of his smarmy schemes as being divinely inspired. And anyone who could wear an outfit like that was an obvious cunt.

A BURNHAM ISSUE: Washington the War Maker

Originally Posted by 17THSEPTEMBER1944

Then in the inter war period the outdated generals took over and by 1939 they'd well and truly ruined it.

I think you will find that there was a politically led rush to demobilise in 1919 and the govt starved the forces of money and talent by ensuring there wasnt a great career path for thrusters by sendinng the army of 1919 back to do its 1913 job in the Empire with even less money than it had in 1913.
That and the Partition of Ireland, looking after chunks of the former Ottaman empire (none of which the Generals wanted after all the Govt promised no more wars). In fact the mere fact we retained an RTC post WW1 is a wonderment.
We were selling kit to newly fledged countries at what it must have amounted to overall cost to us to ensure political allies!
Look to Governments for wars, soldiers just finish what the politicians started!

B_and_T.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

Wasn't the German assault initially successful because the 5th Army (I think) was fucked and had been put in a quiet area to rest and come back up to strength and because the trenches they'd taken over from the French hadn't been maintained as well as they should have been?

The Germans were never really sporting enough to leave a big stretch of line without proper trenches.

Aside from that, yes the German tactics were good but they took away the best best soldiers from half their divisions to form the Stormtroopers and overall only really achieved getting their most experienced soldiers killed and leaving the sprogs to defend the Reich when the British (and Empire, of course) blitzkreiged back into them.

And one should remember that Lloyd George was starving Haig of fresh meat for the grinder (politicians mucking about with manning, well I never), in March 1918 the British Army was chronically understrength and overstretched as a result (as you indicate above) of having to take over large chunks of the line from the French after the mutinies of late 1917 early 1918.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

Wasn't the German assault initially successful because the 5th Army (I think) was fucked and had been put in a quiet area to rest and come back up to strength and because the trenches they'd taken over from the French hadn't been maintained as well as they should have been?

The Germans were never really sporting enough to leave a big stretch of line without proper trenches.

Aside from that, yes the German tactics were good but they took away the best best soldiers from half their divisions to form the Stormtroopers and overall only really achieved getting their most experienced soldiers killed and leaving the sprogs to defend the Reich when the British (and Empire, of course) blitzkreiged back into them.

ISTR that the initial German offensive , Michael, was 'sucessful' in that the Stormtroopers did break through the British lines and the British Fifth Army in general hadn't managed to grasp the concept of defence in depth and hadn't adequately prepared fall-back positions. The Stormtroopers were expended for the capture of miles and miles of strategically worthless Flanders mud that had been churned into a quagmire by 3 1/2 years of war and which was a liability for the German supply columns that had to move men and materials across it.

The later German offensives targetted the rail links and the channel ports, to eliminate the British foothold before the Americans arrived en-masse; these attacks were held and beaten back (see 'backs to the wall' order). When the counter-attacks came, they fell on a depleted, exhausted and over-extended German army.

Haig wasn't infallible, but he does seem to have got most of 1918 right; he pretty much won WW1, despite Lloyd-George (see post 78 above). It was the nearest run thing you ever saw.