Totally poor generalship in WWI
There is an old saying: "The generals are always fighting in the last war..."
This is clear during WW2, where the allied in the opening stages are expecting a repetition of WW1.
However, the "Last War" was indeed a long time back, considering the tactics most of WW1's commanders employed while attacking, at least before 1917.
Maybe the British thought they where fighting the Crimeran War again, I don't know. But, the American Civil War should have been a warning to everyone, what was to be expected. The horrific number of casualties in that war, caused by single shot rifles, rifled artillery and primitive machineguns, must have made an impact on some military minds...? Or maybe not. However, since all these weapons had developed immensely from 1865 to 1914, and no effective counter-measures had been developed, I must conclude that generals like Haig and Joffre, are if not guilty of murder, then at least criminal neglect.
Regards --- Lars
This is clear during WW2, where the allied in the opening stages are expecting a repetition of WW1.
However, the "Last War" was indeed a long time back, considering the tactics most of WW1's commanders employed while attacking, at least before 1917.
Maybe the British thought they where fighting the Crimeran War again, I don't know. But, the American Civil War should have been a warning to everyone, what was to be expected. The horrific number of casualties in that war, caused by single shot rifles, rifled artillery and primitive machineguns, must have made an impact on some military minds...? Or maybe not. However, since all these weapons had developed immensely from 1865 to 1914, and no effective counter-measures had been developed, I must conclude that generals like Haig and Joffre, are if not guilty of murder, then at least criminal neglect.
Regards --- Lars
- Oderint Dvm Metvant
- Member
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 20 Apr 2003, 03:39
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
I had a discussion with my father about recently and, if you look at history its basically always true, its most evident in the 19th/20th century conflicts because technology changed so quicklyThere is an old saying: "The generals are always fighting in the last war..."
The problem with WW1 I think wasn't so much poor generalship (though in some cases it was...oooh it was) but rather, no matter how good a strategist or tactician you were, NOONE could think of a new way to fight things, What else was there to do but climb up over the trenches and run?
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
The last war
The problem with French and British generals is that they were refighting a Napoleonic war 100 years later. This was their military "intellect", Use linear attacks against an entrenched enemy, in hopes that they could get
to Bayonette range and vanquish their foe!!!!!
The suicidal nature of charging entrenched rifleman was first discovered by the "British!" in 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans , and rediscovered
by General Grant in 1864-1865 in the entrenchment around Richmond and Fredicksburg in The War of Northern Aggression.
I guess these generals figured that since the Machine gun had been invented, riflemen did not matter anymore so they went back to
Musket age tactics!!
All of this has been argued earlier in this topic, it might start anew
to Bayonette range and vanquish their foe!!!!!
The suicidal nature of charging entrenched rifleman was first discovered by the "British!" in 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans , and rediscovered
by General Grant in 1864-1865 in the entrenchment around Richmond and Fredicksburg in The War of Northern Aggression.
I guess these generals figured that since the Machine gun had been invented, riflemen did not matter anymore so they went back to
Musket age tactics!!
All of this has been argued earlier in this topic, it might start anew
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
New tactics, new weapon
Von Hutier infiltration tatics made trench warfare obselete.
And the tank made combined arms tactics possible leading to the mobile warfare of WWII.
Von Hutier tactics means using "squads" to bypass enemy resistance and then take those points of resistance in the rear or flank.
Von Hutier tactics are a developement of the skirmish line used by the Americans in the Revolution War the difference being that instead of single men as "skirmishers" you use "squads" of men advancing in a line
these squads bypass or flow around resistance like "running water" around
high spot of ground.
Sad to say, I don't think any of the allied armies really quite understood
these tactics even to this day, and the Machine Gun Squad tactics developed by the Germans in WWII made, von Hutier tactics obselete.
Take what I say, and do some serious reading and you might see what I am getting at.
FYI- Tank and tank tactics were first developed by Jan Ziskka in the 1500's! with his use of what it known as a Hussite wagon fort.
And the tank made combined arms tactics possible leading to the mobile warfare of WWII.
Von Hutier tactics means using "squads" to bypass enemy resistance and then take those points of resistance in the rear or flank.
Von Hutier tactics are a developement of the skirmish line used by the Americans in the Revolution War the difference being that instead of single men as "skirmishers" you use "squads" of men advancing in a line
these squads bypass or flow around resistance like "running water" around
high spot of ground.
Sad to say, I don't think any of the allied armies really quite understood
these tactics even to this day, and the Machine Gun Squad tactics developed by the Germans in WWII made, von Hutier tactics obselete.
Take what I say, and do some serious reading and you might see what I am getting at.
FYI- Tank and tank tactics were first developed by Jan Ziskka in the 1500's! with his use of what it known as a Hussite wagon fort.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 23 Apr 2003, 19:15, edited 1 time in total.
These tactics worked during most of the conflicts in 19th century.The problem with French and British generals is that they were refighting a Napoleonic war 100 years later. This was their military "intellect", Use linear attacks against an entrenched enemy, in hopes that they could get
to Bayonette range and vanquish their foe!!!!!
The suicidal nature of charging entrenched rifleman was first discovered by the "British!" in 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans , and rediscovered
by General Grant in 1864-1865 in the entrenchment around Richmond and Fredicksburg in The War of Northern Aggression.
Battle of Königsgrätz: prussian attack on an entrenched enemy. or various battles during the franco-prussian war.
During ww1 about 60% of the casualties were inflicted by artillery, 25% by machinegun fire and 15% other causes (rifles, grenades etc).
Since there were no machine guns during the larger conflicts of the 19th century (not sure if the early gatling and the mitralleuse count as machine guns) it would be easier to charge a position. Also there were no artillery concentrations comparable to ww1 and by far no comparable shell expediture. During a single day of major combat (ww1) the german army consumed more artillery ammunition than during the entire franco-prussian war.
i'd say early 19th century infantry tactics (i'm excluding cavalery) became obsolete only around 1900 or so when most armies upgraded their artillery and incorporated machine guns in larger numbers.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Franco-Prussian war
Franco- Prussian war
A call this war a battle of amatures, you have one good army with inferior weapons (prussian) fighting a bad army with better weapons (French), the superior "morale" of the prussian determined the victor, and it set a dangerous precedent since both sides thought wars could be won by surperior "morale" or Elan. This contributed to the "bayonette" mind set in WWI.
Other armies screwed up too, the American army took awful loses at times when fighting Spanish entrenched rifleman in 1898.
The milatruse(sp) was misused as artillery by the French and defeated by Prussian artillery. Perhaps it if had been used as a MG, armies might had noticed something.
Basically in WWI the power of the entrenched rifleman was totally ignored and the muderous power of the MG underestimated.
As far as artillery, there were comparable barrages and entrenchments around Richmond at the end of the Civil War. Casualties from artillery in WWI come from the simple fact that if you sit in the same place long enough (sitting duck) you will eventually get hit by a fragement or worse.
Call it attrition, call soldiers cannon fodder , poor tactic either way.
A call this war a battle of amatures, you have one good army with inferior weapons (prussian) fighting a bad army with better weapons (French), the superior "morale" of the prussian determined the victor, and it set a dangerous precedent since both sides thought wars could be won by surperior "morale" or Elan. This contributed to the "bayonette" mind set in WWI.
Other armies screwed up too, the American army took awful loses at times when fighting Spanish entrenched rifleman in 1898.
The milatruse(sp) was misused as artillery by the French and defeated by Prussian artillery. Perhaps it if had been used as a MG, armies might had noticed something.
Basically in WWI the power of the entrenched rifleman was totally ignored and the muderous power of the MG underestimated.
As far as artillery, there were comparable barrages and entrenchments around Richmond at the end of the Civil War. Casualties from artillery in WWI come from the simple fact that if you sit in the same place long enough (sitting duck) you will eventually get hit by a fragement or worse.
Call it attrition, call soldiers cannon fodder , poor tactic either way.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 24 Apr 2003, 15:04, edited 2 times in total.
- Lord Gort
- Member
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
- Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory
Luddendorf once said of British troops that they were "Lions led by donkeys".
Indeed the generals of world war one have been considered crimminal since the war, this feeling was most prevalent during the immediate after war years.
However it is interesting to note that during the war they were loved and respected, indeed it was the public feeling towards these generals (partly created out Government Propaganda) that made them untouchable by politicians.
Of the most "evil" generals Nivelle has to be foremost, he nearly broke his nations army and will to fight through his "secret of victory", some consider Marshal Foch and Haig no better, but is this really fair.
In fact it may suprise many to know that the "attrition loses of infantry on infantry fighting in the first month of fighting in Normandy 1944 and the fighting in Italy against the Gustav line had the same and sometimes worse cassualty rates as the first world war.
It is now being considered by many historians that the lack of a western allied front for much of the war, and the overwhleming use of mobile and air forces when a front was finally established and a breakthroguh created shielded the civilian population from the horrendous losses of the eastern front which were more akin to the death rates in ww1. Indeed British overall loses for ww2 were 375000, while German casualties were over five million.
Just my two cents,
regards,
Indeed the generals of world war one have been considered crimminal since the war, this feeling was most prevalent during the immediate after war years.
However it is interesting to note that during the war they were loved and respected, indeed it was the public feeling towards these generals (partly created out Government Propaganda) that made them untouchable by politicians.
Of the most "evil" generals Nivelle has to be foremost, he nearly broke his nations army and will to fight through his "secret of victory", some consider Marshal Foch and Haig no better, but is this really fair.
In fact it may suprise many to know that the "attrition loses of infantry on infantry fighting in the first month of fighting in Normandy 1944 and the fighting in Italy against the Gustav line had the same and sometimes worse cassualty rates as the first world war.
It is now being considered by many historians that the lack of a western allied front for much of the war, and the overwhleming use of mobile and air forces when a front was finally established and a breakthroguh created shielded the civilian population from the horrendous losses of the eastern front which were more akin to the death rates in ww1. Indeed British overall loses for ww2 were 375000, while German casualties were over five million.
Just my two cents,
regards,
- Oderint Dvm Metvant
- Member
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 20 Apr 2003, 03:39
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
When poeple think of WW1 thye of course think of trench warfare and all the barbarity that it entailed, but we must remember that this was a World War and that in Africa, the Middle East etc there were more mobile forms of warfare fought, and where cavalry still played a part and Great and good officers abounded.
Andy
Andy
a bit offtopic:Luddendorf once said of British troops that they were "Lions led by donkeys".
the way i see it, that goes for most soldiers. looking at the average grunt, the main factor is determination. that can be obtained through a militaristic culture and education. and i think that's the most important thing. the training (and i'm talking about regular infantery here) is not all that important. maybe i'm missing something, but the average soldier, had to know how to operate a 5 shot rifle, how to take care of that rifle, to throw a grenade and to dig foxholes and trenches. nothing that couldn't be thought in a very reasonable amount of time. i guess the rest of the 3 years period of military service is about how to induce the determination to fight. it's diffrent for the machine gun operators who needed more training and definetly different for artillery.
Ummm there were no civilian losses in ww1 even remotley comparable to those in ww2 from combat action. while german attrocities happened in belgium, they are not comparable to what happened in ww2 in the ukraine, belarus,eastern prussia or yugoslavia. but yes, military losses on both sides on the eastern front were close to ww1 rates.It is now being considered by many historians that the lack of a western allied front for much of the war, and the overwhleming use of mobile and air forces when a front was finally established and a breakthroguh created shielded the civilian population from the horrendous losses of the eastern front which were more akin to the death rates in ww1. Indeed British overall loses for ww2 were 375000, while German casualties were over five million.
well i'm having a hard time seeing much amateurism in a constant series of victories in which, during 6 weeks of combat, 2 french armies have been taken out of action and an emperor captured. while the chassepot was indeed a better weapon than the prusian rifle, the latter wasn't all that decesivley inferior. plus it counts how you put that weapon to good use. it is true that the prussian morale did make a decesive difference, but the prussian artillery, which was superior to the french one, should get some credit as well, especially during the siege of Paris.A call this war a battle of amatures, you have one good army with inferior weapons (prussian) fighting a bad army with better weapons (French), the superior "morale" of the prussian determined the victor, and it set a dangerous precedent since both sides thought wars could be won by surperior "morale" or Elan. This contributed to the "bayonette" mind set in WWI.
when somebody bombards a fortified position, the defender, if he holds out, is a sitting duck as well. but you can't compare civil war artillery to ww1 artillery, not in terms shell weight nor in terms of shell expediture. the number of shells poured on a certain sector of a battlefield is what inflincts the casualties. and during major battles in ww1 there were a few millions during 9 days only (Somme).As far as artillery, there were comparable barrages and entrenchments around Richmond at the end of the Civil War. Casualties from artillery in WWI come from the simple fact that if you sit in the same place long enough (sitting duck) you will eventually get hit by a fragement or worse.
Re: Totally poor generalship in WWI
So this falls flat for two reasons: first: 1) Germany /did/ have two large offensives after 1914, and on the west front to match it even better: verdun and the spring offensive. 2) Both resulted in more casualties on the side of the allies (I. E. The technical 'defenders'). AFAIK Germany had a net positive casualty rate in all major offensives on both the western as well as the Eastern front in both their offensives as well as the offensives of the Entente.Anthony EJW wrote: Allied casualties tended to be heavier because they were the ones doing most of the attacking- the Germany could suffer just as badly, such as at the Kindermond. Could I have some examples of "totally stupid tactics and strategies" and some valid alternatives?
This shows that either the equipment/men or the generals were not on par.
This actually touches one of the major stigma's that offensives were pointless. They were not. Offensives created the opportunity to battle with superior numbers, which counterweights the disadvantage of crossing the trenches quite a bit. It was the overall planning and strategic thinking of most of the generals that made their offensives horrible.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Totally poor generalship in WWI
vdMandele , I love doing that, haven't done it in a while , OK to get right down to it here goes, note I am not the poster or debater I used to be, but I had to own up to reply since I started the topic, can't bring the entertainment value though , but here are a few thoughtsvdMandele wrote: ↑02 Jul 2018, 23:55So this falls flat for two reasons: first: 1) Germany /did/ have two large offensives after 1914, and on the west front to match it even better: verdun and the spring offensive. 2) Both resulted in more casualties on the side of the allies (I. E. The technical 'defenders'). AFAIK Germany had a net positive casualty rate in all major offensives on both the western as well as the Eastern front in both their offensives as well as the offensives of the Entente.Anthony EJW wrote: Allied casualties tended to be heavier because they were the ones doing most of the attacking- the Germany could suffer just as badly, such as at the Kindermond. Could I have some examples of "totally stupid tactics and strategies" and some valid alternatives?
This shows that either the equipment/men or the generals were not on par.
This actually touches one of the major stigma's that offensives were pointless. They were not. Offensives created the opportunity to battle with superior numbers, which counterweights the disadvantage of crossing the trenches quite a bit. It was the overall planning and strategic thinking of most of the generals that made their offensives horrible.h,
True about Verdun from the point of horrible losses(more people died there(the battle area) than any where else in the world in any war IMO) (I suggest a visit to the Ossuary there to hammer that point home) And it was from my POV a long time ago,that the area was still extremely fortified . However it must be viewed from the fact many of the weapons of the forts and the garrison had been removed, as the French thought the forts outdated (Joffre) and the cannons needed elsewhere, they had even readied some forts for demoliton and had had explosives placed when the Germans attacked and most of the heavy weapons removed. This was what Fakenhayden(sp)IIRC looked at , and a victory at Verdun would have demoralized the French to an armistice , winning the war for the Germans, in that one battle. That the French managed to hold I suppose comes from the fact the ground up zone between the two sides artillery , became a real "no man's land" except for the forts, and even those forts were hell holes" from the concentrated fire directed at them and their ruins.
As to the "Spring offensive".How? How by measuring losses? I can't agree , don't even think their losses were bad and they were a good bit less than the Entente powers any way you look at it. As a last throw for the Germans it might well have won the war for them using their inspired "Infiltration tactics*" combined the artillery Bruchmuller tactics , but their troops were stopped by being hungry and capturing "heavenly" amounts of food and more important barns full of wine, and booze in the rear areas of 2 of the Entente power battle lines. Bad Generalship? not overall , yes there were aspects of the German attack that could havebeen better given better line forces, but the performance of the Storm Troopers and ground gained the Spring offensive was STELLAR, and a portent of performance of the Germany Army through the first 3 years of WWII and of the Germany infantry till the end of that war. The shortcomings of Ludendorf in the battle are fairly noted, going back to bruchmuller and Hutier showing up their commander and some mentions of the same post war
*, Infiltration/Strosstruppen tactics -aka Lundendorf aka Von Hutier aka Bruchmuller aka Hoffman aka Redmanne Tactics . more detail and I do mean detail that you wont find anywhere else as far as I know unless our member Bob Lemke ever published a book on the matter, or a couple others who also visited this fine though small topic on the issue . Mine of course, ,worth a read,- General Max Hoffman, Military Genius viewtopic.php?f=72&t=100702&hilit=von+h ... bb3f6f7d2d