20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Penchanski
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 03 Dec 2021, 18:15
Location: Germany

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#16

Post by Penchanski » 02 Feb 2022, 23:26

CroGer wrote:
24 Jan 2022, 15:47
I am not saying Germany would have won, but it just is a matter of fact that they were not militarily defeated and they ended the war because of an uprising. It also doesn't matter if they would have been militarily defeated in 1919, it only matters why they sued for peace in late 1918.
There is nothing to dispute here.
There's plenty to dispute there. Germany begged for a ceasefire because her leaders knew defeat was imminent. They had lost a string of battles, were pushed back to the Hindenburg line and proved unable to hold it.

Even if that weren't the case, it's a peculiar mind-set that thinks a naval blockade isn't military action. The German psyche never really came to grips with that.
CroGer wrote:
24 Jan 2022, 15:47
"After the war, some claimed that Germany had never truly been defeated on the battlefield. The country only capitulated because it was on its knees economically, laid low by the highly effective British Royal Navy’s blockade. The sanctions had prevented essential imports of war materials and, crucially, food. But, in truth, Germany supplied some 75 percent of its nutritional needs domestically. [...] And on the battlefield, Germany was well and truly beaten"

This is just factually incorrect, and is only repeated because the Nazis used the "Stab in the Back"-myth, and everything the Nazis ever said has to be wrong. [...]

If you read memoirs and diaries from that time, from German journalists, Generals, novelists and other people who's writings have survived, they all express that the capitutaion was a result of war weariness and fear of another "turnip winter". I am very sorry, but it does not matter what the British thought of the situation in the fall of 1918. The Germans acted, so only their motivation is important here.
No, it's not factually incorrect.

It wasn't the German on the Clapham Omnibus who acted - it was the Supreme Command, the Kaiser, Chancellor, and Ludendorf. They asked for terms a month before the Sailors' Revolt. That Revolt and the subsequent uprisings and revolution were a direct result of being asked to continue to fight and die for a cause that was clearly lost.
CroGer wrote:
24 Jan 2022, 15:47
2.000.000 american soldiers aren't a lot, considering that Russia had 15,378 million and Romania 1,234 million. The US economy was part of the war from the get go.
It's a lot to add to the mix when you only have 6.000.000, they're deserting in droves, you have no reserves and your allies are falling like dominoes.

But yeah, you do have a point. The British, French and Italians really didn't need the help. They were already winning decisively.
CroGer wrote:
24 Jan 2022, 15:47
While the Germans did experience a collapse of morale after the failure of the spring offensive, the majority was still determined to stay in the fight, as can be read in many war memoirs. And even though the western allies had improved their tanks, the Germans were developing anti-tank weapons they had not used yet, but would become standard anti-tank weapons: the 3,7cm TAK, the 13,2mm MG TUF, the 20mm auto-cannon. The 3,7cm Tak is the predecessor of the "Heeres-Anklopfgerät" of WW2, the TUF is basically the Maxim-version of the 50 BMG-Browning M2, and the 20mm Auto-cannon is the predecessor of the famous Oerlikon 20mm auto-cannon. Looking at how much the allies put all their faith in their tanks with their 10mm armor plates, these AT-weapons and the speed in which Germany could produce them in 1918, the Allies can be glad they never found out what would have happened in 1919. At the time of the armistice they had produced 600 TAK, but they were all still in depots. So the pace of production was enormous.

They also were in the process of producing a, for it's time, very good tank, the LK II, in Sweden known as the Stridsvagn 21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3JECmaSLik

2.000 of them were on order for 1919. Cost of an LK II is hard to esimate, but it was probably 33% of the cost of a Renault FT, because they could build various parts from old trucks.
Ah, after 'the stab in the back' meme comes the tide-turning Wunderwaffen. Quelle surprise.

Dedicated anti-tank guns weren't really necessary at that time. Mines, anti-tank rifles, standard artillery and breakdowns were already enough. That's why the German command weren't interested in the idea of tanks until they saw how effective they were at Cambrai.

And that's why German tanks actually fielded amounted to 20 A7Vs. That was it. The LKII was still basically in the prototype stage - only the MG-armed variant got produced (again, in tiny numbers) and attempts at a gun carrying version were still in development, the planned 57mm gun proving to be too large for the tank. To say it was "a very good tank" is a massive stretch.

It was also a light tank like the Whippet, intended to exploit breakthroughs. Breakthroughs that Germany was incapable of making. Anyway, they had virtually no fuel to spare for tanks after the Bulgarian surrender and Romanian declaration of war.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#17

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 03 Feb 2022, 20:39

This is surprisingly naive as a reading of the situation in November 1918.
Just for reference, at the end of 44 too Speer's armaments production was in top gear and he was making highly optimistic projections to the Army Group commanders.

Check the new profile of new recruits in 1918 btw..

Thanks


User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#18

Post by Sheldrake » 03 Feb 2022, 23:47

One result of the British Army's studies over the Centenary of the First World War has been a bit of thinking about "Winning a War" means.
Matthais Strohn was the senior historian for Op Reflect and this book is a deliverable about the history of the subject.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Winning-Wars-E ... 1952715008

At the preliminary study day for the 2018 Staff Ride Matthiais talked about how when the soldiers returned from the war to his home city of Muenster in Westfalia they were treated as returning heroes. After all Germany had won the war. It had held off most of the worlds armed forces for four years. No=r had any enemy entered Germany except as prisoners. It was only after Versailles that they learned they had lost.

There was no doubt from the staff ride itself that Germany had lost on the Western Front in 1918. Ludendorff had gambled on winning the war before the Americans arrived and lost. The Germamn army was being pushed back and hemorrhaging prisoners and deserters. What the Germans did not realise - and what the British don't often mention is that the Allies were running out of steam. Just as in 1944, the BEF was at the end of its logistic tether. The Germans could have fought on to 1919. Perhaps what was missing from the German Army of 1918 was faith in the Fuhrer.

sandeepmukherjee196
Member
Posts: 1524
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#19

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 04 Feb 2022, 09:03

Germany could have fought on to 1919.. US formations (and armaments and supplies) would have been deployed on a large scale..

French were seeking revenge, they would have pursued the disintegrating Germans across the borders. Dwindling German numbers would mean gaps in the line. Shortening the line is relative to space..From Belgium to Vosges!

Allies would outflank German fronts and destroy divisions in detail. If they bled the eastern front further to reinforce west, deterrence for Soviets would be gone. They didn't exactly love the Treaty of Brest Litovsk.

When the British saw this happening, they may have made a final effort..

Cheers
Sandeep

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#20

Post by daveshoup2MD » 05 Feb 2022, 03:53

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
03 Feb 2022, 20:39
This is surprisingly naive as a reading of the situation in November 1918.
Just for reference, at the end of 44 too Speer's armaments production was in top gear and he was making highly optimistic projections to the Army Group commanders.

Check the new profile of new recruits in 1918 btw..

Thanks
Yeah. Usual list:

1) Stab in back;
2) Wonder weapons;
3) Allied "war weariness";
4) Versailles was atypical (except for Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest, of course);
5) the AEF didn't matter;
6) German abilities on the defensive;
etc.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#21

Post by Art » 05 Feb 2022, 15:36

Steve wrote:
02 Feb 2022, 00:57
Brusilov’s offensive was on a wide front which probably made it easier then on the western front. However, Brusilov it would seem did not believe in masses of troops attacking on a relatively narrow front. The Russian artillery did not launch a long sprawling artillery barrage but instead went for a short targeted one.
The artillery preparation in different sectors lasted from 6 hours to 2 days. It seems that the length was left to the discretion of local commanders.
Building jump-off positions with approachs trenches, methodical fire of artillery for destruction of observed targets (wire barriers, trenches, machine-gun nests), attacks by several closely-packed waves of infantry were all quite familiar things by that moment. The only major innovatie tactical element IMO was demonstrative preparation of attack on a wide front in order to conceal the main attack.
If the wide-front approach of Brusilov really contributed to the success of breakthrough is debatable IMO, yet it is clear that it contributed to the failure to exploit this breaktrough, because it meant that sufficient mass of forces was not present at the decisive point when they were needed. It seems that this exploitation was beying the planning horizon of both Brusilov and Russian Stavka who were expecting a short diversionary attack and were sort of caught by surprise by their own success.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#22

Post by Steve » 07 Feb 2022, 03:21

The preparatory British artillery bombardment on the Somme went on for a week with poor results. Brusilov’s artillery bombardment “lasted from 6 hours to 2 days” with excellent results. The best description of Brusilov’s offensive that I could find was Wikipedia which quotes military historian John Keegan "the Brusilov Offensive was, on the scale by which success was measured in the foot-by-foot fighting of the First World War, the greatest victory seen on any front since the trench lines had been dug on the Aisne two years before". As the Somme and Brusilov took place within a month of each in 1916 they make an interesting comparison.

Haig seems to have fought the Somme battle without taking any heed of casualties. By 1918 the British were facing a looming manpower crisis.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#23

Post by Art » 07 Feb 2022, 20:11

Steve wrote:
07 Feb 2022, 03:21
The best description of Brusilov’s offensive that I could find was Wikipedia which quotes military historian John Keegan "the Brusilov Offensive was, on the scale by which success was measured in the foot-by-foot fighting of the First World War, the greatest victory seen on any front since the trench lines had been dug on the Aisne two years before".
What about the German and AH offensive against Russian and Serbia in 1915 then?
The campaign exhibited a mission creep. Relative to its initial objective (just do something to attract attention and troops of Central Powers) the Brusilov's offensive was a huge success which surpassed any expectations. Relative to the objective formulated when the offensive was already going on (defeat Austro-Hungary and destroy its alliance with Germany) it was obviously not and despite large casualties failed to radically improve Russian strategic position.

Compared with relatively modest numbers of guns and ammunition available the Russian artillery was utilized with good effect. But still modest numbers are modest, that was the limitation that contributed to large casualties (it should be borne in mind that they far exceeded casualties at Somme) and failure to fully exploit the initial success. Characteristically, the Russian conclusion from the campaign was that heavy artillery reserve was needed.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#24

Post by Sheldrake » 07 Feb 2022, 20:43

Art wrote:
07 Feb 2022, 20:11
Steve wrote:
07 Feb 2022, 03:21
The best description of Brusilov’s offensive that I could find was Wikipedia which quotes military historian John Keegan "the Brusilov Offensive was, on the scale by which success was measured in the foot-by-foot fighting of the First World War, the greatest victory seen on any front since the trench lines had been dug on the Aisne two years before".
What about the German and AH offensive against Russian and Serbia in 1915 then?
The campaign exhibited a mission creep. Relative to its initial objective (just do something to attract attention and troops of Central Powers) the Brusilov's offensive was a huge success which surpassed any expectations. Relative to the objective formulated when the offensive was already going on (defeat Austro-Hungary and destroy its alliance with Germany) it was obviously not and despite large casualties failed to radically improve Russian strategic position.

Compared with relatively modest numbers of guns and ammunition available the Russian artillery was utilized with good effect. But still modest numbers are modest, that was the limitation that contributed to large casualties (it should be borne in mind that they far exceeded casualties at Somme) and failure to fully exploit the initial success. Characteristically, the Russian conclusion from the campaign was that heavy artillery reserve was needed.
The Brusilov and Somme offensives were both part of an Allied Grand plan for a combined Summer offensive formulated at a meetign in France in November 1915. The idea was that the Germans could not be everywhere. The German chose to go on the offensive in Verdun and maybe Brusilov was a beneficiary as the Reich Deutch Pifkas were not there to provide a stiffening to the KuK troops in Galicia.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#25

Post by Steve » 08 Feb 2022, 02:24

According to General Max Hoffman who served all of WW1 on the eastern front starting as a staff officer then Chief of Staff and eventually becoming the de facto commander this is where the Brusilov offensive went wrong. “This unexpected success caused the Russian Headquarters to change their plans. They gave up the attack that had been planned on the front of the Commander-in-Chief in the East, which after the experiences they had had in March at Postavy they were probably not looking forward to with much confidence, and they gradually took troops away from our front and sent them to the South to increase the success they had already achieved there. This decision can appear comprehensible, but it was not right. If, on the contrary, the Russians had now attacked the German front with all their forces, regardless of the losses they might incur, they would have prevented the Commander-in-Chief in the East from sending forces for the support of our Allies, and without this help the crisis would probably have developed into a complete defeat of the Austro-Hungarian Army”.

Incidentally a quick look on the internet tells me the British had about 1,400 artillery pieces on the Somme but if 30% of their shells were dud presumably this is equivalent to 30% of their artillery being useless. The same quick look tells me the Russians had 1,900 artillery pieces for the Brusilov offensive and I presume they did not have a major problem with shells that did not explode.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#26

Post by Sheldrake » 08 Feb 2022, 11:39

Steve wrote:
08 Feb 2022, 02:24
Incidentally a quick look on the internet tells me the British had about 1,400 artillery pieces on the Somme but if 30% of their shells were dud presumably this is equivalent to 30% of their artillery being useless. The same quick look tells me the Russians had 1,900 artillery pieces for the Brusilov offensive and I presume they did not have a major problem with shells that did not explode.
All of the combatents had problems with the quality of artillery ammunition - and the equiptments themselves. This was the firstb war fought using indirect fire from long ranged artillery pieces with recoil systems. The muniitons industries were vastly expanded with civilian capacity transferred to manufacturing artillery ammunition.

THe German Second Army lost a quarter of its artillery pieces on the first day of the Somme, mostly due to malfunctions including broken recoil springs and prematures.

Britian did not have a large army in 1914. Its munitions industry was geared to supporting the Navy and smallish expeditionary warfare. In gearing up their war machine to support a large scale land campaign they suffered from several particular problems.

#1 Some very poor designs.
Image
The 15 Inch BL Howitzer was a private venture foisted on the Army by Churchill. This bigger version of the 9.2inch Howitzer looked good and features heavily in the Battle of the Somme film, but the ballistics were poor and the rounds were apt to tumble and not land point down. There are accounts of the area aroiund Thiepval being littered with 15 inch Blinds which were used for cover by patrols in no mans land.

#2 Poor procurement contracts
Contemporary accounts mention the poor quality of ammunition purchased from manufacturers in the neutral USA. It was alledged that some manufacturers even filled shells with inert material.

#3 Poor quality standards.
In the process of gearing up the munitions industry quantity was emphaissed over quality. The LENGTH of six inch Howitzer shells might vary by as much as four inches. There was little emphasiss on consistenscy - e.g. of propellent filling. Many of the people engaged in muniitons work were new to the industry, and in the case of many of the women employed any kind of factory work.

#4 Leading edge nature of the technology. Artillery fuses were the leading edge of military technology and vital to battlefield effectiveness. E.g. the HE shells used at the start of the war had percussion fuses that buried a little way into any less than hard ground before before detonating the charge. These created craters and could collapse trenches, but most of the fragments were dissapated in the earth or up into the air. THey were hopeless for cutting gaps in barbed wire, which was left to very shirt ranged 2 inch mmortars firign "toffee apple " bombs or 18 pounder guns firing shrapnel, a bit like trimming the hedge with a shot gun. The Fuze 106, developed in 1916 had a superquick setting that made it far superior to shrapnel as a wire cutter.
Lots more here... http://www.passioncompassion1418.com/de ... types.html

I hope this helps

Penchanski
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 03 Dec 2021, 18:15
Location: Germany

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#27

Post by Penchanski » 08 Feb 2022, 11:41

The British had focused on shrapnel shells before the war and had to switch to HE production from virtually nothing when it was realised what was required. This is why they had such a high proportion of duds early on. By 2015 output and quality had caught up and by 2016 they were out-producing the Germans handily.

On the other hand, the No.100 fuse used by the British had a 1:1000 tendency to prematurely detonate when you fired it so the gunners were probably all in favour of anything that improved their odds.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#28

Post by Steve » 09 Feb 2022, 06:08

Have now acquired Lloyd George’s memoirs and am reading the chapter titled The Fight for Munitions. He says this about the start of the war “High explosive shell, which the German forces were using against us with such shattering effect, was regarded up to the outbreak of war by our own Ordinance Department as being merely in the experimental stage, and the problem of a satisfactory filling and fuse for it had not been solved. It had not been seriously and systematically investigated. The War Office was obsessed with the importance of shrapnel. It was the only artillery lesson of the Boer War which they remembered and in September 1914 our War Office Generals were still preparing to slug African Kopjes with Boers hiding behind bushes or boulders. It was the most useful shell in Africa. Why not in Europe? They had been criticised in 1900 because the supply was inadequate, they were not going to be caught out and castigated this time. Their mental arsenals had no room for anything but shrapnel.”

Later on he writes “on the 22 October 1914 the French General Deville had informed the War Office that the French were giving up shrapnel altogether and concentrating on H.E.

Does anyone perchance know how extensive the British use of shrapnel shells on the Somme was?

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#29

Post by daveshoup2MD » 09 Feb 2022, 08:51

Penchanski wrote:
08 Feb 2022, 11:41
The British had focused on shrapnel shells before the war and had to switch to HE production from virtually nothing when it was realised what was required. This is why they had such a high proportion of duds early on. By 2015 output and quality had caught up and by 2016 they were out-producing the Germans handily.

On the other hand, the No.100 fuse used by the British had a 1:1000 tendency to prematurely detonate when you fired it so the gunners were probably all in favour of anything that improved their odds.
Surprising it took the British a century to catch up.;)

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 20 Commonly Held Myths About WWI That Experts Have Debunked (?)

#30

Post by Sheldrake » 09 Feb 2022, 10:41

daveshoup2MD wrote:
09 Feb 2022, 08:51
Penchanski wrote:
08 Feb 2022, 11:41
The British had focused on shrapnel shells before the war and had to switch to HE production from virtually nothing when it was realised what was required. This is why they had such a high proportion of duds early on. By 2015 output and quality had caught up and by 2016 they were out-producing the Germans handily.

On the other hand, the No.100 fuse used by the British had a 1:1000 tendency to prematurely detonate when you fired it so the gunners were probably all in favour of anything that improved their odds.
Surprising it took the British a century to catch up.;)
Well the aim of the 2016 Army Staff Ride was to learn the lessons of the Somme....

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”