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

[daveshoup2MD]

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....

Those who forget the past...

[LineDoggie]

Since the "click-bait" article does not say who the "experts" are who have debunked the myths, the article is worthless and not worth spending any time on.

One can say the same for this forum as it is anonymous and we only agree with those POV we agree with and dismiss all others

[daveshoup2MD]

Since the "click-bait" article does not say who the "experts" are who have debunked the myths, the article is worthless and not worth spending any time on.

One can say the same for this forum as it is anonymous and we only agree with those POV we agree with and dismiss all others

That seems a little harsh; comes down more to those who can provide evidence that supports a given position, as opposed to fantasy, one would think...

[jluetjen]

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".

Really? More successful than the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive?

Looking at the linked maps, the Brusilov offensive advanced at most about 60 miles on a front that was about 240 miles long. The Gorlice-Tarnow offensive advanced up to about 250 miles across a front that spanned over 500 miles. The two offensives don't even compare in regards to scope.

[Oversaltmountain]

Ah, after 'the stab in the back' meme comes the tide-turning Wunderwaffen. Quelle surprise.

That's exactly why historians have struggled for 100 years just to prevent anyone from thinking that way. Let's not pretend this isn't a highly politicized topic. That can not be true! Or else.... It's proven by these overreactions, like in this post. I think CroGer makes good arguments. Both sides were exhausted and the Americans had no experience.

[Oversaltmountain]

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

I don't think Speer did.
The major difference is that in WW2 you had the USSR in the east and a high dependency on oil. The airwar specifically targeted the German oil production and by the time you claim Speer was optimistic the German production of fuel had plummeted, Romania had switched sides, and there was no way to still win.
In WW2 Tanks & aircraft were much better, much faster, had a longer range, were more reliable,versatile, had more firepower, better protection, visibility, had radios... You simply can not compare the aircraft and tanks of WW1 with those in WW2. Not even the artillery was the same: in WW1 there was no proximity fuze, one of the most decisive weapons in the western allies' arsenal. There was no industrial capacity to produce all these weapons, all the aircraft and tanks, the trucks and Jeeps, the radios and whatnot in the same number as in WW2. Men with rifles could still muster much more of a resistance. WW1 was a different war, comparing these situations is "surprisingly naive".