Jon

Quite an evocative quote, isn't it.

I'm (finally!!) reading "Tommy" and I recall a section in there where Haig was unsure whether the casualty count of approximately 60,000 referred to 1st July alone or included 2nd July (or something in that vein).

Brings to mind the quote about one death being a tragedy through to a million being a statistic.

Jon

Quite an evocative quote, isn't it.

I'm (finally!!) reading "Tommy" and I recall a section in there where Haig was unsure whether the casualty count of approximately 60,000 referred to 1st July alone or included 2nd July (or something in that vein).

Brings to mind the quote about one death being a tragedy through to a million being a statistic.

Thanks for your reply.

What I feel I need to weigh up here is that only a few hours before Capt May made this entry in his diary, Haig was writing in his own diary that “never has the wire been so well cut nor the artillery preparation so thorough”. It would seem at Battalion level, and I suspect all the way back to HQ at Montreuil/Valvion, that there was serious doubt about the effectiveness of the artillery preparation.

As we already know from earlier in Hart’s book, the German artillery had been counter-shelling all throughout the previous week and had obviously not been silenced. Also from other sources I am aware that raiding parties had reported the wire uncut in many places in the night/early morning of 30 June/1 July. This leads me to several controversial questions regarding the planning and the final orders for the attack, where the ultimate responsibility is with Haig and/or Rawlinson.

It has been sometime since I ploughed through Terraine’s Educated Soldier. I need to revisit the passages relating to the preparation of the Somme attack and 1 July – and references to the role of Charteris in the week preceding 1 July. Also I need to make my next book Prior and Wilson: Command on the Western Front.

Haig was writing in his own diary that “never has the wire been so well cut nor the artillery preparation so thorough”.

You have to ask where he got this information from, don't you.

Whilst in some ways the knowledge that the German artillery had not been affected as hoped is understandable, the wire still remaining extensivley undamaged and in situ is something that triggers something in me whenever I read tales of men struggling through the enemy fire across NML, only to find what was in effect a brick wall - albeit one thought which MG bullets could and did pass.

So very, very sad.

In fairness I understand in places the wire had been cut and so information passing back told of both cut and uncut wire - although even where it was cut the Germans had been out repairing it whenever there was a nightime lull in the shelling.

What is unfortunate is that the intelligence on the uncut wire was seemingly ignored, as was the German ability to repair.

A couple of other points that have come to mind:

1) Who commanded the artillery in the Somme preparation and what information is available.

2) At the back of my mind is another quote attributable by Haig that went along the lines “nor have the troops been better trained”. Obviously not so according to Rawlinson … something to look into at a later date

There was a program on one of the satellite channels recently which looked at the artillery used for the Somme. They conducted some experiments with differing shells (HE, Shrapnel, etc.) to assess the impact.

I can't remember the finer points of the program now, but I do recall thinking that surely the Artillery people at the time would have done something similar before the barrage commenced.

But then again.....

What were Rawlinson's comments about the level of training?

What were Rawlinson's comments about the level of training?

Stephen,

I read somewhere that Rawlinson's belief was that the New Army men were poorly education and thus of low intelligence. I understand this was one of the reasons why he gave the order for men to walk across NML ie. keep it simple

1) Who commanded the artillery in the Somme preparation and what information is available.

The MGRA was BIRCH.

Task for this weekend is to find out more about the artillery preparation. REFER MY THREAD ARTILLERY ON THE SOMME

1) Who commanded the artillery in the Somme preparation and what information is available.

Jon, this is from The centre for first world war stuides Birmingham uni web site

Generals' Nicknames

No46: 'Curly' Birch

General Sir (James Frederick) Noel Birch (1865-1939) was perhaps the most important cavalryman in Sir Douglas Haig’s inner circle of advisers. Birch was a horse artilleryman and a master of all things connected with horses, about which he wrote extensively and on which he was an international authority. These interests did not, however, prevent him from understanding modern technology. As Haig’s chief artillery adviser from May 1916 until the end of the war Birch eventually succeeded in combining the dash of the pre-war horse artillery with the slide-rule gunnery of the Royal Garrison Artillery. He was also a key figure in establishing artillery and artillerymen at the heart of the BEF’s operational method. He had Haig’s complete confidence. Birch was reputed to be ‘two metres tall’. Despite this, he avoided being called ‘Tiny’.

J.M. Bourne

regards

Arm

Thanks Arm. From what I can make out from various sources, Birch was a very capable and dynamic artileryman.