Best trained and equipped.....

[edwin astill]

Reading Mr Punch's History of the Great War (my copy published 1919), the entry for August 1914 says "... and in twelve days from the declaration of War our Expeditionary Force, the best trained and equipped army that England has ever put into the field, landed in France."

I'd always thought that this was Edmond's phrase from the Official History ..... did he take it from Punch or vice versa?

Edwin

[bill24chev]

I have always been unsure about the idea that the BEF was the best trained force ever to go overseas. Admittedly it could old its own against much larger forces as at Mons Le Cateau but the archers of Cressy and Agincourt performed perhaps greater feats of arms. I am not disputing that the standard of training of the Regular British Soldier was superior man for man and at unit level level to the German and French conscripts although the least experienced of these would have had at least a years service/training and the reserves called up to immediately fill the ranks would in the majority of cases have been the most recent men to have completed their compulsory full time service.

My concern is that it would have been difficult for a Reservist with up to seven years away from the colours to regain military proficiency and more importantly physical fitness in two or so weeks.

One good factor that came out of the retreat from Mons would be by the Battle of the Marne the BEF would be at a good standard of fitness with the reservist feet broken in to their new boots..

[Ron Clifton]

It is possible that both Edmonds and Mr Punch borrowed the phrase from a common source, such as Repington, Liddell Hart or Fuller, for instance.

Your point about the reservists needing to re-hone their military skills echoes some of the comments made after the Boer War, that especially in marching, the reservists struggled. Similar comments were also made by the Germans after the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, which called for their reserve divisions to march and fight alongside their active divisions, and were unable to maintain the momentum required by the Plan.

Ron

[centurion]

Just submitted a 4,000 word essay on this very topic (with over 60 references!) I don't intend to repeat it here but the same sentiment was repeated , albeit sometimes in a different form of words by many writers over time. Thus Liddell Hart called it "A rapier amongst scythes" (The Real War, Faber London 1930) and in 1916 Von Moltke called it "A most perfect thing apart" (Vossische Zeitung Dec 1916 as translated by the Times Military Correspondent). The German writer Paul Oskar Höcker writing in 1915 descibes the British uniforms, equipment and rifles at Mons (where he was a first hand witness) as superior to those of the German Army (Au der spitze meiner Kompagnie, Berlin 1915 translated by Matthew Richardson). Both Heubner Heinrich (Unter Emmich vor Lüttich unter Kluck vor Paris, Schwerin 1915) and Walter Bloem, , (The Advance from Mons Grethlein Leipzig 1916, translated Peter Davies) are fulsome over the fighting abilities of the BEF. Incidentally Edmonds draws heavily on Bloem. If the phrase was borrowed the most likely source is Haldane who uses very similar words in a number of places including Parliament as reported by Hansard.

The term best needs qualifying as best in what circumstances. The BEF was planned and organised as a "Striking Force" as Broderick first named it in 1901 in the defence estimates of that year and was meant to be what we would call a Rapid Reaction Force today. He intended it to be a 3 corps strong force as did Haldane but neither could prise the necessary garrison battalions out of the grasp of the Secretary of State for India so it remained at 2 corps. (Fortuitously given the transport and road problems encountered in France in August 1914 had it been 3 corps in size it would have had problems in getting to Mons when it did or completing the retreat without substantially greater losses). Haldane kept the term Striking Force until too many MPs and Peers asked the question "who is it supposed to strike" which as this was by then Germany he didn't want to answer in public (see Before the War by Haldane published in 1920 in which he reports on the deliberations of the Imperial Defence Committee) so the name was officially changed to Expeditionary Force (British Expeditionary Force being first used in the Commons in August 1914 apparently to distinguish it from the Indian Expeditionary Force then under discussion). But Haldane continued to use the term Striking force as late as 1913 and a striking force was what it was - a cosh to strike down a weak foe and stun a strong one long enough to buy time for Britain's allies. It was intended for relatively mobile warfare conditions and its equipment and training reflected this. Up until after first Ypres it did "what it said on the can" But its training and equipment was much less suited for static warfare

[Old Tom]

I think the priorities of the Committee of Imperial Defence put the BEF below the provison of garrisons overseas and the guarding of coaling stations for the RN. I recall reading that Brigadier General Maxse said, I think in 1913, that companies were about 40 strong due to drafts for overseas. The first four divisions of the BEF probably reflected this state of affairs. Neither the staff of the BEF HQ nor of one of the Army Corps existed before mobilisation. The BEF's performance, as Centurion has described was first class, inspite of these disadvantages. The official historian's phrase did them justice but perhaps was rather optimistic.

Old Tom

[centurion]

I think the priorities of the Committee of Imperial Defence put the BEF below the provison of garrisons overseas and the guarding of coaling stations for the RN. I recall reading that Brigadier General Maxse said, I think in 1913, that companies were about 40 strong due to drafts for overseas. The first four divisions of the BEF probably reflected this state of affairs. Neither the staff of the BEF HQ nor of one of the Army Corps existed before mobilisation. The BEF's performance, as Centurion has described was first class, inspite of these disadvantages. The official historian's phrase did them justice but perhaps was rather optimistic.

Old Tom

No, not according to Haldane and he publicly blames the Secretary of State for India in the H of C of failing to agree to release the garrisons requested making a somewhat sarcastic remark suggesting that the latter is still worried about another mutiny (all recorded in Hansard) Haldane and Churchill were pretty much equals when it came to cutting sarcastic remarks!

[Muerrisch]

I have always been unsure about the idea that the BEF was the best trained force ever to go overseas. Admittedly it could old its own against much larger forces as at Mons Le Cateau but the archers of Cressy and Agincourt performed perhaps greater feats of arms. I am not disputing that the standard of training of the Regular British Soldier was superior man for man and at unit level level to the German and French conscripts although the least experienced of these would have had at least a years service/training and the reserves called up to immediately fill the ranks would in the majority of cases have been the most recent men to have completed their compulsory full time service.

My concern is that it would have been difficult for a Reservist with up to seven years away from the colours to regain military proficiency and more importantly physical fitness in two or so weeks.

One good factor that came out of the retreat from Mons would be by the Battle of the Marne the BEF would be at a good standard of fitness with the reservist feet broken in to their new boots..

Why only seven? A three and nine man [all Guardsmen for starters] could have been nine years away. If he had then opted for Section D add four more years. If he re-enlisted under the special provisions of AO 295 6th Aug 1914 he could have been away from service for even longer.

And I do hope the boots were broken in to the feet, not vice versa.

and its Brodrick, not Blackadder's lad.

[charlesmessenger]

Centurion

Your paper sounds most interesting and promises to shed some fresh light. I do hope that you might be prepared toi share it at sometime.

Charles M .

[bill24chev]

Why only seven? A three and nine man [all Guardsmen for starters] could have been nine years away. If he had then opted for Section D add four more years. If he re-enlisted under the special provisions of AO 295 6th Aug 1914 he could have been away from service for even longer.

And I do hope the boots were broken in to the feet, not vice versa.

and its Brodrick, not Blackadder's lad.

I know that the Guards and other Corps had differemnt terms of service from the Five and Seven of the Line infantry. But i would have thought that Guards Battalions who had no need to supply a Battalion overseas with drafts would have been at or about their war establishment.

With regard to boots, during my military career I must have been issued with six or seven pairs of the different types; DMS, Ammunition with studs, and the early versions of the Combat High Boot; and they all broke my feet before fitting like a Glove. I still have the last pair of boots issued to me 24years ago and they come out every winter.

[centurion]

Centurion

Your paper sounds most interesting and promises to shed some fresh light. I do hope that you might be prepared toi share it at sometime.

Charles M .

As soon as it's been marked I'd be happy do do so (of course I might not be as happy once it has been marked!)

[centurion]

With regard to boots, during my military career I must have been issued with six or seven pairs of the different types; DMS, Ammunition with studs, and the early versions of the Combat High Boot; and they all broke my feet before fitting like a Glove. I still have the last pair of boots issued to me 24years ago and they come out every winter.

I've seen accounts of the Germans thinking that the British had better boots and the British thinking the Germans had better ones leading to much POW and corpse robbing but looking at contemporary accounts it would seem that German boots were better on pave and in wet conditions and British ones for hard slogging down relatively regular roads but in the end I suspect that new boots were new boots whatever tongue and there were sore feet on both sides. Given that the German army was larger and many would have been men who had been recalled and kitted out with new boots probably more German than British but again blisters are blisters.

[David Filsell]

I think that the summary of Cent's paper nails the BEF as well as it an can be done.

[Muerrisch]

Anybody interested in facts regarding length of time reservists might have been away from the colours might with advantage read the latest edition of Stand To!