Assessment

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

This is from a poster on another forum. I don't appreciate some of his comments. Please, let me know what you seriously think, and address the the content. Thanks.

Cambrai was a failure in the end, a drawn battle is what it is often described as. Yes, the tanks broke through some of the lines, but German counter attacks pushed the whole line back again. It was poorly planned really as little thought had been given to what would happen after a break through occurred and the fact that almost the entire Tank Corp was in the initial attack, meant there were no reserves of tanks for follow up. The British Cavalry was to expolit a breakthrough but proved surprising slow in moving forward for their big moment, so the advantage of the breakthrough was lost. The Germans countered attack and a week later everyone was back where they started from.

Britsh tanks were destroyed by German batteries at close range because close infantry support was lacking ( the myth of the lone German Officer destroying a dozen tanks). It proved tanks could not operate independently of close infantry support in that enviroment. Monash has an equal claim to defining blitzkrieg, Fuller was basically changing horses for machines ala Jeb Stuart. Monash integrated tanks, artillary, infantry, air support into a single unifed system, it was tested at Le Hamel and was unstoppable. It was the basis for the attacks through August to October, all arms integrated and the Germans had no answer in 1918 to that tactic.

Re The Hindenburg Line . The Australian 4 th Divison had assualted the Hindenburg Line in April 1917 unsupported. No artillary because tanks were supposed to be the "surprise" element to smash the lines. Bad British planning again, the tanks never turned up. The infantry assualted and it was a massacre but they did breach the first lines of the Hindenburg Line unassisted, a magnificant feat of arms. It counted for nothing as they were forced to eventually retreat.

You need to read Plumers attacks preceding Passchendale, the Menin Rd Battles, superbly planned and all successful and yes the Australians played a big role in them. Plumers reward? Shipped off to Italy to help the Italian allies whilst Gough took over and unservingly attacked Passchendale at such cost. It was the Canadians who finally took the village, relieving the Australians. Again all for nothing, when the March attack came, all those gains costing 100,000's lives were hurriedly abandoned by the British.

The March retreat is a classic case of poor planning, the British had attacked for two years and knew German defences, yet when they were attacked for the first time, what happened?. The Germans cleaved right through on their first attempt to a depth of about 40 miles. Kinda says it all for the quality of British generalmanship. Oh, the Australian Divisons were rushed down to stop the attack outside Amien at the end of March, but in fairness British troops fighting desperate rear guards had performed miracles. One Australian Divison was rushed back north again to block the German attack on Hazebrook.

As to British Generals, thats another topic but the fact remains to many of the Generals had little idea of fighting other than frontal attacks preceded by long artillary barrages that merely warned the enemy. Look at the Battle of Loos in 1915, a massacre, the Somme in 1916 a massacre, Passchendale in 1917 a massacre. 10,000's of men dead for a few square miles, the Somme line advanced 7 miles from July to November 1916.

Some British Generals were very good, Maxse was superb and sent home, (http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/maxse.htm in case some don't know British Generals well) , Smith Dorrian superb and sent home ( Haigs rival) . Plumer 2nd Army , superb and transferred. Allenby (3rd Army) was medicore on the Western Front but came into his own in the Desert war (with Australian Lighhorse ). Gough (5th Army), was Haig's yes man re Passchendale but was unfairly dumped after the March retreat when his 5th Army was decimated. Rawlinson was responsible for the First battle of the Somme, but in 1918 his 4th Army was superb, but it had Monash in it leading the innovation. Byng (3rd Army after Allenby) was competent, his army pivoted well during the March retreat blocking any northward movement by the Germans. So they simply attacked above him.

The point is to many Generals were from a very small circle of people, incestous might be a good term. Currie and Monash came up from outside that world and adapted better. Hence the reason their armies were the elite forces in 1918. They embraced technology and changes of tactics and promoted proven men from within their own ranks.

[Desmond7]

Which forum are you referring to?

Des

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

Which forum are you referring to?

Des

Not here.

Axis Forum - First World War

Under Topic: Messines ridge mine explosion

[Neil Burns]

Why not read up on the subject and come to your own conclusions/counter arguments etc.

[John_Hartley]

This is from a poster on another forum. I don't appreciate some of his comments. Please, let me know what you seriously think, and address the the content. Thanks.

Ask him to post here and I'll be glad to join the debate.

One Forum is enough for me - there are only so many hours in the day.

John

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

Why not read up on the subject and come to your own conclusions/counter arguments etc.

1. The response to the topic would be very valuable to the forum

2. If you don't use it (your knowledge) you lose it

3. Lifes too short. The basics are suffice. But it may whet my appetite

4. If you cannot do any of the above then at least tick a box. Good eh

[bob lembke]

I feel that the essay is, in broad terms, generally "correct", whatever that might mean. Of course it is a collection of judgements about events and personalities, rather than quantifiable elements of events, so any judgement on this is necessarity subjective.

You stated: "This is from a poster on another forum. I don't appreciate some of his comments. Please, let me know what you seriously think, and address the the content. Thanks."

"I don't appreciate some of his comments." is a curious phrase, and suggests that you seem personally offended or put off by the poster, the individual, rather than, or additionally, to his ideas and judgement on military history. Shall we assume that your famous xenophobia has extended past the Hunnish foe and now targets England's Commonwealth Allies?

Bob Lembke

[withcall]

Point one, and yes, I'm an old pedant, but the use of English and the spelling are both grisly. That puts me off for a start. Point two, he's recycling some pretty old chestnuts about how wonderful the Commonwealth troops were, and how badly they were let down by 'Donkey' English generals. The problem with his statements is that they all hold a grain of truth - he refers to the attacks at First Bullecourt where, yes, the tanks either got lost or broke down. Yes, Loos was a shambles, and yes, Plumer was a thoughtful and intelligent general who presided over excellent staff-work to produce success at Messines. Where he falls down is to combine various bits of 'evidence' to construct a 'proof' which ends up as flawed and hopelessly over-simplified. Point three, the debate about the quality of British generalship always generates more heat than light, as people push themselves into extreme positions, polarising into the 'Haig was deeply misunderstood and misinterpreted' school, by and large led by the late John Terraine in the 1970s, and on the other hand the Alan Clarke/John Laffin school of 'Butchers and Bunglers. Common sense and scholarship gets lost in between, in my experience. Someone said, on this forum a while ago, that the 'facts' about the Great War have all been out there for fifty or sixty years. No-one is ever going to discover any new evidence, and so all that changes is fashions in how we interpret things. Lecture over - for my money, the writer has produced a pretty undistinguished piece of work, but given what else is going on these last couple of weeks, I've got better things to do than get excited about it.

[6th Shropshires]

Its full of large lumps of c**p if you ask me.

Annette

[Andrew P]

Why not read up on the subject and come to your own conclusions/counter arguments etc.

Because Evans has a long history of Baiting

[aconnolly]

I agree with the basics of the first few paragraphs regarding some of the battles, but I do not agree with the broad strokes of "incompetence" lower down. It is just too easy to call people incompetent or butchers. I voted 50% above

As an aside, as a New Zealander, it would have been good to hear how the writer thought our Divisional commander did, but no one ever seems to mention General Sir Andrew Russell, colonial, farmer, soldier.

Regards

Andrew

P.S.

As UOT is only for Old Sweats, has anyone mentioned Sri Lankan cricketers?

[Peter Beckett]

Evans,

You state the following:

1. The response to the topic would be very valuable to the forum

In what way is the extract that you have quoted (Which Chris Baker has asked members to minimise to reduce costs) valuable to the Forum?

2. If you don't use it (your knowledge) you lose it

What is that statement based on?

3. Lifes too short. The basics are suffice. But it may whet my appetite

Please explain this statement in basic English as I dont understand what you are saying

4. If you cannot do any of the above then at least tick a box. Good eh

Sorry, mate, I won't tick a box due to the above

I am running my own poll as to whether I bin it. I will let you know who wins

Peter

[armourersergeant]

I would take a guess that the chap who posted is an Australian?

He seems to imply that when the BEF went foward on the western front it was the Colonial troops who did it and when it went back its was the British who did the retreating.

His accessment of the Generals is probably correct, though very simplistic and I would guess the Cambrai battle was a draw, but it did show what Tanks were capable of and thus was a success in that.

Monash was not the first to combine Tank, Infantry and Air troops in combined arms, though he did use it very well in the 100 days.

Gough was not a complete yes man over Passchendeale. I seem to recall both Plumer and Gough went to Haig and told him that the attacks were, would not work and should be changed.

As for Loos, top of the learning curve and not enough learnt from it soon enough. Yet the initial attacks were successful. The Germans were forced back. The reserve was not near enough, fast enough nor was it expereinced enough for the eventual action it had to fight. Had it have been all of these three and had the battle been a small bite and hold operation it may have been a success.

I would agree with much written though not completley. I do not seem to be horror stricken at what is written. I have seen much the same on this forum, in fact something is familiar about the style of writing. is it a former memberor current come to that?

regards

Arm

[armourersergeant]

Andrew,

Do you have any good links to General Russell that I could read. I have tried a search on the web and get little bits. I often think that the NZ troops are the forgotten element of the Empire forces. With the Aussies in many minds, British that is, being the ANZAC force of 1915.

I am compiling as much info on as many Gens. of the Great War and have very little on Russell.

Sorry to hijack this thread!

regards

Arm.

[aconnolly]

Arm

Apologies if I'm "blowing the NZEF trumpet", but I think if we follow "credit where it's due" then we should include thought of Russell

Best info is contained in a book by Chris Pugsley - "The Anzac Experience - New Zealand, Australia, and Empire in the First World War". Published by Reed books in2004. It is really a compliation of detailed research done by Pugsley on the Great War. Has a fascinating amount of detail esp on Russell and he compares the styles of command of Russell with Monash and Currie.

ISBN is 0 7900 0941 2

PM me if you want a copy and can't find it in the UK - I can track one down here.

Regards

Andrew

[armourersergeant]

thanks Andrew,

We all have are corners to defend/ champion nothing to apologise for

I'll have a look around see what I can find on the book front.

Arm

[Blackblue]

Like I said in the other thread.......opinions are like *********....everybody has one. How do we all base arguments? None of us were there.....(well perhaps a couple)....so all we can do is read a variety of views that document the subject and form our own opinion. Many people base their views on little more than the last book they read.

I don't know what you have against the Australians and Canadians Evans. Was your ex wife, who ran away with the milkman, from Goondiwindi or something? The vast majority of reading I have done, most of it British, supports the fact they were amongst the best the British Army had by 1918. Certainly they were human...nodody denies that...but pound for pound the Australians and Canadians were probably as good as the best the wider British Army had to offer. I don't see anything in the quotes on the other forum that suggest the Australians were better than the divisions you outlined in response. The poster certainly has not claimed the dominions were 'superior' to selected British divisions.

As far as accuracy goes....I don't see anything here that is particularly wrong. As withcall has said it all has a grain of truth and I think the man's interpretation in most instances is fair. I don't see a 'lions led by donkeys' argument here. The poster has outlined a number of generals who performed well...and some that didn't. These facts are already well documented historically.

In the end he has surmised that Currie and Monash did well.....no argument there....and perhaps this was because they came from outside the British regular army system. I feel this is a fair comment which I have heard before. Monash's latest biography makes the point that he was a reservist....a civil engineer by occupation...that may have enabled him to think more laterally, adapt a little better and test established doctrine. I don't think Monash was the father of combined arms....it was considered and used in a limited fashion before Hamel....but certainly Monash and his staff applied it and applied it well.

Rgds

Tim

[Guest mythago]

Well the grammar is dire and it's riddled with spelling mistakes, detracting from whatever argument is there.

[Guest Evans of the Broke]

Thx guys.

Bob that was a waste of a couple of paragraphs. You could have saved those mutterings by providing examples to your acute overview.

Blackblue i'll ignore your personal attack, as you have made a very objective and contructive response.

Not usual for an Aussie eh ..oops baiting

[Blackblue]

I don't think Evans was interested in the spelling and the grammar guys. I understand the gist of the posters comments quite easily and I am sure everyone else can. The comments are from a forum....not from the Official History of the Great War. Then again....I am just a semi-literate colonial so perhaps it is easier for me.

[Blackblue]

Thx guys.

Bob that was a waste of a couple of paragraphs. You could have saved those mutterings by providing examples to your acute overview.

Blackblue i'll ignore your personal attack, as you have made a very objective and contructive response.

Not usual for an Aussie eh ..oops baiting

Just thinking out loud mate! Wasn't meant as a personal attack.....perhaps its was a butcher from Wonthaggi then?

[Blackblue]

I feel that the essay is, in broad terms, generally "correct", whatever that might mean. Of course it is a collection of judgements about events and personalities, rather than quantifiable elements of events, so any judgement on this is necessarity subjective.

You stated: "This is from a poster on another forum. I don't appreciate some of his comments. Please, let me know what you seriously think, and address the the content. Thanks."

"I don't appreciate some of his comments." is a curious phrase, and suggests that you seem personally offended or put off by the poster, the individual, rather than, or additionally, to his ideas and judgement on military history. Shall we assume that your famous xenophobia has extended past the Hunnish foe and now targets England's Commonwealth Allies?

Bob Lembke

I think we were probably the original primary Bob! Everybody knows that the damn colonial rabble are far worse than the perfectly honourable hun!

Rgds

Tim

[bob lembke]

Thx guys.

Bob that was a waste of a couple of paragraphs. You could have saved those mutterings by providing examples to your acute overview.

Blackblue i'll ignore your personal attack, as you have made a very objective and contructive response.

Not usual for an Aussie eh ..oops baiting

As "I do not have a dog in this fight", I will comment a tiny bit and slip out of this brawl.

I am just reading a history of the naval war in the Mediteranian (sp?), and one perceptive Allied staff officer (it hardly matters from which navy) stated that he had much better relations with the enemy (primarily the German Mittelsee U-Boot Flottila) than with his allies.

I am not an expert in the details of UK generals' alleged performance, or lack of same, and was simply observing that the tone suggested that the discussion was possibly more xenophobic and less historic than might be desired, unless the objective was an inter-allied pub punch-up. The passage being discussed did not seem to be wildly incorrect, to my amateur opinion.

What may be behind this type of argument, perhaps, is that, at least to me, UK / Commonwealth generals seemed to be of much more variable skill or performance than those of their Hunnish opponents, leading to now near on a century of these arguments. Is this valid? Why?

Bob Lembke

[Chris_Baker]

I'm sorry but I do not understand why members of this forum are being asked to vote on anonymous comments apparently made somewhere else.

[spike10764]

Ask the man who wrote it to tell you what his purpose was.....Evans

and what are you're thoughts on the piece ?