What if....

[Skipman]

If Arthur Currie,had been in charge of planning the Somme,would he have been as successful as he was a yr later at Vimy?...

Were there any British commanders who had his vision?

[nigelcave]

Currie was not in command of the Canadian Corps at Vimy - Byng was.

[Skipman]

Currie was not in command of the Canadian Corps at Vimy - Byng was.

Oops!

I beg everyones pardon.Wrong not for the first time.What i suppose i meant was...had Currie,been in charge of planning the Somme,would he have faired any better.As he was obviously a capable and visionary man.

Feel free to ignore my half a###d post.

Mike.

Thanks for pointing that out,was wondering why it died.

[truthergw]

If Currie had been in command instead of Rawlinson, I suppose it is fair to assume that there would have been a different plan. However there would have been much the same resources to carry out the same task. How big a difference there could have been in the plan is hard to say. Not every commander was equally successful when given a much greater responsibility. I am thinking particularly of Nivelle who was a great success at Verdun but whose ' foolproof ' plan did not scale up as he had hoped at Chemin des Dames.

[Skipman]

Thanks Tom.

From what i've read,Currie was very successful,not sure how much of that was down to his vision,and how much to luck.He seems to have been able to see further ahead than others.

[montbrehain]

Hey Mike , you been reading Laffin ? he made the same mistake in Bunglers (not that i have ever made any mistakes you understand , YEAH RIGHT !) "MO"

[Rob Connolly]

Well he couldn't have magicked the British artillery shells into being better quality!

Perhaps more emphasis on counter-battery work? Better recognition of uncut wire - which would imply better communications both ways from front line to GHQ - and thus the futility of launching attacks against it. No commitment of tanks at all, thus preserving their shock effect until Arras next year?

[Skipman]

Hey Mike , you been reading Laffin ? he made the same mistake in Bunglers (not that i have ever made any mistakes you understand , YEAH RIGHT !) "MO"

Cheers Mo.To 'er.. i mean...ere. I mean err....... etc blah blah,maybe i should take a bit more care posting,i tend to get an idea and type ,head ...engage.....gears etc.

I dare say i'll do it again.Don't be scared to tell me folks.I don't mind,just do it gently

I'll keep the green smiley,just in case i do it again.

Mike .

[truthergw]

I was reading a collection of essays at the weekend, not a new book but one I had put off reading. Some interesting ideas in it amongst which, were the idea that Rawlinson had a fairly large force of Cavalry at his disposal on 1/7/16 and did not use them. Arguably if they had been incorporated in the plan and well up, they could have exploited the success made on the right wing and saved a lot of the later fighting. Now whether Currie would have been any keener on using cavalry than Rawly, is a moot point. Incidentally, Sassoon is describing Rawlinson in his autobiography when he describes the Cavalry General. Now that must have stung !

[armourersergeant]

I think Currie was as good as he was because he learnt from the things he did and the mistakes etc. that he and others made. In 1916 he would not have had the experience to do what he did a year or so later, so I would venture he would have done little better. however he may have stood up to Haig a bit more and had his own plan come hell or high water. As others have said though he could not miracle up better ammo and guns etc.

regards

Arm

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I'm a little confused, what is the definition of success being used here?

[Muerrisch]

The assumption that the top man 'planned' operations is just that.

However, a general in post for any length of time will gather to him a staff that is congruent with his ideas and prejudices ...... nobody likes their staff work to be rubbished by the boss. This is not sycophancy, just human nature.

I was, for a while, Chief Met. Officer on the staff of an Air Chief Marshal, in war, and he definitely tended to get the advice that people thought he wanted. The few civilians who were Heads of Branches, by not being in the military pecking order, seemed more sturdily indepent. Albeit shaking in their boots.

[dutchbarge]

The assumption that the top man 'planned' operations is just that.

However, a general in post for any length of time will gather to him a staff that is congruent with his ideas and prejudices ...... nobody likes their staff work to be rubbished by the boss. This is not sycophancy, just human nature......he definitely tended to get the advice that people thought he wanted.

Same in the US. Probably all military organizations. Cheers, Bill