Russian 1917 Spring Offensive

[jwsleser]

I am not advocating 30-40K. 25,000 is likely a truer number. Insert here the usual disclaimer about variations on how casualties are counted, etc.

I agree that the number (Russian losses) might be in question, that is why I provided the source. While calculating a casualty number based on Knox is a stretch, the point I was making is that a 1st person account from an individual who certainly would know states that the Russian losses were excessive compared to the German losses. Is the 6 x literary license? Quite possibly. The only number given in DWK is 23,000 with 2,000 POWs added later.

Don’t forget the failed 3rd Siberian attack which likely produced significant casualties. The two Lett Brigades were said to be pretty much destroyed. While no major reinforcements were moved up, we don’t know how many replacements were sent forward. And are desertions a factor?

Phil

Don’t focus on the word raid. What is clear is that the Russians really didn’t have a plan/purpose for this operation. Given there was no real attempt to exploit or hold the ground (the lack of any movement of Russian major formations in support demonstrates this), the action can only be classified as a raid. Or a probing attack, but to probe and achieve what? The Russians never make clear what this operation was designed to accomplish. As for casualties, see Lake Narocz. Even Brusilov’s Offensive, once the surprise was gone and the tempo slowed saw excessive Russian casualties. The Russians never regained the tactical skill they previously possessed in 1914 and lacked the supporting arms to compensate for this weakiness.

Jeff

[jwsleser]

Attached are the DWK maps of the battle. These are skizze 23 and 24.

Jeff

[jwsleser]

Here is skizze 24.

Jeff

[phil andrade]

I's the Rssian claim of eight thousand German PoWs that stands out as dubious, to say the least. Not to mention the thirty six guns The Germans themselves claimed the capture of nine hundred Russian prisoners as a result of counter attack.

The source I used is CHRONICLE OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR by Gray and Argyle, corroborated by Norman Stone's book on the Eastern Front.

Phil (PJA)

[Tom W.]

I's the Rssian claim of eight thousand German PoWs that stands out as dubious, to say the least. Not to mention the thirty six guns The Germans themselves claimed the capture of nine hundred Russian prisoners as a result of counter attack.

The source I used is CHRONICLE OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR by Gray and Argyle, corroborated by Norman Stone's book on the Eastern Front.

Phil (PJA)

Well, to complicate matters, the commander of the flamethrower regiment, Major Bernhard Reddemann, wrote in his history of the flamethrower arm that on January 23 the 3rd and 7th Companies of the Garde-Reserve-Pionier-Regiment counterattacked at Mitau. Launching a frontal attack with 34 small flamethrowers, the pioneers retook positions in the dunes on either side of the Aa River. A front 5.6 miles wide and 1.2 miles deep was taken, along with 3000 Russian prisoners.

[jwsleser]

DWK (page 401) comfirms 32 guns captured by the Russians during the fighting in the dunes. By the moring of the 7th, the Russian attack had overrun several German batteries.

Jeff

[marsyao]

Well, to complicate matters, the commander of the flamethrower regiment, Major Bernhard Reddemann, wrote in his history of the flamethrower arm that on January 23 the 3rd and 7th Companies of the Garde-Reserve-Pionier-Regiment counterattacked at Mitau. Launching a frontal attack with 34 small flamethrowers, the pioneers retook positions in the dunes on either side of the Aa River. A front 5.6 miles wide and 1.2 miles deep was taken, along with 3000 Russian prisoners.

3rd and 7th Companies of the Garde-Reserve-Pionier-Regiment alone took 3000 Russian prisoners ?

[phil andrade]

Faced with flame, soldiers opted to surrender in large numbers. And who would blame them ?

There is a comparable episode at Verdun - in July 1916, I think - when the equivalent of nearly an entire French regiment surrendered to a flamethrower unit.

Rommels' exploits at Caporetto yielded an extraordinary number of prisoners captured by a single company.

Reverting to the scale of the fighting in January 1917, there is enough evidence in German casualty returns to indicate that the fighting in that month was of considerable intensity : between the fading out of the Brusilov Offensive and the Kerensky advance in the summer of 1917, the January losses were - by some margin - the heaviest, so clearly the Germans did have to contend with something significant.

Phil (PJA)

[marsyao]

I am not advocating 30-40K. 25,000 is likely a truer number. Insert here the usual disclaimer about variations on how casualties are counted, etc.

I agree that the number (Russian losses) might be in question, that is why I provided the source. While calculating a casualty number based on Knox is a stretch, the point I was making is that a 1st person account from an individual who certainly would know states that the Russian losses were excessive compared to the German losses. Is the 6 x literary license? Quite possibly. The only number given in DWK is 23,000 with 2,000 POWs added later.

Don't forget the failed 3rd Siberian attack which likely produced significant casualties. The two Lett Brigades were said to be pretty much destroyed. While no major reinforcements were moved up, we don't know how many replacements were sent forward. And are desertions a factor?

Phil

Don't focus on the word raid. What is clear is that the Russians really didn't have a plan/purpose for this operation. Given there was no real attempt to exploit or hold the ground (the lack of any movement of Russian major formations in support demonstrates this), the action can only be classified as a raid. Or a probing attack, but to probe and achieve what? The Russians never make clear what this operation was designed to accomplish. As for casualties, see Lake Narocz. Even Brusilov's Offensive, once the surprise was gone and the tempo slowed saw excessive Russian casualties. The Russians never regained the tactical skill they previously possessed in 1914 and lacked the supporting arms to compensate for this weakiness.

Jeff

hi, Jeff, got an answer from Art:

Stupin writes that "in both operations" (Russian offensive and then defense against German counteroffensive) losses reached 23 thousands of them 9 thousands missing in actions.

http://www.grwar.ru/library/Mil-Collect-II/MCII_02.html

So my guess is on the mark!

[marsyao]

Phil, Rommel's exploits at Caporetto was somewhat exagerated, his units was actually one of the three German units at the scene, the large amounts of Italian prisoners were under the pressue from three sides, and all of theose three German units send officers to ask Italian's surrender, I guess this became Rommel's exploits alone was because the late fame he gained in the WWII. A very detail account could see Gaetano V. Cavallaro's "Futility Ending in Disaster"

[phil andrade]

The worst month of the Brusilov Offensive in 1916 for Germany was September, with 59,453 battle casualties. It comes as a surprise ( for me, anyway) to see that the Kerensky summer was not so far behind, with 50,566 German battle casualties in July 1917. Of course, in both cases Austrian losses were vastly heavier.

I cite these figures to demonstrate how much hitting power the Russians retained until well into 1917. I had hitherto imagined that everything was a bit half hearted after the end of 1916, but this Aa fighting that we're discussing, and the figures from the sanitatsbericht, indicate that the battles still raged with considerable intensity.

Phil (PJA)

[John Gilinsky]

PJA and others: NO surprise at all: unit cohesion, local higher than average morale including the immediate locals/inhabitants, and successfull if but temporary deluge of Allied supplies actually reaching their intended Russian destinations all helped to increase the fire power of what the Germans in particular underestimated in the early spring of 1917 based on politically derived intelligence which of course was famously significant but did NOT account for the numerous exceptions nor individual commanders of the Russian forces.

John

[Tom W.]

3rd and 7th Companies of the Garde-Reserve-Pionier-Regiment alone took 3000 Russian prisoners ?

According to the former commander of the flamethrower regiment, yes.

The use of 34 small flamethrowers likely indicates flamethrower shock troops going in ahead of regular infantry. These shock troops would include hand-grenade throwers, light machine gunners, and grenade-launcher squads. If reinforced shock troops were used, line pioneers armed with explosives and fire tubes would also have participated. These units had an amazing amount of firepower. It's entirely possible that 3000 Russians surrendered very quickly.

In March of 1915, at Rawa, Poland, Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 11 used flamethrowers against the Russians. According to the history of the battalion, in one sector 1000 Russians surrendered to nine pioneers.

[marsyao]

Tom, that will not agree, if 3000 men, I do not care which country they come from, surrendered to 2 company, and I do not care how "Elite" those 2 company's soldiers are, the only reason would be those 3000 men lost the will to fight, not be mus-understood what I said, I mean 2 company of elite infantry could defeat a much large size of enemy, but capture 3000 men alive? no way if the opponents decide to fight.

[Tom W.]

Tom, that will not agree, if 3000 men, I do not care which country they come from, surrendered to 2 company, and I do not care how "Elite" those 2 company's soldiers are, the only reason would be those 3000 men lost the will to fight, not be mus-understood what I said, I mean 2 company of elite infantry could defeat a much large size of enemy, but capture 3000 men alive? no way if the opponents decide to fight.

The main impact of the flamethrower was psychological. It was an excellent weapon for reducing the enemy's will to fight. Also, German flame assaults were ferocious. The assault began with a short barrage from grenade launchers, which covered the advance of the flamethrower pioneers, hand-grenade throwers, and machine gunners. The machine gunners then opened fire on the trench while the flamethrower pioneers and hand-grenade throwers advanced. When the shock troop was within 20 meters of the trench, one or two flamethrowers fired a covering jet, while the remaining flamethrower pioneers and hand-grenade throwers entered the trench. The raiders then rolled up the trench in minutes.

The effectiveness of the raid was the result of both the skill of the raiders and the will to fight of the defenders.

[marsyao]

Tom, do not get me wrong, I agree with you that the result of this combat were both the skill of the raiders and the will to fight of the defenders. 2 company of super-trained soldiers with right weapon and right tactics, they could broke a line of defend by 3000 soldiers, this happened many times in the military history, and a small size of super-trained soldiers with right weapon and right tactics, they could repulsed attack of 3000 enemy soldiers, that happened many times in the military history too. But just think of the area 3000 soldiers could occupied, then even those 3000 men had no weapon at all, and those soldiers of those 2 pioneer company each had a flam thrower, and could fired at will, they still not way could cover the entire area occupied by those 3000 me, and most of them, if like, could simply walk away.

Those 3000 thousand Russians got captured by 2 company of German pioneers were mainly because the choose not fight, and it also happened many times in the military history that large amount of demoralized soldiers surrendered to very few enemy soldiers.

P.S. I am just reading some book about Battle of Isandlwana, the British disaster in the Zulu war, when British line were broken, British soldiers were cut to small group, ammunition were gone, surrounded by overwhelming enemy, British soldiers fought on, they told each other "Everything is lost, now fix the bayonet and die like British soldiers do!", if those Russians had such a spirit, what would be the result of this combat?

[Tom W.]

if those Russians had such a spirit, what would be the result of this combat?

I don't know. What was their level of training? What sorts of weapons did they have? Even if the fighting spirit was there, could poorly armed, poorly trained troops have withstood an attack by 400+ heavily armed German shock specialists?

What if the Russians were ready to fight for Tsar and country until suddenly they were hit with aerial grenades, machine-gun fire, and huge blooms of flame? Maybe they had the fight knocked right out of them.

[marsyao]

if those 3000 men were front line combat troop, they must at least have between 60-100 machine guns, and trench mortars not saying rifles and grenades, if they were ready to fight to death, they could inflicted heavier losses to the Germans,even they could still break the Russia defense line, they would advance more cautiously, then at leas a large part of those 3000 Russian could manage to escape.

[Tom W.]

if those 3000 men were front line combat troop, they must at least have between 60-100 machine guns, and trench mortars not saying rifles and grenades, if they were ready to fight to death, they could inflicted heavier losses to the Germans,even they could still break the Russia defense line, they would advance more cautiously, then at leas a large part of those 3000 Russian could manage to escape.

It could be that the Russians were already demoralized and had no will to fight before the attack happened, or it could be that the violence and suddenness of the assault was so demoralizing that they decided to surrender.

The most famous case of mass surrender in World War I was when 132 Germans surrendered to Corporal (later Sergeant) Alvin York after he shot and killed 29 Germans one by one. The Germans were fully armed with machine guns and hand grenades, but they were so demoralized by York's accurate rifle fire and their losses that they surrendered to him.

The German flamethrower shock troops may have inflicted such casualties on the Russians that they quickly surrendered.

[marsyao]

I agree with you, the vicious attack of the German shock troop and, let us not forget, previous day's savage fighting, seriously damage the Russian moral, most of them were just giving up. The case of Sargent York was same, if those 132 Germans decided to run instead of giving up, not way on earth York could capture them all alone.

[bob lembke]

I have been collecting statistics on the success (or not) of German flame attacks in WW I for years, and the results to date will corroborate what Tom has been saying. One spreadsheet has the following basis. Taking Major Dr. Reddemann's flame attacks (As Tom mentioned, there were some other units that, in the early and perhaps the last days of the war, were allowed to conduct some flame attacks; for most of the war, his flame battalion and then his flame regiment had a monopoly on this weapon.), somewhat less than 700, and extracting a sub-set of attacks for which 1) I have been able to find reliable figures on the number of prisoners taken (often I have 2 or 3 different sources for the POW figure), and 2) I have determined that it was a major flame attack, and the weapon had a significant role; I have arrived as a sub-set of 50 flame attacks. (I have a body of other attacks that with some more research will add to this sub-set.) There is no "cherry-picking" here; if there was a flame attack, a few prisoners were taken, but the Flamm=Pioniere suffered some losses, a poor result; that attack was retained in the sample.

Pardon the convoluted introduction. Here are the results to date. (I am not actively working on this now, but occasionally add data.)

In the 50 flame attacks, 67,390 prisoners were taken. (Usually this figure only includes unwounded POWs, sometimes I am sure that wounded POWs were also included.) I have partial statistics for other booty from these attacks. In 27 of these 50 attacks, 914 MGs were captured. In 11 of these attacks, 504 cannon (including some "revolver cannon") were captured. In 9 of these attacks, 143 mortars were taken. In 13 attacks, a total of 431.8 sq km of front terrain were taken. (Some of these terrain figures were precise, some a round estimate.) In one attack, one tank was knocked out.

The number of Flamm=Pioniere KIA, Died of Wounds (including some who died days later in hospital, some of whom may have actually been wounded elsewhere, if there was doubt, I was conservative and added the death to the DoW tally.), and missing in action, in those 50 flame attacks? 121.

Since some of these attacks were quite large attacks, and, although they were large flame attacks, sometimes with over 100 flame teams leading the attack, it could be argued that it is a stretch to attempt to link the overall results to this one weapon, I have backed out the results for three of the attacks that clearly could be looked at in that fashion. The modified results?

For 47 flame attacks: 46,290 POWs. In 24 of those attacks, 481 MGs. In 8 of these attacks, 71 cannon. Still in 9 of these attacks, 143 mortars. In 12 of these attacks, 31.8 sq kn of front taken. (The three excluded attacks were two against the Russians, and one against the British. In one of the attacks in the east the front collapsed, and 55 guns and an estimated 400 sq km of terrain were taken.) In one attack, one tank was knocked out. The number of Reddemann's men in the smaller sample? 100 lost KiA, DoW, and missing. (The total of 21 dead in the other three attacks shows that they also were major flame attacks.)

Since German attack flame practice was forty variations on attacking from the front, the flame pioneers generally took a good proportion of the casualties. As Tom has suggested, often Reddemann's men did the entire job themselves, with their combined arms. In other cases, they had selected supporting infantry, but if they had time they trained them before the attack and sometimes actually led them.

In a number of these attacks, the enemy front simply collapsed when attacked with 30-odd, 60-odd, or 100-odd flame-throwers. My father, who used this weapon against the French, told me that in most cases the French simply ran when the flame-throwers were turned on. (I don't believe that he ever was in a very large attack, but he saw a lot of fighting, being wounded in action four times in flame attacks.)

Bob Lembke

[phil andrade]

In a number of these attacks, the enemy front simply collapsed when attacked with 30-odd, 60-odd, or 100-odd flame-throwers. My father, who used this weapon against the French, told me that in most cases the French simply ran when the flame-throwers were turned on. (I don't believe that he ever was in a very large attack, but he saw a lot of fighting, being wounded in action four times in flame attacks.)

Bob Lembke

This sounds nightmarish. Who would not run ? As a matter of interest, Bob, please tell us if you are aware of episodes when troops so attacked stood firm and gave a good account of themselves.

Five years ago I visited the Hill of Vaucquois in the Argonne, where there was a memorial to the fist victims of flame attack : a French infantry company in the summer of 1915.

Shortly after that the British had their literal baptism of fire at Hooge.

The episode we're discussing in the Aa fighting makes an interesting case study. I wonder how often prior to that action the Russians had encountered flame.

Phil (PJA)

Phil (PJA)

[marsyao]

In a number of these attacks, the enemy front simply collapsed when attacked with 30-odd, 60-odd, or 100-odd flame-throwers. My father, who used this weapon against the French, told me that in most cases the French simply ran when the flame-throwers were turned on. (I don't believe that he ever was in a very large attack, but he saw a lot of fighting, being wounded in action four times in flame attacks.)

Bob Lembke

I bet those 30-odd, 60-odd, or 100-odd flame-throwers did not attack alone, before their attack, there must be a heavy artillery firing, and they must be covered by machine gun and grenades from other stormtroops, and as soon as they "broke" a hole on the enemy defense line, the regular German troops must immediately followed, otherwise You know machine guns and rifles had a much farther effective range than the flame-thrower.I can not imagine a picture in which those 30-odd, 60-odd, or 100-odd flame-throwers calmly walked toward enemy line and enemy either ran away or throw down weapons before them, that would be a movie. Would be possible that those large number of prisoners were not captured by those pioneers alone?

Again, large amount of soldiers gave up must involve the moral issue, flame-throwers though powerful, could not be effectively used without suppress enemy fire first, and even after broke into enemy line, without immediate support from own troops, I failed to see why those breach could not be immediately seal by determine count-attack since I doubt usefulness of flame-throwers in the trench and how they re-charge these things?.

For example in the siege of the Petersburg in American Civil War, Union army blew apart Confederate defense line by a powerful mine, union troops poured into the breach, but Confederate line still held, there was no panic, both flank held, and the survivors of the mine attack did not run away or surrender, they count-attack, it won time for the arrive of the confederate infantry and artillery reserve, and Union attack was repulsed with heavy losses. In the most of time in the military history, moral is not everything, but moral matters a lot.

[Jasta72s]

The most famous case of mass surrender in World War I was when 132 Germans surrendered to Corporal (later Sergeant) Alvin York after he shot and killed 29 Germans one by one. The Germans were fully armed with machine guns and hand grenades, but they were so demoralized by York's accurate rifle fire and their losses that they surrendered to him.

Beside the fact that York was not alone in action we should take into account here the following facts:

- German soldiers came from a 3rd class Landwehr unit

- Oberleutnant Vollmer was EITHER with limited skills, lost his nerves and tried to save his own life OR he was feeling responsible for the survival of his men in a senseless war (he ordered his men to surrender)

- when the war is already know to be lost and the discussion of a truce in the papers known to German soldiers

- the Russian revolution was already discussed as an example among soldiers coming from the Eastern to the Western front

So, the demoralization was already existing as a result of earlier attrition and political actions. Otherwise the German soldiers would have fought to death like in earlier battles.

It is obvious that Russia did already suffer from comparable circumstances in early 1917. The 1. revolution in spring happened not accidently and was rather indicating a way too slow learning curve of the Russian military in WWI. The 2. revolution in autumn could only occure because the new government did not fullfil the people´s most urgent wishes: peace, bread and land for the peasants. One should keep that in mind if one is not intending to support the new "Stabbed in the back" nonsense claimed by some of the Russian nationalists in the last years. They did simply take over the German legend "Im Felde unbesiegt" (Undefeated in the field).

[phil andrade]

I bet those 30-odd, 60-odd, or 100-odd flame-throwers did not attack alone, before their attack, there must be a heavy artillery firing, and they must be covered by machine gun and grenades from other stormtroops, and as soon as they "broke" a hole on the enemy defense line, the regular German troops must immediately followed, otherwise You know machine guns and rifles had a much farther effective range than the flame-thrower.I can not imagine a picture in which those 30-odd, 60-odd, or 100-odd flame-throwers calmly walked toward enemy line and enemy either ran away or throw down weapons before them, that would be a movie. Would be possible that those large number of prisoners were not captured by those pioneers alone?

You're right, of course. Germans were good at integrating the various forms of weapons into the "all arms" concept of battle, weren't they ?

Phil (PJA)