Is only 1 view of the War now permissible?

[John_Hartley]

I fully understand that this may be challenging to Phil B!

Pete

I think it may be challenging to me too.

I'd always understood the learning curve argument. It made sense to me. But are you saying that modern argument is that victory in 1918 was much more of a chance thing - that our particularly high position on the roller coaster co-incided with with a particularly low position on the Germans'. Reminds me of the Grand National ride at Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

Yours in puzzlement

John

[PMHart]

The overall Allied track was up but it was not a uniform curve . There were ups and downs on the journey for the reasons above! One side does not determine a battle! It takes two to tango!

Helpful Pete

PS Simon, George and I are unique!

[Ian Riley]

What would seem important is the development of the ability (and culture) within an army that allows it to learn in the first place and to drop (without hesitation of regret) or re develop techniques, weapons and tactics that no longer serve and quickly adopt and absorb new ones. In other words the capacity to counter the enemy's latest innovations and impose one's own as rapidly as possible. To react, adapt and attack. I think that by 1918 the British army was doing this better than the Germans.

They were not so slow in 1916. If I recall and in my personal humble and unreferenced opinion Preliminary Notes on the Tactical Lessons of the Recent Operations SS 119 was on its way to the printers (Captain Partridge and Co at the Stationery Section) in July 1916 and actually printed in August 1916 (printer's colophon). That seems a pretty rapid reaction to me and although it may have taken account of earlier operations before 1 July 1916.

Ian

PS Any newish member of the Forum reading this thread must be terrified of making a posting; the talk of arguments, what's an argument or a thesis and what's a personal opinion and (unless you read carefully) the apparent mandatory need to reference your stuff. Many new WW1 punters will think that a reference is something you need for a job. Frankly, the discussion has become quite intimidating to a newcomer who might form an opinion that several days in a research library might be necessary before posting anything. I have shelves full of books and a computer full of random and less-random papers, theses and dissertations but I have rather better things to do that spend an hour searching for a reference to support what I will flag up as a recollection or an opinion. Maybe there should be closed section for 'geeks/anoraks/academics' where we can discuss how many arguments we can get on the head of pin and whether this number is less or more for pin-headed 'opinions'. Having said that, there is some pretty good stuff within as I have discovered taking an hour's break from marking.

[centurion]

The overall Allied track was up but it was not a uniform curve . There were ups and downs on the journey for the reasons above! One side does not determine a battle! It takes two to tango!

Helpful Pete

PS Simon George and I are unique!

It's back to the ability to learn (rather than a simple learning curve). Otherwise side one develops a tactic. Side 2 learns to counter it with their own tactic, side 1 counters the counter tactic and so side 2 counters that and so it goes on in some bloody escalating stalemate (like those spy v spy cartoons in the old Mad Magazine) The army that wins in the end is the one that develops the ability to learn faster and to put what it learns into effect quicker so that it can anticipate the counter tactics. I think the roller coaster analogy is slightly out as what happened was that the Allies developed the ability to learn and implement faster and anticipate what the Germans were learning. The British were beginning to travel faster along their part of the learning curve than the Germans were on theirs. I would argue that one of the advantages of, for example, new infantry fighting structure was it made learning faster.

There is an excellent study from WW2 of why US merchant shipping was massacred during Operation Drumbeat in 1942 by a relative handful of U boats (an aspect of the Battle of the Atlantic often overlooked) even though the RN had begun to develop some answers. It wasn't that individual US Naval officers were stupid or unwilling to learn from other's experience as has often been alleged it was because the organisational structure of the US Navy made the absorption and transfer of such lessons extremely difficult.

There's a lot more to organisational learning than getting new instructions out fast

[John_Hartley]

The overall Allied track was up but it was not a uniform curve .

Ah. Understood now. It is like some of my bright ideas that Mrs H says turn out not to have been so bright.

[Roger H]

Helpful Pete

PS Simon George and I are unique!

Can three individuals be unique?

Roger

[Dawley Jockey]

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

Mike

Hey I like this quote.. In my informed opinion having studied the First War for forty years and read extensively as well as studied the battlefields on foot I still find myself half way between the 'Lions lead by' and the revisionist's schools.

And believe me if I didn't have to work all week I would dig out as many references/sources/Casualty rates/ etc as I wanted to show why I believe this way.

[John_Hartley]

Can three individuals be unique?

Only in their own "special" ways, Roger.

[Dawley Jockey]

Can I use an example for my Opinion ;

I am a Wolves fan and our fiercest rivals are Sandwell Town, now if someone debates with me about the two teams that Sandwell have the better side at the moment, I would not like it much but would have to agree however I would still know that Wolves are the bigger and better club (History, Fan base etc) and no-one could ever change my opinion on that, no matter how much they tried or what arguments they used because that is what I believe.

Dave

[centurion]

Can I use an example for my Opinion ;

I am a Wolves fan and our fiercest rivals are Sandwell Town, now if someone debates with me about the two teams that Sandwell have the better side at the moment, I would not like it much but would have to agree however I would still know that Wolves are the bigger club (History, Fan base etc) and no-one could ever change my opinion on that, no matter how much they tried or what arguments they used because that is what I believe.

Dave

One would hope it was because it was that way that the evidence pointed rather than because you believed it regardless. I used to work with a Saudi who believed that WW1 was the result of a plot between "the Zionists" and "the Crusaders" to dominate the Middle East. He also believed that Allah had recently put all that oil under Saudi as a reward for being faithful. One hopes that this discussion is based on more than belief.

[Dawley Jockey]

One would hope it was because it was that way that the evidence pointed rather than because you believed it regardless.

Of course I can produce evidence and it is not just believed regardless, however that should be on another forum not this superb GWF one. But it is still my opinion and a Sandwell Town supporter would have a different opinion

[dycer]

Me unique,assuming I'm the correct George?,No!. .I'll admit,though,to having views,thoughts,etc that do not appear to conform to the Forum norm.

However,in my defence, my Father as a teenager,lived through WW1, as a Bobby,policed "Britain" during the inter-War years and "did his bit" during WW2,I have his Medals,mounted for post-WW2 Court Uniform use,plus his Brothers Trios in the envelopes(registered) they were delivered.

Had he lived I doubt he would have been bothered about my TA exercises, in Germany, at the height of the Cold War.

He was,however,a well read man equating,in the 1960's,the excesses of the "failing Roman Empire" with the "retreating British Empire" and anticipated "China's arousal".

I think he would have been angry, had he known that in the WW1 Centenary period,all effort was being put into "Britain" with little regard to "her Allies" and"her Enemy".

Too much" British" navel gazing to my warped mind.

George

[centurion]

We're all unique, if not some convicted on DNA evidence should not have been. however some do appear to belong to particular herds and others are rogue males (or females)

[Dawley Jockey]

Dycer, excellent post #162

[hazelclark]

This thread is confirming my thoughts about posting on the Forum. As Ian has pointed out it is a little scary, because it is making me feel rather dim witted. (I don't need comments about this from Pete or George!!!! Simon is at least polite) You see this "learning curve" and the way it is being discussed looks to me to be not much more than semantics.

Hazel C.

[Dawley Jockey]

This thread is confirming my thoughts about posting on the Forum. As Ian has pointed out it is a little scary, because it is making me feel rather dim witted. (I don't need comments about this from Pete or George!!!! Simon is at least polite) You see this "learning curve" and the way it is being discussed looks to me to be not much more than semantics.

Hazel C.

Hazel,

Do not feel scared or dim witted you are neither (you used the word semantic). You travel on your own learning curve and come to your own conclusions that is your right.

Dave

[Guest]

And believe me if I didn't have to work all week I would dig out as many references/sources/Casualty rates/ etc as I wanted to show why I believe this way.

Fair enough. My eyes have been ' opined '

I hope no one is put off posting through fear, Ian makes a good point. There is no need to be scared of being wrong. I am frequently, and more than happy to be corrected.

Mike

[Dawley Jockey]

I hope no one is put off posting through fear, Ian makes a good point. There is no need to be scared of being wrong. I am frequently, and more than happy to be corrected.

Mike

Mike is right, no-one should fear posting on this forum and when they do it's time to close it down. Lets hope it never comes to that

[PhilB]

Rather more it was of two roller-coasters: one Allied and one German, running side-by-side along their own separate tracks, with their relative position 'high' or 'low', 'rising' or 'falling', depending on a combination of their own latest tactical innovation, their success in assimilating the lessons of the fighting, the tactical advances of their enemies and the restricting factor of the availability (or otherwise) of military resources. Thus a tactic that seemed to work well one month might ensure nothing but utter disaster just a few weeks later.

I fully understand that this may be challenging to Phil B! Pete

Having studied maths as part of my degree, I am familiar with curves. It is necessary to quantify the items one enters onto the curve however and I struggle to see how the points on this learning switchback are arrived at. A bit of guesswork after a few pints? How do you quantify the rate or degree of learning at any time? It all seems a bit meaningless to me - it just means that both sides learnt at varying rates. But if you don`t like the current thinking of the historians, hang around - there`ll be another along soon.

But Mr Hart answers the original question. It is possible to have different views on WW1 but a view different to that of the revisionists will produce sarcastic and personal response. Which is a pity. I don`t engage in personal comments. I find the forum works better without them.

[sjustice]

This thread is confirming my thoughts about posting on the Forum. As Ian has pointed out it is a little scary, because it is making me feel rather dim witted. (I don't need comments about this from Pete or George!!!! Simon is at least polite) You see this "learning curve" and the way it is being discussed looks to me to be not much more than semantics.

Hazel C.

Hazel,

I'm sure there is no need to feel scared of this forum, posting on it, or people who use it. Most posts are perfectly innocuous, whether they are informed or not, and many of the uninformed ones are useful and entertaining, as well as being obvious. No problems for me either way; I like to hear everything. The only problem I see is when a contentious issue or polemic is up for debate. All healthy and good and no problem in itself, of course. But in these cases, especially, there is little room for manoeuver when taking a stance.

For example, Peter Hart has spent many years, and books-worth of blood and print (and most of his hair...and many marbles) examining the whole of the Great War in different guises. He's in a pretty good situation to view the changes which took place in the British approach to the war and how it was prosecuted. He has made his thoughts on the 'learning process' explicitly clear in his books, talks, lectures...even in this thread. Now, you have stated that, in your opinion, the discussion as led and explained by Peter is one of semantics. Surely you would agree that taking an opposing view on a subject which is clearly at the heart of the matter as far as he is concerned, is worthy of questions as to how you arrived there so we can talk about it? I'm certainly interested to hear it. And yes, I am lovely and kind and polite.

Ok I added the first two adjectives myself.

Cheers,

Simon

[Ian Riley]

It's back to the ability to learn (rather than a simple learning curve). Otherwise side one develops a tactic. Side 2 learns to counter it with their own tactic, side 1 counters the counter tactic and so side 2 counters that and so it goes on in some bloody escalating stalemate (like those spy v spy cartoons in the old Mad Magazine) The army that wins in the end is the one that develops the ability to learn faster and to put what it learns into effect quicker so that it can anticipate the counter tactics. I think the roller coaster analogy is slightly out as what happened was that the Allies developed the ability to learn and implement faster and anticipate what the Germans were learning. The British were beginning to travel faster along their part of the learning curve than the Germans were on theirs. I would argue that one of the advantages of, for example, new infantry fighting structure was it made learning faster.

There is an excellent study from WW2 of why US merchant shipping was massacred during Operation Drumbeat in 1942 by a relative handful of U boats (an aspect of the Battle of the Atlantic often overlooked) even though the RN had begun to develop some answers. It wasn't that individual US Naval officers were stupid or unwilling to learn from other's experience as has often been alleged it was because the organisational structure of the US Navy made the absorption and transfer of such lessons extremely difficult.

There's a lot more to organisational learning than getting new instructions out fast

I had rather put my pennyworth in (about the speed with which SS 119 appeared) to support your point about willingness to learn, which I quoted. One is immediately instructed on how to suck eggs as in the emboldened quote! But no offence is to be taken in this rapidly developing debate!

More generally ...

It took the BEF about a year from that point in July 1916 (publication of SS119) to get its training organisations into a coherent shape with some homogeneity but it produced SS 135 (December 1916), SS 143 April 1917 (and associated documents) after a few visits to the French and by April 1917 everyone was running round (well, most folk) practising platoon tactics followed by provisional formalisation of the training system set out in SS 152. That is at least the evidence of many of the diaries and accounts that I have read. Presumably (ie guesswork, opinion, wishful thinking, modern myth that I have forged this very evening, whatever) the artillery were not standing still either. Byng may or may not have been in advance of the rest of the BEF within the Canadian Corps, it would appear that they were practising 'new systems' by January 1917. There may have been greater inertia in the BEF for a variety of reasons.

The term 'learning curve' rather implies that we can quantify standards of training and operational efficiency and plot them on 2mm graph paper against time. I don't think we can although efforts have been made to quantify the performance of various divisions if I recall correctly; I can't remember the name of the project and I can't be bothered to go into the next room in my house of many libraries but it is an abbreviation beginning with an S that stands for either Simkins or Sheffield if I recall correctly (SHLM Project?). If this 'curve' could be plotted mathematically it would be a curve of best fit (and that includes a line of best fit), perhaps with not a very good correlation coefficient, zipping its way between a scatter of points, some up and some below the path of our defining pencil. We might just call it a 'trend' though I am not sure that would be a statistically correct term for the professionals: my mathematical expertise lies elsewhere. Of course, the learning curve is not a precise concept; it is an attempt at a visual picture to hold the idea of the re-skilling of the British Army in the mind (and quite a useful picture, too, as a start point). I don't see anything wrong with a simplified model from which to start; we teach Newtonian mechanics long before we consider the Einstein relativistic model (and that's only a 'special' restricted version. General Relativity follows thereafter and is open to challenge. Of course, it is affected by what the Field Grey team comes up with in changes in offensive and defensive tactics; whoever thought otherwise?

Ian

[Ian Riley]

Hazel,

I'm sure there is no need to feel scared of this forum, posting on it, or people who use it. Most posts are perfectly innocuous, whether they are informed or not, and many of the uninformed ones are useful and entertaining, as well as being obvious. No problems for me either way; I like to hear everything. The only problem I see is when a contentious issue or polemic is up for debate. All healthy and good and no problem in itself, of course. But in these cases, especially, there is little room for manoeuver when taking a stance.

For example, Peter Hart has spent many years, and books-worth of blood and print (and most of his hair...and many marbles) examining the whole of the Great War in different guises. He's in a pretty good situation to view the changes which took place in the British approach to the war and how it was prosecuted. He has made his thoughts on the 'learning process' explicitly clear in his books, talks, lectures...even in this thread. Now, you have stated that, in your opinion, the discussion as led and explained by Peter is one of semantics. Surely you would agree that taking an opposing view on a subject which is clearly at the heart of the matter as far as he is concerned, is worthy of questions as to how you arrived there so we can talk about it? I'm certainly interested to hear it. And yes, I am lovely and kind and polite.

Ok I added the first two adjectives myself.

Cheers,

Simon

Simon,

I have no 'Hart' on my shelves. Could you (or someone) please recommend something suitably heavyweight and referenced, relevant to the BEF in France and Flanders dealing (in part and Hart) with the learning process. I need a bit more good historiography. I have provided the link to Pete's author page (I hope this not advertising) and in the interests of maintaining the musical tradition and bar bill of the Those Naughty Lumps, I promise to buy a copy. Still, can't go wrong with one priced at 1p.

As for not feeling scared of the GWF, that is probably not the word. Perhaps 'apprehensive' might serve. Certainly Dust Jacket Collector (Post #1) with a grand total of 30 posts to his name got quite a dusty response almost immediately with requests for references; he was clearly expecting it with a mention of 'retirement to the bunker'. A core of contributors are on the 'cutting edge' of research, others are hugely knowledgeable through reading and retain a vast corpus of information that can be instantly deployed, something which is never natural to me. Both their knowledge and their background will I am NOT going to trawl through the Forum archives but I sometimes think that those who have not posted a great deal get pretty short shrift in floating an idea or opinion which (almost by definition but not exclusively so) have not had a chance to read around in their newbieness to the world of the Great War.

Clearly, there are exceptions; some of our number (no names) were probably born with a "1000 postings" rating (rather as Jacob Rees-Mogg was described the other week on 'Have I Got News for You' as having been born in 1969 ... at the age of 50) and are well able to look after themselves when they join the Forum. I think I was a Forum member for two years before I opened my keyboard to world and then probably on a very specialist topic on which I was best-placed to contribute.

Ian

PS Simon, I haven't forgotten your diary query (via e-mail) but this thread is clearly just TOO exciting at the moment.

[sjustice]

<snip> this thread is clearly just TOO exciting at the moment.

Ian,

You KNOW you need to get out more. If you seriously haven't read Peter's books I can only echo your erstwhile mentor Professor Simkins. 'You are missing something.' Personally, I recommend them to your attention with regard to engaging in a discussion of Peter's views on the learning process.

On your separate points if you wish to discuss your thoughts or needs on training in the BEF or the British Armies in France then a fresh thread is probably more appropriate. If not, you have my e-mail address. Regarding the material the museum holds I know you are very busy and await your indulgence.

Cheers,

Simon

Edit: Blimey I just read your edits. Is that the same post?

2nd Edit: You changed 'training' to 'learning process'. I approve, unanimously.

3rd Edit: I can't keep up with it

Edited 31 May , 2013 by Simon J

[centurion]

I had rather put my pennyworth in (about the speed with which SS 119 appeared) to support your point about willingness to learn, which I quoted. One is immediately instructed on how to suck eggs as in the emboldened quote! But no offence is to be taken in this rapidly developing debate!

More generally ...

It took the BEF about a year from that point in July 1916 (publication of SS119) to get its training organisations into a coherent shape with some homogeneity but it produced SS 135 (December 1916), SS 143 April 1917 (and associated documents) after a few visits to the French and by April 1917 everyone was running round (well, most folk) practising platoon tactics followed by provisional formalisation of the training system set out in SS 152. That is at least the evidence of many of the diaries and accounts that I have read. Presumably (ie guesswork, opinion, wishful thinking, modern myth that I have forged this very evening, whatever) the artillery were not standing still either. Byng may or may not have been in advance of the rest of the BEF within the Canadian Corps, it would appear that they were practising 'new systems' by January 1917. There may have been greater inertia in the BEF for a variety of reasons.

The term 'learning curve' rather implies that we can quantify standards of training and operational efficiency and plot them on 2mm graph paper against time. I don't think we can although efforts have been made to quantify the performance of various divisions if I recall correctly; I can't remember the name of the project and I can't be bothered to go into the next room in my house of many libraries but it is an abbreviation beginning with an S that stands for either Simkins or Sheffield if I recall correctly (SHLM Project?). If this 'curve' could be plotted mathematically it would be a curve of best fit (and that includes a line of best fit), perhaps with not a very good correlation coefficient, zipping its way between a scatter of points, some up and some below the path of our defining pencil. We might just call it a 'trend' though I am not sure that would be a statistically correct term for the professionals: my mathematical expertise lies elsewhere. Of course, the learning curve is not a precise concept; it is an attempt at a visual picture to hold the idea of the re-skilling of the British Army in the mind (and quite a useful picture, too, as a start point). I don't see anything wrong with a simplified model from which to start; we teach Newtonian mechanics long before we consider the Einstein relativistic model (and that's only a 'special' restricted version. General Relativity follows thereafter and is open to challenge. Of course, it is affected by what the Field Grey team comes up with in changes in offensive and defensive tactics; whoever thought otherwise?

Ian

I wasn't aiming my emboldenment at you specifically but trying to make the point that willingness to learn, which for example the British new army certainly had from the outset was not the same as ability to learn.

BTW S stands for a Sigmoid curve. I originally learnt about learning curves by being taught about them at Bradford University Post Grad Business School and then about Theodore Paul Wright's research in the aircraft industry (when I was a graduate apprentice at Rolls Royce). In reality there are a whole series of s shaped curves which over lap and where they cross is affected by what the competition is doing. I'm afraid I shamelessly nicked the s curve at KPMG when I developed a theory of 3rd and 4th wave application (software) development back in the 1980s (well it did get me some freebies to speak in international conferences for a year or so before some rotter came up with some new ideas)

There's a cross over to a recent discussion in the rants section of Skindles of all places where Change Management was discussed. There is a modern misconception that this is a quick process. get some trendy consultants in (the definition of trendy is often "charge extortionately high fees") do some training and hey presto a bit of consultant speak gobbledygook and you've got a transformed flexible organisation. It simply doesn't work like that - it takes time and lots of hard work and in a war time environment men die whilst it's happening. Many great military commanders can't achieve it - Napoleon couldn't and relied on what Carnot left him and what Berthier managed but the French army in 1814 was still doing very much what the French army did in 1800. Nelson could (but he had the help of some damn good captains). Somehow the British army did it in the Great War and, but to a lesser extent, so did the German army. I think its an area worth a lot of investigation and we'll find that those responsible are somewhat unsung heros. To give credit where credit is due I think Haig provided the environment where it could happen.

[PMHart]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts!

Pete