BBC2 'The Somme 1916: From Both Sides of the Wire'

[seaJane]

What I would want to know about the maximum percentage of duds being 90% is - for how long? A six-hour period? A day? Out of how many periods/days or whatever?

[squirrel]

Bite and hold was Rawlinson's descriptive phrase (he added the "bite", Forestier-Walker first described "taking a bite out of the enemy's line") for a  limited advance.

I thought that describing Haig as a "thruster" because he was a cavalryman was a throwaway line IMHO. Haig's study of what went wrong at Neuve Chapelle, Aubers Ridge and Festubert as well as Loos; shortage of artillery, shortage of shells, shortage of attacking force, shortage of reserves etc., had him think that more of everything with a deep penetration might just work on the Somme. He also remembered First Ypres and just how close the Germans had come to breaking through with deeply penetrating constant attacks.

 

The success to the South of the battlefield where the French and British lines joined was partially due to British /French tactics and the large number of French heavy guns used. IIRC Jack Sheldon at the GWF Conference also explained that this part of the German line was more thinly defended than further North  as it was believed by the German High Command that this is where ground could be given up for no particular tactical or strategic gain. The schwerepunkt (key defensive point) of the Somme front was the Thiepval Ridge and particularly the Schwaben Redoubt.

 

As an aside, I would also like to know how the figure of 90% of the British shells being duds was arrived at - surely the Germans had better things to do than count the shell holes and duds and by simple arithmetic deduce this. Even given that the majority of the British gunners were inexperienced surely they would have noticed something not being quite right as well?

 

 

[Bart150]

I don't see how an army subjected to a tremendous bombardment can possibly form any credible estimate of the percentage of shells fired at it that were duds.

 

What would the estimating methodology be? I can't think of any.

[Knotty]

Just to remind people if they missed the first showing it is on again tonight at 11.15 BBC2 (Thursday)

 

John

[Terry_Reeves]

It is just this presentation of isolated documents that formed my earlier critique. You can also add the statement of a German soldier who apparently witnessed the shooting ofa  German prisoner, and later saw him being stabbed with a bayonet as he lay hors de combat.  All we have is a headline statement, there is no challenge to this, we just expected to believe just as we are expected to believe the  statement by an RE officer who saw a row of British soldiers hanging on the with their heads bashed in, something that was subject to discussion on this forum a few months ago. Again, just a headline statement, no alternative explanation to balance it just an eyewitness statement we are expected to take as the absolute  truth.  

 

I would would make one further point about this production, and that is the use of images .  We see images of the Querrieu Chateau  , the headquarters of 4th Army for the battle. where both Haig and Rawlinson are portrayed on the steps a couple of times , and we have clips of  the  present day interior.  The real crunch comes with the Haig quotation about 40000 casualties which you could have put money on was going to be used.  There was nothing wrong with this as a matter of fact, but when you put the images together you get

generals + chateaus + couldn't care less senior officers. This a technique that has been long used by both the TV and the press for all sorts of stories. Don't say too much, if anything at all, let the public make up their minds about it. Editors know very  well how an often  ill-informed public will react.

 

T

[EastSurrey]

Christopher Duffy made use of similar material-from the Bavarian Archives- in 'Through German Eyes-The British and the Somme 1916.' On p.288, regarding 'duds', he says 'The proportion of duds  reached 50 per cent or more in the heavy calibres... However the quantity of effective shells was still shocking enough to the Germans, and one of their gunners told the British that "the accuracy with which the range is lengthened or the fire lifted, or the barrage develops is commented on by German artillery officers. Our shrapnel is considered  excellent, good burst and no 'blinds'. Our medium heavy calibres give 'blinds', but not many.(the) prisoner said that a blind which was a direct hit on a dugout often knocked it out more thoroughly than if it burst on top."'(Source given by Duffy as III Corps Intelligence Summary 21-22/9/16.)

It will be interesting to see how the two following programmes hopefully show, following 1st July,  some improvement in British performance and  deterioration in German performace.

Michael

[J Banning]

Terry - I am happy to let this thread run without my jumping in to offer answers etc, mainly due to the fact that I am so snowed under with work, but I feel your first point in the post above is worth a bit of input from me. The German records of British atrocities are something that Peter and I pushed very hard on to be explored in much greater detail. I do not want to give too much away regarding Peter's research as it isn't my place to do so but we felt this was a fascinating example of something that the German archives could show - something that had hitherto been mainly ignored or unexplored. However, the BBC felt it was too contentious and thus, it was reduced to a short item in Episode 1. Even then, the 1000 page file of German statements had to be 'balanced' with a (one) British account of a German atrocity. I well remember the phrase, " We must have balance". I can only say that this will be explored further in the book. Peter is currently at the AWM 1916 The Cost of Attrition conference in Canberra and spoke earlier today on some of his research. It may well be that people who attended that conference know more about it than the viewers of the episode - which, for me, is highly frustrating.

 

This was one of the reasons that the series started on 18 July; the BBC did not air the series on and around 1 July as we were told that when viewed in London the powers that be thought “controversy” could be caused by the series being seen as “disrespectful” to the fallen. There must be a distance between the Royals at Thiepval on 1 July and transmission date. It should be said that all of the BBC team who worked on the series argued against this but the decision was made high up in London. 

 

Jeremy     

[Terry_Reeves]

Jeremy, thank you. You will note that I did acknowledge your post about the difficulties you had with the production team. My criticisms are not aimed are you or Peter Barton, but the way the programme, at least as far as the first episode goes, has been produced.  

 

TR

[phil andrade]

Shall we venture some predictions ?

 

My guess, FWIW, is that the programme will depict the Germans as retaining their qualitative edge over the British ; although there will be significant acknowledgment that that edge had been diminished by dint of British improvements as the battle raged on into the autumn.

 

My hope - a forlorn one, I suspect - is that there will be some emphasis on the success of the French in inflicting  equal or greater damage than they themselves suffered ; their own loss was very nearly half that sustained by the British, and their role in the battle continues to be underrated, especially since they were gaining the upper hand at Verdun as well.

 

It will be interesting to see how the damage suffered by the Germans will be assessed.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Chris_Baker]

Guess: core of part II (I haven't seen part I but am going by the above discussion) is the German development of elastic defence and the use of counter-attack.

[IanA]

And a reminder - find out if Chris is right by watching part 2 tonight.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Gosh.

Has a week gone by already since the first episode?

[IanA]

21 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Gosh.

Has a week gone by already since the first episode?

You bet your sweet bippy.

[J Banning]

I do hope Norman Seadog is still awake. Looking forward, as ever, to his comments. 

 

 

[IPT]

Just before we got to Guillemont, where my grandad's brother was killed, I was startled by Peter Barton's decision to dress up as Tom Baker's Dr Who.

[Seadog]

Not really much you can say about this is there? and yet another episode coming!

 

Norman

 

PS. I liked his scarf best, much better than anything Dan Snow wears

PPS And the hat plus the haversack

[mancpal]

LATEST SCORE:-

 

Peter Barton      2

Dan Snow.         0

[phil andrade]

The French barely got a mention....maybe I heard the word " French" mentioned twice.

 

Bitch over.

 

Best thing I've ever seen on TV about the Somme.

 

Phil

[clk]

Visibly 'choked' reading the last words of a man dying paralysed and alone. So much more than just a TV historian.

 

Regards

Chris

[J Banning]

Phil - I lost track of the times we pushed for French inclusion but, quite frankly, there was no interest whatsoever from the powers that be. I know there is mention of French success in September in Episode 3! But, it's just a bit of a brief mention. Very frustrating. Still, glad you liked it.

JB

[AOK4]

I notice that Peter Barton again mentioned "Field Marshal" von Falkenhayn.

I am surprised that Fritz von Loßberg hasn't been mentioned at all. He was appointed Chief of Staff of the German 2nd Army on 3 July 1916 (later, when the German 2nd Army was split into 1st Army (North) and 2nd Army (South), he was Chief of Staff of the 1st Army) and is seen as one of the most important German defensive commanders.

 

Jan

[nigelcave]

I think members will find Jack Sheldon's forthcoming book, Fighting the Somme: The German Army's Challenges, Dilemmas and Solutions, coming out before Christmas all being well, quite instructive. To say there was discord and lack of harmony at the top is to put it mildly (Loßberg,as Jan mentioned above, crucial in this respect). I also noted the almost complete lack of mention of the French - but we should all be aware of how much control the director has over the contents. Doubtless PB is aware far more than most of the French army's contribution to the offensive - but there is a higher power when it comes to TV....

Edited 26 July , 2016 by nigelcave

[phil andrade]

6 hours ago, J Banning said:

Phil - I lost track of the times we pushed for French inclusion but, quite frankly, there was no interest whatsoever from the powers that be. I know there is mention of French success in September in Episode 3! But, it's just a bit of a brief mention. Very frustrating. Still, glad you liked it.

JB

 

Yes, I do like it, very much....anxious that my quibbles suggest otherwise, it needs to be stressed how much I appreciate what you and your team have achieved.

 

Re the French, I was thinking about the experience of Verdun,  where the shell hole wilderness had already configured the battlefield and fighting methods before the Somme had even started. The antidote to monstrous and relentless firepower was to disperse men.  To suggest that the Somme revolutionised tactics in this respect is to overlook the importance of its twin battle to the South.

 

But, again, I think the programme was superb in the way it depicted the development of the battle, and the way in which the Germans were able to carry off all the tactical advantages that the nature of the battlefield afforded them.  Peter Barton alluded to Haig's refuge in "massaged" German casualty statistics ...a very important feature of the whys and wherefores of the battle.

OTOH, he did not ignore the terrific strain imposed on the Germans, and alluded to one hundred thousand German casualties up until mid August - a bit of an understatement , in my reckoning ( 106,000 in July alone, by official  German count ).

 

The thing was very well done by dint of excercising the intellect and combining this with terrific emotional impact : Peter Barton knows how to do this better than any other historian when it comes to the Great War.

 

Phil

 

 

[Medaler]

Last night - Once more a huge "well done" from me. The only problem I have with it is that the BBC should have given it 6 hours rather than 3.

 

Mike

[Roger H]

I can only say that I found it fascinating. The only thing I can't understand is why Seadog bothers watching.  

 

Roger