MikeMeech Posted 21 June , 2020 Share Posted 21 June , 2020 Hi All (I am not sure if this is the best place for this Post) For those who receive 'Stand To!', there was an article by A D Harvey on 'Tanks and Storm Troopers - British and German Solutions to the Deadlock on the Western Front' Although I am all for discussion and comparison on the merits of British, French and German etc. 'Tactical Development' and had hopes for this author's article, however, I was rather disappointed in what appears to be a rather 'limited' idea on what the British were doing in this field. In fact I felt I had gone a few decades back in time on the critic of British Tactical Development when the BEF did not do 'lessons learnt', never changed their tactics and did not use technology, I thought we had moved on from there. Did anyone else think this article was disappointing, or am I just being picky? I will deal with aspects of Air/Tank co-operation, which the author appears to dismiss with the suggestion that the British had "... only the sketchiest notions of what might constitute combined training.", although there are many other comments made in the article that also appear a bit odd to my eyes as well (I may post something on them later if there is any interest). Mike Meech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin W Taylor Posted 22 June , 2020 Share Posted 22 June , 2020 Mike, I would normally suggest sending a letter to the editor for publication or suggest a short article a short article in response. However, the editor recently passed away and the role is currently vacant which may make a formal response difficult. You might lternatively approach the editor of the Bulletin as an alternative. I regret I've not read the article in any detail but will do so now. Kind regards Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 22 June , 2020 Author Share Posted 22 June , 2020 19 minutes ago, Colin W Taylor said: Mike, I would normally suggest sending a letter to the editor for publication or suggest a short article a short article in response. However, the editor recently passed away and the role is currently vacant which may make a formal response difficult. You might lternatively approach the editor of the Bulletin as an alternative. I regret I've not read the article in any detail but will do so now. Kind regards Colin Hi Colin Thanks for the reply, I did think about a letter, but I also put some notes together on 'Tank/Infantry co-operation' and also on the 'use of the Lewis Gun' which are also mentioned in the article (there are other things as well) but the notes I put together were getting rather large. As I am already undertaking a major project which will probably form a series of articles in another journal and the 'Response' had the possibilities of becoming a major diversion. The death of the editor, Jon Cooksey, was very sad to hear of and I give my condolences to his family and friends. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the article. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 22 June , 2020 Share Posted 22 June , 2020 Mike, Must admit I shared your disappointment on A.D. Harvey's article and felt that it was extremely limited in comparison with some of the material I have read over the years. I can only add to your list AIR/725/97/2 "Notes of Corps Squadron work during the Somme Offensive, August 1918" relating to your 29th September entry, find attached from that file. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 22 June , 2020 Author Share Posted 22 June , 2020 44 minutes ago, stiletto_33853 said: Mike, Must admit I shared your disappointment on A.D. Harvey's article and felt that it was extremely limited in comparison with some of the material I have read over the years. I can only add to your list AIR/725/97/2 "Notes of Corps Squadron work during the Somme Offensive, August 1918" relating to your 29th September entry, find attached from that file. Andy Hi Andy Thanks, I have this document, in fact there is no shortage of documents giving information on Air/Tank co-operation, as I found when researching the article I wrote, indeed more turns up in various files as I go through them. Reference the last paragraph in your document on the 'smoke bomb' that discussion continued to the end of the war, example below from 26.10.18 (WO 142/202): Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 22 June , 2020 Author Share Posted 22 June , 2020 Hi Continuing comments on A D Harvey's article, he does not appear to be very approving of British Tank/Infantry co-operation either. I believe there was a lot going on here in development and use as well. While not always being successful (What was!) it was a continuing process in tactical development and certainly there was successful co-operation, which I hope to show some examples in the extracts of manuals and quotes from documents attached. Considering this all started in 1916 I think it is a considerable achievement. Please criticise if any of you think I am on the wrong track here. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 22 June , 2020 Author Share Posted 22 June , 2020 (edited) Hi One of the 'oddest' comments in Harvey's article is the claim that it was used by the British primarily as a 'defensive weapon', unlike the Germans who used captured Lewis Guns more offensively! Certainly it was used by the British in the defence when required but also used in an 'offensive' manner when in the attack. This can be ascertained in the reading of 'Battle Narratives' and certainly the official documentation does not state only 'defensive' use. Anyway document extracts are attached to give some relevant information. Edited 22 June , 2020 by MikeMeech uploading problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 30 June , 2020 Author Share Posted 30 June , 2020 Hi I assume then that not many forum members have read this article (or are members of the WFA) or have an opinion on it? I suspect also I am just being a bit too 'picky' over how the 'British' (in this case) are being portrayed in even recent writings, despite a lot of evidence now available that contradicts the 'facts' in this article. Never mind. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 30 June , 2020 Share Posted 30 June , 2020 Well I have a problem with it. It is, to be kind, simplistic where the writer had obviously not looked at the material available. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 1 July , 2020 Author Share Posted 1 July , 2020 20 hours ago, stiletto_33853 said: Well I have a problem with it. It is, to be kind, simplistic where the writer had obviously not looked at the material available. Andy Hi Andy I agree, but that is just two of us! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scorer Posted 1 July , 2020 Share Posted 1 July , 2020 I did read most of the article, but to be honest I don't know enough about the subject to offer you a view. I must say that I find articles like this, which include a lot of statistics and are very technical, quite difficult to read. It's nothing personal, but I'm afraid to say that the same applies to your extracts above. I'm sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear, but you did ask! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 1 July , 2020 Author Share Posted 1 July , 2020 1 hour ago, The Scorer said: I did read most of the article, but to be honest I don't know enough about the subject to offer you a view. I must say that I find articles like this, which include a lot of statistics and are very technical, quite difficult to read. It's nothing personal, but I'm afraid to say that the same applies to your extracts above. I'm sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear, but you did ask! Hi No need to be 'sorry' it is a perfectly good and honest opinion. The problem of trying to compare and contrast 'tactical development' is that it does become quite 'technical' and it is quite easy to reference a 'quote' or small piece of information to 'justify' a view on a subject when there are many other 'quotes' that will give a different or even opposite view. Not going into detail tends to make the argument 'simplistic' (as Andy mentioned) and can distort what was actually going on at the time. An example is the 'myth' of Andy McNaughton 'inventing' sound ranging at Vimy in 1917, books and websites quote some 'statements' from the past (and each other) to justify the opinion. However, they tend not to mention what had actually been going on with the method during 1916 with its expansion of sections within the BEF before Vimy, and altering the careers of some of the officers involved in the development and training of the technique. Also without quoting any of the technical literature on the subject that was around at the time or later. This opinion then becomes 'fact' and is referenced by other works so spreading the 'myth'. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scorer Posted 1 July , 2020 Share Posted 1 July , 2020 (edited) Thank you for your understanding. Edited 1 July , 2020 by The Scorer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now