100 Days to Victory. BBC4

[GWF1967]

Just started on BBC4, a two part series examining how the allies won WW1. Previously shown in 2018.  

Edited 18 October , 2023 by GWF1967

[geraint]

I watched both, having missed them on first showing in 2018. I thought that it gave an excellent account of the last months of the war, highlighting the great contribution made by both Australia/NZ, and the Canadians in their breakthrough and rolling up the Hindenberg line. Both Monash and Currie showed flair and a thorough understanding of the strategy and tactics needed to cope with the last year of the war. They made Haig, Foch and the Americans appear tired and dated. The use of newsreel and re-enactors worked well, and the script and narrative was tight and pertinent. Good stuff!

[Gardenerbill]

It's available on the BBC Iplayer.

[EastSurrey]

I watched the first part. It seemed set out to celebrate Australians, Canadians and Scots (except Douglas Haig!) It  appeared to ignore major tactical improvements being made before 1918, including such as Cambrai. I think it even claimed Haig had lost  one million killed on the Western Front  before 1918 .

[geraint]

2 hours ago, EastSurrey said:

I watched the first part. It seemed set out to celebrate Australians, Canadians and Scots (except Douglas Haig!) It  appeared to ignore major tactical improvements being made before 1918, including such as Cambrai. I think it even claimed Haig had lost  one million killed on the Western Front  before 1918 .

 

2 hours ago, EastSurrey said:

I think it even claimed Haig had lost  one million killed on the Western Front  before 1918 .

I think it stated the casualty rate not killed. Ie Killed, wounded, prisoner, missing- which may even be an understatement for Butcher Haig. Just done a quick check. there were 2,090,212 casualties between August 1914 and November 1917, Total killed were 660,000 Great Britain troops by November 1918. The casualty count for Britain and the Dominions being far higher. Haig's butcher's bill.

Edited 21 October , 2023 by geraint
Extra info

[healdav]

14 hours ago, geraint said:

 

I think it stated the casualty rate not killed. Ie Killed, wounded, prisoner, missing- which may even be an understatement for Butcher Haig. Just done a quick check. there were 2,090,212 casualties between August 1914 and November 1917, Total killed were 660,000 Great Britain troops by November 1918. The casualty count for Britain and the Dominions being far higher. Haig's butcher's bill.

And when Haig died the men who had been in the army lined the entire route. Were they brainwashed or did they know something you don't?

[stevem49]

Mentions the Canadian attacks and success but nothing on the attached 11th Div, except for 'some British troops'  At least the Canadians in their dispatches praised them. 

Haig brought in 'All arms' tactics and the 9th Sherwood's were very happy to have rations dropped by plane when they raced across France  

 

[geraint]

According to the programme, it was Monash and Currie - specifically Currie who devised the All Arms strategy, to which Haig reluctantly agreed to as he had no other realistic strategy apart for another "big push". It also stated that the first three years of the war was fought using tactics and strategies which a medieval soldier would recognize. By 1918, all had changed with the 'all arms' working together in the same way as today's modern world armies are still embracing.

[MikeMeech]

On 22/10/2023 at 16:38, geraint said:

According to the programme, it was Monash and Currie - specifically Currie who devised the All Arms strategy, to which Haig reluctantly agreed to as he had no other realistic strategy apart for another "big push". It also stated that the first three years of the war was fought using tactics and strategies which a medieval soldier would recognize. By 1918, all had changed with the 'all arms' working together in the same way as today's modern world armies are still embracing.

Hi

Anyone who has gone through a lot of original documents (eg. War Diaries, tactical manuals etc) from 1914 onwards will note the gradual changes in weaponry, tactics etc. will notice the development of an "All Arms strategy" over the time period with a lot of people involved and much before Currie and Monash became Corps commanders.  Much of this was under the auspices of GHQ including the post battle surveys which appear in some War Diaries.  Certainly, for instance, Monash, Currie or any other Corps commander had little input into things like the development of air/tank co-operation, that was done by the RFC/RAF and Tank Corps and then tried out with the Corps.  The Australian and Canadian Corps did input ideas etc. as did all the other Corps and we should note that these Corps for most of their existence had British or British trained Staff Officers following the same procedures.

Reference 11th Division, it is Andy McNaughton who mentions that during the 100 days on average the Canadian Corps had one British Division on strength throughout, these were different divisions who apparently could go from Corps to Corps without too many problems due to standard procedures etc. in use throughout the BEF.

There are also some strange claims on Canadian websites reference Vimy over 'Flash Spotting', 'Sound Ranging' (especially the "the SR team, Bragg, Darwin and Bull, working directly for them" which is nonsense), air spotting for artillery as well as the CBSO, all of which had been in use in one form or another for some time before Vimy.

Would the medieval soldier have recognised aircraft artillery spotting from 1914 (plus other uses), gas attacks from 1915, tanks from 1916, let alone increasing use of artillery, machine guns of various types, motor transport, railways, wireless and lamp signalling etc. all before 1918?

All rather bigger than two men.

Mike

[geraint]

20 hours ago, MikeMeech said:

 

Would the medieval soldier have recognised aircraft artillery spotting from 1914 (plus other uses), gas attacks from 1915, tanks from 1916, let alone increasing use of artillery, machine guns of various types, motor transport, railways, wireless and lamp signalling etc. all before 1918?

All rather bigger than two men.

Mike

I do take your point Mike and appreciate your substantial input here. I can't agree nor disagree with you - I don't have the relevant knowledge to do so.

I enjoyed the programmes, and am merely  repeating the major thoughts provided there. Just on your last points- the medieval soldier would know how to time and fire arrows in volleys, the medieval artillery/trebuchet spotters would range shots, and smoke and diseased corpses were used as a deadly miasma carriers. Trench warfare, stakes and hedgehogs instead of barbed wire, poisoning wells and water sources, tunnelling etc dates far far back. Armoured cavalry developed into tanks with the same strategy continuing over the centuries.

The enthusiasm with which Monash and Currie developed this seemed to me  to be a much-awaited boost to the stagnant thoughts of British, French and US high commands.

Edited 24 October , 2023 by geraint

[stevem49]

On 22/10/2023 at 16:38, geraint said:

It also stated that the first three years of the war was fought using tactics and strategies which a medieval soldier would recognize. By 1918, all had changed with the 'all arms' working together in the same way as today's modern world armies are still embracing.

Did they have creeping barrages in medieval times then?

[Loopgraaf]

Question. Is it this documentary? 

 

 

[GWF1967]

9 minutes ago, Loopgraaf said:

Question. Is it this documentary? 

 

 

Yes. 

[PhilB]

1 hour ago, stevem49 said:

Did they have creeping barrages in medieval times then?

Wiki:-

The moving barrage was developed during the Boer War, one of several tactical innovations instituted under command of General Redvers Buller.^[1] It was a response to Boer defensive positions, notably at Tugela Heights and effective long range rifle fire.

[geraint]

1 hour ago, PhilB said:

Wiki:-

The moving barrage was developed during the Boer War, one of several tactical innovations instituted under command of General Redvers Buller.^[1] It was a response to Boer defensive positions, notably at Tugela Heights and effective long range rifle fire.

The Roman army developed a form of creeping barrage with their archers and stone throwing artillery machines to protect advancing infantry. Welsh archers used a similar tactic to protect their advancing spearmen during the medieval wars against England. Check Wiki for Battle of Crogen 1165 in which Owain Gwynedd beat the proverbial out of Henry II

Edited 24 October , 2023 by geraint

[PhilB]

I think Wiki were referring to the artillery barrage but, as you implied, the principle is the same.