Woods

[nicburch]

It seems that woods on battlefields or close by were important to all combatants from the early days of the war until they were obliterated.Apart from the obvious,for example cover and camouflage, it seemed a dangerous place to put troops.Trenches must have been hard to dig and surely your enemy could concentrate fire knowing a target was there in numbers or were they considered as good tactically as gaining high ground. Are there any views on this?

[truthergw]

Apart from the obvious,for example cover and camouflage

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems to me that the obvious advantage is a very real one. Being in a wood would ensure that the fall of artillery fire could not be accurately observed. A shell exploding in or over a wood might be effective, or it might not. No way to tell. Another advantage, a trench in a wood would be a scary thing to advance against. Where exactly is the trench? What kind of defences does it have ? Some of the longest and most costly battles were against positions in woods.

[Captain Dave]

Woods offer two substantial disadvantages,

1. Range of weapons are decreased as soldiers can only see as far as the trees will let them.

2. Arty against woods is quite effective as the trees tend to splinter providing more shrapenal.

Woods are good for small short scraps amongst small gps, not large concentrations of troops fighting set piece WW1 battles.

[Robert Dunlop]

I have been very interested about the importance of woods throughout WW1. There is no question that they played a very significant role in many battles - many long bitter and bloody battles that consumed many lives and tons of shells. This was not just due to the proximity of woods to other terrain features of significance, though High Wood benefitted from the fact that it lay on the crest of a ridge for example. Mostly, they had to be surrounded to be taken 'easily', not a simple thing to do if there were other woods and villages offering protection to the flanks.

I would respectfully argue that artillery was not as effective against woods. If you compare the effects of an artillery bombardment against unprotected troops in the open versus in woods but not in trenches - well, there is no comparison. Comparison with troops in trenches in the open is less difficult but First Ypres gives some insight into this. My impression is that it was less dangerous in trenches in woods than in trenches in the open, hence the fact that woods tended to become salients. Another good example of the effect of shelling in woods is offered by Rommel in his accounts of the Battle of the Frontiers. Think too of the ability of the South Africans to hold out in the Hell of Delville Wood, pounded on three sides by artillery over several days. There are good anecdotal accounts of how the soldiers could get cover in trenches (it was possible to dig trenches in woods), scrapes under fallen trees, etc. Even the complete devastation of the leafy cover did not negate the tactical effects of woods.

As for line of sight in woods, two things to keep in mind. Firstly, a wood would be defended by placing the trenches just inside the edge. Totally invisible to the attacker but good fields of fire for the defender. Jefferies describes this in his account of the Grenadier Guards in First Ypres. Secondly, many (but not all) French woods had long 'rides' or open paths/semi-roads through them. Well placed machine guns could fire down these rides, which often criss-crossed the woods. Such tactics were used by the Germans in the defence of parts of Bourlon Wood for example.

So in answer to your question, they were almost as good as holding high ground and definitely better than being in the open, even when 'obliterated'.

Robert

[squirrel]

Robert,

Having spent the best part of half a day walking round the section of Delville Wood where my dad's cousin was killed and realising what a very small part of the wood his company was in, together with a rough idea of where the German trenches were, I would agree wholeheartedly with you.

Tough nuts to crack and I don't remember reading an account of an attack on any German held wood that was described as "easy". They were picked as defensive positions for the reasons you state and well defended.

[andigger]

You have to admit, some one named Squirrel would have to know a lot about woods and tough nuts to crack. Hands down, he has my vote as the Subject Matter Expert.

Andy

[squirrel]

I simply have to refrain from further comment!

[squirrel]

Well I had to say something.

Having checked my diaries and notes, in addition to my comments on Delville Wood, the same would apply to Polygon Wood which I have walked through with a trench map. Also High Wood and The Crow's Nest which I walked round the outside of with a trench map.

Nasty places to attack and fight in but good defensive positions.

[Bernard_Lewis]

Mametz Wood was relatively lightly defended in July 1916 re German manpower - but firing out from the edge of the woods was effective and calling for artillery support once attackers were in the woods meant that fire was almost as likely to hit your own troops as that of the enemy, given the confusion of who's got to where?

Brig Gen Marden of the Welsh regiment reports finding Welsh troops mistakenly following a German barrage in the confusion. Several casualties were inflicted on friendly troops in error.

If it was lightly defended it still proved a tough nut - several attacks fizzling our prior to the assault on 10 - 12 July which finally secured the wood. Did the Welsh lack 'drive'? - 4000 casualties tells the story...

Bernard