Unwanted attacks

[armourersergeant]

Over the last few months i have read that the battles that Britian fought on the western front were on the whole not wanted but pushed on us by necessity or political pressure, thus justifing to a certain extent the casualties.

So what has just occurred to me is there any eveidence to show that had we have chosen when and where we would fight would the casualties have been different. It is one thing to blame Lloyd-George and the French for the battles we fought and as a consequence the deaths, but this only holds water if proof can been given that had we have chosen the casualties would they have been any better.

I am inclined to think that with in reason possibly not as i see the fighting on the western front as a learning curve. I believe Haig favoured an attack in Ypres in 1916 instead of the Somme but surely Passchendeale proved that there we would not have fared better?

comments?

Arm.

[Geoff Parker]

I think that if left to their own devices neither French nor Haig would have fought

any major battle during 1915 unless in defence. Instead they would have built up their forces, equipment and of course ammunition during that year with a view to a major attack in 1916. Haig would obviously had gone for Flanders, but as French had already been dismissed by then its difficult to say where he would have favoured for an attack, but I suspect that he too would have favoured Flanders.

I believe the weather played a major part during 3rd Ypres in 1917 as well as contributing to the dramatic losses that were incurred. Had the ground been firmer advances would have been more successful and casualties would have been removed from the battlefield far qucker. If I had been Haig I would have called off 3rd Ypres by August/September because of the weather and instead moved forces south for Cambrai so that there were sufficient reserves for a breakthrough. But what do I know, I was only a corporal.

Geoff

[AOK4]

I am always amazed as how the British always blame the weather/ground/the French/ignorance of the generals for not having big successes with their offensives and never the German opposition. Do you really think the Germans wouldn't be able to put up a better defence in Flanders too had the weather been better?

There was a formidable opponent on the other side of the front (I know this may sound as a bit of a surprise to some people ) who was prepared for the British offensive since the beginning of July 1917, having the better ground and having brought the best of their fighting force to oppose the attack!

Regards,

Jan

PS: I hope I didn't offend anyone with my remark, it was not meant to any of the posters, but just a general remark about which I thought a lot when reading British books.

[Geoff Parker]

Jan

Dont misunderstand me, I have every respect for the German soldier, particularly in defence, as both World Wars have proved on numerous occasions. But as Haig's forces advanced it was their lines of communication that grew longer (if only by a few hundred yards at time), while the Germans grew shorter. In defence an army is normally fairly static compared to the attacking army, Waterloo is a typical example of how the weather can affect a battle.

PS not offended, I'm sure that two of us could discuss the pro's and con's of tactics for hours over a few beers.

Geoff

[AOK4]

Conditions for an attacker were increasingly difficult, especially if you had a destroyed area to cross in which all lines of communications had to be built again (and were even then often still very difficult). The Germans had the same problem in 1918. The whole area, destroyed by themselves in the "Alberich-Bewegung" made it very difficult to keep the initial speed of advance.

Jan

PS I accept your proposal to have a discussion about tactics & strategies over a few beers. Are you ever in Flanders or London (I visit the PRO/NA a few times a year)?

[Geoff Parker]

Jan

By chance I will be in Flanders on either 13/14th September

I shall be staying in Gent Friday to Monday and normally spend

at least one day in or near Ypres. Although I did consider a run

upto De Panna and Nieuport this time round.

Geoff

[Tim Birch]

I don't think you can ignore the weather. Mud and difficult ground for bringing up supplies and artillery favours defence. Third Ypres might have had a very different outcome if the ground had remained firm. I also believe that one of the greatest miscalculations was not to have planned the main offensive to follow on immediately after the capture of Messines whilst the Germans were off balance.

Another factor is the strength of the defences. Had the attack taken place in 1916 rather than 1917 they were not so formidable or constructed in such depth. Against this tanks were untried and in short supply in 1916. By 1917 there were many more but the ground became too soft for them. I suppose on balance they should be removed from the equation for either year.

Another factor in the British favour was moral. In 1916 it was very high, by 1917 it had turned to grim determination after the Somme slaughter. On the other hand had the British attacked in Flanders in 1916 they would probably have made the same mistakes that they did on the Somme. Over-optimism against uncut wire, a very alive and determined enemy, machine guns and artillery.

Tim

[AOK4]

Why does everyone think the British would have attacked in Flanders in 1916?

The mining of the Messines Ridge, which was necessary for an attack in Flanders, was not yet completed and the U-Boat War, one of the reasons for the attack in 1917, was not yet going on in such a scale as in 1917.

A British attack in Flanders in 1916 would have been a greater massacre than the Somme or Third Ypres in my opinion, the Germans would have seen all preparations from the high ground and could have easily massed artillery there (even more than 1917 after the loss of Messines Ridge).

Also: the Germans themselves had plans for an attack in Flanders in 1916 and they were preparing the infrastructure (railways, stations, roads, narrow gauge railways, ammunition dumps ...) in the area. Signs of a British attack would have made these preparations very effective against a British attack.

Eventually this German attack was cancelled (General Falkenhayn was really not the man to be in charge) because he wouldn't stop the attack on Verdun. The action of the reinforced XIII. Armeekorps in June was just a small left over from the bigger plans (Mount Sorrel - June 1916).

Jan

[Greenwoodman]

Hi Jan

There had been a plan for a Flanders offensive in 1916 since January of that year. The date was set for 31 July and eleven mines were ready by then (three more in August). Following the French mutinies, Joffre asked for more assistance with the Somme. Preparations in Flanders continued until the June, but it was eventually cancelled as the Somme had used up the men and the material.

The Plan for the Offensive is in the Official History - France and Belgium 1917 Vol II.

[Muerrisch]

There is no magic formula. In a war of attrition

"Quoi qu'on fasse, on perd beaucoup de monde", loosely translated

"whatever you do, you lose a lot of men" General Mangin, quoted by, and agreed by, John Terraine.

[AOK4]

Following the French mutinies, Joffre asked for more assistance with the Somme.

Hello,

French mutinies in 1916? I don't think that's correct...

The mutinies were in 1917 and would not have made the French front collapse in case of a German attack IMO. The French soldiers just didn't want to die anymore in pointless (in their eyes) attacks.

Jan

[uncle bill]

The french mutinies were also kept quiet from the British high command, even Spears didn't know about them.

[Greenwoodman]

French mutinies in 1916? I don't think that's correct...

Sorry Jan. I meant of course that pressure on the French at Verdun caused Joffre to request more assistance from the BEF on the Somme. Joffre gave that warning on 25th March 1916.

Why does everyone think the British would have attacked in Flanders in 1916?

Joffre had accepted on 25th January 1916 that the main British effort for the summer of 1916 would be made in Flanders. Plans were made for a six-phase assault. Following Joffre's request in March, this was reduced until just the Messines offensive was left, but this too was eventually cancelled.

And that's why everyone thinks that the attack in Flanders could have come in 1916.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Jan made some valid points but I am sure that a British attack in Flanders in 1916, would have had more success then the 1917 attack for the reason already given. Also would the German dug-outs in Flanders in 1916 have stood up to the same level of bombardment as was put in on the Somme in 1916 ?

Annette

[armourersergeant]

What would have made an attack in Flanders in 1916 more attractive than the Somme, in regard to hindsight given that they would have believed much of what they did at the beggining of the Somme. or are we saying that the mines would have made the difference?

Also i think that Jan has a very valid point that perhaps we dont always appreciate too well, that the German soldier was very hard fighting where ever he was engaged.

Arm.

[Guest stevebec]

One should also take it that the same tactics would have been used like at the Somme so would an attack against prepeared German defences prove anymore successfull then the Somme.

I think not and there would have been another butchers bill there.

The British Army in 1916 was not that skilled as it later became as new tactics were still to be trialed.

S.B