The Learning Curve in WW1

[PhilB]

There`s often talk of the learning curve that the generals had to follow as they learnt from the successes and failures of both British and French armies in WW1. I take it that the curve is an expression of how capable the generals had become in fighting successful battles. One might expect this to start in 1914 and to rise from then on. Looking at the battles of Neuve Chappelle, Festubert, Aubers Ridge, Loos, Somme & Ypres etc , however, I don`t see much evidence of this. Do you? One has to bear in mind that the introduction of new weapons should have steepened the curve. Phil B

[Jonathan Saunders]

As far as I know, historians no longer refer to a learning curve but more of a learning wavy line, in which the process sometimes regressed before ultimately progressing. Very convenient explanation if you ask me.

[PhilB]

Difficult to see how learning or technical ability could regress! When do we see the first significant real rise?

[Jonathan Saunders]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 10 2006, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Difficult to see how learning or technical ability could regress! When do we see the first significant real rise?

I think this is open to interpretation but focusing on your word "significant real rise" then I guess August 1918 and all arms coordinated warfare, but this was when the German army was at its weakest. Although you could argue their had been significant jumps in technical ability and uinderstanding before then, the Canadian Division under Arthur Currie at Vimy for example.

[armourersergeant]

I describe it as a 'walk up and down dale'

regards

Arm

[PhilB]

To say that the first real rise was in mid 1918 is tantamount to saying there was no learning curve? Phil B

[Jonathan Saunders]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 10 2006, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To say that the first real rise was in mid 1918 is tantamount to saying there was no learning curve? Phil B

I wouldnt agree with that.

You can argue about other learning processes .... creeping barrage, introduction of tanks with infantry, Lewis Gun teams, air observation, tactical bombing, etc., etc., but I would say the significant learning process was through the subalterns and Company Commanders of 1915 and 1916 who were were the Brigadiers and Battalion Commanders of 1918 right down to the Private of 1915 who was still alive and a seasoned veteran in 1918.

[TGWW]

The learning was continous but the application was sometimes haphazard. Some learning is just perhaps not noted as it's too obvious when we look back. I'm thinking of steel helmets and wrist watches for instance. Both significant in their own way and both affected the way battles were fought but they're so obvious and small in comparison to the advent of something like air superiority that they don't really get a mention. Big things back then though ...

[armourersergeant]

My wife thinks I am a sad anorak and was not best pleased when I pointed this fact out to her about our youngest daughter. She seemed a tad upset that I would use my daughter as an example of the learning curve.. but here it is

A...My daughter, a couple of months back, walked for the first time unaided, it was a little ganglly and very rocky but she did a few staggered steps.

B...The next day she seemed to have forgotten and went back to crawling which she knew so well and had perfected the art, however she seemed to know that it was not economical.

C...Over the next few weeks she attempted to get to her feet in various ways resulting in being able to pull herself up on sofas etc, yet still unaided walking avoided her.

D...A few weeks ago she manged to walk a few more paces, slightly different to the first time she had accomplished it but still a few walks, helped on her way by encouraging arms.

E...Alas once again walking seemed to avoid her, she did not seem to grasp the rudiments, me being a proud father was becoming anxious, god why could she not grasp it, it was obvious to me who had been doing it all my life!!!

then, sadly it hit me, I had hindsight on my side and had been practicing it all my life, albiet her staggering and falling was reminiscent of me some beer nights but it was just like the WW1 learning curve. She did not always grasp the best way to walk first off.

Now she is there, still alittle staggery but walking as her first choice of movement, occassionally she reverts to crawling, as if she finds comfort in what she knows, but when her elder sister out paces her she gets to her feet and trunddles off behind.

The result is my daughter has learnt to walk, a lot slower than her sister but a learning curve none the less.

regards

Arm

[armourersergeant]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 10 2006, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To say that the first real rise was in mid 1918 is tantamount to saying there was no learning curve? Phil B

what may be best to say is this is where the first real success came from all the learning done in 1915/16/17 and the March attacks of 18. Without the blocks of knowledge laid down by trial, error, skill and mens lives the vistories of 1918 would not have been possible. It is after all possible to learn without actually gaining anything tangible. I have been doing it all my life!

regards

Arm

[Stephen Barker]

The concept of the shape of the learning curve is being taken too seriously. Peter Simkins came up with the notion after five pints during a night out!

Arm describes the idea exactly - what is open for discussion is the extent of the learning in theory and practice. The British Army was trying to learn - witness the huge evaluations of actions undertaken during the Somme campaign - go through the divisional boxes at Kew to see the extent of this.

However,

1. Sometimes the wrong lessons were being learned. (Too many to list)

2. Sometimes political considerations undermined the learning -Passchendaele.

3. The wet weather in the Salient - abnormally high for 3rd Ypres.

What cannot be denied however is that:

a. Processes were in place to try and understand how to do better.

b. Training attempted to reflect these lessons.

c. Tactics and Strategic planning changed.

I agree that one of the key issues is to what extent the new and improved British Army of 1918 made a success of the 100 days campaign vis-a-vis the arrival of American troops, the weakening of the German Army and the new strategic operations overseen by Foch.

Stephen

[PhilB]

The concept of the shape of the learning curve is being taken too seriously. Stephen

OK, let`s say "Where are the signs of improved performance 1914-mid 1918 (in terms of ground gained or losses inflicted) resulting from the lessons learned from multiple battles?" Phil B

[Old Tom]

Hello,

The idea of a learning curve is fine. I suppose one should envisage a graph against time showing the rate of aquisition of the knowledge or skill needed to carry out a defined task.

If that's acceptable, there must have been lots of different curves perhaps, as examples, one each for riflemen, junior officers, staff officers and generals. In the case of riflemen and junior officers the task was reasonably definable from the start, but for the generals and their staff the transition from a division that only came together once a year for a manoeuvre to an army in action is rather different.

My reading suggests that several generals did not climb far up the curve and that even in 1918 there were not enough competent staff officers to go round.

Combining all these its no wonder that the result looked like a cross section of the Alps (or perhaps the Cullins)

Old Tom

[Stephen Barker]

Phil B

OK, let`s say "Where are the signs of improved performance 1914-mid 1918 (in terms of ground gained or losses inflicted) resulting from the lessons learned from multiple battles?" Phil B

Exactly Phil!

Stephen

[Muerrisch]

Oh good! I disagree with almost all the above!

Surely, if a 'learning curve' existed at all, it was of five [smoothed] shapes:

1. very flat 'we don't like change, we trained for open warfare and, by God!, we'll carry out the drills' eg artillery in the open at Mons and le Cateau.

2. becoming steeper after September 1914, but not very steep until Loos 1915 and the Somme 1916 had been digested.

3. Very steep with all sorts of innovations, and as the dead wood of 1914 was being replaced at Brigade and Div. HQs

4. Flattening as the war of movement began in summer 1918.

5. Very flat in the last few weeks.

Discuss.

[AB64]

This is all a bit too smart for me, but is it not true that while "we" experienced the learning curve of how to attack, "they" were also having a learning curve of how to defend, which would to a degree cancel each other out?

Alistair

[armourersergeant]

This is all a bit too smart for me, but is it not true that while "we" experienced the learning curve of how to attack, "they" were also having a learning curve of how to defend, which would to a degree cancel each other out?

Alistair

For one who claims not too smart thats a smart thought. Of course we do tend to forget that as the British

started to learn how to attack, the Germans were not sitting still playing cards, they were trying to work out how to counter nayhting that worked against them for the next time.

regards

Arm

[Hoplophile]

Notwithstanding my inherently cheery disposition, I find myself agreeing with Grumpy. Institutional learning is a complex thing, with all sorts of people going off in all sorts of directions.

A number of people, for example, were arguing for 'bite and hold' (rather than 'press on at all costs') attacks at the start of 1915. However, it took a good two years for this opinion to become 'conventional wisdom'.

The learning process was made even more complex by innovations that failed. In 1915 alone, for example, the British Army put too much faith in high explosive 18-pounder shells (to make up for the dearth of howitzer ammunition at Aubers Ridge) and chlorine gas (to make up for the dearth of howitzer ammunition at Loos.)

[PhilB]

Thank you for your views, gents. Nobody seems to have put forward any evidence of improved results in 4 years of war so we`re left with the options of either there was no learning or the learning enabled results not to get worse. Am I to conclude that 1st of July could have been worse but for the lessons learned by our generals? Phil B

[armourersergeant]

Phil,

Surely there was examples of learning befoire 1918, just not perceptibly massive. Which is not really correct.

the use of tanks to advance across no mans land.

the inovation or re-inovation of the creeping barrage

the use of bite and hold not elan advance

the use of hurricane barrage

the use of counter battery work

the introduction of platoon light machine guns

the inovation of letting officers use initative, not rigid command

intoduction and use of mortars, in the British army

re-introduction of hand grenades

bombing schools

introduction of seperate specialist sections within platoons, (bombing, grenadier, machine gun. rifle)

elastic defence

air observation/communication to direct artillery fire

and i am sure many more.

All of these helped advance the learning process of the BEF before 1918. By inovation or mistake the men of 14 became the men of 18. thye were not born over night or without pain.

regards

Arm

[PhilB]

Phil,

Surely there was examples of learning befoire 1918, regards

Arm

But not of better results,Arm. So would 1/7/16 have been even worse without the claimed learning? Could it have been worse? Phil B

[Ozzie]

Arm said. "the innovation of letting officers use initiative, not rigid command"

This one stands out for me.

Especially after Gallipoli.

What comes to mind is the sacking of Murray and Allenby moving his HQ forward. His allowance of his officers to do their own thinking, as they were on the battleground. His open mindedness of trying new technology and not relying on ' methods because that was how it was done'. (1st and 2nd Gaza).

It seems where ever there was a breakthrough, it was because new methods and thinking was allowed.

(Simplistic, but I do not have the depth of understanding that others have. )

Kim

[armourersergeant]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 12 2006, 10:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But not of better results,Arm. So would 1/7/16 have been even worse without the claimed learning? Could it have been worse? Phil B

Surely the theory could be if you learn a little at a time, it enables some to do there job better, bit by bit. You question is difficult to answer, as there may have been some commanders, high or regimental, that did their job differently that saved lives. We will of course never know if that is the case though.

It is difficult to see how the Somme could have been worse agreed, though I feel certain that some may have improved there area of responsibility because of 1914-15, though I can not give you any examples (pathetic know)

On the 3rd July Brig Gen. Rawling, see here, used his own initiative to take a position. Very inovitive from what I can gather. I wonder how he would have faired if he had approached it with his 1914 regular army approach to thinking for ones self?

Like wise Colonel Maxwell, showd good command on the Somme.

Of course we could/can argue that these two men were exceptional leaders and would have used their inititive and done similar, even if they had just been sent to the western front. But I doubt that they had not picked up some learning along the way that helped them.

So I guess I am saying yes, it could have been worse, with out the learning curve.

regards

Arm

[Simon R]

What are we defining as a 'better result'?

Less casualties? More ground taken? More of the enemy killed?

'Better results' at what level? Tactical/Strategic?

'Better results' - where? F&F?

[Jonathan Saunders]

For one who claims not too smart thats a smart thought. Of course we do tend to forget that as the British

started to learn how to attack, the Germans were not sitting still playing cards, they were trying to work out how to counter nayhting that worked against them for the next time.

regards

Arm

Exactly Arm. Thats why Rawly, based on his experience of fighting the Germans in 1915, planned the Somme as essentially a "bite and hold" operation. Now what was the name of that chap that interfered and added a couple more distant objectives?