WW1:- If you were a command of an army in the western Front ...

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by MadScot


Sorry, but I hardly think that qualifies as breaking the stalemate. The capability to break into the enemy's trenchlines was demonstrated on a number of occasions, and by most of the major combatants. Messines Ridge, the initial assault at Verdun, Cambrai, the German 1918 offensives, the German attacks on the Russians in 1917 even. Rigourously enforced battle planning, surprise, overwhelming weight of fire - all properly applied were capable of providing a break-in. Only 13 days after 1st July 1916, the British Army was capable of mounting a relatively successful attack on the Somme; it didn't take long to learn the basics.

The problem is that once the surprise had gone, all the advantages lay with the defence. They could reinforce the point of attack more easily - the attacker's lines of supply now lay accross the wasteland of no man's land, while the defender could rail almost to the battlefield. Indeed, the deeper the break-in, the worse it almost became. In WW2 an army could rely on the initial shock and dislocation of the defenders to allow the attacker to exploit the breach; in WW1 the abysmal communications between the HQs and the would-be exploiting units closed that window of opportunity.

It is significant that most WW1 battles, even successful ones, are named for tactical features - it is Vimy Ridge after all. This demonstrates the by necessity limited scope of any offensive on the Western Front.

How could you possibly compare the Russian front, to the western front for one.

The difference between what the other nations did in terms of breaking the lines and what the Canadians did, was that the French lost hundreds of thousands of men on each attempt.

At Vimy Canada only lost 30 000 troops taking something the British and French each lost hundreds of thousands taking. It wasn't that the Canadian grunt was many times better (just a couple times), but rather using the best guns in the war (Canada didn't really have any at the beginning of the war, so all of the guns by the time the pivotal battles came along were top-of-the-line designs, rather than obsolete ones), and massive amounts of them. The significance of Vimy Ridge was that it set the precedent for future allied plans and victories. Most of the German historians (who tend to be less biased in this situation) would say that the Canadians were the most feared and effective army in the war. People tend to marginalize Canada's efforts, but don't realize that 10 percent of its population was at war in Europe, and they were the allied shock troops on the western front.

 

[newfangle]

Actually Sobieski, Canada used 30 000 troops to storm the ridge. 10 000 casualties, 3000 dead. British and French casualties totalled over 150 000. At this point the British still used the men-walking-in-lines-to-the-enemy-trench-without-firing-method. Hell, they thought that shrapnel could take out barbed wire.

When the final push was made to Berlin, Canadians (as well as other "pitiful" colonials) were the shock troops. Some say it is because the British did not want to risk their own troops. Though this is true, it is also because British troops WERE NOT CAPABLE of such assaults. Their damned caste system pretty much screwed them up for the war.

At Paschendale, the Canadian corps landed another similar seige on a tough German position. Arthur Currie did not want to make the assault. Human life was far more important to him than any victory (another reason why Canadian troops were absolutely superior to their British counterparts). When the British High Command ordered Currie to attack Paschendale, he estimated 16000 casualties. Total Canadian casualties at Paschendale: 15532.

It should be noted that Canada had a population of 7.5 million, with a military of 600 000. The highest population to military ratio than any other country during the war. She went from a reasonably unindustrialed agriculture nation, to a steel pumping, ridge-taking powerhorse.

I'm sure a lot of that was Canadian Nationalism speaking, but all of it is true.

 

[newfangle]

I could't help but notice you mentioned the Somme Madcat. You should know that that was the most foolish military endevour in the history of the world. The British send thousands of Canadians and Austrailians to their deaths using the most absurd tactics ever seen. The UK was still fighting the Crimean War during WW1 (tactically speaking).

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by MadScot


Sorry, but I hardly think that qualifies as breaking the stalemate. The capability to break into the enemy's trenchlines was demonstrated on a number of occasions, and by most of the major combatants. Messines Ridge, the initial assault at Verdun, Cambrai, the German 1918 offensives, the German attacks on the Russians in 1917 even. Rigourously enforced battle planning, surprise, overwhelming weight of fire - all properly applied were capable of providing a break-in. Only 13 days after 1st July 1916, the British Army was capable of mounting a relatively successful attack on the Somme; it didn't take long to learn the basics.

The Somme was a complete disaster. It was so disasterous, that it was the reason the Canadians took themselves out of British military control, and began commanding their own armies.

 

[MadScot]

If only my countryman had as much respect for the achievements of our forces during WW1 as the Canadians rightfully do for the achievements of theirs.....

To describe the Somme as a complete disaster is simply not true. Yes, the first of July was a disaster of very large proportions; to lose effectively the entire military manpower of a major city in one day can not be described otherwise. (And given the peculiar recruitment pattern of the army, the impact on various localities WAS of that magnitude) But the Somme was more than just the first of July.

If all the Somme achieved was to force the Germans to shut down the Verdun offensive, then in the context of keeping France in the war it musty be classed as strategically significant, if not successful. Remember, Joffre reacted with horror when told by Haig that the attack could not be made until July 1st.

And there was no herding of colonials to their death at the Somme; yes, there were 'empire' units wiped out, such as the Newfoundland Regiment, for example (not strictly Canadian at that time) - but 'home' units faired equally badly too. The Germans cut down anyone wearing khaki, after all.

I was merely trying to make the point that any tactical success (such as Vimy) would not break the stalemate. There were probably only two real breakthrough opportunities on the Western Front after Dec 1914, IMHO:

Cambrai, where the tanks DID penetrate into the rear area. But the support simply could not come up in time (indeed didn't even know they should) and the Germans quickly sealed the gap. And by the third or fourth day the tanks were in such dreadful disrepair that the battle had reverted to an infantry-only affair.

And the German 1918 offensives, especially the attack on the British Fifth Army on 21 March 1918, where the Germans did succeed in breaking into and through the main defensive positions, using the 'normal' WW1 means of doing so (artillery, well trained shock troops, surprise etc - all the same as Vimy of course). But the Germans never seemed to have planned to break through (did they expect to fail) for there were no exploitation units awaiting the opportunity - the majority of the German cavalry being on the Eastern Front, even then.

 

[newfangle]

Vimy basically revolutionized the way people fight wars. It did in fact breakn the stalemate, because right after Vimy the allies made the final push to Berlin. What do you consider to be the break in the stalemate. Obviously at some point it did or we'd still be at war.

The first battle of the Somme went horribly, the last 2 did marginally better but were still relatively useless in terms of the war. The only thing the first battle did was taught the British that SHRAPNEL CAN'T DESTROY BARBED WIRE.

 

[Sobieski]

MadScot you are still missing the point. Vimy in itself didn't destroy Germany, but during Vimy the Canadians heralded in a whole new era of tactics that made future, more significant victories possible. Vimy wasn't the only battle the Canadians one in the war, but it was the first to set the precedant.

If the British had fought Somme the way the Canadians fought Vimy, World War I would have been a lot easier for the allies.

People often to hear about Vimy as much, because it doesn't have the horrible statistics of other battles to go along with it. It was quite literally one of the most successful military achievements of the last couple hundred years. (I don't think the United States vs. big bad Iraq is a fair comparison)

 

[newfangle]

Come on now, Iraq has "the third largest army in the world."

(inside joke)

 

[MadScot]

apologies, I don't know how to quote two people into one reply, sorry...

Originally posted by newfangle
Vimy basically revolutionized the way people fight wars. It did in fact breakn the stalemate, because right after Vimy the allies made the final push to Berlin. What do you consider to be the break in the stalemate. Obviously at some point it did or we'd still be at war.

The first battle of the Somme went horribly, the last 2 did marginally better but were still relatively useless in terms of the war. The only thing the first battle did was taught the British that SHRAPNEL CAN'T DESTROY BARBED WIRE.

Operationally there was no break in the stalemate IMHO. As I said before, as the armies began to understand the nature of the tactics required they became able to force local tactical victories.

The stalemate was broken because the will of the German High Command was broken, by a combination of the economic blockade (which caused real privation in Germany), the realisation that the army was not going to be able to win the war after the spring 1918 offensives petered out and the allied armies began to slowly take ground back, the fear of mutiny (such as that of the High Seas Fleet) etc.

While I do not subscribe to the "stab in the back theory", in the sense that I do not believe the German Army was betrayed by the high command - they were steadily being pushed back after all - I do feel that it could have been a long, slow and painful process to push the Germans back, especially as the lines shortened as they were retreating.

There was never the breakthrough that I would consider a break in the stalemate.

Regarding the Somme - I suspect we could argue all day/month/year about that. In terms of the objectives Haig had, I agree it was a failure - after all, they wanted a breakthrough, not a battle of attrition. But without the butcher's bills of the first few years of the war, I doubt if the victories of 1917 and 1918 would have come anything like so easily.

 

[MadScot]

if I knew how to combine quotes in one post I would...sorry

Originally posted by Sobieski
MadScot you are still missing the point. Vimy in itself didn't destroy Germany, but during Vimy the Canadians heralded in a whole new era of tactics that made future, more significant victories possible. Vimy wasn't the only battle the Canadians one in the war, but it was the first to set the precedant.

If the British had fought Somme the way the Canadians fought Vimy, World War I would have been a lot easier for the allies.

People often to hear about Vimy as much, because it doesn't have the horrible statistics of other battles to go along with it. It was quite literally one of the most successful military achievements of the last couple hundred years. (I don't think the United States vs. big bad Iraq is a fair comparison)

I'm not denying that Vimy was a successful battle, or well executed or anything else. I simply don't believe that any single battle on the Western Front constituted a sudden change in either capabilities or results. ALL the armies got better as the war progressed. The Canadian Corps was not operating in a vacuum, but rather as part of the British/French forces, whatever Currie may have wished. I suspect that a substantial portion of the artillery which was used so effectively was not Canadian - after all, they would have massed as much as they could. (Unfortunately, I can't check that - 2000 miles from home)

I agree that if they'd used 'Vimy' tactics at the Somme the casualties would likely have been much lower, especially on the first day, and the battle more successful. What I doubt is whether the army, and in particular the artillery, could have achieved the same results even with the same intent. Training and materiel were simply not up to the job.

You know, it is SOOOO refreshing to discuss WW1 with someone who doesn't immediately launch into a tirade fashioned solely by exposure to Wilfred Owen's peotry in English Lit classes

 

[newfangle]

At first the Canadian corps completely used British Equipment. As the war drew to a close, Canadians had produced the most accurate artillary ever seen. Unfourtunately the inventor was killed under suspicious circumstances.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by newfangle
At first the Canadian corps completely used British Equipment. As the war drew to a close, Canadians had produced the most accurate artillary ever seen. Unfourtunately the inventor was killed under suspicious circumstances.

Are we talking Gerald Bull-type 'suspicious circumstances' here? You've piqued my interest! more, please!

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by newfangle
At first the Canadian corps completely used British Equipment. As the war drew to a close, Canadians had produced the most accurate artillary ever seen. Unfourtunately the inventor was killed under suspicious circumstances.

Newfangle, you are thinking of the guy that was building Iraq the giant cannon about 12 years ago, because he lost funding from Canada and the United States. His goal was to fire a satellited into space out of a cannon, and to make his dream come true he worked for the Iraqis. To prevent him from making a cannon that could fire NBC weapons on Israel the Americans assassinated him.

He was the best in the world 10-15 years ago, not 85-90.

 

[newfangle]

My apologies. The Canadian from WW1 era was not assasinated, but still designed some very good artillary.

Sorry to get your hopes up Madscot. hehe

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by MadScot
if I knew how to combine quotes in one post I would...sorry



I'm not denying that Vimy was a successful battle, or well executed or anything else. I simply don't believe that any single battle on the Western Front constituted a sudden change in either capabilities or results. ALL the armies got better as the war progressed. The Canadian Corps was not operating in a vacuum, but rather as part of the British/French forces, whatever Currie may have wished. I suspect that a substantial portion of the artillery which was used so effectively was not Canadian - after all, they would have massed as much as they could. (Unfortunately, I can't check that - 2000 miles from home)

I agree that if they'd used 'Vimy' tactics at the Somme the casualties would likely have been much lower, especially on the first day, and the battle more successful. What I doubt is whether the army, and in particular the artillery, could have achieved the same results even with the same intent. Training and materiel were simply not up to the job.

You know, it is SOOOO refreshing to discuss WW1 with someone who doesn't immediately launch into a tirade fashioned solely by exposure to Wilfred Owen's peotry in English Lit classes

Haha, well you know, I never really was that good at English.

Perhaps you are right about Vimy as a particular battle, but it also helped to herald in other new eras. It proved a point to the British that their empirical holdings were now grown up enough to have some more atonomy, and this particular performance (plus later ones) led to the Satute of Westminster, giving the likes of Canada and Australia/New Zealand etc, their own foreign policies.

It was the British forces they were working under, but they had quite a bit of self-control. This is because the British didn't want to lose the high-Canadian support for the war, so they gave them lots of power over the way they DID the operations, but not the operations that they were doing.

It was because of disasters like the Somme that Canada was able to develop the new tactics, and without those mistakes (for political, tactical, and technological reasons) it probably wouldn't have been possible, but you can also bet that the British and French wouldn't have done it, if the Canadians didn't.

It may not have caused the Germans to fall over dead, but it did take the allies from tactical inferiority to tactical equality, or even superiority.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Sobieski

Perhaps you are right about Vimy as a particular battle, but it also helped to herald in other new eras. It proved a point to the British that their empirical holdings were now grown up enough to have some more atonomy, and this particular performance (plus later ones) led to the Satute of Westminster, giving the likes of Canada and Australia/New Zealand etc, their own foreign policies.

Agreed in general. I wonder how much the German under-estimation of the military potential of the empire contributed to the War? Just a thought.

It was the British forces they were working under, but they had quite a bit of self-control. This is because the British didn't want to lose the high-Canadian support for the war, so they gave them lots of power over the way they DID the operations, but not the operations that they were doing.

However, because Currie insisted on keeping his corps as a unit it reduced their usefulness compared to, say, the Australians - who were also very effective as shock troops AND were willing to fight in divisions rather than as a corps. After Gallipoli the Aussies were no more enamoured of British commanders (and arguably had more cause for distrust than the Canadians)

It was because of disasters like the Somme that Canada was able to develop the new tactics, and without those mistakes (for political, tactical, and technological reasons) it probably wouldn't have been possible, but you can also bet that the British and French wouldn't have done it, if the Canadians didn't.

Sorry, have to disagree with that last part. Every army innovated during WW1. To different degrees, sure. But horizon-blue uniforms, tanks, gas (OK, it's not nice but it was an innovation were all things other people tried. And I'm sure there's a huge list. They would have done it - maybe not so well - the 'colonials' were clearly very good troops - but it would have happened.

It may not have caused the Germans to fall over dead, but it did take the allies from tactical inferiority to tactical equality, or even superiority.

Again, agreed. Although give credit to the French (in particular) for wearing down the peacetime German army also.

Hey., this is boring - I'm not arguing!

Slightly off-topic, but my Canadian history isn't hot. Did Canada draft in WW1 or just WW2?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by MadScot
Slightly off-topic, but my Canadian history isn't hot. Did Canada draft in WW1 or just WW2?

Both, sort of. In WWI, it was enacted against heavy opposition from Quebec in 1917. In WWII, it was enacted in 1940 - at first for home defence only, to appease Quebec. After a national referendum on conscription (its complicated), the policy of home defence only was lifted in 1944, and some home defence units were sent overseas (although units from anglophone Canada were often selected first to reduce tensions in Quebec).

And you should be bored. This is just another sad thread with a sad pile of kaka-filled Canadian nationalist kaka. Vimy was good. It was not special. It did not change warfare. It's funny, but no one else in the world, soldier or civilian, is so hot on the subject of "how Vimy saved civilization," and with good reason - because no one else has a reason to be. Vimy was just one event in a series of evolutionary corrections to the flawed WW1 military system.

R.III

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by newfangle
Vimy basically revolutionized the way people fight wars. It did in fact breakn the stalemate, because right after Vimy the allies made the final push to Berlin. What do you consider to be the break in the stalemate. Obviously at some point it did or we'd still be at war.

Rereading the thread, I noticed this.

Newfangle, you're embarassing yourself. Get off of this flag waving kick and read something more than one book on the subject.

The Vimy Ridge battle was part of the larger Nivelle offensive, which almost lost the Allies the war and resulted in mass-mutinies throughout the French sector. Passchendaele happened after Vimy; and in 1918 - duh, after Vimy - the Germans had the allies on the run from March until August. .Most observers expected the Allies would lose the war at that point since the Germans were advancing with relative speed toward Paris. But Germany, exhausted, could not punch through quickly enough to compensate for U.S. reinforcements.

The turn of the tide was unquestionably achieved with several predictable forces: German internal problems (supply, influenza, mutinies at home), a large supply of fresh Americans willing to die, and coordinated Anglo-American/French counterattacks that relied heavily on vast supplies of tanks. But arguably, none of these forces ever did well enough to characterize it as "a march on Berlin."

Breaks your heart, I know, but if Vimy turned any tides, you'd sort of have to wonder which direction they turned it to.

R.III

 

[Switch625]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the Western Allies never even got to the German border, let alone invaded with a "march on Berlin." Germany surrendered while occupying large stretches of France, Belgium and Russia.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Switch625
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the Western Allies never even got to the German border, let alone invaded with a "march on Berlin." Germany surrendered while occupying large stretches of France, Belgium and Russia.

Correct - hence the 'stab in the back' theory used by Nazis and others after the war to blame 'politicians' for surrendering when the army 'had not been defeated'.

This conveniently ignores the fact that Germany was a virtual military dictatorship by 1918 and that Ludendorf asked the Kaiser for the armistice.

It is also a rational act to surrender once you are losing and don't expect to recover. You need a combination of a lunatic in command and a declared vindictiveness by the presumed victors to generate the 1944-45 fight ti the death behaviour.