WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:42 AM

""A man walks into a small local pub on the outskirts of Southampton.
As usual, all the locals stop drinking and stare at him.
He is wearing a long black coat, and a scarf wrapped tight around his neck.
He goes up to the bar, and in a very faint, rasping voice orders a pint of beer.
No one talks to him.
He drinks his pint in silence then leaves.
.
The next night, he comes in at the same time, wearing the same coat and scarf.
He goes up to the bar, and in a very faint, rasping voice orders a pint of beer.
As the barman is pouring the pint he notices behind the scarf is a scar across the man's neck.
No one talks to him, as he drinks his pint in silence, then leaves.
.
On the third night, the same routine takes place, but the barman is intrigued by the scar on his neck, so, just before the man finishes his pint, the barman asks where he got it. In the same faint, rasping voice that he had ordered his pint with, the man replies "Falklands War". He finishes his pint and leaves.
.
As soon as he goes out the door, the barman says to all the locals "We shouldn't treat this man like that. He fought in the Falklands, and yet we're just ignoring him. He has a battle scar on his neck, he can hardly speak, yet we're ignoring him, after all he did for our country. I think to make up for it, we should have a whip-round for him, and if he's in tomorrow night, we'll give him the money as a thank you for fighting, and an apology for being so rude to a war hero."
So, that's what they do, and because they are all feeling so guilty about the way they ignored him, they raised £750, from just 30 of them.
.
The next night he turned up at the bar, and initially no one spoke to him.
They let him get his pint in silence.
As he was getting to the end of the pint, the barman said to him "I told the lads about your story, how you fought in the Falklands War, so we had a collection for you, and we'd like to give you this £750. We're sorry for treating you so badly, and thanks for all you've done for Britain."
.
The man smiled a broad smile, and as he finished his pint, he headed for the door, and as he did so, he turned to them all and said "mucho gracias", and left.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:29 AM

Falklands War - now that was a war to remember.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 05:24 AM

Re. Sacrifice, a soldier's view.

"Falklands War veteran Simon Weston has told ITV News people must keep the legacy of the First World War alive and remember those that fought "didn't just sacrifice their life - they sacrificed their future." "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 05:12 AM

More unsupported assertion and abuse from Musket.
You have to make stuff up because you know nothing about it.
Just 60s class war agitprop.

I quote the historians.
That is the "shit" I "spread."
The facts.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 03:50 AM

Who were "they"?

Many first hand accounts suggest otherwise.

You know, it is rather funny to see you use the word "sacrifice" without thinking of the irony of your stance.

Still trying to get me thrown off Mudcat so you can spread your shit unchallenged?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:51 PM

Oh, God, not yet ANOTHER appearance of the Keith and Terribus WWI Bullshit Revue - deja vu all over again.

Talk about the "undead".....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 10:16 AM

The inscription was to keep alive their memory and the sacrifice they made.
Not as dupes. They knew what they were doing and why.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 10:16 AM

The inscription was to keep alive their memory and the sacrifice they made.
Not as dupes. They knew what they were doing and why.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 07:46 AM

You know, when the stonemasons chiselled in "Lest we forget'" they didn't mean we shouldn't forget how well everybody did...
🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 07:39 AM

One of the BBC's "ten leading historians"

Haig, however, was no technophobe. He encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 07:34 AM

Musket, you have also argued that the men who fought were tricked or too moronic to know what it was all about, and that their sacrifice was futile and pointless anyway.
If you are now distancing yourself from that, good.

On the leadership, you make lots of assertions, but I quote historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, no General Melchett
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 06:42 AM

Sure, a sitcom and a bloody funny one at that, but anyone who thinks that the end of the final episode had no message wasn't watching the same programme as I was. I will shut up about Blackadder now for fear of Teribus accusing me that it's where I get all my historical knowledge from. Anyway, don't be silly, Keith.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 06:41 AM

Oh, gosh. So they must have been well led then?

Just out of interest, I haven't read a single post from anyone that says anything different about being proud of or grateful for the sacrifice. Stop trying to malign people using dead soldiers as a weapon. It is rather sick.

it is the insistence by you and other fools that somehow it was noble and executed correctly that means we fail to do the fallen the greatest honour.

Learn from and try not to repeat what whey endured.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:23 AM

"Tony Robinson was at a First World Memorial in Belgium when he met a group of teenage British schoolkids and decided to have some fun with them.

Most of them recognised him from TV's Time Team or Blackadder and he recalls: "I was winding them up and saying, 'It's not nearly as interesting as whether you're going to buy a beer or have a snog on the back of the coach, is it?'

"And they told me, 'No, this is really important. These people are the reason that we have the lives we have now.'

"And I just found that very touching and important because if you can start to get the fact that people sacrificed their lives in order to protect our way of life then that means our way of life is of value." "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:09 AM

Just a sit com.
No message, just for fun.
We are discussing the tragedy.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 05:46 PM

Is levity appropriate on such an issue?

Of course it is. Did you watch Blackadder?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 04:16 PM

So you have no examples to support your ludicrous claim.
Just assertion and abuse.
I involved myself in this debate to defend the victims from the insult that their sacrifice was futile and that they did not understand the cause anyway.
They did, and I am grateful for what they did.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:33 PM

It is when you are in the debate. You have no respect for the countless numbers of people killed, maimed or mentally distressed by experience that could have been far less tragic if it weren't for the gung ho attitude of callous indifferent military leaders.

The only reason you can still spout your shit is that a rather ignorant moderator can't see how sick your comments are and deletes my replies.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:27 PM

Is levity appropriate on such an issue?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw comedian manqué
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:22 PM

Well, Hawk, at least one of us has tried to inject levity, but it doesn't seem to work with the Colonel Blimps around here, by jingo, old chap. Back to Blackadder for a slightly more accurate depiction, I suppose...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 01:37 PM

Why am I so thick to challenge the premise of this question Musket? ""Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems? "

Please give some representative examples of some "diplomatic problems" that any of our military leaders offered politicians solutions to.

From previous experience, your resorting to obscene abuse is indicative that you have been caught making shit up again.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 12:52 PM

I have attempted to read through the bulk of this genial and charming discussion, a perceptive and tolerant meeting of minds between respectful equals to be sure, but eventually I had to take a break, as it was an experience akin to trying to chew up and digest a bowl full of rusty nails rolled in mouse droppings. Is there a protocol in place for keeping score? If so, I think it would help. Anyway, what a treat it has been! Smiles and chuckles all around. I trust that I can tune in 6 months from now and the main participants will still be attempting to verbally throttle and eviscerate one another. Don't disappoint me. It's really very much like trench warfare in some respects. More fun than a barrel of monkeys, as they say, so no point in ending it prematurely.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 12:39 PM

This is a hoot!......"Team Musket" appear to have no comprehension of how their responses look to objective readers.

Denial of facts is par for the course for "TM", but the obscenities, mumbo-jumbo, and their adherence to a baseless ideological position, in the face of a blizzard of information, makes them look moronic.

Such a one sided battle!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:48 AM

Read those ten leading Historians on who was most to blame for the war starting.

You will have to explain what you mean in your first point.
There were always enemy guns facing all attackers.

"Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems? "
On our side, none.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:37 AM

How many men sent over the top, knowing they would be running into gun positions?

Have you ever read how governments allowed themselves to get Europe into this situation?

Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems?

Any idea how much this was about empires in the interest of those who then led their men to slaughter?

Your "we won so we must have been well led" is as laughable as it is ludicrous. A bit like saying "God is on our side, we therefore won.". A quote by the way from the then Lord Renshaw in 1919.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:31 AM

Ten leading Historians (BBC) on issue of blame.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:27 AM

" Inability and unwillingness to not allow the situation to reach that level"

How should we have stopped the German armies from invading their neighbours, committing atrocities and sweeping towards the English Channel?

Have you read historians on the issue of blame?
You should.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:21 AM

Apart from winning, you have been given many other indicators like successes, morale, and lower casualties.
Did any other army perform better or was the British army the best of the bunch?
If so , why do you keep denigrating it and its leadership?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:37 AM

Ah, so long as we "won" eh?

Won what? Inability and unwillingness to not allow the situation to reach that level? War as a distraction for the masses? You see, some of us read history. Also, some of us don't limit criticism to one side, thus negating your general thrust.

If you must feel the need to defend the indefensible, at least find someone with intelligence to articulate it. Both Keith and Terribulus jump to petty irrelevant conclusions then try to hang them on others. Might work down at the Land Rover and Paintballing Club for the military fawning disturbed, but most people on Mudcat are too intelligent to join in.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:18 AM

I suspect you survived being pursued by a (mad) woman?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw n-dropper
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:12 AM

Tendentiousess is not the female form of tendentious. It's tendentiousness with an n missing. I have a tendency to do that on the iPad. I did not intend to do it, you may depend on that.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw doughty survivor
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:06 AM

I'm still ' ere, Ed. So does that mean...?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 09:49 AM

""Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog, fewer when pursued by a mad woman- only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion. - Robertson Davies

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw celebrating
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 09:32 AM

Well done, Teribus, for doing such a short post, refreshingly devoid for once of your batteries of tendentiousess-ridden war "facts". More posts like that, please! I'm not quite sure what I might have said to make you think my childhood and teenage years were so blighted, though. I did quaff a little too much Newkie Broon on occasion, I suppose, and, as for those Senior Service Plain... *cough*

And, Keith, what are you on about?


...No, don't bother telling me...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 08:32 AM

GUEST,Steve Shaw - 28 Nov 14 - 08:05 AM

Your supposedly logical thought process demonstrated by this astounds me. Just how the hell did you survive through childhood and your teenage years?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 08:31 AM

Not "always well led."

So you ARE comparing the best performing army not with other real armies but with a hyperthetical and mythical perfect army that does not exist.

A championship winning team is celebrated, not denigrated for not being always perfect.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 08:05 AM

Keith, best-performing does not necessarily mean always well-led. Tesco were the best- performing supermarket in terms of campylobacter contamination of chickens, but they still managed a 64% contamination rate. I wouldn't call 'em "champions" exactly.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 07:59 AM

Musket, you have been highly critical of the British WWI army.
That is not putting words in your mouth.
You have been given much evidence, none of which you have challenged, that it performed far better than the other armies in that conflict.

In football, which is something you might have knowledge of, a team which out performs all the others in its league is hailed as the champion.

Why do you insist on denigrating the best performing army?
Are you comparing it to some hyperthetical, mythical perfect army that only exists in your almost empty head?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 07:13 AM

And again ...and again and again and...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-crass-insensitivity-of-towers-luxury-dinner-for-arms-dealers-days-after-poppy-display-988850

Will we EVER learn?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 06:45 AM

Musket ecrit: Unfortunately I don't have your advantage of having read posts by someone you call Musket. Does someone post to say it was only our generals? Who said that then?

As ever, when you have no argument to put forward or indeed you have no shame, put words in the mouths of others and invite others to judge them.

Yes, that is exactly what you do all the time, Teribus. You've done it to me a couple times at least. You may well be well-read about the war for all I know, but you're a bit like the Daily Mail: it's impossible to know which your good bits are, buried as they are in that very large crock of shite.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 06:29 AM

Awwwwwww diddums - precious little prat aren't you?

When faced with facts that counter your dearly cherished myths you fold and resort name calling.

Here I'll make it simple for you:

" Musket - Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

Why were they dying at Verdun in the first place?

Your words?

Answer: "All down to a German chap called Falkenhayn - he had this whizzer of an idea to fire millions of artillery shells at the French who were in defensive positions around Verdun - his intention was to kill as many of them as he possibly could - The French had different ideas and in the end - even by judging the occupancy rate of the cemeteries - the French won.

Also your words (paraphrased) from other threads on the First World War:

British Generals were incompetent fools
British soldiers were duped and lied to, conned into volunteering.
British soldiers had no idea what they fighting for
That the war was unnecessary and could have easily been avoided

To date so far across a number of threads you have not produced one shred of an argument that even remotely supports any of those idiotic contentions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 05:21 AM

Unfortunately I don't have your advantage of having read posts by someone you call Musket. Does someone post to say if was only our generals? Who said that then?

As ever, when you have no argument to put forward or indeed you have no shame, put words in the mouths of others and invite others to judge them.

I really find your awful views abhorrent. Militaristic fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 04:12 AM

To answer yet another of your stupid questions I thought that I had covered that in the last paragraph Musket - all down to a German chap called Falkenhayn - he had this whizzer of an idea to fire millions of artillery shells at the French who were in defensive positions around Verdun - his intention was to kill as many of them as he possibly could - The French had different ideas and in the end - even by judging the occupancy rate of the cemeteries - the French won.

Besides Musket according to you it was only the British Generals who were incompetent fools wasn't it? No British Generals present at Verdun. The French General who ultimately turned things round at Verdun, a guy called Petain, realised that troops cannot be kept constantly at the from and instigated a scheme by which all units were rotated in and out of the line - something those incompetent British Generals had being doing right from the start - fortunately the Germans, who were pushed for manpower, didn't pick up on this and as the war wore on the morale of their troops suffered badly - no rest at all either in the front line trenches or in the rearward areas.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

I read the first sentence of your first point.

Why were they dying at Verdun in the first place?

In such large numbers?

Good leadership, tactics and execution what old bean?

zzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:52 AM

"Who'd want that thin irrelevant strip anyway," - asks Musket

I would strongly recommend that you actually read why the Battle of the Somme was fought when and where it was, before asking stupid questions. Here are just a few of the factors:

1: Hundreds of thousands of your allies troops are dying at a place called Verdun - you as an ally have been asked to do something to relieve the pressure on them by attacking your common enemy so that he has to divert resources to defend against your attack.

2: The timing scale and place of the battle designed to relieve the pressure on the French fighting at Verdun were not of Haig's choosing they were imposed upon him by the political leadership of both Great Britain and France.

3: For any attack on the "Western front" to succeed it had to be made against a salient. Attacking any such feature successfully will result in a sizeable retreat and a marked contraction in your enemy's front line.

4: Salients can also be good places to mount attacks from. Had the Germans attacked from the Somme salient and split the British and French Armies then the British would have faced in 1916 exactly what they faced in France in 1940 which resulted in the Dunkirk evacuation.

5: Let's not bother, leave the French to slug it out down at Verdun and we will just sit tight until we are ready? Not a good option as along the Northern part of the Somme salient the Germans held the high ground, where according to their fancy and supply of artillery ammunition they could just sit and blow our troops to bits in target practice.

All extremely good reasons Musket for wanting to take that strip of land away from them. It was French territory, occupied by Germans who had no right being there and the French wanted it back - as their allies we helped them do it, as it was thought at that time that the Germans would not have responded positively to any served eviction notice.

Akenaton is perfectly correct Falkenhayn had started the year 1916 off with "attrition" in mind, his strategy was to bleed the allies white on the western front. By December that year all that strategy had succeeded in achieving was the fatal reduction in the morale and fighting capability of the German Army. The lessons Haig and Rawlinson learned in 1916 ensured victory for the Allies in 1918, and came very close to winning it in 1917.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 12:54 PM

Surely this was not a territorial tactic, but one of attrition?

Probably the only tactic available for that time and place.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 11:48 AM

Who'd want that thin irrelevant strip anyway, considering it was full of dead rotting corpses, sacrificed to gain it in the fucking first place?...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 09:33 AM

What both Keith A and myself have successfully refuted is the claim by such as yourself, Musket, Jim Carroll, etc, that the men of the British and Commonwealth armies in World War One were badly led throughout by incompetent fools.

You haven't refuted it because I've never said it. As ever, don't let the facts get in your way.

The British & Commonwealth Armies in general throughout the entire course of the war were well led in comparison to the armies of any other combatant power and far from that being based on "unqualified assertion" that can be proven by examination of whatever metric you would care to use to judge success.

Comparing with other armies is your game, not mine. It's also Keith's favourite tactic, finding someone worse than us so that we look good (I call it Keith's Israel Method). You're probably right that we were better led (I mean, who won the bloody war anyway?), but better led than someone else does not necessarily mean well-led all the time. Which is my point.

"Haig moving his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin"

The area between the dotted red line and the solid "Hindenburg Line" shows the ground the Germans were forced to concede - bit more than six inches eh Steve?

And what's with "eh Steve" when it's at home? I have mentioned neither Haig and his cabinet nor anything about six inches in this thread. I'm guessing that you'd like me to have done. Sorry to disappoint.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:07 AM

OK, moving from "consistently" to "in general."

Keep going, you'll get there. Make sure you keep your mate on board though. He sounds like Tolkien's Wormtongue when he shouts "you lie" and like the snotty kid with the broken glasses in the playground when he hisses "you lose."

Don't join the happy throng of those subjected to his attacks eh? Jim can start an argument in an empty room, Steve uses logic and reason and I just take the piss anyway, so we are all thick hided beasts. You seem to feel the need to justify with lots of quotes, bold, italics and denouncements, put in the context of picking up on something irrelevant and making a deal of it.

Be careful as you begin to realise the absurdity of your previous position eh?



This has been a public service broadcast on behalf of Creeping Reality Enterprises.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 04:42 AM

GUEST,Steve Shaw out of control freakery - 26 Nov 14 - 10:24 AM

I not appealing to historical tracts, just showing that unqualified assertions that the men were expertly led through the whole war are just bilge.

Precisely where and when have, either Keith A, or myself, ever stated that the men were expertly led through the whole war? What both Keith A and myself have successfully refuted is the claim by such as yourself, Musket, Jim Carroll, etc, that the men of the British and Commonwealth armies in World War One were badly led throughout by incompetent fools.

The British & Commonwealth Armies in general throughout the entire course of the war were well led in comparison to the armies of any other combatant power and far from that being based on "unqualified assertion" that can be proven by examination of whatever metric you would care to use to judge success.

And Steve the title of the thread is WWI, was No-Man's Land NOT "1st July 1916 along a 2 mile stretch of Front was No-Man's Land"

On the Somme it was Haig who halted the attacks in the places where they met the fiercest resistance and where they had suffered the worst casualties - He did this despite being ordered to continue the attacks by HIS Commander in Chief French General Joffre, Haig preferred to reinforce the parts of the offensive that were making progress.

"Defensive positions held by the German army on the Somme after November 1916 were in poor condition, the garrisons were exhausted and censors of correspondence from front-line soldiers, reported tiredness and low morale, which left the German command doubtful that the army could withstand a resumption of the battle. The German defences on the Ancre began to collapse under British attacks in January 1917, which on 28 January caused Rupprecht to urge that the retirement to the Siegfriedstellung (Hindenburg Line) begin."

"Haig moving his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin"

The area between the dotted red line and the solid "Hindenburg Line" shows the ground the Germans were forced to concede - bit more than six inches eh Steve?