The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #158525   Message #3753438
Posted By: Teribus
25-Nov-15 - 07:45 AM
Thread Name: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
Where's that GUEST who was going on about "Howlers" when you need him?

"You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why? - Jim Carroll

Ehmm Jim you have been told time and time again - get your head round the fact that as far as you are concerned anything about any subject on earth that you haven't come up with simply does not feature, anything told to you that fits your view must be taken as being "gospel" without any check being made by way of verification.

But here it is again by Dr Gary Sheffield:
"He(Haig) 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."

The British Army and its Divisional Commanders started learning in 1914 and continued to learn throughout the war. Fortunately for the rest of Europe the German Army and its Commanders DID NOT exactly the same thing stopped them in their tracks on the Marne in 1918 as stopped them in their tracks in 1914.

"Gallipoli casualties totalled 89,000"

And on two occasions during the Dardanelles Campaign had the Allies advanced the intended aim of the campaign would have been accomplished, Turkey would have been knocked out of the war and a secure supply rout to arm the Russian Army would have been secured. It came that close to being a complete success. 1915 both in overall command of the troops at Gallipoli and at Divisional level at Suvla you have examples of poor British Generals - Neither of them were Douglas Haig.

"At Loos, the "good leadership amounted to:
By 28 September, the British retreated to their starting positions, having lost over 20,000 casualties, including three major-general
British casualties at Loos were about twice as high as German casualties.
8,000 casualties out of 10,000 men in four hours
British casualties in the main attack were 48,367 and they suffered 10,880 more in the subsidiary attack, a total of 59,247 losses of the 285,107 British casualties on the Western Front in 1915"


This was the first big British attack, they had carried out a smaller one earlier in the year at Neuve-Chapelle. Basic rule of thumb is that if you attack a defended position you must outnumber the defenders by at least 3:1 - why do you think that is Jom? You have read, or maybe you didn't bother, from a man who was there, right in the thick of it as an Artillery Observation Officer. At Neuve-Chapelle and at Loos, Haig's advice and placement of the reserve required to achieve the breakthrough that was there in both battles were ignored by Haig's superior officer General Sir John French who was simply too timid and as a result of that timidness and inability to think and act quickly was dismissed from his command and replaced by Haig and from that point on the British Army didn't look back, it went from strength to strength employing new tactics that continually evolved and improved upon.

"On the first day of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed - the highest by far of all the combating armies (Germany was a runner-up with between 10 and 12 thousand)"

On the first day of the Somme eh? 1st July 1916. So on one day in a war that lasted for 4 years and 3 months you have managed to find one day when the British Army suffered more casualties. Congratulations Jom. Now what was the position once the campaign and the battle drew to a close in November 1916 - talking about the entire battle here Jom not just ONE DAY of it. The 1st July 1916 might have been a bad day for the British Army but 1916 was a bad year for the German Army - a year they never recovered from. 1916 to the First World War was what 1943 was to the Second World War - after those years in both those conflicts the allies knew they were going to win and for the first time in both the Germans stared the spectre of failure full in the face.