Forum > The Great War

Threadsplit: WWI leadership - analysis and Tactics vs Strategy discussion.

<< < (8/8)

Donkeymilkman:
Well, this is a very interesting topic to have read through. Now, I might just be retreading already spoken ground but, WW1 I would say was probably one of the biggest (I can't think of a better way of putting this, so here goes)  shocks to both the countries militaries and navies. No war had really been fought on this scale with such deadly equipment thus increase casualties extremely in such an abnormal way. I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong) any of the generals or the field marshalls etc had ever had to cope whit such grand scale war. A good example possibly might be the battle of the Somme where British forces suffered just under 60,000 which is fairly close casualties to the battle of Waterloo and I believe this cemented a good amount of the generals like Haig tactics, which had previously been successful, were cemented as disasters for example cavalry. This most likely and the higher usage of Imperial troops lead way for more fresh commanders that had a better ground understanding on how to win a war of such chaos and devastation a newer approach like  Currie.

I think I do think I went off at a tangent however what I'm trying to highlight is I think it's hard to pin the deaths of so many people on one or a couple of people. However, I think the break down of communication between countries and unfortunate events should have at least taught us that no matter what we should always keep on talking to try and resolve the problems.

I do hope they shut that sandwich shop though. I appreciate anyone who read my ramblings. Thank you.

monk2002uk:
There was a significant difference between the percentage of casualties at Waterloo versus the first day of the Somme. In the latter battle, there were at least 300,000 British men involved, possibly more if you take into account all of the men who could have been hit by artillery well behind the rear lines.

While it is true that no war had been fought on the scale of the Great War previously, it was clear to many both before and at the start of the war that the cost would be high. The proportion of casualties was lower than many previous wars because all sides had already adapted to the massive increase in firepower represented by smokeless rifles, machine guns, and quick-firing artillery. The number of casualties was higher because the sheer number of men and weapons was much greater. As the war progressed, the levels of firepower increased exponentially but the casualty rate did not. Take machine guns for example - they went from 2 per battalion to more than 10 times this number as more MGs were distributed down to the section level eventually. But the casualty did not increase 10-fold, hence my point about the war being a constant series of new developments and counter-measures to negate their effects.

Respectfully, therefore, it cannot be said that tactics were 'cemented [for] a good amount of generals like Haig...'. The converse was true.

Robert

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page