Ten myths on WWI - debunked

[Andy_Ross]

Aircraft, in WW2, where much like the equivalent of artillery in WWI - their effectiveness was hindered by their inability to respond directly to what was happening on the ground, relying instead on gathering intelligence and pre-planned fixed piece attacks.
.

That depends on which aircraft and when.

Germany had good co-operation between ground observers and tactical air. It's what their whole strategy was built on.

After D-Day the RAF used 'Cab Ranks' of Typhoons and Tempest Fighter Bombers working in close Co-operation with Forward Observers to call in very accurate and rapid attacks. My Uncle Harold was in a Forward Observation Unit with the RAF. He went across on D-Day and was on the front line calling in attacks down to individual enemy tanks or strongpoints.

 

[catsmate]

I think one of the classic misconceptions is that there was this sort of static approach to warfare prior to WWI, and that with WW2 mobile warfare was developed. This is really quite wrong. WWI began as a highly mobile war, and it ended as a highly mobile war too. Warfare prior to WWI had been highly mobile, for hundreds of years.

There were hints of this during the ACW, entrenchments, the superiority of defensive fire over attacking infantry, the beginnings of repeating rifles and machine guns.

There were numerous times during WWI that successful British advances had to be halted because the artillery literally ran out of shells.

Hell yes, the 'Shells Crisis' made the career of Lloyd George, sidelined Kitchener, strengthened Pankhurst and changed the British economy.

That depends on which aircraft and when.

Germany had good co-operation between ground observers and tactical air. It's what their whole strategy was built on.

After D-Day the RAF used 'Cab Ranks' of Typhoons and Tempest Fighter Bombers working in close Co-operation with Forward Observers to call in very accurate and rapid attacks. My Uncle Harold was in a Forward Observation Unit with the RAF. He went across on D-Day and was on the front line calling in attacks down to individual enemy tanks or strongpoints.

Yes, the UK and USA developed aerial rockets while Germany relied more on dive bombing for support.

 

[CriticalThanking]

Dan Carlin has a Hard Core History podcast that is pretty entertaining. I can't speak to his accuracy as an amateur historian. His last 2 episodes have been on the runup and opening battles of WWI. Fascinating stuff.

 

[dudalb]

There were hints of this during the ACW, entrenchments, the superiority of defensive fire over attacking infantry, the beginnings of repeating rifles and machine guns.




.

The Eight Month siege of Petersburg (June 1864 April 1865) has been described as a sort of preview of trench warfare in World War One.

 

[gumboot]

There were hints of this during the ACW, entrenchments, the superiority of defensive fire over attacking infantry, the beginnings of repeating rifles and machine guns.

Yeah the American Civil War was definitely a good example of the transition from first generation to second generation warfare.

 

[catsmate]

The Eight Month siege of Petersburg (June 1864 April 1865) has been described as a sort of preview of trench warfare in World War One.

Yes, the signs were there (and also in the Franco-Prussian war and a lesser extent the Russo-Ottoman war); trench warfare, the superiority of the defense, indirect artillery fire, telegraphy, aerial observation, railway logistics, mass production et cetera. However they weren't recognised and the lessons weren't learned, large scale warfare between 'civilised' industrialised nations wasn't considered likely.

Yeah the American Civil War was definitely a good example of the transition from first generation to second generation warfare.

Exactly. The fortifications rendered massed infantry assaults generally futile, where they existed, but the measures necessary to change the balance weren't available.
It's interesting that many of the 'new' weapons of WW1 (the submarine, poison gas, armoured vehicles, aircraft) were either proposed or actually trialled during the ACW.

 

[jimbob]

Lord Cochrane proposed poison gas during the Napoleonic Wars. I think it was for an attack on Boulogne-sur-Mer

 

[jimbob]

Yes, the signs were there (and also in the Franco-Prussian war and a lesser extent the Russo-Ottoman war); trench warfare, the superiority of the defense, indirect artillery fire, telegraphy, aerial observation, railway logistics, mass production et cetera. However they weren't recognised and the lessons weren't learned, large scale warfare between 'civilised' industrialised nations wasn't considered likely.

One non-Western example that is little known is the Gunfighter's Pa of the New Zealand Maori

I have heard (somewhere - citation needed) that some had special seemingly weak points that were actually killing grounds.

 

[jimbob]

On the other hand, the Somme saved the French Army, under huge pressure at Verdun, (and therefore saved the war) and (in the memorable words of one of the German officers there) "the Somme was the muddy grave of the German field army".

Comparing it to Normandy is somewhat unfair in that there was no equivalent of the Falaise pocket, and the area removed from German control was far larger, so higher casualty rates were more acceptable.

 

[Giz]

Comparing it to Normandy is somewhat unfair in that there was no equivalent of the Falaise pocket, and the area removed from German control was far larger, so higher casualty rates were more acceptable.

Misses the point:

The Somme is remembered as a horrific bloodletting.
Normandy is remembered as a great victory.

Normandy is not remembered as a horrific bloodletting which led to a great victory. Nor is the Somme remembered as a hard fought battle that saved the war.

 

[catsmate]

Lord Cochrane proposed poison gas during the Napoleonic Wars. I think it was for an attack on Boulogne-sur-Mer

And by Cochrane and Playfair for use in the Crimea, hell the use of noxious smokes goes back to the Peloponnesian Wars at least. The first formal agreement banning them was signed in 1675.

Misses the point:

The Somme is remembered as a horrific bloodletting.
Normandy is remembered as a great victory.

Normandy is not remembered as a horrific bloodletting which led to a great victory. Nor is the Somme remembered as a hard fought battle that saved the war.

I think that's a case of the 'national myths' again, anyone who's studied the battles knows the reality.

 

[jimbob]

The first day of the Somme is the engagement which sticks in the British consciousness. Those casualties are a far higher rate than Normandy -13 divisions and 19000 killed, which is over 1400 per division and a significant fraction of the total number of British killed in the Normandy campaign.

 

[Giz]

The first day of the Somme is the engagement which sticks in the British consciousness. Those casualties are a far higher rate than Normandy -13 divisions and 19000 killed, which is over 1400 per division and a significant fraction of the total number of British killed in the Normandy campaign.

But (and we are talking about national myths) that is what the average Brit remembers about the Somme. They think that the huge casualties and futility of the first day are typical of the battle... which is absolutely not true.

 

[theprestige]

Normandy is not remembered as a horrific bloodletting which led to a great victory. Nor is the Somme remembered as a hard fought battle that saved the war.

They aren't?

Me, I can't recall an account of Normandy that didn't make it abundantly clear that it cold sucked for the Allies.

The Somme? I can't recall an account of that at all, but the Wikipedia entry seems to address both the notable points you raised.

I think the collective memory of these events, by people who actually care to remember them today, is more accurate than you imagine.

 

[Giz]

They aren't?

Me, I can't recall an account of Normandy that didn't make it abundantly clear that it cold sucked for the Allies.

The Somme? I can't recall an account of that at all, but the Wikipedia entry seems to address both the notable points you raised.

I think the collective memory of these events, by people who actually care to remember them today, is more accurate than you imagine.

I think you are not aware of the prevailing myths/sentiment in the UK regarding the Somme.

 

[jimbob]

I am not sure that daily intensity per unit is such a good figure. The Battle for Normandy took 11.5 weeks and forced the Germans across the Seine. It meant that Western Europe was not going to be Soviet-dominated whilst hammering in the nails on the coffin of the German armed forces. So it was a major strategic victory which hastened the end of the war. This can't be said of the Somme, which might have been strategically important, but certainly didn't shorten the war.

The Somme allowed an advance of about 12km at a cost of about 420,000 British, 200,000 French, and 500,000 German casualties. Yes it took 20.5 weeks to achieve this, but that is one reason why it seems so bad compared to liberating most of France in half the time.

And the first day was an utterly futile waste of life.

The OP in this thread in another forum suggests that Corrigan's figures are skewed by not taking the commonwealth war graves figures for both battles.
ETA:

Wiki's numbers for Allied casualties n Normandy:

The cost of the Normandy campaign was high for both sides. From D-Day to 21 August, the Allies landed 2,052,299 men in northern France[6] There were around 209,672 Allied casualties from 6 June to the end of August, around 10% of the forces landed in France. The casualties break down to 36,976 killed, 153,475 wounded and 19,221 missing. Split between the Army Groups, the Anglo-Canadian Army Group suffered 16,138 killed, 58,594 wounded and 9,093 missing for a total of 83,825 casualties. The US Army Group suffered 20,838 killed, 94,881 wounded and 10,128 missing for a total of 125,847 casualties. To these casualties it should be added that 4,101 aircraft were lost and 16,714 airmen were killed or missing in direct connection to Operation Overlord. Thus total Allied casualties were 226,386 men.[6]

77 Free French SAS (Special Air Service) were killed and another 200 wounded or prisoners of war from 6 June to the beginning of August in Brittany.[61][62]

 

[Border Reiver]

I think you are not aware of the prevailing myths/sentiment in the UK regarding the Somme.

The Newfoundlanders have their own myth of the Somme - namely the near annihilation of the Royal Newfoundland Regt on July 1, 1916.

Although the rest Canada celebrates Canada Day on July 1 to commemorate Confederation, the Newfoundlanders pause to commemorate Memorial Day.

 

[jimbob]

The Newfoundlanders have their own myth of the Somme - namely the near annihilation of the Royal Newfoundland Regt on July 1, 1916.

Although the rest Canada celebrates Canada Day on July 1 to commemorate Confederation, the Newfoundlanders pause to commemorate Memorial Day.

I'd say that wasn't a myth in the way that the OP meant it.

 

[gumboot]

I am not sure that daily intensity per unit is such a good figure. The Battle for Normandy took 11.5 weeks and forced the Germans across the Seine. It meant that Western Europe was not going to be Soviet-dominated whilst hammering in the nails on the coffin of the German armed forces. So it was a major strategic victory which hastened the end of the war. This can't be said of the Somme, which might have been strategically important, but certainly didn't shorten the war.

The Somme broke the German army, and while ultimate defeat took several more years, it was the Somme that won the war for the allies. After that, Germany's fate was sealed.

The Somme irrefutably shortened the war.

Which is precisely why, for two decades after the war, the battle was seen as a costly but important allied victory.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

According to Niall Ferguson, another myth was that Britain needed to fight World War I, when staying out would have been a better option:



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson

Niall Ferguson needs to rearrange the following words to find out why that would have been bad: Litovsk Brest