The First World War

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

deepsepia makes a very interesting point, but!

Both World Wars were caused by aggression from the Germans, especially true in the second, but with the justification of getting back the land stolen from Germany at the end of the first. With the capitulation of Russia, due to the revolution, it is actually hard to work out how they managed it!

Early in 1918, it actually looked as if they might just win! Germany has become politically the dominant nation in Europe, because of the EU, ironic really because had the treatment dished out at the end of WW1, been continued and the Marshall plan not been in place at the end of the Second, where would Germany be now? Like Poland or Lithuania? Both their victims!

Yes Germany started both world wars, but they grossly misunderstood the strategic implications. That's common with aggressors, it's only rarely that they correctly judge "this will be worth it" -- the record of aggressors calculating accurately is very poor. I think that is because militarism comes with chauvinism "we are great and our enemies are cowards", hence the same factors that might lead one to start a war also lead you to misjudge your relative strength.

Think about the record of the world wars -- who really "won"? The United States. Consider the irony-- there is no conceivable war that the the US could have instigated that would have produced as profound a strategic victory as the two wars it sought to stay out of!

And similarly today: who won the Iran-Iraq War?
The United States and Israel

Who won the Iraq war?
Iran.

This kind of outcome is more the rule than exception.

With respect to Germany and the First World War, the deterioration in national strategy can be traced to one event and one man, the dispatch of the the thoughtful strategist Bismarck by his amateur soldier of a Kaiser, Wilhelm.

Bismarck was a nationalist and had no problem with war, but neither was he a naive chauvinist. Ironically, his success with limited wars lead Germany to believe that a much larger war would be to its advantage. That kind of "aggression ratchet" is see again and again-- win a small war decisively, and a constituency will grow "war is a great solution to our problems, we're good at it, we just don't fight them often enough."

You can call that "the Cheney fallacy"

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Perfectly believable Palo. Shells are designed to be fired from a barrel and to withstand the initial explosion that sends them on their way. Fuses don't normally arm until they are fired and even then the arming process is delayed until after leaving the barrel. Until a shell has been fired it is a large lump of (high quality) steel protecting it's explosive filling. Charge bags, detonators and primary cartridges are the dangerous bastards. A hand grenade without a detonator fitted, is basicaly a rock, but don't throw it on a fire.

Agree absolutely haroldeye-and even then sometimes you can.....throw it on a fire. Depends a lot what the filling is-TNT and the more modern military explosives-RDX, Torpex, PETN etc will just burn-to detonate they require both shock and flame delivered essentially simultaneously. Some hand grenades were filled with black powder, as extensive experience from late WW1 onwards found that high explosive fillings fragmented them into far too small fragments to be effective-hence the popularity of the 'pineapple' grenade (....in NZ we have a popular confectionary called 'pineapple lumps'...a soft chewy nougat-ish pellet covered in chocolate....it appeared AFAIK post WW2...I wonder if they were inspired by a Mills grenade...the lumps are about the size of the Mills casing pattern lumps)

One aspect that has not been touched on-and is relevant to the general Jutland and exploding battlecruisers/battleships saga and why the British seem to have been peculiarly unlucky in this respect is that the Germans persisted in using cased ammunition even for very large calibres-even the gigantic 800mm gun of WW2. We've touched on QF and bagged ammunition in the previous posts-but there is a third-still in common use even today-'semi fixed' -where the projectile and cartidge are loaded separately and successively, but the metal cartridge case contains charge bags that can be adjusted in number prior to firing (and before loading obviously!)-it strikes me that if this was widespead on German ships it would have made them less vulnerable to flash-in addition to the interlocking scuttles and doors already in place on German ships-and which the RN rapidly introduced post Jutland. Another (minor) advantage is the reduced likelihood of smouldering embers being left in the gun chamber after each shot-any such being contained in the case-of course there is a down side-you have to dispose of the empties-which of course you don't with a bagged charge-but of course you can load quicker-within reason. This may be the reason the Germans rate of fire was usually faster....
The other aspect not so far touched on was the use-by the British of 'lyddite' as a shell filling-which is cast picric acid (2,4,6-trinitrophenol)...quite a powerful explosive and considered 'insensitive' at the time (introduced ca 1888)-the catch was it WAS susceptible to detonation on impact-and that was exactly what happened at Jutland....nice big yellow flashes as British shells struck home-nice big flashes as they detonated on rather than IN the German ships....to make matters worse picric acid is corrosive and forms extremely unstable metallic salts.....so whilst your ammunition is sitting in the shell room, over your extended Royal Navy cruises, showing the flag etc, bit of gunboat diplomacy on the side etc-it is quietly reacting with the inside of the shell-forming unstable metallic salts-mainly iron picrate-which are far more easily set off-particularly by accident...

For those wishing to explore further on the technical side, this site is useful:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php

(click on the 'ammunition' menu under the 'definitions and information' heading)

[trailmaster]

In my opinion though the U.S. entered the war in April of 1917, the two million soldiers under the command of John J. Pershing were the dominant force that with the soldiers of France, and Great Britain defeated the Germans and won World War 1.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by trailmaster

In my opinion though the U.S. entered the war in April of 1917, the two million soldiers under the command of John J. Pershing were the dominant force that with the soldiers of France, and Great Britain defeated the Germans and won World War 1.

Not just that -- without the Americans, Britain & France would have lost WW1

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

Not just that -- without the Americans, Britain & France would have lost WW1

Not easy to prove a "might have been in this life. The war on the western front in 1914-18 was mostly an attritional stalemate and if truth be told, no one "won". There comes a point where the price of victory is so high that it really is not victory at all.

Yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. In one day British forces attacking entrenched and long established hardened defensive positions lost 19,240 men killed and 38,710 wounded, of whom many died later in hospital. That is nearly 58,000 casualties, the equivalent roughly of six full infantry divisions, just thrown away. German forces lost about 8,000 men, of whom just over 4,000 were taken prisoner and survived the war.

In German records, the first day of the Somme is barely noted, just one more day of very heavy fighting. The French note it as an adjunct/sideshow to the Battle of Verdun, which was the altar on which the flower of their young manhood was sacrificed. Their casualties were roughly 7,000. In Britain, the first day of the Somme was a massive turning point in our social history. As a nation we have never been accustomed to enormous troop movements and massive land wars. Our geography and demographics work against us in that regard; in military terms we are a sea power. We have always had a high quality army but it is never large in European terms. So when the British Army undertook the Somme offensive it was in a position it was not accustomed to occupying, acting as the main load bearer in a full scale European offensive action. British forces had not done anything comparable on land since Wellington's campaigns in Spain and Southern France in 1809-1815, and the scale was much bigger than anything British forces had ever done on land before.

Even a nation as big and powerful on land as Russia would feel the pain of an event such as the first day of the Somme. To lose 58,000 men, roughly half of them killed on the day or died of wounds later, was an unbelievable trauma to a relatively small country such as Britain. The social impact was amplified by the great mistake of recruiting large units, typically battalion size from the same communities, so that when these units were destroyed in action their home towns and villages suffered the loss of an entire generation of men. In various villages all over Britain you can find war memorials disturbingly full of the same surnames, whole families extinguished. The first day of the Somme was a ghastly tragedy and even a 100 years later the pain is being felt.

I know we have disagreed on this thread about the merits or demerits of Field Marshal Douglas Haig, but I do feel that he showed very badly in this battle. The words he wrote in his diary were beneath contempt.

North of the Ancre, VIII Corps said they began well, but as the day progressed, their troops were forced back into the German front line, except two battalions which occupied Serre village, and were, it is said, cut off. I am inclined to believe from further reports that few of VIII Corps left their trenches.

British VIII (Eighth Corps) consisted of three infantry divisions. It did not stay in its trenches and pretend to obey orders. Haig had no right to say such a vile thing. Eigth Corps lost 14,000 men that day, which was nearly half its muster roll. Douglas Haig, shame on you. Shame! Shame! Shame!

This battle also forced the British to radically re-think and ungrade their medical corps infrastructure. The tactical commander was Henry Rawlinson and many of his superiors looked askance at him when he demanded that 18 hospital trains should be available to transport his casualties, but he insisted and got the concession. All 18 were used up and on their way, full of grievously hurt and suffering men, before noon. Twice as many would not have been enough. Rawlinson's casualty stations had room for 9,500 injured men and were overflowing within minutes. Many wounded men were still wearing field dressings applied by their comrades or self-applied when they reached hospitals in the UK days later and were totally untreated until the civilian doctors and nurses got to work. Without a doubt, many men died who could have been saved, probably bled to death for want of a few stitches. Only total lack of knowledge can excuse this: Rawlinson at least thought about his likely casualties and tried to make provision, facing down a lot of resistance from his superiors just to get 18 hospital trains laid on. But even he simply had no idea what he was getting into.

The men lost on the Somme were the core of Lord Kirchener's army, men recruited from the best of Britain's civilian reserve. I myself do not come from a military family: the Scoundrels go to war when the bugle blows but only serve in peacetime if national service is compulsory. I have a great uncle who went to France in 1915 and is still there. He will have been a typical example of a Kitchener soldier, a clerk in civilian life but young and healthy and with good basic education; a valuable person. He went no doubt because he felt it was his duty to serve in wartime. Kitchener famously worked on this theme through the poster which said "Your Country Needs You." You cannot afford to lose so many men of this calibre, men who will risk all they have for the good of the whole nation. This loss is the reason why the first day of the Somme lives in Britain's folk memory. It probably always will.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

In one day British forces attacking entrenched and long established hardened defensive positions lost 19,240 men killed

Even a nation as big and powerful on land as Russia would feel the pain of an event such as the first day of the Somme

Except a little more often. Actually, USSR lost almost exactly that many dead on every single day of WW2. So you could say we had 1,300 "first days of the Somme". But yes, we all feel pain

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

Except a little more often. Actually, USSR lost almost exactly that many dead on every single day of WW2. So you could say we had 1,300 "first days of the Somme". But yes, we all feel pain

I remember feeling non-plussed when you first mentioned losses of 20,000 a day; but of course you are counting in civilian dead as well. WW1 was not yet a Total War, although the trend was there in German Zeppelin raids and occasional shore bombardments of the British East Coast; and in some places, notably Serbia, the total war on civilians was already happening.

To lose 19,240 soldiers in one day is a lot, even for a big country. Russia suffered unimaginable losses in 1941 and knows what pain is all about. I think that the first day of the Somme was a terrible revelation to millions of British concerning the true reality of war, which they had been indoctrinated to see as a glorious and heroic thing. British men were educated into a very militaristic society which was all about defending he Empire; but Britain herself was a peaceful place with little direct exposure to what war costs in human suffering. WW1 changed that, and the first day of the Somme was a crucial event in that war in Britain.

[Mal Hombre]

The Western Allies ,Britain and France effectively won the war once the Kaiserschlact ran out of steam.After that the Germans were pushed inexorably back,Back past the old battle lines and into open country.The American units arrival just convinced the German High command that an armistice was the only way to avoid the total ,crushing defeat, They were to suffer in 1945.I can understand the need to denigrate the contribution of Great Britain and her Empire,Seen from the viewpoint of a country that was forced to grovel to the Central Powers for terms to exit a war that They no longer had the will to fight.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Britain and France effectively won the war

There is a revisionist camp that makes money selling this standpoint, and from the patriotism aspect it's easy to see how they can do it. People want to believe it. But if they'd been around in 1917 they'd have known different

The truth is, they were never going to beat Germany on their own. The British blockade did serious damage to Germany, but with Russia beaten and without the Americans, they'd certainly have lost. The Americans were their last hope

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

There is a revisionist camp that makes money selling this standpoint, and from the patriotism aspect it's easy to see how they can do it. People want to believe it. But if they'd been around in 1917 they'd have known different

The truth is, they were never going to beat Germany on their own. The British blockade did serious damage to Germany, but with Russia beaten and without the Americans, they'd certainly have lost. The Americans were their last hope

Actually the writing was on the wall for the Germans/Aiustrians in France from the point when the British Commonwealth side began to employ tanks effectively. The March 1918 offiensive was made possible by the Bolshevik revolution of November 1917 and Russia's departure from the war. Most of the German and Austrian troops in the east could be re-deployed, and many were re-deployed to France and for the first time the Central Powers had a clear advantage in numbers. They knew an American expeditionary force was coming and some elements were already in theatre, so the moment and window was narrow; they needed to win in March-April 1918.

They gave it their best shot but the British Commonwealth forces managed to hold long enough until the French could swing their reserves around and prop up the line.

The failure of the German March 1918 offensive ultimately meant that Germany would lose, regardless of the American presence. The American presence meant that Germany would lose within months rather than a matter of one or two years. The presence of the Americans further south meant that the British could concentrate forces for the Amiens offensive of August 1918 and they did. BTW Henry Rawlinson, who had played no very good part in the first day of the Somme, seemed like a different man at the Amiens battle and rendered excellent service during this victory. The French had already counter-attacked in July and Germany was unable to defend so broad a front. She too was played out, and in fact her home front situation had deteriorated with Bolshevist and other strikes, civil disobedience and widespread hunger, close to outright starvation. The 1918 influenza epidemic did terrible work behind the German and Austrian lines. The Central Powers war economy had been under siege since August 1914 and was collapsing. Confidence in the leadership was nil.

One must remember that the Central Powers were losing in the Balkans as well, and that the exit of Bulgaria from the war was a strategic killer blow to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, exposing a new front which they could not adequately defend. Bulgaria had lost strength and could find no answer when the Serbs, British, French and Italian forces broke their Macedonian front after many months of pressure. This surrender of Bulgaria opened the way into Hungary and Serbia. Belgrade was liberated by Serbian troops on 1st November 1918. Hungary declared herself independent in October and other Austrian provinces separated in the weeks before the end. There were Austrian forces in France, mostly in the southern sector of Alsace Lorraine where many of them were involved in fighting the Americans as well as the French.

The presence of the American expeditionary force was a huge factor in the German defeat of summer and autumn 1918, but even if they had not been there, Germany was not going to win. She might have lost more slowly, but she was certainly going to lose. Her allies were already gone and she was already on her own and up against attackers closing in from every direction except Scandinavia and Poland. Come the Spring of 1919, she would have been seeing events remakably alike to April 1945. She obtained an Armistice to save herself from that. The events which followed that Armistice were the reason why FDR imposed on the rest of the WW2 allies his decision that Germany in WW2 must roll the whole way over and surrender unconditionally.