Were We Wrong About WW1 Generals? (WW1 Documentary)
When it comes to the First World War there is no more controversial character, or subject of debate than the infamous Generals - the men who were ultimately responsible for leading some of the most bloody and costly fighting in history in places like The Somme, Passchendaele and Verdun.
A century after the guns fell silent, the popular image of the Generals in WW1 is of an old, out of touch and frankly incompetent aristocrat sitting miles behind a front line, safely drinking wine in a chateau whilst sending thousands of men, walking, to their deaths - and then repeating the whole process day after day with no regard for the consequences.
Creating these videos is a lot of work, and it would be possible without your support. If you like our work, you can help us with a regular or one • time payment:
• Support us via Patreon at: / battleguide
• One Time Support: battleguide.co.uk/support
Newsletter:
If you want to keep your finger on the pulse of what the team at Battle Guide have been getting up to, why not sign up to
our monthly newsletter: battleguide.co.uk/newsletter
Not So Quiet On The Western Front! (Podcast): battleguide.co.uk/podcast
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/64bg6Bv...
Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Links:
• Podcast: battleguide.co.uk/podcast
• Patreon: / battleguide
• Twitter: / battleguidevt
• TikTok: / battleguide
• Instagram: / battleguide.vt
Thanks for taking the time to watch this video, we hope you found it worthwhile. We are proud to be able to share free content on here, but to keep doing so regularly, we would love your support. If you feel so inclined, please feel free to check out our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/BattleGuide
So according to you, Haig was a brilliant general, and the finest learde the army could have had
@@jukeseyable You didn't watch the vid, did you? Battle Guide neither said nor implied any such thing.
Really well presented video, certainly expanded my understanding of ww1.
@@jukeseyablebonehead.
Your broadcast is quite interesting since the feelings on the french side regarding their generals at that time were even worse and biased to a certain extent too. Of course most of the french generals were wary of the lives of their soldiers (except Nivelle maybe). The best example to date was Mr Maginot who built the eponymous line in order to protect the said soldiers in case the germans returned... Which they did by circumventing it as we know...
One WW1 general, later field marshal, started out as a private soldier. William Robertson. He served in every single rank in the army. Interesting story, worth looking up.
Field Marshal Smuts was also something else entirely grew up as a peasant boy he wasn't even suppose to go to school but ended up attending university served the English fought the English served the English again through 2 world wars was a key figure to both the league of nations and the UN and advocated for the creation of ethic states in eastern Europe as well as Israel
@@splashafrica Smuts is different as he was a boer and a general, whose circumstances would have been different from a regular British officer. Also Bill Slim is a good example of ageneral who came from the ranks or Gater
Yes, and famously retained his strong Cockney accent as a badge of honour
@@BattleGuideVT video biography?
"Wully" Robertson, the Chief of Staff of the BEF after the resignation of Henry Wilson! Arguably the most consequential and effective officer in the British Army. His intervention prevented Lloyd George from sacking Haig after the Passchendaele debacle. Bully for Wully!
My Grandad served as a private infantryman from 1916 to the end of the war.. He worked as a runner for his unit. He refused all offers of promotion including regular offers of being sent to England to be trained as a lieutenant. To his dying day in his 80s, he felt that he had done the right thing fighting for his country. My brother has his diaries, medals and a German belt and soft cap that Grandad brought home with him. I have his field glasses. I wish I had asked him more questions. The stories he told me as a child he made to sound humorous but as an adult, I can understand the horror of what he and his friends went through
He was a brave man and devoted comrade to refuse an opportunity to get out of combat.
I’m not so sure that isn’t one of those things that can’t be understood unless experienced.
One of the problems with WW1 battle tactics- they evolved but often the technology didn't match the expectations for the innovations e.g tanks running on 4 piston engines which meant they were forever breaking down, battlefront communications relying on primitive phones which often didn't work and the cables for which were easily destroyed by shellfish, planes that to begin with were as likely to stall in mid air and crash as to be destroyed by enemy fire.
By shellfish, I meant she'll fire.
@@johnoneill732I was wondering 😂
General Arthur Currie was respected by the Canadian Corps. He had the uncanny ability to accurately predict losses before an attack.
Currie was ahead of his time. He was a meticulous planner who sought to minimize casualties among his troops. He was also one of the first commanders to recognize the potential of the tank in warfare. Putting the Canadian Corps under Currie, who was a Canadian, was an overdue measure but it probably saved hundreds of Canadian casualties.
Currie did not come through the regular army so he was able to think outside the box and come up with innovative tactics.
David Lloyd George claimed after the war that, had the war continued into 1919, he would have replaced Haig with Currie. I think this might have been fanciful on his part, though.
This isn't actually true. For the most part, Canadian soldiers never "loved" Curry as he didn't have the "look". Moreover, he was regarded as a butcher to the point that most veterans didn't want him to attend veterans events.
He ordered an attack on the last day and got a Canadian killed very shortly before 11 AM November 11, 2018. He also had some issues before going to war.@@ThomasGeilen
WWI was unique in that it was the first war in which a general couldn't see the majority of the battlefield by sitting atop his horse on a hill, and the last in which frontline troops lacked access to reliable long-range communications. The resultant information gap forced generals to rely on intricate prepared battle plans, which were often based on out-of-date intelligence, and which were difficult to adapt to changing events. An example of the effect of this information gap was that it wasn't until the early afternoon on 1st July 1916 that British GHQ came to realise that the first day of the Somme offensive had been so disastrous. Until then, they had felt the fighting that day - the most bloody in the British Army's history - had been going according to plan.
Also because of poor communications, they didn't know - until it was too late to act on it - that their forces in the south part of the sector that day had achieved all their objectives and had open country in front of them. By the time Rawlinson saw the opportunity to send the cavalry in to exploit the advance, the German army had sent in reinforcements and the moment for a breakthrough was lost.
@@paulmadryga As to when he realised; the lengthy delay as you say, entirely due to difficulties with communication of orders. The time costing delay initially in getting the information on which to base a decision, and then ordering cavalry, getting that order to them and they reacting. and getting into a position to attack. Hours and hours lost. The enemy artillery shelled roads, the lifelines of communication behind the lines, to disrupt this and as far as possible to prevent ammunition, food and water from being received by the front line. Generals were having to make decisions based on information that often was so delayed the position had radically changed at the time they received the report which called for a decision... The point you were making, and why this was so.
Great point thanks.
Not WW I but US Civil War: A Gettysburg Park Ranger told after being asked how much impact would it had, if one side would be armed with M16 rifles: The M16 wouldn't have make a great diffence, but if all officers of this side would have been equipped with walkie talkies the course of events would have changed completely.
@@ReisskIaue No disrespect to you or the park ranger you talked to, but this both drastically under-estimates the effectiveness of modern assault rifles (when compared to minie-ball type muzzle loaders), and over-estimated the effectiveness of walkie talkies, which are unreliable at ranges of more than a couple of hundred metres. As a former British Army signaller, these are points I am quite certain of. To illustrate my argument, at Gettysburg, Meade could see the majority of the battlefield from his command post. The areas he couldn't see were a relatively short away gallop for a mounted courier. Walkie -talkies, had they been available, would have shaved a few minutes from the command cycle. They would have had no application on the operational or strategic levels. In WWI, the generals were in headquarters that were thirty miles from the front, which stretched for hundreds of miles. The radio equipment was too big and unreliable to be installed in most forward headquarters below divisional level, and field telephone cables were constantly being cut by artillery fire. This, the generals were still often using runners and couriers to do the job, despite the much larger distances involved.
Everyone critizes their superiors… until they get promoted and finally understand what their superiors do all day… and then it all starts again until tge next time they are promoted
Thank you for covering this topic.
@@ImaSMACKHEAD982 I don't know if you've ever been promoted in your life, but it also applies when a private gets promoted to corporal., which is the case for most privates.
Every private thinks he’d do a better job than any general.
I've yet to hear anyone criticize Pershing though.
@@rodintoulouse3054In the British army, maybe.
Here in Australia, nobody seems to know or care about the identity of the bloke on the $100 bank note. Despite having a University named after him, John Monash, the General who broke the back of the German Army in 1918, on August 8th. Over the last 10 years, more than 150 bank tellers havent known when asked, the name of the man on the 100 note.worse still, no tellers either knew or cared.
Monash's name is well-known and well-regarded outside Australia, but to say *he* broke the back of the Germans is a bit of an overstatement. The Canadians, under Sir Arthur Currie, played as significant role in the Hundred Days Campaign as Australia. Indeed, the Battle of Amiens is notable for being the first time the Australian and Canadian Corps fought side-by-side - chosen to do so because of our reputations for toughness and skill (colonials showing the Mother Country how it's done 😉). It is often suggested that, had war gone into 1919, Monash and Currie would have commanded Armies, if not one of them succeeding Haig as overall commander.
@@GallifreyanGunner And of course history is want to overlook the 5 British infantry divisions, 3 further British reserve divisions, 3 British tank brigades, 2 British tank battalions, 3 British Cavalry divisions, 792 British aircraft, hell even the US 33rd division, all were there, all doing a lot of killing and dying. But hey.......................
@justwhenyouthought6119 Let's be honest, here. It was the Canadians and Australians who were primarily responsible for punch a hole in the German lines. By the end of the day, the Canadians had advanced 13 kms, the Aussies ,11 kms, the French, 8 kms, and the Brits *checks notes*, 3.2 kms. It was a team effort to be sure, but the colonials are a little tired of our light being hidden under a bushel. The Aussies and Canucks were chosen and placed where they were for a reason (see, also, The Battle of the Canal du Nord and the Pursuit to Mons).
@@GallifreyanGunner Was it their martial prowess as infantrymen or the support they received from the British tanks and aircraft that enabled a breakthrough ? We know it was both as the result of combined arms warfare. So 'Light being hidden' when all we hear is of the Canadian and Australian contributions I'd accept as an appropriate term. but not in how you have applied it. (see also 3.1m Germans *checks notes* killed by French, Russians, British, colonials etc etc etc before this battle even took place)
@justwhenyouthought6119 I grew up on documentaries like "The Wars Years" and many others that, if they were to be believed, was fought entirely, on the allied side, by France, the UK and the USA. American history has them winning the war single-handedly. Look at the UK national archives entry "Ludendorff famously described 8 August, the first day of the battle, as 'the black day of the German army'. By 13 August, British and French forces had advanced up to 11 miles eastwards on a 47-mile front, killing, wounding or capturing 48,000 enemy troops." Not Allied, British and French.
My father worked in the Army Pay Office at the RMA Sandhurst as a Civil Servant in the the early 1970s. I remember once when he took me there I watched new cadet officers on the drill square. An RSM was informing these new cadets the chain of command protocol, he barked loudly, "When I call you sir I don't mean it but when you call me sir you do..!"
My grandfather was a British soldier during WW1 and was injured by shell fire and stuck in no man’s land for 48 hours before he was rescued. He had lost one leg then in a field hospital in France gangrene set in his other leg where they were forced to remove his other to save his life. His mother fought to get him home as she’d had word that if he doesn’t get back to the U.K. to get proper medical help he’ll succumb to his injuries. She managed to get the Salvation Army along with the Red Cross involved they managed between them to get him back to the U.K. He survived and spent the rest of his life driving trams in Newcastle upon Tyne while using crutches and two false legs, he would rub paraffin oil into his stumps as they would always get sore. He died young at the age of 56 due to a heart attack. I never knew him but I have all his military papers which I as an ex British soldier myself find moving but fascinating at the same time. But what he always said about the war is that Kitchener and Hague other top brass should have been put against a wall and shot for sending thousands of men to their deaths, walking towards the enemy and sending wave after wave of men to their deaths which he saw first hand and like so many who survived also witnessed and had the visions of such slaughter for the rest of their lives. But the bravery of those men is something we need to always remember, and take time to just think what they were thinking before that whistle blew, many knew they weren’t coming home and by the grace of god some did and they are the ones who had the nightmares the horrid memories ptsd etc, some would say they weren’t the lucky ones the lucky ones are those who lay at rest for them it’s all over. Lest we forget.
In no way denigrating your G/father's experiences so please don't read this the wrong way. My Grandparents and G/Uncles served in that war. One going down with Kitchener on HMS Hamphsire, and two others being invalided out one at Paschendaele after being stuck between the lives and having his life saved by a brave German medic who left the relative safety of his own trench to treat him and hand him over to a British patrol having saved his life. I would ask your G/Father what he might have done differently. It is here that narrative starts to fall down. The highest casualties were found in the officer class. There was a lot of agitation socially between the wars - mainly influenced by what was emanating from the Marxists in Russia (pretty much the same as it is today) If you are interested in researching the subject I can recommend a book called "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" A bit of an eye opener. Don't just buy into the blxnbs spread by those with a vested interest - do your own research.
@@Scaleyback317 I agree with your statement on the huge changes brought about by the First World War. They were perhaps the biggest changes ever seen in any civilzation since the Bronze Age Collapse: The Communist Revolution in Russia, the horrible slaughter on all fronts, the collapse or impoverishment of the great powers, all resulted in a gigantic re-calculation by citizens to their respective governments - and to their Churches. Church attendance dropped off a cliff after WW1, as did peoples' comittment to any particular traditional party. That left a broad hiway for the intrusion of Leninist infiltration into the west. That, among other things related to WW1, was the key component of the rise of Hitler
@@Scaleyback317 Yeah, never believe the people who were actually there; believe the people who weren't there who write histories from reading about it in reports that are slanted towards what ambitious officers wanted. I was in a war. The histories are never anything like what I saw; it's like they happened in another universe. They did - they happened in the universe of clerks and bureaucrats. Reports and statistics are not primary sources, though historians like to believe they are, the people who were there are the only primary sources.
@@neilreynolds3858 Perhaps you'd like to teach this old soldier about the times when the metal is flying through the air then? A personal account is just that and only that. The man stood next to the narrator will have seen any occurrence or lack thereof completely different. Also worked in justice capacity for 35 years after leaving the military - not much you could teach me about incidents and people's awareness, cognitions, recall etc either. The people who were there see their story only - rarely the most reliable source - the more people seeing anything the more versions you will get. For sure there's a thread worth following once you've gathered the frayed ends of personal experience, memory and bias. You gather evidence for the full story and you have to be wary even then.
@@Scaleyback317 Excellently put. My own experience mirrors yours.
I can't imagine how devastating it must've been for many getting staggering reports of casualties even after successful military operations
Successful operations that accomplished nothing and didn't discourage them from doing it over and over no matter how many EMs and junior officers got killed.
Moltke over in Germany breaks down from it and gets taken out of duty.
The best commanders during ww2 were generally ones who fought at least part time from the front. It’s not just about courage. It’s about perspective, observing the terrain and fighting positions, and getting to know the soldiers and sharing their perspective etc.
A lot of things are new, the scale and length of the conflict is new. They're trying to figure out what psychological casualties in mass amounts mean.
But not too much on the front, that’s how you get fellas like Rommel. While yes, it grants you better knowledge of what’s going on in combat and the speed up of communications between you and the grunts on the ground, there are many negatives. A: breakdown in chain of command communication. Usually orders are passed down the military chain of command. With Rommel off at the front, that removes a huge vital part of that chain. While he’s off micromanaging a certain sector, communications between high command and the other sectors begin to break down, as people below Rommel didn’t tend to have the authority to issue front-wide orders. A general isn’t supposed to do the fighting, they are supposed to manage those who manage those (so on and so forth down the chain of command) who manage those who do the fighting. B: personal risk Being that close to the front line often comes with the risk of being a casualty yourself. I think that’s a given. C: reduces knowledge of matters that are behind the lines. Rommel being at the front lines constantly made it so that commands from his superiors reached him much later and also meant he didn’t have as much knowledge on things like logistics as he would if he was far behind the lines with the other generals in the area. It was one of Rommel’s weaknesses, him constantly being at the frontlines rarely back where other generals often were, a command tent behind the lines. While yes, it would be wise for a general to take a good look at the front, it’s not a good idea for them to spend most of their time there trying to micromanage everything
@@chrischrisdaman Carlin described them as "military divas". A lot of personalities who have their own ideas, and understand that part of their job is to build PR and support. Out of frame of the photo of MacArthur wading on shore is the camera crew MacArthur had along. Like it fell on the civilian leadership to manage these conflicting divas with very strong ideas. Rommel has the backing of an authoritarian state where it's a lot harder to disseminate something the state propaganda doesn't want to spread. There's a bunch of people who aren't necessarily incompetent, but raised as heroes.
The morale effect of seeing your embattled commander up close to the danger with you seems worth remarking upon -- men will fight harder and die harder for officers they feel share respect.
@@cameronferguson7145 See a king and a soldier, fighting shoulder to shoulder See a king and a soldier, fighting shoulder to shoulder
An underated aspect I think to some extent is 'the price of freedom'. The British, Commonwealth and US forces had to quickly adapt from being small professional battalions to massive armies from a generally untrained population against a foe based on a militaristic society. Blunders, unsuitable officers and ignorance are all part of this price...but the achievement in a war environment driving the acceleration of lethal technology was initself remarkable.
The UK is the odd one out in Europe among the great powers who does not have a large conscription army. France had one, Germany too, most of the smaller powers. The UK has this relatively small army they used as an expeditionary force in the dominions. Everyone else had been setting up these massive pre-planned mobilization systems. The USA had a cadre of full-time officers and instructors and an expectation that civilian volunteers would flock to recruitment when necessary and receive training and organization. I think the latest US military action at the time of the Great War had been actions against Pancho Villa. The US Navy was a lot better prepared, building a navy was still not done out of nowhere. The USA was already the dominant military power.
none of the countries you listed were at danger of losing their freedom - the war was pointless
@SusCalvin Not really any kind of preparation for the Western Front,. The big thing was that the US military establishment had three whole years to plan its expansion and build up those reserve officer cadres. Even then, it still had to rely heavily on British and French instructors and heavy equipment. The key advantage America brought was mass and depth of reserves. American officers could afford to be gung ho where a French or British commander might be more methodical.
@@biggiouschinnus7489 The USA has a lot more fresh volunteer manpower at the time, while France and the UK are depleting theirs. I think there was a similar effect when commonwealth and dominion troops started to get deployed in Europe.
The Battle of Hamel in July 1918 was the Australian General, John Monash's masterpiece. His detailed planning and briefing of the allied troops was the main reason for its success.
All battles were planned in detail and the men were always briefed. Unfortunately, sh1t happens and most of the time, things disn't go according to plan. Monash was undoubtedly extremely competent, but I'll wager he had a fair old dollop of luck on his side.
Haig and his Staff helped and encouraged Monash with his plan . It was not all Monash who thought it out.
@@anthonyeaton5153 Haig had nothing to do with it. The only role Monash's superiors had was to OK the battle. Monash planned it from start to finish in his usual meticulous detail. He choreographed the battle to be over in 90 minutes, it took 93 minutes. General Pershing heard about the planed battle and asked Haig to withdraw the Yanks as he felt they weren't ready. When Lt General Rawlinson, commander of the 4th Army, told Monash, Monash blew his top and said the battle was cancelled. He then asked Rawlinson to okay the battle with the Yanks onboard. Rawlinson said, you want me to risk being sent to London and court martialled? Monash said "Yes". He reminded Rawlinson that as Rawlinson was the battle commander he had the right to go against his superiors regarding the battle as he was privy to information to which they were not. Rawlinson okayed the battle using the Yanks, and history was made. For the first time in the war, the stalemate of trench warfare was broken. The attacking side won, it won quickly, and it won with relatively few casualties.
@@robertcook2572 No, many battles were poorly planned, and the briefing of men was poor. The high command also didn't listen to the "shop floor". Monash did not have any luck, he had meticulous planning, an integrated set of tactics which, as a set, were new, and the resources to accomplish the task. The Battle of Hamel marks the start of modern warfare. Up to that point the esteemed commanders of the armies had forgotten that there was a minor change since the great cavalry charges of the 19th century, to wit, the machine gun. Modern warfare? Yes, that is why this battle is studied in officer training centres all over the world, Sandringham, Duntroon and West Point being 3 of them.
@@ianlowery6014 I disagree. It's perfactly possible for a flawed plan to be prepated meticulously, as, indeed, all Great War battles were. What do you suppose the legions of staff officers were doing?.
While stationed in Germany I visited Verdun twice. I would take a van full of soldiers laughing and joking all the way and then not a word on the way back. No words for the horror and slaughter of good men, both sides, thrown into an absolute holocaust. You can double check this but I believe the first day of the beginning of that one year travesty, one million artillary shells were fired on the first day, to the point it was just a mixing bowl of long dead soldiers and animals. There are still fenced off areas where you cannot walk because of unexploded ordinance. Tall vibrant green and trees stop and then several miles of scrub brush where the salt of exploded shells have permanently stunted any plant growth.
Thank you for this I have come to the conclusion that the British do not get Verdun Until we do we will not understand the Somme and the sacrifices that were endured there
@@mauricefrost8900 You are so right, Maurice. I too was one of those ignorant Yanks till that point. WWI was a tragic and evil show. Paschandale, Verdun, and the Somme were unspeakable horrors. Incidentally, "The Enlightenment period of the previous two centuries stopped dead in its tracks (no pun intended), after WWI. Science and good will was not moving toward utopia.
My great great grandfather was born in 1889, he was a First Lieutenant in the BEF in the First Battle of the Somme, he never talked about it to anyone. The only thing he ever told my grandmother is about how he walked around a trench with his captain after a raid and his captain was crying because of the amount of men that had died that day
I feel like a general who can have some blame onto him is Luigi Cadorna since he had some poor tactics that got a lot of his men killed
I agree. He is a notable mention. I heard his name is now sometimes used as a curse-word in parts of Italy.
or Conrad Von Hotzendorf
Yes Cadorna was atrocious. His appalling policy of “decimation” of units that were deemed to have not performed makes no sense in hindsight. But most armies had commanders at the same level of useless as Cadorna. Conrad Von Hortzedorff, Enver Pasha, Paul von Rennenkampf, Helmuth von Moltke, etc. But most of the generals of that war weren’t among those useless that we hear about. Most of them were very capable and intelligent men. But they were put in an a war where it was very difficult for Generals to exercise their abilities.
@@danieleyre8913 The single worst of the worst was a French officer (name escapes me in my dotage) who commanded and slaughtered half the French army treating them worse than he would a dog. The French suffered such casualties with no hope of survival because they were just sent there until they were dead or severely wounded and then a replacement sent in. No rotation, no releif - just sent and left there. The French Army eventually revolted and sweeping changes were made - lo and behold the French army slowly but surely clawed back their fearsome reputation simply because they were treated decently. It think his name was Neville - memory not as good as it used to be I'm afraid.
@@Scaleyback317 Robert Nivelle was a general whose reputation was destroyed by his 1917 offensive failing and that caused the widespread mutinies across the French army. But is did not “destroy half of the French army”. Nivelle was shown up to be too flawed for high command, but he was not as hopeless as von Hortzendorff or Cadorna. In 1914; Nivelle performed well rearguard defending against German attacks and advances and was one of the commanders who delivered Joffre’s grand counter offensive. Nivelle also was very overall successful during the battle of Verdun, being the commander who recaptured fort Doumant. He was an excellent exponent of artillery barrages and timing the infantry assaults at divisional level and was very innovative. But he was proven to lack the character for higher command. He got the highest post through diplomacy as he was an excellent political wrangler who know how to rise higher by making the right friends in the French government. And he spoke near un-accented English (he was half English) and was popular with Lloyd-George and the British government. He was clearly a bit of a sleaze as when he took command; he made sure that Petain and Joffre and Foch could not challenge him, and he conspired to lessen the authority of British commanders Haig & Robertson (both of whom soon were very suspicious of him). And he was also proven to not handle his higher authority and command well, being autocratic with subordinates and overruling any objections or questioning. He became completely over-focussed on his offensive, just like Falkenhayn before him with Verdun. He wouldn’t allow resources for smaller attacks that other French commanders requested when the Germans began withdrawing to more interior positions, a couple of which could’ve put the Germans in real trouble. He was absolutely obsessed with making his offensive happen, and refused to change plans when the weather proved freakishly wet, when the Germans captured his plans, and when they Germans reinforced their defences at the key attacking points. And when the attack occurred; he broke his promise to call it off when the casualties were high and he didn’t achieve breakthrough. In the end; his offensive achieved modest gains for appalling casualties and caused mass mutiny. And his dumping was one of the most unceremonious in French military history. Neville did however leave the positive legacies of his artillery tactics, his initiating the French tank development programme, and his initiating the new French fighter aircraft programme. So in summary; yes Neville was a disaster. But more out of lack of personal character than lack of marshalling abilities. And not in the same category of utterly awful like some others.
My grandfather fought with the Canadian army, and survived, for 11 months in 1917/18 at Passchendaele. His company was initially sent willy nilly into (yet another) frontal assault and nearly wiped out. He had NOTHING good to say about his superiors and he agreed heartily with Alan Clarke about the donkey analogy. When I was in my teens, he warned me against joining the army because he said it didn't care about the ordinary soldier. My great uncle died fighting for the Kaiser on the opposite side of the same battle.
The real history of WW1 proves your grandfather was right and this video wrong. When the U.S. entered the war they settled on strategies proven to work and refused to put their troops under unified command as European command demanded, a vote of no-confidence.
Yet another frontal assault. Let me ask you a question. What other option was there? You seem to forget the front line ran from the Swiss Alps to the North Sea. There WERE no flanks. None. People like you going on about 'yet another frontal assault' have forgotten the very simple fact that there was no other way. Its why the tanks were developed, to supress and destroy machinegun positions so the infantry could advance. Its why Artillery tactics were unrecognisable to an artilleryman of 1914 by 1918. Its why the platoon utterly changed in those 4 and a half years of war. Alan Clarke was a liar, he lied about the lions led by donkeys comment and later when confronted he ADMITTED it. He came up with it in an (unfortunately successful) attempt to increase sales of his book. I have read that travesty of 'history', and it IS a travesty. I grow sick and tired of people banging on about 'yet another frontal assault' when it comes to the Western Front. Well if you are so superior, pray tell the rest of the world what they SHOULD have done... please feel free to explain to me how for example we could have attacked non existent flanks? Feel free to take your time coming up with the answers.... As they do not exist....
@@alganhar1 There WERE alternatives, as the video pointed out. By mid 1917 tactics such as small group raiding parties, tank assaults, and tunneling were being tried with some success. These sorts of combined arms attacks did, in fact, result in the final breakthrough of the war. Therefore, naked frontal assaults which had proven time and again to be disasters were, by 1917, NOT the only option. Did they really have to learn the same lesson again and again for 4 bloody years that frontal assaults didn't work? My grandfather was well aware that his assault would likely end in disaster, as so it did. He told me there were already other ways to take ground, but they were shunned by the generals because they weren't "showy" enough. I, for one, am quite tired of generals' apologists trying to whitewash the stupidity and laziness of the majority of WW1 generals.
@@alganhar1 if you really understood the history of WW1 you would not make such a statement. The donkeys totally missed a strategy used by Russian general Brusilov which was incredibly successful. American military leaders adopted the Brusilov strategy which was also incredibly successful. This strategy was to intensively fire artillery as fast as possible, but not so much that pathways to the enemy were destroyed. In this way, troops attacked shell-shocked infantry who retreated and the ground was not destroyed so Allied troops could continue to be supplied as they rapidly advanced. Brusilov only used this strategy out of desperation but it was incredibly successful but European military leaders were stuck in their thinking. This is the real overall new method which turned the tide of the war.
@@alganhar1 Perhaps you should read up on Sir John Monash. He saw the value of meticulous planning and ensuring the front line troops were fully supported by a coordinated attack instead of just using a barrage of artillery and sending troops over the top.
Posthumous and battlefield promotions explain the high mortality rate among officers. Also artillery used to strike command posts and observation posts where higher ranks usually observed the battle since those were static positions and well defined.
According to Gordon Corrigan in his book Mud, Blood and Poppycock, a critical technological tool was missing and its absence meant the rupture of communications between higher HQ and advanced detachments during any successful attack. This was transportable field radios; without them stopgaps such as field telephones (wires got cut during artillery barrages), semaphore or flares (smoke and dust would obscure them) and carrier pigeons (too unreliable) meant they had to rely on runners to update generals and their artillery assets. Needless to say all too often by the time runners or their information got back to rear echelons the situation forward had usually changed drastically.
whilst blackadder is a series on every soldiers laptop, it did portray a rather inaccurate view of events that some have taken to be fact. It should be remembered, Haig's son was killed on the front, so Haig new very well the cost. There were incompetents in senior ranks, but they were very quickly removed from their posts. The reality is that innovation and imagination were used widely to try and end the stalemate. Things such as the rolling barrage, tanks, aircraft, tunnels etc etc etc I find the modern zetgeist of viewing the men who fought as victims a great insult to their incredible bravery and tenacity.
Hi Andrew, whilst I agree with the sentiment for sure, Haig didn't have a child killed in the First World War. Both the PM and leader of the opposition did though (killed on the same day in 1916).
@@BattleGuideVT ah, my mistake!👍
"I find the modern zeitgeist of viewing the men who fought as victims a great insult to their incredible bravery and tenacity." Being a victim and being brave/tenacious aren't mutually exclusive. I'm no fan of the "lions led by donkeys" narrative, but I think there's a clear implication that the lions were brave whilst still being the victims of the donkeys' mismanagement.
@@benjaminwakefield9509 That is true, but I find the way this is portrayed by the weak and feeble of the modern world I personally find insulting to their memory.
Certainly John Monash deserves to be recognized as the creative and innovative leader he was. All the time dealing with the multiple prejudices of (1) Being Jewish; an engineer; a reservist (I.e. not a ‘true professional’). Art Currie as well although it wasn’t until well on that his real capabilities became more more apparent. All in all the “colonial’ officers were fighting an uphill battle because, perhaps less was expected of them. Prejudice existed on both sides; Prussians regarded Bavarians in much the same way. But Siegfried Sassoon’s “Donkeys” these leaders for the most part, weren’t.
Monash may have had to put up with anti-semitism. But he has also been completely overrated by Australian popular history. He was an initially average general who improved over the war to be among the good British generals at the end. Nationalistic idiot Australians pretend that he single handedly won the entire First World War.
Currie and Monash would have made a fantastic team if they’d been given an Army, with one being CinC, the other being the Chief of Staff.
@@haroldflashman4687 They would have been no better than the commanders already there.
@@danieleyre8913 Currie excelled as a Div and then Corps commander. He was known for his meticulous preparation and getting 1st hand info from field officers. The Germans respected the Canadian Corps to the point where the allies used it as a decoy, since the Germans had an intelligence unit assigned specifically to keep track of the Canadian Corps. Currie and Monash were both innovative, out of the box thinkers, unlike British Generals who were too wedded to tradition and established doctrine. One of Curries best innovations was to change the Order of Battle of Divisions under his command, with special emphasis on engineers and artillery coordination. No British General at any level did anything like this. Of course as "Colonials" neither officer would be seriously considered for higher command.
@@haroldflashman4687 British generals were generally NOT “wedded to tradition and established doctrine”, the “innovative, out of the box thinking” you ascribe to Monash & Currie was typical of British commanders and why Currie got promoted to begin with. That’s why the British began the war with the most advanced doctrines and tactics after the Haldane reforms of the Edwardian era (which Haig played a hey part in). Haig & Smith-Dorian and every British commander beneath them had excelled as divisional and corps commanders! And in any case; Monash was NOT especially innovative at all, he succeeded through marshalling (planning and organisation) and by learning from errors than any quick thinking on the battlefield. That’s why his performances early in the war were poor. Canadian units were held in high regard due to the quality of the soldiers (many of whose were rural people), that was regardless of Currie’s command. Honestly this all comes across like these absurd Australian nationalistic myths than researched and factual.
Monash showed the Allied command what a democratic army was by capturing the most ground and guns on the Western Front.
Monash was certainly a standout commander of the era, but he was not alone in that regard
@@BattleGuideVT Correct. The Canadian General Currie was also one who came up with similar processes (the idea was probably bouncing around British General Rawlinson's Army commanders from all nations, as he gave the final OK).
It’s worth remembering just how well liked Haig was by the men serving under him after the war. The lions and donkeys narrative did not originate from soldiers but civilians.
His reputation is shit when he himself formed the biggest forces related charity after the war, the Royal British Legion.
Absolutely! In fact, the few years immediately after the war are genuinely fascinating politically and the British government was genuinely worried about Haig's popularity and the potential of the British Legion. They could see what the likes of Ludendorff and Hindenburg were doing in Germany with the Freikorps and worried that if Haig wanted to get involved in politics, he would have been a major threat to democracy. Thankfully he was not that sort of man. After his death there were a lot of damning things written about him, not least by Lloyd-George, by politicians looking to scapegoat him for all that went wrong in the middle of the war.
Haig at first was completely and utterly useless look at somme look at all the men he threw away for literally nothing I’m surprised soldiers didn’t attack him after war but besides he didn’t understand importance machine guns at first and he believe that horses would play a major role in the war as in used for attacking purposes he was fork cavalierly however some military historians say that by the middle of 1918 he was finest commander on the western front.
I do like your sensible approach to this subject.100 + years of hindsight is a huge advantage. It is never the less good to set the record right. The colonial Lt Gen of Canada, Arthur Currie and the Lt Gen of Australia John Monash , Corps commanders both, where excellent examples of forward thinking "Combined arms" approach the logical epitome of 4 years of fighting. Good thing that their superior British Generals Byng and Rawlinson allowed them the freedom of action Such pity that the allies let this all slip in the inter- war years, while the Germans learned the correct lessons from the war. I have heard it said that it took 40,000 casualties to make a Major General in the British army in WW1. Any comments ?
That saying came from one of the French Generals, I cannot remember if it was Foch or Joffre. It was also more or less accurate unfortunately. There are not a lot of options when you have no flanks to exploit or precious few weak points. Another French general, Mangin, once said, 'no matter what we do, we lose a lot of men'. Essentially he was saying that whether we do everything right, or everything wrong, or are somewhere in between, we are going to lose a lot of men regardless. That is the terrible reality of an attritional war. ironically WWII was ALSO an Attritional War, but it does not garner the same negative view as WWI. I rather suspect its because all that death and destruction was generally not limited to a relatively small area of land, but was spread out with often vast advances and retreats. The movement aspect of WWII hides from many who look at the subject the Attritional Nature of the war.
@@alganhar1 Plus Russia or rather the USSR took the brunt.
@@briancrowther3272 The USSR took the brunt but there's also no doubt whatsoever that with a less rigid command structure that encouraged initiative in lower ranking officers and enlisted, as happened in the German military, those casualties (if indeed they had this capability after 300 years of Tsarism and 20+ years of Stalinism)., that those casualties could have been far, far lower. Russian senior officers were notoriously disinterested in casualties. And we're seeing the same scenarios playing out in Ukraine now, with the Russian Army's enormous losses - it being essentially the Soviet Army, (less Ukrainians), with Kleptocracy rather than Communism as its underlying motivation.
They are all starting to understand the combined arms doctrines, the armies in '17 are in many ways early modernized armies. They don't have the full communications of a WW II army. They can make these advanced, complex plans using timetables where units will take certain actions at the right time and fall into a pre-determined greater plan. But they don't have the means to adjust and update these plans in real time. They have a few days of wonderfully cohesive combined arms operations, but after that units either lag behind, lose track of one another or face obstacles and it all becomes a much less coherent mess.
Two points only to add to the excellent video. (1) The Great War on the Western Front was probably unique in the fact that it was a war without flanks. Since the trench lines extended from the North Sea coast to the Swiss border there was no open flank to turn or exploit. Attacks were always going to be frontal and the only improvements that could be made to make them less costly (in casualties) and more effective came from improved tactics and weaponry. (2) The British & Commonwealth Army on the Western Front - despite it's enormous size - was dwarfed by the French Army. Therefore, the British were very much the 'junior partner' in the Western Allies and in many cases were required to make attacks that, given the freedom to make their own plans, they would not have made.
Very informative and interesting video. Thank you for your efforts in creating it.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Something else that generally goes unmentioned is the political pressures and international pressures on the generals that forced their hands to launch offensives early, or when they plain didnt want to whatsoever, the somme being a great example
What a horror for the soldier. Ukraine is getting the same treatement. They were presured into a counter offensive and it's failling.
Also Loos and Arras are good examples of this
I'm sometimes surprised that people don't know politics affects the army sometimes
@@CakeIsSpy The Ukrainian counter-offensive isn't failing they are gaining ground
@@CruelSculpture The men who sacrificed their lives to achieve ultimate victory that led to the building of modern society? you are just forgetting real history and looking at revisionists from the 60's and various comedies and anti-war books written after the 60's
When the speaker himself says, paraphrasing here "sometimes things were done criminally badly but rarely through incompetence, and never through lack of care" But does not elaborate, it defeats the entire point of the video. Simply saying it isn't so, isn't a defense.
It’s unjust that movies and TV shows peddle the idea that WW1 generals spent all their time drinking brandy in French chateaux, not giving a damn about the ordinary soldiers they were sending to their deaths. The military technology of WW1 favoured the defence and slaughtered whichever side left their trenches to attack. The Germans were not obliged to attack as much because they were already holding French territory that they had won. But the whole French and British effort was aimed at ejecting the Germans, therefore they had to do more attacking. On occasions when the German went on the offensive, they were also slaughtered en masse. No one had a complete answer to the disparity between the effectiveness of defensive vs offensive weapons and tactics. And few people realise that 56 British generals were killed by enemy fire in WW1, 22 of them by small arms, indicating that they must have been right in the front line at the time.
well said Paul.
The same is true with many high ranking officers. Especially early in the war officers seeking glory would participate in charges they shouldn't be involved in and officers would tour the Frontline either to see things themselves or inspire the men. One reason why the British nobility lost so much influence so fast was because so many of them died. They actually had to be forced to stop getting too close to combat.
It certainly wasn’t the technology holding them back; the Germans used that very same technology in the very same war in 1914 and 1918 (and 1939 for that matter), to take large swaths of land. And this is quite ironic when you consider that it was indeed Britain that invented most of the new military technology, like tanks lol. No, it was the tactics that held them back. And who is in charge of the tactics? That’s right, officers! And British officers had the best technology of any military available to them at the time and still could not secure victory and WOULD not have secured victory if not for the Americans lol.
@@klown463 There was a lot of equipment and weapons that changed from 1914 to 1918 in the German army. They developed a bunch of new air defenses like the flak 16, a wide variety of mortars and artillery pieces like the Granatenwerfer 16, they got new guns like the famous anti-tank gun the M1918, there were flamethrowers developed prior to 1914 that didn’t see production or use until part way into WW1 and some like the Flammenwerfer M1917 were built using experience using them at the start of the war. The aircraft at the start of the war barely resemble the newest models at the end of the war like the rickety biplane AEG C.IV from 1916 compared to the eventual monoplanes like the Junkers D.I which wouldn’t look out of place in early WW2 but was built in 1918. Their Zepplins started of as mainly recon at the start of the war, became intimidating bombers mid war, then were becoming mostly useless towards the end with Allied advancements in air defenses and specialized ammunition. Their navy didn’t change much as the war went on since it was more of a tertiary concern behind the army and air force, and because ships took so long to build. They did make advancements in submarines through the war even developing some specialized U-boat minelayers like the Type UE submarine classes that entered service towards the end of the war. They also developed new torpedos partway through the war; early torpedos were simple but often failed to detonate but towards the end of the war they developed homing torpedos which the allies countered with decoys which the Germans developed countermeasures for in the T11 and G7es. As you mentioned tanks also became major towards the end of the war. The Germans were late to the party but were building tanks to the end of the war. They were already starting to make developments and improvements with a copy of the British track design adapted for the German A7V-U, they started construction on specialized supply carrier tanks, and they had some prototype tanks designed with larger cannons and a redesigned layout with the A7 Flakpanzer. All of that was done between late 1917 and late 1918. Similar to the tanks there were advancements made with armored cars mainly in the late war period. The Germans had armored cars prior to WW1 but they were rudimentary at best, just some plating on a car, but they started developing halftracks and gun carriers in 1916, anti tank vehicles in 1918, and even dedicated military trench diggers. There was also quiet a few changes made to clothing with advancements made with carriers, coats, and famously their helmets which started off with Pickelhaube, became a leather cap for a time, and then the famed Stahlhelm. As for 1934 while Germany did have some WW1 era equipment but most of their equipment was wildly different. Compare the A7V which just had a simple infantry gun sticking out the front and simple tracks on the bottom to the turreted Panzers with the modern wrap around tracks. They’d also developed revolutionary guns like the MP-34 and panzerfaust and further refined weapons like their flamethrowers and Gewehr 98.
@@arthas640 not entirely sure what your point is here. I’m aware Germany invented things too but their inventions are of limited to no tactical significance. No one uses zeppelins, flamethrowers or anti tank rifles anymore. I don’t think these are war changing inventions. Britain however invented tanks, Lewis guns, rifle grenades and the modern infantry section. They also paid a lot of attention to logistical and medical needs, more so than anyone else except maybe the Americans. Britain had everything it needed to change the game but the British officers still couldn’t formulate anything resembling combined arms warfare until the very end. And even then, it would still take the Soviets and Germans to put the theory in books and practice many years later.
I’m no historian though one interesting point I heard was from an American general from WW2, sorry can’t remember his name, who said an army never learns from the mistakes of other armies they have to personally learn them themselves. And I’ve often wondered if this applies to the British army on the Somme. Because prior to the Somme in July 1916 the British army was much smaller than the French or German army and the Somme was the first time Britain could match either in numbers. The beginning of the battle was marked by a British catastrophe whilst the French were largely successful. The Somme proved a large learning curve for the British. I’ve often wondered about this.
It should be remembered that the Somme was not a battle the British wanted. Wrong place, too early and with too much responsibility placed on troops too inexperienced. The British knew this but Verdun forced many changes, at the insistence of a French army under huge pressure.
@@andrewcarter7503 Pretty much, you cannot understand the Battle of the Somme without understanding the Battle of Verdun, the way the Somme battle played out was very much as a result of Verdun. The Somme therefore is inextricably linked to Verdun. While its certainly true that the French had persuaded the British to take part in a 1916 offensive on the Somme during the winter, it was to be a primarily French battle with the British in a distinctly support role. Obviously Verdun changed these plans!
The army of the UK was a relatively small professional corps that went on interventions in the colonies. They didn't need to draft or recruit large amounts of people from their day jobs to go fight in Afghanistan or India. But the UK is the odd man out of the great powers at the time.
This was certainly proved by the US army in ww1 as they ignored British and French advise and instead adopted the Brusilov strategy, whcih was a complete disaster
Thanks and you are right about giving perspective. My Grandfather rose to the rank of Sergeant and had been a builder before the war, injured by Shrapnel at Paschendaele, hated aircraft and loved tanks, but didn't know his view on officers.
Interesting that you have a photo of Lt General Sir Arthur Currie, commander of the Canadian Corps, David Lloyd George was at one point in favour of replacing Haig with him and Lt General Sir John Monash, commander of the Australian Corps. I also saw a photo of Lieutenant-General Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart. The one-eyed, one-handed war hero who fought in three major conflicts across six decades, surviving plane crashes and PoW camps. His story is like something out of a Boy's Own comic. Carton de Wiart served in the Boer War, World War One, and World War Two. In the process he was shot in the face, losing his left eye, and was also shot through the skull, hip, leg, ankle, and ear. In WW1 he was severely wounded on eight occasions and mentioned in despatches six times. Having previously lost an eye and a hand in battle, Carton de Wiart, as commanding officer, was seen by his men pulling the pins of grenades out with his teeth and hurling them with his one good arm during the Battle of the Somme, winning the Victoria Cross. www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30685433
This was such an amazing video, incredible job man!
The portly general at 9:13 is the Canadian General Sir Arthur “Guts and Gaiters” Currie.
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing describing. Class A research project. Special thanks to the veterans who shared their personal information/combat experiences. Making this documentary more authentic and possible. Also the oftentimes forgotten medical 🏥 personal. Doctors/nurses/orderlies/stretcher bearers. Risking life and limb tending to the wounded soldiers. It’s a wonder how those medical 🏥 personal kept their sanity. Experiencing battle after battle of the horribleness the wounded went thru.
"Victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan"
A really great video, thank you for making it
A balanced and understandable account, although I was disappointed that the old saw "Lions led by Donkeys" was trotted out yet again. In Alan Clarke's book 'The Donkeys', Clarke attributed the phrase to General Max Hoffman, supposedly in a 1916 conversation with General Erich Ludendorff. However, when Clarke was later challenged by reputable British historians, who could find no mention of the phrase in the memoirs and papers of either of the two German Generals, he belatedly admitted that he had invented the whole thing in order to sell more copies of his book. Unfortunately, by then, the phrase had been seized upon by the ant-war brigade and is, sadly, perpetuated to this day.
"Nowhere else have I seen such brave lions being led by such lambs." Commander Max von Gallwitz commenting on the bravery of British soldiers at the Somme June 1916
@@trevordavies5486 'It was the muddy grave of the German army'- German staff officer Captain Von Hentig referring to the Somme. Looking at a battle from a single perspective focused on a single day is no way to understand command and tactics.
The thing is the whole 60s counterculture could not use WWII as anti-war,anti-establishment because it was quite obviously a just war. Wwi however was a different matter. We are only really getting over the damage from that now.
@@Trebor74 What about the fact that it was a war of democracies defeating dictatorships who invaded a autonomous neutral nation leading to the Allies to declare war on the central powers, people remember ww2 because of the crimes against humanity, they forget it was fought for the same reason as ww1
Excellent, balanced narrative and very educational indeed. Thank you sir, It's a big thumbs-up and a sub from me.
Great video, very informative. Thank you.
Fantastic video with an amazing level of detail.
I'm ex British Army and I didn't realise the Major General was originally Sergeant Major General. Thanks! Makes sense.
I've been interested in this topic since knowing Haig's son in the 60s, at the height of the "Lions led by donkeys" revisionism. He defended his father's record with passion, and current scholarship pretty much proves his point. The British and Commonwealth army was the best run of all the combatants, particularly compared to the French, Italians, Austro-Hungarians, Russians and Turks. They were better trained and better fed. Discipline was strong but fair, and morale was generally high.And critically, front-line units were rotated regularly, with well organised R&R behind the lines. Men who were lucky enough to avoid the worst battles generally enjoyed their war, compared to the poverty and drudgery they often faced in civilian life. The pace of technical and tactical innovation was breathtaking - compare the first stumbling steps at the Somme to the brilliant victory at Vimy Ridge, for example. Even on the Somme, tactics were adjusted by the second day of the battle. By 1918 infantry tactics were revolutionised, and the life expectancy of a German machine gunner during a British attack could be measured in minutes. There were airborne artillery spotters communicating with their batteries by radio. Battlefield medicine had developed beyond all measure. Improvements in communication greatly enhanced tactical coordination, while developments in reconnaissance and intelligence improved strategic planning. The picture projected by Oh What a Lovely War and Blackadder is grossly unfair. If you had to be involved in that ghastly affair, the British and Commonwealth army was the place you wanted to be.
":The picture projected by Oh What a Lovely War and Blackadder is grossly unfair. Intelligent rational and objective analysis of historical facts on the ground, seen through the prism of those who were there, has never been the strong suite of much of literature, arts and academia. They did the best they could with their knowledge and with the tools and weapons at their disposal. As the narrator points out, it would have been best to avoid going to war in the first place but by September 1914, that bird had flown. The Generals didn't start the war, they were just the poor buggers responsible for fighting it.
I kind of nearly disagree when you say brits were better equipped with better moral than the frenchs for example. We all have to remember that they were bearing most of the brunt of this conflict with all the nation ressources and men available. They were no expeditionary force but a full country's fielded soldiers fighting for their existance and future. To compare the brits and the frenchs at this stage is close to irrelevant with all due respect.
@@vermicelledecheval5219 Sorry, but this is nonsense. There were around 3 million British and Commonwealth troops on the Western Front by 1917 - this is considerably more than the French were fielding. Hardly an "expeditionary force". The French didn't rotate their front-line troops properly. Their officers didn't stay with their men in the line. Morale nearly collapsed, and there was a major mutiny that nearly lost the Allies the war. There was nothing remotely comparable on the British and Commonwealth side. Also, the disaster of the first day of the Somme was caused by the French command insisting that the British attack before their raw troops were trained and ready, to try and relive pressure on the defenders at Verdun. By any objective measure, the British and Commonwealth forces were better led than the French.
@@tullochgorum6323 3 millions brits against more than 8 millions frenchs : we are not exactly with the same commitment aren't we ? Beside this Philippe Petain (yes this man which would cooperate with Hitler later on) did made rotation at the battle of Verdun thus ensuring french victory into this iconic battle... For France at least.
@@vermicelledecheval5219 You are simply making stuff up. The French never had anything remotely approaching 8 million troops on the Western Front - it was closer to 2 million. Actual facts do matter, you know, if you want anyone to take you seriously: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_in_World_War_I#:~:text=By%201918%2C%20towards%20the%20end,to%201.5%20million%20in%201915.
Very interesting, thanks for taking the time to share. New subscriber 😃. Certa Cito - Cheers Sel
Brilliant stuff, thanks. Subscribed
I look at the Australian Army now from when I was in 30 years ago and the changes are huge in technology and kit. Always had respect for senior ranks simply because they got the job through their own worth and capabilities.
Thank you for an excellent explanation of the army ranks and especially the role and responsibilities of the officers and commanders. Too many people follow the Black Adder model of command and criticise the generals.
Thanks Jack, really glad you are enjoying our content. Next video coming soon!
You changed / broadened my perspective. Thank you
I thought I had watched all the interesting documentaries on the world wars until I found your channel... This is really excellent content. I have to say, I definitely appreciated this video providing a more fair perspective.
The donkeys were the politicians. Not the generals
That's a universal truth😊
Haig is not the bustard butcher popular myth likes to portray he generally did care about the men under his command even after the war Haigbhelped establish and fund alot veterans organisations.
Another reason for the chateaus being a perfect fit for the Generals was that this area had been a battleground for well, nigh on 2,000 years. They were literally power bases from antiquity!
What are you even talking about ? The chateaux were built a couple hundred years before for most of them. Fortresses from antiquity would have disappeared as they were exclusively earth motes
@@Hwje1111 you have no clue what you're talking about
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
Love this kind of video. Thank you
Great video. Have learned something from it. Thank-you for that. One thing springs to mind. Kitchener said at the start of the war that it would take at least 2 years to properly professionalis the army. Before it could go on the offensive and win.
A great many of Kitchener’s volunteer army died on the Somme without ever firing a shot ....
I could be wrong but I think the premise stems from the fact that there was a massive differential in technology used (ex. horses vs tanks, swords vs firearms). Surely that didn't last long but since the common soldier saw their leaders test everything under the sun including the kitchen sink that didn't inspire much trust, only terror.
Well thought out, thank you for this video. Hats off!
What people don't get these days, it's that trench warfare WAS the best way to fight war in 1914-1918. Their abillity to kill was simply far greater than their ability to defend. So they dug in to die less.
Yeah there was no other way. The new technologies meant much longer engagement ranges. It was the first time in history that a general could not get a view of his whole force in battle because the battlefield was so much bigger. To cap it all there were as yet no radios. So the only way a General could get any idea of what was going on was to find a central location and pray that the telephone lines weren't cut by shellfire. They usually were.
You need your general far enough away to be out of danger of death,or capture. Close enough so he can get messages and give some direction,if possible,and also easily found.
The three best generals of the First World War were in my opinion and in no particular order: John Monash (Australia) Arthur Currie (Canada) and Paul Vov Lettow-Vorbeck (Germany).
Awesome video. I would like to thank you kind sir for time spent making this video.
I love auto-generated subtitles. 3:20 "Each officer was allowed a personal servant or Batman to look after their needs."
Lol, not autogenerated - that was what they were called.
@@BattleGuideVT then I want to be a ww1 officer
Oh, this is so spot on and not for the narrow minded. Looking at both sides most always support thought and transparency TYVM.
I notice that none of the armchair critics and self-proclaimed experts on here, can come up with better alternatives using the knowledge, resources and technology available at the time. Recognising a tragedy is easy. Knowing how to prevent it, is hard… Throughout history, breaking a prepared enemy defensive line has always been a hard, bloody business. Whether it was a shield wall, a castle battlement or a defended river crossing, the attacker always took most of the casualties before the breakthrough. It was only after a successful breakthrough that greater casualties could be inflicted on the defenders. (This dynamic is playing out in Ukraine as I type this. ) The armchair-generals don’t understand that any competent military officer EXPECTS this. Calling off an attack as soon as casualties start to mount means never winning. Interestingly, the Anglo-French losses in the Somme equated to 25% of their strength. The German losses (including prisoners) were 44% of their strength. Only a disproportionate advantage in technology, resources or advanced tactics can this be mitigated, and no-one had that advantage in 1915/16
Agreed. You only have to look at the difficulty Ukraine is currently facing against entrenched Russian positions to see the advantages of prepared defenses.
I could have easily done better by simply not murdering my own men.
@@mazurbul Go look up the definition of “murder” and get back to us when you understand what you are talking about.
"It was murder, as we could see the shells bursting from where we were and they were tearing holes into the ranks of the German infantry" -Private Hope, then aged 25@@peterwebb8732
Very informative! Thanks!
great video, well constructed and informative
All wars have distinct phases; Mobilisation, where formations are formed equipped then transported to commit to battle. Engagement where combat commences and fighting either defensively or attack. Attrition where both sides probe and resist each other wearing the other down at the same time increasing ones own strength. This phase will always be expensive in lives and treasure. This will always take time especially where both sides are relatively similar in technology, available weaponry and soldiers, as the case WW1 and today in Ukraine. Where this phase can be short is where there is an overwhelming technological advantage like the first and second Gulf wars.
Well said.
Wow... I can't believe it, but I actually agree. What an amazing perspective I never really knew or had much of an idea of, I'm ashamed to say. Bravo my friend. Well done!
Well presented, informative and fascinating. Thank you.
Very true. I have had a privilege to meet my great grandfather, who had been a private in the Russian Imperial Cavalry i WWI (he was an ethnic Mongolian, so a good rider). We talked for a while about the war, and he never complained about his commanding officers.
Overall, this was a splendid documentary that explained the roles of each rank in the British Army of WWI quite well and in great detail. Personally, it filled in the gap for what the duties of majors were within a battalion, and the job of each type of general, questions I had pondered over before seeing this. It's also a valuable video in explaining just why generals often and should have been put at less risk, yet mentioning how many British generals did in fact become casualties during WWI. It also explained quite well how the generals reacted to change and improved tactics over the course of the war. Modern sentiment regarding WWI is quite judgemental and often ill-informed, with a heavy dose of self-righteousness thrown in for good measure - usually by armchair generals. I am curious though - why were the ranks of colonel and colour sergeant left out. I would have liked to know how they fitted into the command structure. Also, I may be wrong about this as I'm a Naval person and not Army, but I thought Company and Regimental Sergeant Majors were appointments rather than ranks? Weren't the top two NCO ranks Warrant Officer II and WO I? I had a great uncle who was captured by the Germans in WWI, but he managed to escape captivity with another squaddie, steal a boat in France and make his way back to England. I wish I knew all the details! By the way, I was pleased to see General Arthur Currie included in the images of this documentary - the Canadians were an important part of the Armies of the Entente.
I think the biggest thing people today (well, from the mid-20th century on) have trouble understanding is the completely horrible communication situation the generals had to deal with in relation to the scales and speed of the battles. Never before had battles been conducted on such scales with such diversity of technology and evolution of tactics. To be so removed (by necessity) from the actual battle and yet still having to plan and execute with communications often being spotty at best, combined with the rigid structure of the Army itself (sergeants and lieutenants were not allowed to simply make their own plans and execute them with small-unit tactics like later wars), it's no wonder so many lives were lost. To lay all the blame on the generals I think is rather unfair. As far as I'm aware, you're correct in that CSM and RSM are specific billets (positions), not ranks. The two ranks are indeed Warrant Officers. As for colour sergeants, I'm not sure they had a significant role in WW1, at least not in direct combat. I believe they were typically used for staff duties and put in charge of administrative units (like cooks, supply, pay, etc.). The equivalent rank today is actually called a Staff Sergeant. Colonels were also used almost exclusively for staff appointments and were not in direct command of combat units. LtCol was the highest rank typically found on the front line. Once promoted to Col, you were usually then assigned a position on a general's staff.
British Infantry companies still have Colour Sergeants, most other non-infantry units have Staff Sergeants except the Household Cavalry whose equivalent is a Staff Corporal. The role exists to deliver logistics to a ‘sub unit’ formation, but its delivered by an integral senior NCO rather an attached logistician. This post used to be known as Pay Sergeant in past times so the makers wrapped it into the Sergeant’s description of welfare and discipline. Great content describing the scale of an Army we have not required, thankfully for nearly 80 years. Today’s soldiers remain in awe of their contribution and sacrifice. I am grateful to them.
Well done sir very informative
Fascinating video about the men who led and formulated the battles in which so many died. Apart from the fighting men who went over the top knowingly to their deaths, a thank less task of the higher ranks to fight against well entrenched enemy . There is always two sides any every story and I thank god I never had to fight in such a barbaric war, and even more grateful to the men who did and died unfulfilled lives. God bless you all and may you rest in peace. Thank you for a great video.
As a First War Living Historian this is an interesting and indeed thought provoking film. I also now know where Major General comes from. I accept that most of the top brass got there on merit, and some were far better (usually Infantry Officers) than others.(Cavalry Officers) However their combat experience was so far removed from the Western Front as to be all but useless. Someone telling you how bad it is and how many men you have lost isnt quite the same as having experienced it, rather like someone explaining the cost of living crisis to Richi Sunack.. I have read enough books to know that individuals in charge were put out when progress wasnt made, were angry when events didnt match their timetable and were constantly trying to use inappropriate troops on unsuitable terrain. The Germans had a much more `self analytic` approach, to combat and allowed for much more improvisation, they adapted better and quicker. Having served in the British Army I am well aware you get good and bad Officers, and yes we complained about the higher ups too, but some of the Great War Generals were guilty of, at the very least, gross incompitance Both my Great grandfathers served in the Great War, and came home. Sadly I never met either. I am a Living Historian in their memory and to perpetuate and honour the memory of the fighting Tommy, the man who paid the price.
"...explaining the cost of living crisis to Richi Sunack.." Good one! Having served in the American Army, I can tell you how officers gain rank there. People never seem to notice that the military is first a bureaucracy and second a fighting force - probably third since procurement seems to be second these days. There's a checklist with your name on it. When you get enough boxes checked, you get promoted. Some of those necessary boxes can only be checked during a war so it's necessary to have wars to get promoted. You don't have to be good at what you're doing, you have to be present: The military has been using the idea of participation trophies forever. You can get as many people killed as possible and still get a box checked and be promoted. Eventually, you get so much rank that you're absolutely incompetent at doing a job that would make God wonder if omnipotence and omniscience was a good enough qualification. If you're extremely bad but good at playing the political game, you become a Presidential advisor. If you're good, they try to force you out - good officers rock the boat. The problem with all this being that the best troops with the best weapons and the best training in the world will lose and die when led by incompetent general officers. I'm afraid that's headed to a theater of war near you.
@@neilreynolds3858 Aaahh yes, Box Ticking Exercise. We have something over here called `The old boys network` People will advance on the grounds of what school/university they attended or who their father is....just look at Boris Johnson. Certain regiments have a high amount of officers who are titled Lt The Honourable , meaning daddy is a Lord, advancement assured Its now so ingrained into society as a whole you can do nothing about it
Some fair points. Let me make a point to you however, one for you to think on. Were you aware that 78 British and Commonwealth General Officer were killed in action during WWI? Not died of all causes, but specifically KIA. This of course does not include those who died as a result of illness or accidents (which were common). Neither does it include the Generals wounded in action, or who lived through accidents or illness. Its simply those KIA. Do you know what that means? It actually means the average British General had a higher Fatality rate during WWI than the British Tommy. Did you know that? Obviously fewer Generals over all died, but as a percentage, general officers had a higher fatality rate than Infantry privates, though not as high as Field grade officers or NCO's (who very much got the short stick). Most of those Generals killed in action were killed on or near the Front line, usually visiting troops or units under their command. I think you will find that many of these men actually had a far better understanding of the conditions than you assume. Now this so called difference between British Infantry and Cavalry officers. You see i happen to own copies of both the Infantry and Cavalry Training manuals of 1908, you know the interesting thing about them? The Cavalry manual was basically the Infantry manual with extra sections added detailing cavalry specific tasks and duties. From 1908 the British Cavalry were trained as MOUNTED INFANTRY. Something that most of those Cavalry officers were well aware of. The other fact is that it does not matter what branch a general has come from. Kesselring, probably one of the finest defensive commanders of WWII was Luftwaffe, not Army. There were fine generals who came from the Artillery. People forget the crucial role the Generals Staffs play, a good general picks a staff that play to his strengths but also limit his weaknesses, and a good general LISTENS to his staff officers. Its part of what makes them good generals......
@@alganhar1 Great points made and I accept them all. I knew a sizable number of Staff officer/Generals were killed, but not the exact figure. or percentage Now I confess not to being as well read as I would like, but from my readings I do struggle to find evidence of a General knowing the field conditions making reasonable consideration for this, though given some of the conditions encountered this was nigh impossible I grant you. Absolutely WW1 Cavalry were, and operated as Mounted Infantry and very well too My point re Cavalry/Infantry Generals was more to do with their mindset. They would have been trained in Victorian battles 30 yrs prior with sweeping charges and I think were hoping for the same. Maybe some were more die hard in pursuing this than others, maybe the stats flatter the Infantry Generals. I totally agree a good General can come from any Arm, as indeed can any Officer in my own experience, and a good leader of any level listens. Picking Staff to your strengths can be a double edged sword if your strengths dont work/suit the conditions or in listening you hear what you want to. I agree with the point in the video of ` when it went wrong it went horribly wrong`, so much learning to be done in 4 years, but when it went well it was very successful.
That is the western front. On the eastern front, it was arguable much, much worse, with incredible incompetence leading to losses of millions of lives not just during the war, but in subsequent conflicts, primarily the Russian civil war. And the people at the time shared the sentiment, they truly saw the war as absolute lunatics, mentally ill and absurdly cruel monsters sending crowds after crowds of conscripts into a meat grinder for no reason at all. As evidenced for example by the popularity of "The good Soldier Svejk" in the 1920s. It was read by people who served in the war, written by a man who served in the war and even though it is a satire (later it inspired Heller to write Catch 22), it is based on real people, real events and real way of leadership in the war. The absolute incompetence of armies on the easter front lead to rebellion in Russia, the civil war and how useless were the military commanders can be evidenced by The Czechoslovak legions - volunteers who formed their own fighting group, they based command structure on meritocracy (the Legions commander and later Czechoslovak Army General Jan Syrovy started as a common soldier, a volunteer) and even though they were only 40 000 strong by the end of WWI, they effectively conquered Siberia all the way to the Pacific coast, captured the Russian Imperial treasury, almost saved the Tzar and his family and were effectively holding ground against the bolshevik revolution. In a rare instance lions got rid of the donkeys in charge, they became pretty much unstoppable.
From what I remember almost half of the WW1 generals were killed by bullet, which means that they died near the front lines and 67 generals died.
Depending on sources. According to historian Frank Davies' book "Blooy Red Tabs", there were 78 British generals killed, 40% by artillery fire, ie shrapnel, while 28% by small arms fire, mainly snipers. Total casualties mounted to 232, both KIA and WIA. So yes, many died near the front.... Which remind me of the old joke: British General: The war is over! Australian digger: We know. There's a General Officer at the front....
Do not make jokes about the generals that died in WW1. Ten of the number you mention were holders of the Victoria Cross.
My point in not a joke. My point is that the number of generals died on the front lines with the rest of the men.
78 generals killed is a high number.
About one in six generals became a casualty. Much higher than the myths portray.
Excellent and very informative.
Excellent video with lovely presentation. Thank you.
Only just came across this video - you do a good job of summarising the conceptual problem of what generals do and how the different ranks fit in. Clark isn't the only author to have created a cultural reference point that has changed history to sell books, while assuming the moral high ground. Lions led by donkeys was taught in school and actually part of O level exams. I seriously doubt that there is any more nuance to modern teaching - catch phrases take years to disprove
Many thanks for your balanced and informative video. I like to hear that by 1918 at least, the army had moved closer to meritocracy. I remain unconvinced that UK's social structure so heavily influenced by class over many centuries has served us well from 20th century onwards.
Spot on.
Thanks for this. Really well told and clearly explained. Exemplary history documentary film making. Bravo.
That was a really excellent, well informed, summary - and long overdue in popular culture
Have done a battlefield tour in Northern France ,to see and experience what these brave men on went through it certainly makes you come away with total respect for what they went through.The human slaughter on both sides is just inconceivable.Walking amongst rows and rows of crosses reveals the true horror of war .🇦🇺
Yes, im a battlefeld guide and writing thisbfrom Northern France :)
At the battle of Loos, the slaughter of the British troops going over the top,many of them being killed almost as soon as they'd left the trenches, that the Germans actually stopped.firing when it became too sickmaking. But the corollary to that is that the casualties were horrendous on both sides. Both sides were using tactics that had been rendered obsolete by the machine gun and aerial reconnaisance
@@johnoneill732 My great-uncle was one of them (British casualties) - along with nearly half his battalion (and they were by no means the worst hit). Loos was the first time the British used gas during an attack and it wasn't very successful in many areas of the battlefield. Haig also didn't want to attack there, due to the terrain, but as the British were the junior partners in the Western Allies (something not considered in the video) he and (Sir John) French had to do what the French wanted.
You might have seen where they fought but you didn't experience it.
@@johnoneill732 I don't think Loos was as simple as you make out.
An interesting context that I had not before realised… The Somme battle was relatively early in the War. The Spring 1918 Offensive by the German Army had had to learn, longer to prepare and more experienced troops. It also failed, and cost the Germans many more casualties that the Somme cost the British and French. What is more, it left Germany seriously weakened while the Allies were strong enough to undertake the Autumn 1918 “100 Days” Offensive which broke the major German defensive lines. So if Haig and Foche - the British and French Commanders - were “donkeys”,what does that make the German High Command, particularly Erich Ludendorf? My impression is that the criticism tends to be focused on the British to a disproportionate degree, and it smells more of bigotry than critical thinking.
They were different battles TBF. The Somme was about the 'new' British Army trying to relieve the French forces at Verdun & exploit any success (but attacking before they were ready), whilst the German Spring 1918 Offensive was the German Empires last gasp, planned for months offensive to make strategic territorial gains to try & defeat the British Army & force the French to negotiate a peace before US reinforcements arrived. The attacks against the British (& Allies) sector was a lot larger than the Somme. Strategically, both were Allied victories (although tactical Allied defeats). The German Empire HAD to attack in 1918 before the US forces arrived, the Allied blockade made the home & military fronts collapse, & before Germany's allies also collapsed. The advantage lay with the defence, BUT - British Empire High Command bungling helped the Germans get a lot of the success it did (i.e Army commanders not coordinating defence policies, not fortifying properly large areas & Lloyd George withholding British Troops back from Haig). The German Army in 1918 was nowhere near as good as it had been up until 1916, when Verdun & Somme stripped out so much of the junior officers, ncos, & morale. Territorially, the Germans in 1918 did far better than the Allies at the Somme, & in the first offensive, even managed to inflict more casualties on the British & allies (due to reasons above). The Germans developed the Stormtrooper tactics, but didn't have a Plan B when these elite troops were depleted. The German High Command then resorted to human wave attacks, against better equipped Allied troops, with predictably very costly failures. So, you have failures of both High Commands, at different times, with errors of judgement & tactics costing thousands of lives. The Germans got side tracked when advancing, & the British committed huge blunders in 1918 that would be unthinkable in other armies. Both learned new lessons during the war, but not always the correct ones. The German High Command was probably better up until around 1916 as they had experience of massive armies, but the British (& Allied) High Command overtook it from then onwards, being more flexible (& using mass industrialisation better).
@@eze8970 It’s not reasonable to cite the pressures on the German High Command to conduct an offensive in Spring 1918, without accepting that the British had equal pressures in the period leading up to the Somme - that the French would collapse if the Germans were not forced to respond to a British offensive. While both sides made errors, the point remains that when comparing the Somme with Spring 1918, the German troops were more experienced and the German commanders had had longer to learn the lessons of that kind of warfare. Ergo, if the Allied Commanders were “donkeys”, then Ludendorf deserves even more trenchant criticism. Taking ground is only of value if you can hold it.
@@peterwebb8732 Thank you for your reply. The British did have issues, but they were largely self made, due to Lloyd George's policy of holding troops back, & British Generals not co-ordinating their defence. The French had stabilised by early 1918 (but were willing to defend before that), so they weren't an issue. In 1918, the German troops weren't more experienced or effective due to high NCO & Officer losses. The German Field army started getting worse overall after 1916 (due to Verdun & the Somme). All sides (except the USA) were struggling for manpower. The German troops coming from the Eastern Front didn't know about Western Front conditions either. High Commands on both sides made mistakes, & didn't always learn lessons properly, i.e the Germans always counter attacking, & the British in 1918 going away from tanks in favour of more artillery. The German High Command did have a reasonable plan in 1918 to combine artillery & stormtroops. As the Allies hadn't fortified their lines anywhere near the Germans had in 1916, even lighter German calibres would work. It was made especially effective in one British sector as the Commander here decided idiotically to keep more troops in the front line who got annihilated. The German 1918 plan was a better one than the British 1916 plan. In ground gained compared to other offensives (post 1914), it was a success, although it failed overall. The Germans did the best they could with what they had in 1918, the British didn't in 1916 as they were still learning & had less resources & technology. However, despite being a better plan, the Germans couldn't overcome their weaknesses of;- a) 1918 warfare still favoured the defence, & could trade territory for time. The German army wasn't mechanised enough/at all, to cover the distances it needed to. b) Lack of strategic direction of the plan. c) German soldiers morale after finding out they'd been lied to about Allied food & other supplies, together with not actually breaking through properly. German soldiers saw daily since 1917 they were losing the industrialisation war. d) Allies had more resources & were better trained & equipped in 1918. e) Lack of trained troops once the Elite stormtroopers had been reduced by losses. They resorted to mass wave attacks. f) Lack of logistics to keep advancing troops supplied. g) Deteriorating domestic industry production.
IIRC that's not completely true, the French and British suffered together more casualties than the Germans during the Spring Offensive, and the gains the Germans made were absolutely unheard of, being the largest gains since start of trench warfare. The position of the Germans was untenable because of their many salients created, bad supply condition and the growing strenght of the allies due to the influx of Americans. The allies could replace their losses, the Germans not.
@@eze8970 I can grant you a lot of your points, and still respond that most of the excuses that you make for the German equally applied to the British in 1918, yet the British (and Dominions, but I take that as read) were able to break through repeatedly. Both sides had losses, but training and the deployment of troops according to their capability *are* the responsibility of the Commander. I’m not arguing that Ludendorf was incompetent, only that Haig et al had greater handicaps in 1916 and get -by comparison - unfairly castigated.
Great info video. Thanks for the upload. My dad was a major in WWII. I still have his citation proudly on the wall.
Truly excellent video. Well explained. Thank you.
Great short video but I disagree that generals always cared for their men: compare Herbert Plumer, General commanding 2nd Army, with Hubert Gough, General commanding 5th Army. Plumer was highly regarded by his men, who knew he would do his meticulous best to keep casualties to a minimum, whereas Gough was notorious by being slapdash and careless with men's lives, often blaming his subordinates for his slipshod planning and the enlisted man for lacking in courage. Though it is generally true that other general officers commanding where well regarded by Junior ranks by the war's end.
Yes, a number of Generals were pieces of shit - like General Réveilhac who ordered the artillery to shell his own men, or General Townshend who got himself surrounded by the Turks at Kut and surrendered, deserting his 13,000 soldiers to their death as POW to go live in luxurious custody. However, most Generals were not total sociopaths in love with the idea of losing repeatedly with 30%+ casualties, so they tried and adapted every tactic and new technology available to decrease these casualties until they found some that worked.
A great review of what all of the ranks were and what the various command structures encompassed. I was a full Lieutenant in the South African army but did not see active service. I was a Military Law adviser during the war in South West Africa/Namibia. I have never known what a brigade, a division and an army comprised as this was not necessary for my job. Thanks for the explanation.
Thank you for another informative video. I had an uncle killed in Ww1. He was in the 4th company of the New Zealand machine gunners. All the best from Sydney Australia 🇦🇺
Nicely made and thoughtful.
Another excellent and well researched video. At 8.45, Inky Bill's grave. General Rawlinson (commander on July 1st on the Somme), didn't want to tell Haig that the German wire hadn't been cut. Lots of men died because of that. My grandfather was a Lewis Gunner on the Western front, won an MM aged 19 near Ypres, wounded twice. Seriously wounded on the Somme, went home, never returned to France.
Thats just untrue and typical of what this video is about. If you start deciding certain units cant go into an pre conceived attack of that type you leave the flanks of other units exposed, leave whole sections of enemy trenches uncleared and possible backups and supply units sat back doing nothing. Secondly, that wouldnt have been anything to do with Haig, he just set the parameters and Rawlinson actually ran the whole thing.
This was truly excellent.
Interesting fresh perspective on these issues. Thank you.
I still refuse to let them off of the Hook so easily ! Would the same view apply to the French and the Germans?
Hi Ron, yes the same can apply for all major nations. That's interesting - is there a particular point in here that you think doesn't stand up? Thanks, DH
It’s amazing how many people who stood to lose everything they valued - wealth, land, position and kin - promoted leaders without regard to whether they would win or lose the war.
100%
@@peterwebb8732Okay you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Maybe it was different in the British army, but after reading Poilu by Louis Barthas, I get the feeling that most (French) soldiers definitely believed in the whole "lions led by donkeys" phrase.
i think that most of what is said here is ok just for maybe english or german army, i would say that french, italians and russians might have some word to say about that...
The British rotated soldiers out of the front quite frequently. There would be months where they weren't at the front at all. This meant that although rested they lost any local knowledge of their front. The French kept troops in the trenches far longer. So they had local knowledge of terrain etc,better on the attack as less likely to get lost,etc. But meant it was far more mentally sapping.
Thank you sir, your narrative is a tour de force.
What an excellent explanation, I myself am an Australian veteran so we have the same rank structure, I'm an ex Sergeant and your description of the ranks is spot on. I had an uncle in the 10th AIF (Aussie Bn) and he would've been in that "2nd highest population in Brittain" and this stat really put things into perspective. Well done sir.
man tbh i really thought alot of ww1 generals were just incompetent but with what you have shared here, i now know that im using pure hindsight to justify my opinion. These guys all did their best and fought hard whether behind a desk or a trench i now have respect all up and down the ranks! thanks Battle Guide keep them coming!!
Thabks Apache, glad you enjoyed it!
I try to think of this as a vet, being stuck in the trenches, how do u break out. Maybe smaller unit tactics? Only cuz it wasn’t done. Other than a grand attack they didn’t know how else to fight a war
Fighting a flankless war against a dug in enemy with no mechanisation really limits options
@@BattleGuideVTand the next big war was all about that... Crazy how the military works,always evolving. Now with all the atmgs and the at artillery pieces that cause havoc on tanks/ifv we see another trench warfare in ukraine,are we going back to trench doctrine?
An interesting comment in the memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery (himself a junior officer on the Western Front) was that the issue was partly down to communication. Haig was not a good or comfortable public speaker, nor was there a tradition at the time of senior officers taking the men into his confidence. Thus a gulf sprang up, in which the ordinary soldiers, in amongst the mud and blood, felt the senior officers didn't care. That was why Monty spent so much time and effort on maintaining the connection between himself and those serving under him when he became a general in WWII. In reality, Haig spent a lot of time arguing against launching attacks he felt were in the wrong place, for which they were not prepared and which would have been a waste of lives.
An intersting analysis. Yes history is often far too much oversimplified. Often the real situations were much more complex than the gerenal public today has at all a clue to understand.
I'm reading a book about British cavalry on the Western Front and it's caused me to reevaluate some of my notions about the British generals, Sir Douglas Haig in particular.
...and so?
@@anthonyeaton5153 Basically Haig gets blamed for not being able to predict armored warfare tactics of the mid to late 20th century. Tanks and fighting vehicles were very recent inventions and kind of sucked. Haig did the best with what he had. Haig's biggest issue may have been ineffective organization of cavalry above the brigade level since, ironically, the cavalry was actually the most advanced arm of the British Army and had the most firepower with more machine guns per regiment than the infantry, dedicated artillery batteries, and armored cars
@@hemmingwayfanreally was he doing that best he had when he said didn’t understand the value of machine guns sending his men to charge into lines he knew had them? Idk about all haig at the start was worthless by but the end after he helped kill so many men he got a lot better
@@criscabrera9098The BEF lost over 300,000 men in the last 100 days. So even when victorious they lost almost as many men as at 3rd Ypres. Defeating the German army was never going to come cheap.