Best Generals of WW1

[CSSS]

Dont buy too easliy into the static war myth of WWI . First it was NEVER static on the eastern front. The Germans only attacked on the western front twice before the 1918 offensives.Once very fluid, and at Verdun the intentionally fought attrition when they could have had a break through. IN 1918 they again went on the offensive and dispelled the static front by making HUGE adavances in thier five big pushes. If the americans had not been there from at least a morale boosting point , despite minimal psyhical involvement at the time of these offensive, they allies would have probably succumbed. But knowing Two million allies, well fed , well supplied, (mostly) were there training behind the front and on the way, the allies morale resolve held and the germans exhausted them selves.Kevin ugly you DO know how to get some good dbate going.!!!

[Kevinugly]

Thank you CSS, I do my best[;)]. Western Front and Eastern Front were very different, quality of troops was much more variable in the East, neither side really settled into a defensive mindset in the way that the Germans did in the West.

1918. You raise some interesting points, I would agree on the morale boosting presence (an ever growing one too) of the American troops, I think the French and the British both saw victory as being within their grasp, although they saw 1919 or 1920 as being the likely year. Whether the Entente would have succumbed is debatable, in my opinion a peace settlement of some kind would have been drawn up to stave off growing unrest in the civilian populations of the combatant nations. But thats pure speculation[:)]

The German offensives of 1918 did achieve fleeting success but they were never able to sustain the momentum in any of them. Additionally, like many other battles in that war, as the attackers they sustained very high casualties. Innovative battle tactics and surprise meant they could achieve localised successes but in the end they weren't able to achieve the necessary combination of arms to secure the strategic success they desperately needed. Imho the German offensives of 1918 were not that different from any other offensive that tried to break the stalemate - trenches, barbed wire, machine-guns and artillery were too strong to be overcome by flesh and blood alone. What was decisive in the end was combining tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry in as perfect a union that then technology allowed. This was achieved by the British under Haig. Was he solely responsible? Of course not. Does he deserve credit? I believe he does. Could it have been done before 1918? I have to say no because it required tanks, guns, munitions and aircraft in both quantity and quality and they simply were not available before that time.

Okay, I've stuck my head over the parapet far enough and for long enough ........ do I hear ...... INCOMING [:D][8D]

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

...to believe that massed assaults would win the day.

Hi!

What did win the day?

Ray (alias Lava)

Good question! I would ask those who have derided Haig in the above posts what alternatives were available?

1/Good tactics and use of the weapons available at the time.

2/Combind tactics with Tanks supporting Infantry/Infantry supporting tanks.

3/Good briefing of ALL the troops from the Pvt up on the objectives of the attack and what role he is to play. This includes making a huge mud map of the terrain over which the offensive is to be conducted and showing the objectives and enemy troops postions. Walking all the troops through the plan and getting them to commit to memory where and what their objectives are.

4/ Improving communications.

5/ Allowing officers below flag rank (and NCOs) to make on the spot decisions to to over come unforseen events.

6/ Reserve troops to follow up and exploit the break throughs.

All of the above and more was achieved by the greatest General that came out of WW1. Sir John Monash and in 1918 he put the runs of the board to prove it.

[Kevinugly]

And all applied under Haig in 1918 as I have already shown. But the criticisms of Haig deal largely in the period before 1918, care to justify them further?

[DoomedMantis]

Did Haig come up with the ideas?

Did not Haig resist them until Monash did them anyway and proved he was right?

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Did Haig come up with the ideas?

Did not Haig resist them until Monash did them anyway and proved he was right?

Hi!

And.. when where tanks used in large numbers?

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)

[Telsor1]

[what won the day...]

1/Good tactics and use of the weapons available at the time.

Good tactics...In 1916, massed artillery and infantry assualts were good tactics...pretty much everyone thought so.

2/Combind tactics with Tanks supporting Infantry/Infantry supporting tanks.

Tanks? The first tanks were used September 1916..and they didn't impress. are you suggesting that all the previous attacks should have been postponed waiting for a weapon that was pure speculation? sounds like hitler with his 'wonder weapons' in late ww2.

As for combined tactics..how were they meant to come up with these...it was a *totally* new paradigm in warfare..I think it only fair that a few false starts were made in tactics.

That said, tanks of 1918, while useful were hardly the revolutionary, battlefield dominating machines of WW2.

3/Good briefing of ALL the troops from the Pvt up on the objectives of the attack and what role he is to play. This includes making a huge mud map of the terrain over which the offensive is to be conducted and showing the objectives and enemy troops postions. Walking all the troops through the plan and getting them to commit to memory where and what their objectives are.

It really would need to be a huge mud map in order to have several hundred thousand troops look at it long enough to commit the entire plan to memory.

Troops were told some things...head to that hill. expect fire from the right...there will be artillery barrage 50 yards in front of you.

4/ Improving communications.

*HOW?*

They tried...( it was a major focus )

They buried phone lines 6 feet down..they broke. ( even with several backups ).
Radios just weren't common/reliable/sturdy enough to be near the front at a tactical level.
Runners...apart from the suffering high casualties and therefore being unreliable, they weren't exactly fast when you remember the mud/rough ground, zigzag of trenches, etc etc etc.
Pidgeons...died of shock from the noise.

Simply put, once the offensive started, the front might as well have been another planet. It took *hours* for word to get back.

Indeed, Colonel von Lossberg, Germany's defensive 'expert' found that at the Somme it took 8-10 hours for a message to get from the front to divisional headquarters and vice versa. ( source "The first world war" by John Keegan )

A battalion report from the 11th East Lancs on the first day at the Somme.
7:20am, troops entered no mans land
7:42am, reported by runner [NB not telephone] intense first of all descriptions
7:50am, sent Lt Macalpine to establish telephone communications...he returned to tell em all communication was cut..it was not restored all day.
8.22am no communication from my waves
9am "saw no sign of 3rd or 4th waves
10.01am no report from my waves
11.25am, no information from my waves
11.50am, no reports from my waves except reports from wounded men.
3.10pm [neighboring unit] not in touch with their waves
3.50pm urgently require more men

In other words, at BATTALION level, they had no idea what was happening, in spite of best efforts!

( addendum: At 8am the following morning, 11th east lancs battalion had 30 men of all ranks fit for action..the battalion commander was not one of them..he was killed while trying to find out what was happening to his men ).

5/ Allowing officers below flag rank (and NCOs) to make on the spot decisions to to over come unforseen events.

The reason that wasn't allowed was due to the lack of communications...the *only* way to co-ordinate units, and especially artillery were to pre-plan it. Without that co-ordination, it would have all been a worse debacle than it was.

6/ Reserve troops to follow up and exploit the break throughs.

There were plenty of reserves prepared for this at the start of every attack...who do you think went on on day 2, 3, 4 etc etc.

All of the above and more was achieved by the greatest General that came out of WW1. Sir John Monash and in 1918 he put the runs of the board to prove it.

No, he really didn't. he was a very good commander ( for the time), but no, he didn't. In most cases, he couldn't have. Even when he did, it was so late in the war that everyone else was doing it too.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Did Haig come up with the ideas?

Did not Haig resist them until Monash did them anyway and proved he was right?

Your first point I dealt with earlier[:)]

Regarding the second, that all depends on who you read[8D]

I've just started reading 'Haig's Command: A Reassessment' by Denis Winter which is very scathing about Haig (if the cover 'blurb' and the opening chapter are anything to go by) and which should be interesting. I find the whole historiography of Haig quite fascinating.

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: Telsor1




No, he really didn't. he was a very good commander ( for the time), but no, he didn't. In most cases, he couldn't have. Even when he did, it was so late in the war that everyone else was doing it too.

Er....but he DID and no one esle was doing it with the same success that he (Monash) was getting. Have a read up on the Battle of Hamel 4th of July 1918.

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: Lava



Hi!

And.. when where tanks used in large numbers?

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)

During the Battle of Hamel 4th of July 1918.

[Kevinugly]

I normally rely on Martin Gilbert's 'The First World War' as a good general source on the war and he doesn't mention Monash at all. Not aiming to prove or deny anything by saying this, I just find it odd, especially as the book was published in 1994[&:]

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

ORIGINAL: Lava



Hi!

And.. when where tanks used in large numbers?

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)

During the Battle of Hamel 4th of July 1918.

Depends what you mean by 'large' but the first use of tanks in a mass assault was at Cambrai on November 20th 1917 when 324 took part on the first day.

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Did Haig come up with the ideas?

No.............the guy never had an original thought.

Did not Haig resist them until Monash did them anyway and proved he was right?

Correct..........and Haig rode the the success of Monash's victories.

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I normally rely on Martin Gilbert's 'The First World War' as a good general source on the war and he doesn't mention Monash at all. Not aiming to prove or deny anything by saying this, I just find it odd, especially as the book was published in 1994[&:]

Ah yes Mr Martin Gilbert.........and is he not Britsh?????? Monash was somewhat of an embarrassment....he was Australian, he was Jewish, and he was sucessful where others were not. Hence Britsh writers ( and even some well known aussie writers such as Bean) have tended to ignore him.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I normally rely on Martin Gilbert's 'The First World War' as a good general source on the war and he doesn't mention Monash at all. Not aiming to prove or deny anything by saying this, I just find it odd, especially as the book was published in 1994[&:]

Ah yes Mr Martin Gilbert.........and is he not Britsh?????? Monash was somewhat of an embarrassment....he was Australian, he was Jewish, and he was sucessful where others were not. Hence Britsh writers ( and even some well known aussie writers such as Bean) have tended to ignore him.

I think Gilbert's of Jewish extraction (but don't quote me on that[:)]). My old history professor recommended the book as a good overall narrative of the war but with reservations as to it's analytical rigour. But I also notice that Haigs most vehement critics are Antipodean[:D] (please don't take that as anything else but a gently humourous aside)

[Raverdave]

Yes Gilbert is Jewish........so I am somewhat surprised that Gilbert fails to mention him even in passing............as to Haigs "most vehement critics are Antipodean", I must also say that considering that t Haig "lost" 20,000 troops killed and 60,000 wounded on a single day of the Somme offensive not only would Antipodeans be somewhat miffed but also the rest of the Empire. Maybe we are just more vocal than others[;)]

[CSSS]

More about Monash Not only was he Austrailian, jewish, he also was of German ,prussian descent..LOL He first began in the Gallipoli campaign,then was sent to France for the British he was a highly indepandant thinker.Eventually he was given commans of combined arms which he used to very good measure.

[Telsor1]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

ORIGINAL: Telsor1




No, he really didn't. he was a very good commander ( for the time), but no, he didn't. In most cases, he couldn't have. Even when he did, it was so late in the war that everyone else was doing it too.

Er....but he DID and no one esle was doing it with the same success that he (Monash) was getting. Have a read up on the Battle of Hamel 4th of July 1918.

I'm not going to get into a "Yes he did, no he didn't argument with you", but I will point out that you are critising Haig because he didn't used tactics that were new (revolutionary?) in mid 1918. In other words, he was wrong because he wasn't 3-4 years ahead of his time.

As I commented before in regard to tanks..Was be meant to stop the war and wait for the equipment/doctrines to get 'right'? As a radical idea, what about suggesting that those tactoics were developed from observation and learning from the mistakes of the past. ( like a good General should ). I would also observe that Haig was still in command in 1918..so if you critise him for the actions of subunits under his overall command at the Somme ( etc ), he should be allowed some credit for the successes of units under his command.

[Telsor1]

OK, I read up on the battle of le Hamel.

It was a small action..A quick attack, with limited preperation and limited objectives.

The French had been doing this for a year before Monash 'invented' it. After the 'mutiny', they refused to launch massed attacked, and their command compensated by reverting to small actions.

Certainly he massaged it, and probably improved upon it, but it wasn't new.

[Raverdave]

Well if the French had been doing it for so long how come they had nothing to show for it? I would also suggest that you have a look at the battle for Hargicourt September 1918, as another example of Monash's abilities along with Monash's leadership of the 3rd Div AIF in March, April, May & June. Inaddition the battle of Amiens, the battle of Chuignes and Bray and the battles for Peronne and Mont St Quetin.

As for Haig, I would submit that in Monash he saw a leader to whom he could "use" to bolster his flagging reputation. I know that may sound like a big call, but in Monash he found a general who knew how to win.
If Monash was any less a general that those around him than how do you account for such a extraordinary rise from Divison commander to Corps commander, even Knighted in the field by King George V.