WWI from German spring 1918 offensive to the Armistice [Archive]

View Full Version : WWI from German spring 1918 offensive to the Armistice

roland

03-16-2005, 02:53 PM

Conduct of operation may 1918 - Armistice

The 14 may 1918 Foch take the command of all the allied armies. Since April 170 000 Americans each month arrive in France. The Schneider Tank is operational since the 16 avril 1917 on the Berry-au-Bac front. The new light tank Renault in on the front since the 30 march 1918 and starts its first fight on the Villers-Cotterêts forest. A lot of observation and combat planes are sent on line. At least 270 tanks and 1.000 planes are ready end may. The German offensive is largelly blocked by Mangin counter attacks with tanks on the Matz and south west Soissons.
The 15 july Ludendorff launch a new attack on the Marne. The Germans engaged 57 divisions in this ultimate action. The French and the Americans are surprised but had prepared 50 divisions to ripost. At the East of Reims, the Germans occupy the first French position. But are crushed by the 4th army of general Gouraud who had predicted the scenario. At the West of Reims, the enemy win a little ground on the 5th army but the 18, a brutal Franco-American counter attack on its flank (6th and 10th army with 375 tanks), from the Marne to the Aisne, force the enemy to retreat.

From the second Marne victory to the end victory: 18 July - 11 November

The 18 July offensive force the enemy to withdraw to the Vesle : it is "the second victory of the Marne" and the end of the last hopes for the Kaiser. Then, British, French, Belgium, Americans, didn't let any rest to the invaders. As in 1914, the Germans, after having crossed back the Marne, withdraw on the Aisne and the Vesle. This second battle of the Marne is the beginning of the big allies offensive, commanded by Foch, and witch will last 4 month, from the 18 July to 11 November. The 8 August, the Brits and the French, supported by 360 tanks, punctured again the German lines in the South and East of Amiens. This time, the victory changed of camp ; this is "day of mourning" for the German army (after the expression of Ludendorff). Foch do not let the deconcerted enemy the possibility to rest and reconstitute its reserves. By "a methodical battle enlargement" he multiply the attacks on all parts of the front. The Germans are always forced to withdraw under enveloping threat. First the commander in chief destroy the "pockets" created by the German victories of spring. The battles of Château-Thierry, Amiens, Saint-Mihiel, etc. The Hindenburg line is attacked and forced in September and October. The allies can at last enter as victor in Saint-Quentin, Cambrai and Laon. At last, by a "concentrical offensive of all the allies army", Foch, that became Marchal the 6 August, started the kicking of the whole German armies on the Ardennes to outflank it and force its capitulation.

[sorry for my bad English, it's from there (in French) http://www.grande-guerre.org

Allies side, notably for the French, the big crisis was 1917 and the mutinies. The French had no problem for defensive but they couldn't stand anymore the stupid and blind offensive on the barbed wires in front of the machine guns. After the mutinies, Petain became the French commander in chief and the slogan was "waiting for tanks and the Americans". He could have add: .. and the planes.
In 1918 we were ready: the tank were produced en masse, the Americans were arriving and, notably with the Spad VII, we had cleared our sky of almost all German planes. The Germans had no chance, the war was lost for them and the French knew that: in 1918, contrary to 1917, the moral was hight.

The Tanks

The tank was the one that made the difference. It countered two of the most powerfull weapon of WWI: machine guns and barbed wires.

Tank production 1918:
France: 4000
GB: 1391
USA: 84
Germany: 20
source: http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/tanks.htm

more than plane, the tank was deciding in the allied victory. The idea born in France and Britain at the same time where on each side the Colonel Janin and W. Churchill pushed on the experiment of moving blockhaus. The vehicule had to be all terrain and had to be able to protect the infantry and remove the barbed wires, destroy the machine gun nests and progress at the same time as the troops. The English were the first ready. To protect the secret they pretended it was armoured oil tank so the name "Tank". In September 1916, on the Somme, the "Willies" catched four villages but the coodination with the infantry wasn't good and the German could take back the villages. The first French experience wasn't very conclusive either: they attacked with tanks at the Nivelle big offensive, the 17 April 1917. They attacked with the huge 27 tons Saint-Chamond that were vulnerable: the heavy German machine guns and canons destroyed 60 on 120, the crew burnt alive, the infantry, now without protection was massacred. The Germans concluded that the canon will always win over Tank: that mistake will be fatal to them.
The heavy tanks were slow, little mobile. The French prefered the light tanks from Renault, Berliet and Schneider but didn't gave up with the Saint.Chamond witch was the only one to cross 3 meter large trench. The mass production of those little tank was a revolution on the art of war. They won there first succes at Villers-Cotterêts, the 18 July 1918, and largely contributed to the second victory of the Marne. Now they participed to all the attacks despite severe losses the German inflicted to them (around 50 %)[!]. Now one can't imagine a succes without them and while 500 each month arrived to the front, the replacement was secured. In August, 1 500 French tanks were on line and as many English one, that in the General Rawlinson direction won, there turn, a big strategical succes the 8 August. In November more 2000 French tanks were on line: the one that will soon be called "the tanks of victory".

[Sorry for the bad translation, from http://membres.lycos.fr/coll3/pmg.html]

also

British Mark IV - Male
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/kp34a.jpg
The best heavy tank

The tanks saw their first action on September 15, 1916, when the British Commander-in-Chief in France, Marshal Haig, ordered the first two tank companies to be employed against the German forces during the Battle of the Somme.
Albeit the modest results of this action, due to lack of trained crews, mechanical damages and inexperience in tank field employement , the new weapon had, however, a highly remarkable psychological impact.

Weight : 28 ton
Dimensions : 8.05 x 4.11 x 2.46 mt
Armor (max) : 12 mm
Range : 56 km
Speed (max - route) : 6 km/hr
Weapons : n.2 gun 57 mm + n.4 7.7 mm MG
Crew : 8

French Heavy tank St. Chamond M.16
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/kp39b.jpg

The heavy French tanks saw their first action on April 16, 1917 during the Aisne offensive.
Due to mechanical defects and tactical inefficiences, the action was a complete failure !!! Out of 121 tanks which set out from the assembly areas, 81 were lost - including 28 through breakdown, 17 through artillery hit alone, and 35 through fires occasioned by artillery. A number of tanks caught fire without being hit at all. Twenty tanks were retrieved. The final loss came to 76 tanks out of a grand total of 132 (57%).
Tank crews numbered 720 men, and 180 of them (25%) were dead, wounded or missing.

Weight : 23 ton
Dimensions : 7.91 x 2.67 x 2.34 mt
Armor (max) : 17 mm
Range : 60 km
Speed (max - route) : 8 km/hr
Weapons : n.1 gun 75 mm + n.4 8.0 mm MG
Crew : 9

French Light tank Renault F.T. 17
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/kp38b.jpg
"char canon"
(gun tank)

The above fiasco confirmed that Col. J.E. Estienne was right when, in 1916, had realized and accepted (sic!) that British heavy tanks had better performance than the French ones. It was then decided to give impulse to the mass production (*)of the new light tank : the Renault F.T.17.
(*)From April 1917 to the end of the war, 3177 tanks were delivered

. This tank, the first with a full 360 degree traverse turret, in spite of its thin armour, low-power and limited fire capacity, gave a terrific contribution to final victory. During the Soissons counteroffensive (July 1918) they were used in mass attacks and, although a tremendous toll paid in terms of losses, had great success.

Weight : 6.7 ton
Dimensions : 4.88 x 1.74 x 2.14 mt
Armor (max) : 22 mm
Range : 60 km
Speed (max - route) : 8 km/hr
Weapons : n.1 gun 37 mm
Crew : 2

from http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/wwi_tank.htm

Airplanes:

Front Line Combat Aircraft, 1918:
France: 4500
GB: 3300
USA: 740
Germany: 2390

sources http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/statistics.html

Allies side, the most difficult to pilot but the most powerfull: I named the Spad XIII
http://nancyetroland.free.fr/public/PhotosMilitaires/WWI/Spad_VII.jpg
(this is a Spad VII but the Spad XIII looks the same)

"The SPAD XIII was, as Capt. Edward "Rick" Rickenbacker of the 94th Aero Squadron declared, 'the best ship' he ever flew. ' It was more impressive than any other airplane, any other automobile, any other piece of equipment I had ever seen; the ultimate aircraft in the war....' Rickenbacker scored 26 victories in eight months in the SPAD. René Fonk shot down six German aircraft on May 9, 1918 in two dogfights, three of them in such quick order that the wreckage was contained in a quarter-mile area. SPAD XIIIs were flown by some of the top allied aces of the war including Eddie Rickenbacker, Frank Luke, René Fonck, Nungesser and Baracca. Each took full advantage of the SPAD's strength and speed."

http://usfighter.tripod.com/spad.htm

German side:
He is considered as overall, the best of the war, easy to pilot: I named the Fokker D.VII
http://www.theaerodrome.com/images/aircraft/germany/fokker_dvii.jpg
http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/germany/fokker_dvii.html

The German lost the control of the sky because they were outnumbered.

Conclusion:
Should the allies have accepted the armistice proposed by the Germans ?

Otherwise would we have lost some more million soldiers advancing into Germany ?

We'll never know.
For what I've read, most unlikely. The Germans were bending and have reached there breaking point.
In the last 4 months of the war, the allies had more succes than in 4 years. It was obviously completely stupid to stop the march forward at this moment. Because it is most probable that in fact the German front would have collapsed.

from a most interesting text I've found about the armistice, too bad it is in French
http://www.stratisc.org/partenaires/ihcc/ihcc_eu1gm_Pedron2.html
(a must read)

As for the combatants, the studies that some of my students - of which I have pleasure to see the presence in this room - carried out show that the French Army although wearies is ready to continue the engagements and that it dreams to enter to Germany to make it feel the weight of the war. They also show that the losses are decreasing and are registered into false against the assertions of Lloyd George. The continuation of the operations would not have cost the 200 000 men that Joffre was ready to sacrifice, nor 60 000 about which Foch spoke.

and, de Gaule in the first volume of its Memories of hope:

war makes born and die States... If the gigantic effort provided by our people at the time of the First World War could open the door of the revival to us, we closed it ourselves in missing to complete our military victory... But in the hasty stop of the fight which, November 11, 1918, occurred at the time when we were going triumphantly to gather the fruits of the victory, for how much had counted the voice of the Anglo-Saxons?"

Versaille treaty:
Well, there are two possibilities, the one, to crush Germany, or the opposite route, giving them a peace of equals.
That middle road that was takes was obviously crap.

[done in a hurry, sorry for my poor english.]

Yosy

03-16-2005, 07:10 PM

Interesting.

"Middle road" in the Versaille Treaty? That treaty was very unfair to Germany and one of the main causes of WW2. Foch said correctly that the treaty was "an armistice for 20 years".

Check this out: If Germany Had Won World War 1... (http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm)

Kitsune

03-17-2005, 02:09 PM

Some of your conclusions are a bit hasty, in my opinion.
The tanks? They were slow, had no range. They had successes, but its premature to think that a success is something everlasting. In war, the enemy adapts to your tactic...and suddenly your success turns into defeat. (As an example: in two consecutive wars Israeli tanks faced Egyptian anty tank rockets. In the first encounter the Isreali tanks suffered heavy losses...prompting many military experts to foresay the death of the tank and to rely on these rockets as an effective defense against them. But in the next war the same Israeli units faced the same Egyptian weapons again. And fared very well against them. They hadn't even changed their tanks, just adopted new tactics.)
The low German tank production? Germany had a very large industry, the production numbers could have climbed in a very short time.
Germany had reached its breaking point? So had France, as early as in 1917, fighting on one front only. And had recovered from it.
The Spas VII had cleared the skies? Just before that, it were the German planes who had cleared the skied from French and English fighters. The history of the airbattles is full of ups and downs for one side or the other.
Sorry, but my conclusion is that the Americans have saved the French and British butts. Without them, Germany would have reached a favorable remis at least, since the Entente would not have been able to expell the Germans from France.

Versailles a middle road? That is ridiculous. Of course, crushing Germany would have been worse...but back then Imperial Germany had already an very large economical importance for Europe. So many British and French buisiness tycoons did not really want to go that far. Plus, there was the fear that an attempt to destroy Frances arch-enemy would result in an communist Germany...something everyone feared.
So Versailles was as harsh, as humiliating, as crushing, as merciless a treaty as the French/British dared to impose upon Germany. Hardly a "middle road". The way would have been to treat Germany as an equal power, and to actually LEARN something out of WWI. But the French and British rather wanted to realize their Great Power fantasies...Germany lost all colonies, a sixth of his territories, more than ten million Germans came under the control of foreign powers. (Wilsons idea of self-determination of peoples was completely ignored, when it came to Germany). Germany was forbidden to have a decent sized military force to even defend itself.

An interesting case study came in 1923: French forces marched into German territory, occupying areas in the demilitarized Rhine and Ruhr region...the economic and industrial heart of Germany. This was an act of aggression and a clear breach of international law (Germany was a souvereign, democratic state after all, interestingly the incident is largely forgotten today). Britain protested...and did nothing else, of course. The French began a program to encourage the southern Rhineland as well as Bavaria to secede from Germany, possibly joining with Austria, and forming a catholic German nation, under the wise and benevolent patronage of France, of course. The aim was the sundering of the German nation. This was done through the application of pressure (like the occupation), or with diplomatic means, like the promise that the aforementioned regions could evade the constraints of the Versailles treaty that way.
But it did not work. The French aggression led to an economic desaster, stock market values went down all over Europe, as well as the French currency itself. Finally France withdrew its troops. During the Weimarian Republic time, Germans had to live in fear that the French would try something like this again...small wonder that many felt genuine thanks towards the man who build up an German army that was about the size of the French one: Adolf Hitler.

A lot evil could have been prevented if the French/British leadership would have been more wise at one moment in time. And while crushing Germany may not have been an option, due to economic considerations, treating it in a fair way, was. Like, for example, France had been treated back in 1815 after Napoleon had been defeated.

Yosy

03-17-2005, 05:34 PM

Great post Kitsune. Just one thing:

The low German tank production? Germany had a very large industry, the production numbers could have climbed in a very short time.

Indeed the germans in WW1 didn't give much importance to the tank. Although Germany inovated more than France or Britain (emphasis on artillery rather than infantry; creation of the stormtroopers, used with notable success in the second battle of the Marne: they almost won the war for Germany) they didn't see a future in the tank.

roland

03-17-2005, 06:25 PM

Some of your conclusions are a bit hasty, in my opinion.
The tanks? .....

About the tanks: for sure I'm not the only one to conclude it was a war winning weapon. And that's logic: as I've said it countered 2 of the most powerfull weapons of the war: machine guns and barbed wires. The Germans, seeing the first tanks failure concluded they could deal with the tank with artillerie. Fatal mistake.

The low German tank production? Germany had a very large industry, the production numbers could have climbed in a very short time.
Germany had reached its breaking point? So had France, as early as in 1917, fighting on one front only. And had recovered from it.
The Spas VII had cleared the skies? Just before that, it were the German planes who had cleared the skied from French and English fighters. The history of the airbattles is full of ups and downs for one side or the other.
Sorry, but my conclusion is that the Americans have saved the French and British butts. Without them, Germany would have reached a favorable remis at least, since the Entente would not have been able to expell the Germans from France.

Sorry, you're wrong.
There is a big difference between the Allies's "depression" of 1917 and the German's situation of 1918: the Germans have absolutly no hope to recover.
The blockade of Germany was total. Here, the allied navy, most notably the British Navy, played probably the most important strategic role of the war. The German Navy had no hope to break the blockade.
Ten of thousands of Germans were literally dying of hunger. There was no raw material left and even, in a last desperate effort, the German people was asked to give all the metal they had for the war effort. Despite of that, and despite the statutes were unscrewed and melted for the cast iron, German canons's tubes were worn out due to shortage of ressources and replacements
Build tanks, airplanes, replace the exhausted canons ? with what ?
The German people couldn't stand those deprivations anymore. There was some revolts fueled by the Communists.
No man, that was the end for Germany, there is absolutely no doubt about that. The only question is: would the German have collapsed or would they have resisted, how strongly and how long.

That is little know because of two things:
- the allies success started to be obvious only 4 months before the end of the war: like I said, that was obviously too soon to stop the war,
- the Nazi propaganded pretended that the German WWI defeat was due to the communist that back stabbed Germany. Like all good lie, it's not totally wrong, but like I've said there is some other obvious reason way more important.

About the Americans:
Well, that is most embarassing. For sure they shortened the war and the strenght they showed in a short period of time was really impressive. Morally, they were a huge boost for the allies and a disaster for the Germans. But saying they saved French and British butt is incorrect:
- the French and the British had already resisted all the Germans offensives before the Americans arrived, even the last one, spring 1918, where they played a role but not a deciding one,
- like I've said, after the last German offensive, spring 1918, the Germans were in a hopeless situation, Americans here or not.
For sure I don't want to lower the Americans here, but it's just there glory is hight enough, no need to give them some that is not there's.

Versailles a middle road? That is ridiculous. Of course, crushing Germany would have been worse...but back then Imperial Germany had already an very large economical importance for Europe. So many British and French buisiness tycoons did not really want to go that far. Plus, there was the fear that an attempt to destroy Frances arch-enemy would result in an communist Germany...something everyone feared.
So Versailles was as harsh, as humiliating, as crushing, as merciless a treaty as the French/British dared to impose upon Germany. Hardly a "middle road". The way would have been to treat Germany as an equal power, and to actually LEARN something out of WWI.

Versaille is a middle road between Germany's invasion and destruction and treating Germany as equal.
Don't make me wrong: I agree, Versaille doesn't make sense. It's the result of the hasty stop of the fight because of Wilson.
Else we would have invaded Germany, annexed some land and destroyed the country. The economy ? comon, the plundering of Germany would have been good for French economy. And German economy was already down. Communism ? well good point, I don't remember what those who opposed the armistice (almost all the leaders/Generals with the notable exception of Foch) thought about that. I'll check.

Now, that' strange, but today it seems everybody forgot that this **** happened on our soil, that 1/3 of France, the most industrialized part, had been destroyed or plundered. Hell even today there is some areas you can't cultivate anything, the soil if full of piece of metal, poisonous because of the Gaz shells roting inder the soil.
All that while Germany didn't even have a windows broken because of the war.
That's a little too easy to judge the Versaille treaty from our little comfort. And, again, that was NOT what the French wanted, that is just a bastard agreement that had been found after the initial huge Wilson's mistake: accept this armistice.
So, no, the Americans didn't saved the French and British butt. They saved the German's one.

....
A lot evil could have been prevented if the French/British leadership would have been more wise at one moment in time. And while crushing Germany may not have been an option, due to economic considerations, treating it in a fair way, was. Like, for example, France had been treated back in 1815 after Napoleon had been defeated.

speak of 1815 ! there is nothing to compare. Feel free to open an other thread. Just that in 1815, it's not only France that was defeated, it's also the Republic and Liberty.
One forget that, except at the end when the people were really tired of those endless wars, the German and the French people were allied against the Austrians and Prussians tyrans. After Napoleaon's fall, a big wave of repression spreaded all over Europe to resore the aristocratic's power. So German people lost too there.

Freibier

03-17-2005, 07:09 PM

roland

03-18-2005, 03:31 AM

Roland, Liberty lost after 1815? haha, napoleon was a tyran not a liberator for us germans.
German people lost ? hardly, we rather had our own tyrans than foreign ones ..

I have arguments. Open a thread if you want to speak of it.

Oh and don't kid yourselves, you wouldn't have won without the yanks in 1918.
You can repeat this one billion time, that would not change anything. If you want to convince almost all historians that they are wrong, you have to give arguments and good ones, not the fascist red neck propaganda.

Yosy

03-18-2005, 07:30 AM

Oh and don't kid yourselves, you wouldn't have won without the yanks in 1918.

I agree. Although the americans didn't play a big part in WW1, just the fact that they entered the war on France's side was enough to save the french. The though of an unlimited supply of man and material raised the french moral (but not much) and crushed the german one.

The Germans, seeing the first tanks failure concluded they could deal with the tank with artillerie. Fatal mistake.

Once again you give way to much importance to the tank. The tank wasn't an independent weapon, like in WW2: it was a support of the infantry. In the Battle of Cambrai, the first time tanks were significantly used, the british got a suprise breakthrough and gained a lot of terrain (for western front standards) but were unable to conquer it fully due to a critical shortage of supplies and men. The tank alone couldn't conquer enemy ground.

roland

03-18-2005, 07:47 AM

Oh and don't kid yourselves, you wouldn't have won without the yanks in 1918.

I agree. Although the americans didn't play a big part in WW1, just the fact that they entered the war on France's side was enough to save the french. The though of an unlimited supply of man and material raised the french moral (but not much) and crushed the german one.

Arrr, this discussion about the Americans who saved French butt in WWI really pisses me off.
F*** now that's as if I'm looking ungratefull.

Can't you guys give arguments:
- were the germans starving in 1918, yes or not ?
- do they have any hope to force the blockade, yes or no ?
- didn't the French and British resisted ALL German offensive since 1914 without American help, yes or no ?
(Americans helped in the last German offensive, spring 1918, but we can hardly say they "saved France" here)

That's all, now compute those facts yourself. Normally the result is obvious.

Any British here to tell them ?

Freibier

03-18-2005, 08:45 AM

Yosy

03-18-2005, 06:38 PM

Can't you guys give arguments:
- were the germans starving in 1918, yes or not ?
- do they have any hope to force the blockade, yes or no ?
- didn't the French and British resisted ALL German offensive since 1914 without American help, yes or no ?
(Americans helped in the last German offensive, spring 1918, but we can hardly say they "saved France" here)

I never said that the americans saved the french, but they probably shortened the war. The "kaiser ofensive" (second battle of the Marne) was meant to knock Britain and France out of the war, before the US could fully mobilize its military forces.

The germans were starving in 1918? Yes, and so were the french and the british.

The French and British resisted ALL German offensive since 1914 without American help? Well obviously - if they hadn't the war would be over. But Germany also resisted and by 1917, Russia was out of the war: this freed german troops that had fought in the eastern front and gave Germany access to Easter Europe's resources

Curiously it was in Marne that WW1 was decided: the first battle resulted in the trench warfare; the second ended it.

roland

03-18-2005, 08:19 PM

@Yosy:

Oh and don't kid yourselves, you wouldn't have won without the yanks in 1918.

I agree. Although the americans didn't play a big part in WW1, just the fact that they entered the war on France's side was enough to save the french. The though of an unlimited supply of man and material raised the french moral (but not much) and crushed the german one.

Here you say that the Americans saved the French. Apart of that, for sure, you're right when you say the Americans coming boosted the French moral. I don't understand your "(but not much)" though.

The Germans, seeing the first tanks failure concluded they could deal with the tank with artillerie. Fatal mistake.

Once again you give way to much importance to the tank. The tank wasn't an independent weapon, like in WW2: it was a support of the infantry. In the Battle of Cambrai, the first time tanks were significantly used, the british got a suprise breakthrough and gained a lot of terrain (for western front standards) but were unable to conquer it fully due to a critical shortage of supplies and men. The tank alone couldn't conquer enemy ground.

man there was some mistake the first time we used the tanks. That's normal, that was new. And the tanks, British and French, mostly the French ones, were not "finished", they were not reliable enough. But the German didn't understand that those failiures were only temporary.
After the allies adapted, the tank proven very efficient and since July 1918 to the end, were heavily used in all battle.
Already, the succes of the 18 July counter offensive where the enemy was stopped and forced to retreat is largely due to the use 336 tanks.
Then there was the succes of the 8 August 1918 attack with no fewer than 604 Allied tanks.
Then all the battle to the end of the war. There was no one where the tank wasn't heavily used and all were a success.
Comon, there is almost no debate about the fact that the tanks had broken the balance on the ground.
Just, for some reasons, this period is way too much forgotten.
Its short, only 4 months, but very important imho.

I never said that the americans saved the french, ..

yes you did, but nevermind

...but they probably shortened the war. The "kaiser ofensive" (second battle of the Marne) was meant to knock Britain and France out of the war, before the US could fully mobilize its military forces.

correct

The germans were starving in 1918? Yes, and so were the french and the british.

wrong, the French and the British had no problem of supply.

...
But Germany also resisted and by 1917, Russia was out of the war: this freed german troops that had fought in the eastern front and gave Germany access to Easter Europe's resources

wrong. What eastern ressources ? Revolutionary Russia was in chao and were starving almost as much as the Germans.

Curiously it was in Marne that WW1 was decided: the first battle resulted in the trench warfare; the second ended it.

yep :)

Yosy

03-19-2005, 03:35 PM

@ Roland

Here you say that the Americans saved the French. Apart of that, for sure, you're right when you say the Americans coming boosted the French moral. I don't understand your "(but not much)" though.

I didn't express myself properly: the americans didn't save the french tactically, but (and this is controversial) they probably did strategically. France was the country that suffered most during the war because the Western Front was in french territory. Britain after disasters like Gallipoli and Somme and still fighting the war in Mesopotamia and Palestine was less and less able to help France. The americans boosted french moral, but it wasn't to the max: desertions and summary executions still took place among the French Army.

man there was some mistake the first time we used the tanks. That's normal, that was new. And the tanks, British and French, mostly the French ones, were not "finished", they were not reliable enough. But the German didn't understand that those failiures were only temporary.
After the allies adapted, the tank proven very efficient and since July 1918 to the end, were heavily used in all battle.
Already, the succes of the 18 July counter offensive where the enemy was stopped and forced to retreat is largely due to the use 336 tanks.
Then there was the succes of the 8 August 1918 attack with no fewer than 604 Allied tanks.
Then all the battle to the end of the war. There was no one where the tank wasn't heavily used and all were a success.
Comon, there is almost no debate about the fact that the tanks had broken the balance on the ground.
Just, for some reasons, this period is way too much forgotten.
Its short, only 4 months, but very important imho.

It wasn't the tank that changed WW1: it was sheer exausthion. The outcome of the war was a near thing: check the link I posted above. And the tank, like warplanes, was used, throughout WW1, as a support of infantry (and it was successful): "On 4 July 1918 the tank was used in a manner that helped to fashion the method in which it was deployed in future battles. General John Monash, commander of the Australian Corps, launched an attack at Le Hamel by unleashing a co-ordinated barrage of tanks, artillery and warplanes, all designed to clear a path for advancing infantry." - http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/tanks.htm

wrong, the French and the British had no problem of supply.

From the link I posted in a previous post: "Even with American assistance, France and Britain were societies that were slowly falling apart from lack of ordinary maintenance. Both faced food shortages from the diversion of farmers into the army and from attacks on ocean borne supplies."

Besides remember Admiral Tirpitz's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.

wrong. What eastern ressources ? Revolutionary Russia was in chao and were starving almost as much as the Germans

From the same link: "While it is true that the United States entered the war on the allied side in 1917, thus providing vast new potential sources of men and material, it is also true that Germany had knocked Russia out of the war at about the same time. This gave the Germans access to the resources of Eastern Europe and freed their troops for deployment to the West."

The treaty of Brest-Litovsk (that signed the end of Russia's presence in the war) was punnitive and annexationist towards Russia, so much so that Russia singed it with reluctance, hoping that the revolution would spread throughout Europe after the war, so that Russia might recover the lost territory.

roland

03-19-2005, 08:36 PM

@Yosy

I didn't express myself properly: the americans didn't save the french tactically, but (and this is controversial) they probably did strategically. France was the country that suffered most during the war because the Western Front was in french territory. Britain after disasters like Gallipoli and Somme and still fighting the war in Mesopotamia and Palestine was less and less able to help France. The americans boosted french moral, but it wasn't to the max: desertions and summary executions still took place among the French Army.

No Yosy, that is in contradiction with all what I've read.
In 1918, the moral, in the French army was good. Yes, for a big part thanks to the Americans. But also thanks to the way Petain conducted the operations. In 1917 he said: "we wait for the tanks and the Americans. Since then, soldier, resist".
They had resisted. In 1918 we were ready.
The American arrived, all fresh (a little too fresh btw), and the little Renault tank were flooding the battlefied: tank production 1918: France: 4,000 / GB: 1,391
Same for the airplanes: Front Line Combat Aircraft, 1918: France: 4500 / GB: 3300
Hardly the sign of a tired country.

It wasn't the tank that changed WW1: it was sheer exausthion. The outcome of the war was a near thing: check the link I posted above. And the tank, like warplanes, was used, throughout WW1, as a support of infantry (and it was successful): "On 4 July 1918 the tank was used in a manner that helped to fashion the method in which it was deployed in future battles. General John Monash, commander of the Australian Corps, launched an attack at Le Hamel by unleashing a co-ordinated barrage of tanks, artillery and warplanes, all designed to clear a path for advancing infantry." - http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/tanks.htm

WWI was a war of exaustion, correct. But the tank was what make us block the German spring offensive and then pucture this F*** front and in 4 months expell them almost totally from France. Turn the thing the way you want it's like that.
www.firstworldwar.com is a good British site. As good as it can be but it shows a British point of vew and it's normal. The French and American use of tank was a little different from the British one: the British used the heavy "willy" while the French and the Americans used to flood the battlefield with hundred of little tanks: the Renault FT.

From the link I posted in a previous post: "Even with American assistance, France and Britain were societies that were slowly falling apart from lack of ordinary maintenance. Both faced food shortages from the diversion of farmers into the army and from attacks on ocean borne supplies."
...
From the same link: "While it is true that the United States entered the war on the allied side in 1917, thus providing vast new potential sources of men and material, it is also true that Germany had knocked Russia out of the war at about the same time. This gave the Germans access to the resources of Eastern Europe and freed their troops for deployment to the West."

Ok, I admit I didn't read the link before.
Well the title is "If Germany Had Won World War 1..."
That Is history fiction. The autor is not bad for that, but to catch the reader's attention he tend to present things as if it wasn't too unrealistic imho. Even he is not very accurate in his description of the situation when he wrote:

The German Spring Offensive of 1918 actually succeeded in rupturing the Allied line at a point where the Allies had no significant reserves. (At about this time, British Prime Minister Lloyd George was heard to remark, "We are going to lose this war." He began to create a record which would shift the blame to others.)

The British Summer Offensive of the same year similarly breached the German lines, but did a much better job of exploiting the breakthrough than the Germans had done a few months earlier. General Luddendorf panicked and demanded that the government seek an armistice. The German army did succeed in containing the Allied breakthrough, but meanwhile the German diplomats had opened tentative armistice discussions with the United States.

Franckly that is bullsh!t. The allies had blocked the previous German offensives before the second battle of the marne, and I don't know what he is speaking about when he speak of British summer offensive. May be he speak of a battle where the Brits were involved, but in this case he is mixing a strategical situation (the German offensive) with a tactical one (a British attack). The thing that perhaps have made Luddendorf panick is the allied offensive from 18 July to the end: victory of Marne, Amiens, Château-Thierry, Saint-Mihiel, etc. Even, I hightly doubt Luddendorf panicked. LOL That is naive to think that.

To finish, let me speak of the operation that was planned for the 14 November in the Ardennes:
31 divisions, 600 tanks vs 6 German divisions including 3 of Landwehr.
The armistice was signed the 11 so it never happened.

from http://www.stratisc.org/partenaires/ihcc/ihcc_eu1gm_Pedron2.html
(my translation, sorry)

The 25, Foch brings together in Senlis the commanders in chief whose points of view did not evolve. General Pétain insists on the offensive in preparation in Lorraine. The disparity of the forces - 31 divisions, 600 tanks vis-a-vis 6 divisions including 3 of Landwehr - should ensure a bright victory. Thus new Sedan would be carried out which would ensure the French Army the decisive role in German collapse. Thus would be carried out what is one of the principal strategic intentions of General Pétain since September 1917, intention supported by marshal Joffre. Both fear that the sacrifices of France finish drowned in a victory where the French Army would have simply taken part in a repression of German's power without an ultimate decisive operation. One will be able to note that Joffre, who didn't always carried Pétain in his heart, shared with him very largely the sights on the end of the war.

Yosy

03-19-2005, 09:17 PM

But the tank was what make us block the German spring offensive and then pucture this F*** front and in 4 months expell them almost totally from France. Turn the thing the way you want it's like that.

:roll:

I don't know how much more I can say this: the tank was a SUPPORT weapon, like the warplanes. I don't know where you got the idea that tanks won the war for the Allies but it's dead wrong.

From the link about tanks: " Tanks were increasingly used during the Allied advance of summer 1918. During the French attack at Soissons from 18-26 July no fewer than 336 Schneiders, St Chamonds and Renaults were deployed to support combined French and American infantry."

"With the French tanks proving more serviceable than their British equivalents they continued to be used beyond wartime. The French Renault F.T. tank continued to grow in popularity as the concept of the tank as a close aid to advancing infantry prospered."

www.firstworldwar.com is a good British site. As good as it can be but it shows a British point of vew and it's normal. The French and American use of tank was a little different from the British one: the British used the heavy "willy" while the French and the Americans used to flood the battlefield with hundred of little tanks: the Renault FT.

:| I have one word for this: ridiculous. I did an in-depth work about World War One last year and I can assure you that the site is top of the line.

That Is history fiction. The autor is not bad for that, but to catch the reader's attention he tend to present things as if it wasn't too unrealistic imho

Just go read the article please. Obviously you didn't because the parts that I selected aren't fiction.

No Yosy, that is in contradiction with all what I've read.
In 1918, the moral, in the French army was good. Yes, for a big part thanks to the Americans. But also thanks to the way Petain conducted the operations. In 1917 he said: "we wait for the tanks and the Americans. Since then, soldier, resist".
They had resisted. In 1918 we were ready.
The American arrived, all fresh (a little too fresh btw), and the little Renault tank were flooding the battlefied: tank production 1918: France: 4,000 / GB: 1,391
Same for the airplanes: Front Line Combat Aircraft, 1918: France: 4500 / GB: 3300
Hardly the sign of a tired country.

:lol:

Since when military-industrial production is a sign of tired or non-tired country? In 1945, Germany was producing more weaponry than ever before, despite all the bombardments and having to fight a war in 3 fronts.

The fact that you say that, in 1918, the moral in the french army was good is unbelivable. In 1918 ALL, I say again ALL armies were with a (very) low moral (with the exceptions of the americans). In 1918 everyone knew what the war was: not an opurtunity to have a glorious death; it was hell on earth. A militaristic society, like the french was, can only stay so if the military is successful in combat. An army with a lot of casualties just can't hava a good moral and check the casualties of the french: http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm. Petain did" restored the fighting capacity of the French forces by improving living conditions for soldiers at the front, and by restricting himself to defensive operations."

James

03-20-2005, 05:47 PM

roland

03-20-2005, 07:11 PM

@Yosy
What's all this fussing about ? you're in a bad mood or what ?

But the tank was what make us block the German spring offensive and then pucture this F*** front and in 4 months expell them almost totally from France. Turn the thing the way you want it's like that.

:roll:

I don't know how much more I can say this: the tank was a SUPPORT weapon, like the warplanes. I don't know where you got the idea that tanks won the war for the Allies but it's dead wrong.

.... and this tank SUPPORT to the troops makes us win all our battle when the tank was engaged en masse and properly and kicked the German out in 4 mounths. Don't be thick man !

www.firstworldwar.com is a good British site. As good as it can be but it shows a British point of vew and it's normal. The French and American use of tank was a little different from the British one: the British used the heavy "willy" while the French and the Americans used to flood the battlefield with hundred of little tanks: the Renault FT.

:| I have one word for this: ridiculous. I did an in-depth work about World War One last year and I can assure you that the site is top of the line.

Who said the contrary ? How do I have to say it ? I wrote:
"www.firstworldwar.com is a good British site. As good as it can be ..."
isn't it a compliment ?
then "..but it shows a British point of vew and it's normal."
what's wrong with that ?

tell me what is ridiculous now. I'm affraid your brain switched in _STUPID_MODE when you wrote your post.

The fact that you say that, in 1918, the moral in the french army was good is unbelivable.

I know what I'm talking about. And I repeat it: in 1818, the moral of the french troop was quite good. The Americans were arriving, the soldiers were supported by plenty of little tanks around them, crushing the barbed wires and the machine gun nests and our planes were the master of the sky.
still from this excellent article
http://www.stratisc.org/partenaires/ihcc/ihcc_eu1gm_Pedron2.html

As for the combatants, the studies that some of my students - of which I have pleasure to see the presence in this room - carried out show that the French Army although wearies is ready to continue the engagements and that it dreams to enter to Germany to make it feel the weight of the war. They also show that the losses are decreasing

and General De Gaulle in the first volume of his "Memories of hope":

war makes born and die States... If the gigantic effort provided by our people at the time of the First World War could open the door of the revival to us, we closed it ourselves in missing to complete our military victory... But in the hasty stop of the fight which, November 11, 1918, occurred at the time when we were going triumphantly to gather the fruits of the victory, for how much had counted the voice of the Anglo-Saxons?"

All studies show it and I repeat: in 1918 the French were ready.

If we weren't, tell me why Petain an Joffre didn't wanted to accept the armistice ?

Ok, enough said.
But all in all I think our point of vew are not so different.
ciao

anti_septic

03-21-2005, 08:29 AM

Roland, Liberty lost after 1815? haha, napoleon was a tyran not a liberator for us germans.
German people lost ? hardly, we rather had our own tyrans than foreign ones ..
Oh and don't kid yourselves, you wouldn't have won without the yanks in 1918.

WW1 was won primarily by the British Army.
Specifically by a group of about 10 men from my former regiment (STAFFORDS)

They surprised the German guards of the last unblown bridge that gave access to the weakest point of the Hindenburg line. Once that weakness was exploited and the Hindenburg line effectively outflanked it was curtains for the squareheads.

It was an action of similar strategic and psychological importance to the German command as the seizure of the Remagen bridge by the US Army in WW2.

Kitsune

03-21-2005, 08:49 AM

WOW! AMericans are causing problems even when we [/i]don't post things like "We save your bacon in 1918".

We provided moral support and a little bit of manpower but the greatest support we gave to Britain and France was food, fuel, and ammunition. It wasn't the Americans who caused the "Black Day of the German Army".

Something to think about.

If the Americans had stayed at home, 100.000 of their own soldiers would not have died. WWI would have most probably ended with a tie or with a very close victory of one side over the other. (Although the side winning barely could very well have been Germany). This would have been the ideal preconditions to make a really FAIR peace treaty, instead of the victors abusing their position to relize some great power fantasies since someone winning barely cannot simply impose his will on the loser (like the French and British did without mercy). And in that case there would not have been a WWII, which cost nearly 40 million lives in Europe. There would have been no Iron Curtain, no division of the continent either.

IF the Americanss had stayed at home. Of course this is hindsight, back then one could not know. But hindsight is all we have got.

In any case it is:

Something to think about...

Yosy

03-21-2005, 09:08 AM

I'm getting tired of this...

.... and this tank SUPPORT to the troops makes us win all our battle when the tank was engaged en masse and properly and kicked the German out in 4 mounths. Don't be thick man !

What more can I say? Tanks alone couldn't win battles! The Battle of Cambrai is an example: a lot of terrain conquered, but lost again because there was no infantry available. I've posted enough material to back this up already. If you want to continue to belive that tanks saved the Allies it's your problem.

Who said the contrary ? How do I have to say it ? I wrote:
"www.firstworldwar.com is a good British site. As good as it can be ..."
isn't it a compliment ?
then "..but it shows a British point of vew and it's normal."
what's wrong with that ?

There are no british pov or french pov or german pov. There are right povs and wrong povs, generally accpeted povs and controversial povs. It's ridiculous nowadays to bring national bias into the study of history. Did you know that was a german historian that wrote a book where he said that Germany was the main responsible for the start of WW1? His theory today is considered to be wrong.

I know what I'm talking about. And I repeat it: in 1818, the moral of the french troop was quite good. The Americans were arriving, the soldiers were supported by plenty of little tanks around them, crushing the barbed wires and the machine gun nests and our planes were the master of the sky.

Just because you are winning doesn't mean that the moral is high. Winning a war can be as disruptive to the winner as it was to the loser. I have no time or patience to refute this; just read my previous posts. Your quotes don't say anything about the moral of the french army, it just says that the allies were winning. And just because you're winning doesn't mean that your army is feeling good about it.

oldsoak

03-21-2005, 12:17 PM

There are a lot of myths regarding WWI - normally with a national bias. Examples are that the British were generally incompetent, the French lacked the will to fight, the Germans were superior in everything you care to name and so it goes on. The problem is that there are always pointers to back the myth - huge frontal attacks, the very early use of blitzkrieg type tactics, French mutinies etc. WWI is a whole lot more complex than the myths would have us beleive. The French did fight bravely, the British did launch clever, well thought out assaults, the Germans did drop the ball. WWI is a fascinating subject - it brought vast social and political change as well as destruction and it really deserves more than popular myths.

Kitsune

03-21-2005, 05:32 PM

There are a lot of myths regarding WWI - normally with a national bias. Examples are that the British were generally incompetent, the French lacked the will to fight, the Germans were superior in everything you care to name and so it goes on.

Funny, but I never heard of those myths before. Where is this "general British incompetence" idea based on? As far as the French are concerned, the crushing failure of Plan XVII left them shocked, but atleast in Germany Verdun isn't forgotten. (To accuse the French military leadership of general incompetence instead makes much more sense considering such brilliant ideas as "what the enemy plans is of no concern to us"). Neither is forgotten that Germany lost the war, so wasn't superior in everything they did. But true is that the German military competence as well as the will to fight and not give up massively impressed the French and British...they simply had not expected that at all, believing that Germany when attacked from two sides at once would go down in a matter of a few months. This assumption was one of the things that contributed to bring WWI about in the first place. With the British joining the German enemies side and the world's largest fleet blocking the German harbours victory seemed completely certain. (Then of course came the disastrous defeat of the French forces in the West...suprise surprise. But before the Germans could win the war they found out that the Russians had mobilised much more quickley than the German high command had expected...surprise, surprise. A German defeat in the east seemed likely. But then the Russians suffered three crushing defeats in row and the Germans were suddenly advancing in the East as well...suprise, surprise. And so on.)
The assessment that the war would be short turned put to be wrong. Year after year. And in 1917 it was not Germany breaking, but Russia (and outcome that no one had expected, neither the Russians, nor the French or the Germans...a decision in the West first had seemed much more likely). And then France nearly broke, too. Then, early 1918 saw the GERMANS advance in the west, not the French or British. The US assistence, be it with supplies, with soldiers or with money was absolutely essential. As was the effect it had on the moral on both sides. Otherwise it is quite likely that the French and British would have "dropped the ball". (Which for the British would have just meant to bug out and call it even, anyway).

If there are myths about WWI it's either that WWI was brought about solely by German aggression whereas France and Britain fought for "liberty and good", that France and Britain wouldn't have needed the Americans to win or that the peace treaty of Versailles was a reasonably fair treaty.

[...]

Talking about about myths and bias...
WW1 was won primarily by the British Army.
Specifically by a group of about 10 men from my former regiment (STAFFORDS)
A regimental bias in that case. "World War I was primarily won by 10 British soldiers". I have heard a lot of arrogant statements, but that one simply takes the biscuit.
Damn shame that Britain hasn't too many of these men. Or else they would have won WWII with 10 men, too. And still be an Empire.
Too bad.

roland

03-21-2005, 06:02 PM

I've never heard those myth too, and I think the one about the French that lacked the will to fight, doesn't date more than 5 years or so. Makes me wonder if the quantiity of morons in America doesn't have reached a critical mass ... :roll:
When the allies stopped the spring 1918 Germans ofensive, the American role was not important. As was there role in the 2nd victory of La Marne.
After that, If you can find a scenario where the Germans win, with or without the Americans, I would be glad to see it. Because afaik, not only is it unlikely, but this is simply impossible.

Kitsune

03-21-2005, 06:37 PM

Roland.

It is one thing to stop an offensive (which was done with the help of AMERICAN supplies by the way), and to win a war. Getting rid of the German troops in France hadn't been accomplished in the 4 years before, so it wasn't that easy, it seems. And trying to do so would have meant one bloody attack after another. Tanks are a nice thing, but such a new weapon sooner or later (and often sooner) looses its edge. And any really disasstrous defeat of the French and British forces, let's say, when they had made half the way, could easily led to the breaking of either France or Britain ("now it's enough, let's start to negotiate"). There is only so much Sommes or Verduns a nation can take.
Don't you think that its a bit funny to say that the Americans where unimportant, after the years with hardly any advancement on the side of the French and British? From April 1918 on nealry a quarter of a million American soldiers arrived in France EVERY month...surely that was of no consequence, not even regarding moral (which IS the decisive point), France and Britain would have been victorious without them. Pure coincidence that the war was won in the year when the Americans arrived...
Sorry, I don't think so. All what would have been needed is that the French and British found that they are not able to expell the German troops from France and had started peace negotiations, and voila, there you have your German victory. And such an end was in sight...if not for the American intervention. Even in the (unlikely) case that things would have gone constantly bad for the Germans troops it is extremely unlikely, that there would have been a conditionless surrender by Germany, without these millions of American soldiers. Germany could have afforded to loose some or even all of the territories conquered early in the war and still make a stand at the Rhine.
Oh, sure a German victory wouldn't have been a crushing humiliation of France, Versaille style. Simply because the Germans had not been able to impose such a treaty on the French. and the British could have used the blockade of the German harbours as further advantage in any peace negotiations...basically something like Germans leave France AND Belgium against French and British stopping hostilites and embargo. Belgium gets reparations from Germany (as had been promised by the Germans in 1914). No one gets crushed, humiliated, dissected or rendered powerless. That would have been much preferable to the end of WWI as it really happened. Obviously for the German side, but with hindsight, the plus for the Western allies would have been lasting peace for Europe from 1918 on, and not only from 1945 on.

Hindsight, I know. But this is about learning from the past. And one lesson of WWI is that a lasting peace is brought about through compromise and balance, not through arrogance of the victors and humiliation of the defeated.

Yosy

03-21-2005, 08:49 PM

Kitsune well said. I think that WW1 brought more changes to humanity as a whole than WW2. Those 4 years changed everything. After WW1 the youth became more cynical towards their leaders: everything that they had learned turned out to be wrong. The belief that the future could only be a better place, that science could sort out everything was crushed. Social-darwinism never recovered. Aristocracy lost their power: people with contacts and money stayed away from the trenches, while the young middle-class background officers were the ones to lead the soldiers in mindless offensives against the enemy. The world before 1914 and after 1918 couldn't be more different.

But before the Germans could win the war they found out that the Russians had mobilised much more quickley than the German high command had expected...surprise, surprise. A German defeat in the east seemed likely

Actually the German High Command perdicted that Russian mobilization would last 6 weeks and it turned out to be true.

Kitsune

03-21-2005, 09:12 PM

Afaik the 6 weeks were the worst case scenario. And actually the idea of the Schlieffenplan was to beat France first, while leaving the East only weakly defended. The French behaviour, a massive all-out attack through Alsace-Lorraine into the Rhineland WAS predicted: it was countered with well entrenched German troops, who were not even elite, but used their prepared defense position to their advantage. the french were routed with very heavy losses. At the same time the German attacked France, evading the French troops on a more northern route (through Belgium). The first problem was that troops had to be replaced to the East...to swart a too early Russian attack on East Prussia. The second was the Marne desaster: an astute French general managed to position its troops so that they threatened the flank of a advancing German task force. To prevent being cut off, the advancement had not only to be stopped, but troops had to be taken back. After that momentum was lost (and that was what the plan had been about...going to paris without loosing momentum). The German troops dug themselves in, the Schlieffenplan had failed, a war on two fronts would ensue. But it was no complete desaster: the German troops were left in a pretty comfortable position, they occupied a huge chunk of France and could rely on defense. Without these sucesses (and the unmitigated desaster of the French Plan XVII) the Entente would not have taken four years and an American intervention to win.

1Cie GevGn

03-21-2005, 10:11 PM

I'm on the lookout for the 26 episode, 7 disc DVD set of the BBC's World War One documentaries. I don't spose anyone could get that for a good price?

And don't forget the Belgians in your heated arguement! :bash:

anti_septic

03-22-2005, 04:24 AM

Talking about about myths and bias...
WW1 was won primarily by the British Army.
Specifically by a group of about 10 men from my former regiment (STAFFORDS)
A regimental bias in that case. "World War I was primarily won by 10 British soldiers". I have heard a lot of arrogant statements, but that one simply takes the biscuit.
Damn shame that Britain hasn't too many of these men. Or else they would have won WWII with 10 men, too. And still be an Empire.
Too bad.

Victory and defeat in war is about 'tipping points'
That action was the decisive tipping point on the Western Front whether you like it or not.

But in relation to the broader strategic issues at the end of the war:
1. The Russians were out of it.
2. The Americans weren't in it in sufficient numbers as they had to create an army from ground zero in 1917-18. They repeated all the tactical mistakes made by the British and French earlier in the war and took heavy casualties as a result. Their intervention would have been decisive though if the war had dragged on longer.
3. Germany was starving because of the British blockade. Britain and France weren't starving. The German Navy went back to port after the Battle of Jutland and never challenged the Royal Navy's blockade again.
4. British/Australian forces supported by Arab rebels disposed of the Ottoman Empire.
5. The British Army had refined its tactics to allow much better coordination of artillery support with combined infantry/armour attacks AT NIGHT to overcome the advantages that the Germans had on the defensive during daytime. The Americans never really had time to develop those tactics.

James

03-22-2005, 04:56 AM

^^^

Pay attention to this guy. He knows his ****.

roland

03-22-2005, 02:52 PM

Roland.

It is one thing to stop an offensive (which was done with the help of AMERICAN supplies by the way), and to win a war. Getting rid of the German troops in France hadn't been accomplished in the 4 years before, so it wasn't that easy, it seems.
And trying to do so would have meant one bloody attack after another. Tanks are a nice thing, but such a new weapon sooner or later (and often sooner) looses its edge. And any really disasstrous defeat of the French and British forces, let's say, when they had made half the way, could easily led to the breaking of either France or Britain ("now it's enough, let's start to negotiate"). There is only so much Sommes or Verduns a nation can take.

In 1918 things were different:
- the Germans were starving and lacked of everything including raw material,
- thanks to the tank the front was moving again.

How would you have stopped the tanks ?
- with artillery ? the German tried that failed, and anyway the artilliery was going like crap at high speed because of exhaustion and the Germans had no way to replace it,
- other tanks ? same as artillery, plane, watever: how to build them ? with what material ?l

Don't you think that its a bit funny to say that the Americans where unimportant, after the years with hardly any advancement on the side of the French and British? From April 1918 on nealry a quarter of a million American soldiers arrived in France EVERY month...surely that was of no consequence, not even regarding moral (which IS the decisive point), France and Britain would have been victorious without them. Pure coincidence that the war was won in the year when the Americans arrived...

I didn't say the Americans were unimportant. I say that the war would have been won even without them, probably in 1919.
The American arrived not at a quarter of millions each month but 170 000 witch is already quite a lot.
In November 1918 the Americans were 1.872.239.
The French and the British were around 9 million each ...
For sure the American shortened the war, witch is a lot, and greatly boosted the moral of the allies, something that, I agree, is of great importance but can not be measured.
And don't forget, that if the French had produced 4000 Renault tanks in 1918, who knows how many we would have buit in 1919 ? 10000 ? 20000 ?
Hell this little tank was produced like the Ford T !

[I have to go, more later..]

roland

03-22-2005, 07:28 PM

Ok, finally I don't have much to add: I've said why Germany had no chance: it was exhausted and there was no way to change that: the blockade was almost total.
Exagerating a little, the allies just had to wait Germany fall like a rotten fruit.

Some remarques:
- Personally I don't see any peace with Germany would have been possible for France without Alsace and Loraine returning back to France. That would have been a political suicide.
- there was NO conditionless surrender, that's all the problem. The Germans could pretend they didn't had been really defeated. They learnt no lesson from there mistake.
- again, I agree, a fair peace would have been the best, the other alternative would have been a crushing and destruction of Germany folowed by a fair peace like in WWII.
The Versailles treaty was the worse thing to do, a middle ground that didn't satisfied France nor Germany and prevented us to turn the page and see forward to the future.
This Versailles treaty is the result of the hasty stop of the fight because of Wilson.

oldsoak

03-23-2005, 06:40 AM

The myths I illustrated are quite generally accepted over here . The idea that British generals lacked competence in WWI is not new - its certainly a common view over here in the UK. Its certainly one that my grandfather who fought in the war felt. It is largely to do with the tactics used - sending waves of men against a prepared enemy with good defensive positions and lots of barbed wire and machine guns time and time again. To have your abilities compared WWI Brit officer is not a compliment :)
The myth that the French lacked the will to fight is based on the French army mutinies in 1917 and chauvanism on the part of the British and others. The French suffered huge casualties ( 1 in 3 men affected by the war - I'm told - can any French posters confirm this ? ) in some of the most bitter fighting and this is often ignored.. It is not a new myth - its been around years over here.
The Germans - they were always considered ahead of the average game. People talk of the "fokker scourge", the U boats and the fact that they were initially much better prepared for fighting a modern war than the UK or France - Cambrai and others battles proved that they had weaknesses, but we always regard them as a formidable foe.
Unfortunately these myths perpetuate - too many people hear them and believe them without really looking into it. It is sometimes convenient for
the ignorant to have a brave enemy and a cowardly ally to make victory more complete. Fortunately historians can correct this view.

anti_septic

03-23-2005, 08:22 AM