2014 Group Build discussion

[Rheged]

The British training and "battle schools" are an unfortunately under-examined aspect of the British WWI effort.  Through them troops were trained and retrained in the latest tactical theories and methods, behind the lines and so new tactics were quickly dissiminated throughout the Army and practised so everybody knew and understood them.   The "Battle Schools" in particular paid a crucial part, organised at Division level, they retrained troops and practised them on either mockups or abandoned sections of the front, which had been advanced past in the most realistic manners.  By the end of the war, the British Army, despite it's reputation for "muddling through" had in fact been transformed to the most professional one in the world IMHO.   It surpassed the Germans, as the results on the battlefield showed.

Agree with that summing up. They've just rediscovered one of the battle schools somewhere (can't remember exactly) and the "scale model battlefield" used to explain a recent success was still visible after excavation

The  Kiwis built the model battlefield,  on Cannock Chase.  Here's a link to a Grauniad  article   http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/first-world-war-model-battlefield

[NARSES2]

That's the one 

[Weaver]

You have to remember, like all wars, the tactics in use on the battlefield evolved and did so often quite quickly under the pressure of facing the enemy.  There are distinct periods on the Western Front, for all sides.  When something didn't work, they tried something different.  The real problem was that the Generals were "learning on the job".  Trench warfare was something completely new to them.  They hadn't kept up with technical developments and the primacy of the defence caught them just as much, if not more so, by surprise as it did everybody else who'd been talking and writing about the offensive spirit would always win battles.   Problem was, machine guns and barbed wire didn't give two sh!ts if you were offensively spirited, they just killed you when you charged forward.

I've read an account by a historian who researched all the pre-1914 writing he could find about "the coming war". Almost all of it is well wide of the mark, except for one writer who correctly predicted the paralysing effects of barbed wire, machine-guns and massed artillery with great foresight. Unfortunately, since he was a Swiss banker by profession, not a military man of any sort, nobody paid a blind bit of attention to him.....

[rickshaw]

Oh, all the signs were there and if you weren't blinded by an unwillingness to see them, they'd have realised them.  The 2nd Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, both pointed to how the new bolt-action, rapid-fire full bore, smokeless rifles were going to dominate the battlefield, while the only defence was to dig and dig deeper again.  Interestingly, the British Army wasn't blind to what it had learn in South Africa, the problem was that they'd come away with both good and bad lessons.   

They'd learnt about how infantry were now largely invulnerable to cavalry (and contradictorily still believed that nothing could stand the arme blanche' of the cavalry charge) and that field fortifications (trenches) were the only thing against rifle and artillery fire.   Sir John French had commanded the last British cavalry charge in the Boer War during the Relief of Kimberley in 1900 and come away with the impression that horse cavalry were still the thing.  Douglas Haig had been IIRC one of his regimental commanders during the charge at Kimberley in 1900.

The war arriving in 1914 was exactly the wrong year though.  They were just trying to put into place the reforms from the 2nd Boer War - adoption of a new rifle cartridge, a new rifle to fire it and even were looking seriously at semi-automatic rifles to increase firepower.  They were also adopting new cavalry sabres and lances!  Training in small unit tactics were improving and even things such as battlefield navigation was assuming new importance for all ranks.  When 1914 arrived, they had to abandon all that, go with what they had and just make do initially.

[Rheged]

This thread is turning into a fascinating seminar on the 1914-18 war.  Thank you everyone for your work in the diffusion of this  data.........and keep it going, please!

[tahsin]

I will do my best to avoid starting any kind of ugly arguments that Narses2 has been specifically warning people about, but the Armenian issue is not discussed due to Turkish Goverment pressure but the "slight" chance the methodology of research, the overall numbers and integrity of a "limited" amount of people and states can be exposed; nobody likes to give a precedent to Holocaust deniers. The current darlings of the West, the Kurds, for starters were very interested in removing all the Armenians who would have done the exact same had there been any spine in the Russians and the British and the French to come and do it. Which means they should have been there to give that state they promised to give to the Armenians, something which even Istanbul offered to give them as an autonomous state just like the Bulgarians had once been. Even then the  removal of the Armenians were done under German control and not many of them actually opposed. Apart from Missionaries who hoped to convert the lot, you know, by giving them a "glimmer of hope", something that involved daily conversions in deciding who would be given less food and no protection from the Turkish Army on their way to Syria.

The promise is of course there will be nothing left to oppose the discussion, the real discussion, in 2015.

As for the signs of stagnation they were actually well known, extremely well known and that's the whole rationale for war in 1914. Because the power of Defense would increase ever more, Germans felt it was their last chance before the Russians fully modernized. France was hoping Germany was bluffing once again and the BEF was moved from place to place with the hopes that the Germans and the French would have wiped out each other before the British Cavalry began the assault that would have carried them to Berlin by Christmas.  

[NARSES2]

Right we have the Turkish view now lads of what is still a very, very contentious issue.

So we will leave the discussion at that. I've no problems with what you want to model and in what variant of your own history you want to place it in, but the site is not the place for discussing what are still extremely sensitive and contentious historical issues. If you want to do that then there are more appropriate places.

History as they say is written by the winners.

Germans felt it was their last chance before the Russians fully modernized.

Very true and a point I don't fully understand. If it had been 1920 then I might have understood it but the German view that the Russians would have finished their modernisation by 1916 is a very strange one. But then I'm not looking at it with the eyes of a nation that saw it'self possibly surrounded by enemies and with a major ally that was gradually disintergrating.

[tahsin]

I have long believed the 1916 date was based on the delivery schedule of Putilov field guns to the Russian Army. An equal to the famed French 75 it would make mobile operations against the Russians somewhat risky with modern firepower available to Tsar's armies. The Parade's End, this TV Show where ı took this "pity" on the hero and the two heroines, mention railroads to be completed by 1916 which were to carry multitudes of Russian hordes to the borders of Prussia which was to kept lightly to enable a concentration against the French. The Austrians might not survive by '16 and it was distinctly possible that we would not, considering the debacles in the Balkans in 1912-13. When we are no more and the Allies have already occupied what's valuable of us, what's left to fight a World War for? As such the final mission of the Ottoman Army would be to die for the Kaiser.

[NARSES2]

I have long believed the 1916 date was based on the delivery schedule of Putilov field guns to the Russian Army. An equal to the famed French 75 it would make mobile operations against the Russians somewhat risky with modern firepower available to Tsar's armies.

I knew the railway expansion was due for completion by 1916 but didn't think it possible. I did not know about the Pulitov field gun, so I need to look that up. Thanks

[Old Wombat]

I feel people, these days, also tend to forget just how slow communications channels were in the 1914 era.

We, who are used to "on the spot" instantaneous reports via satellite link or mobile phone from anywhere in the world, forget that telegraph was the fastest means of communication, back then, & even that could take a day or more to get to its destination. It was, also, expensive, easily intercepted &, often, there were maximum limits on the number of words which could be sent.

Reporters of the era, when faced with a major event, often sent a brief telegram & followed it up with a letter or communique by post or courier, which, generally, had to travel by ship & could take weeks - even months - to reach its destination.

It, also, made it easier for governments to hide anything even mildly illegal, immoral or shameful, especially if conducted in regions with poor standards of communications (even) for the time. It, further, allowed them a greater opportunity to disseminate disinformation regarding these activities & others, including military procurements, preparations, etc.

One of the great improvements of WW1 was communications. Obviously not to current standards but, by the standards of the time, telegraph, radio-telegraph, voice-radio & aircraft all made communications much faster than they had been prior to the war.



Guy

[Mossie]

I've got a little bit of insight into this reading up on WWI tank warfare.  It was proposed to fit each tank with a wireless set, although the lack of reliabilty and problems with interference meant this was abandoned.  Instead, they used to coloured flags to signal each other, eventually apdopting a semaphore rig.  These attempts where far from ideal and the commander often had to stop and leave the tank to talk to others in the group, sometimes in the heat of battle.

Recce aeroplanes had no radio, so they either had to land or drop a message.  Of course, dropping a meassage was fraught with problems and when signalling tanks that meant they had to leave the vehicle to retrieve it, extremely dangerous.

[PR19_Kit]

They still used signal flags in WWII. When my Dad was in the Habbaniya siege they had a small force of Rolls-Royce armoured cars to patrol the desert areas near the airfield and they had their signal flags clipped to the top of the turret. When the enemy was spotted they signalled back to base, often over quite a distance, to let them know wh what was happening. Apparently the vehicles never were fitted woth radio as there wasn't enough room on board!

[rickshaw]

The Soviets were still using semaphore (signalling with flags) up till the 1980s at least (wouldn't be surprised that the Russians still use them).  It is a silent and sure means of communications with line-of-sight.

[NARSES2]

Yup, like tanks with a radio telephone on the back. Tank commander stays nice and relatively "safe" in his turret while PBI stands outside and makes a call  Wonder if they got local rates ? One has to jest about these things at times (this old  Brit does anyway) in order to make these things seem a little more human.

[NARSES2]

First build is under way and it's scenario is just about constructed. Just got to work out how many Balkan Wars I'm having. Think it will be on patrol during the fourth. AH not involved but keeping a watching brief.