World War I

[Veho Nex]

I'm sure one of these appears every once in a while in this part of the forum I have seen it before.

This time I want to touch upon the pure insanity of the 'long march'. The long march being the hop up top and walk across this field of death and if you make it to the other side hope for the best. God be with you.

I was just watching a documentary on the heart wrenching battle of Somme. Just... It was horrible you think they could have reverted to the old stand at 100 yards and fire strategy or something...

Yes I know the guns were getting more accurate the arty more long range the MG's more deadly but still...

Now I can't right a full opinion article on this tonight but I will finish it later on when I dont have tons of school work and have to be up in 4 hours

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, the stormtrooper offensives near the end of the war showed how the stalemate could be broken. My personal opinion believes that there were too many closed minds.

[Caius]

What was really the battle of Somme? The advance of Germany into France without their knowledge?

[Craterus]

The Somme was a (mostly) British offensive that was supposed to alleviate the pressure on the French at Verdun.

[Watchman]

IIRC it's also one of the single most notorious clusterfrags in British military history, largely thanks to some serious failures of quality control in artillery ammunition and some rather over-optimistic planning.

Anyway, after the sheer idiocy of the start of the war was over "going over the top" wasn't actually as much pure suicide as it might initially seem like; this was mostly thanks to artillery preparation, which when properly done tended to leave fairly little in the enemy's forward trenches capable of shooting at the advancing infantry. Three problems, however: one, enemy artillery could still do quite a number on the troops, doubly so as sooner or later they were out of the reach of your gunlines but could, obviously, still cover their own trenches and most of the no-man's land; two, partly due to this it was next to impossible to sustain a decisive penetration into the enemy trench system - getting reinforcements and supplies over was difficult in the extreme (indeed, IIRC the tank grew out of projects to develop an armoured prime mover for just such supply purposes - and such were also built besides the actual assault vehicles); three, not only did pretty much everybody quite soon learn to only garrison the forward trenches only lightly with delaying forces, keeping the main bodies of troops pulled back in (relative) safety from where they could then be deployed to repulse an attack, the Germans at least took to constructing extremely resilient concrete troop bunkers deep underground in the forward trenches, from which the soldiers then emerged to man the MGs and firing ledges after the worst hurricane bombardement was over.

[Veho Nex]

There was also the british Creeping Barrage which made it so that they would reach the trenches the minute the barrage stopped.

The french deemed if they lost 15% of their troops to 'friendly' fire the barrage was a success

[Pannonian]

The creeping barrage wasn't an exclusively British thing - anyone with any control of their artillery did it. There were nasty variations on it as well, like the stop start barrage that crept ahead of the front trenches and erected an HE wall in the zone beyond to stop any counterattack, the back and forth barrage that crept ahead of the front trenches, then came back again when the defenders started sticking their heads up. There was reported one example of a cavalry breakout being blocked by a barrage wall, turning back to find their retreat blocked by another wall, as were all other sides, and the walls gradually closing in and killing everyone. The science of artllery advanced greatly in WW1.

[Veho Nex]

It was developed by the British and like i for mentioned, the French expected to lose 15% of their own troops in an attack do to it. there were also rolling barrages gas barrages and several others which i have yet to read about

And there is a video documentary the tells about that one experience

[Northnovas]

The creeping barrage was not really effective till Vimy 1917. The Canadians saw the errors of the Somme with infantry waves marching shoulder to shoulder and out of sync after the barrage.
The Canadians were trained prior to the engagement and the training paid off! In later months the French were back to see what the Canadians did at Vimy.
Also the use of sound ranging by a Canadian, artillery knocking out enemy artillery positions. He recruited the help of British scientists whose advice on this topic had been previously refused by the British Army.
They placed microphones in No Man's Land. Whenever the enemy fired, McNaughton and his crew could geometrically calculate how long the sound would take to reach each microphone. They could pinpoint enemy guns in less than 5 minutes and within 28 yards (they could even tell the calibre of the guns)!

[Watchman]

Other fun stuff was the gas warfare, and why not all kinds of flame-spewing nastiness while we're at it. As if the trench war wasn't horrible and overbearing enough before...

[spmetla]

And then there's also the horrible sanitary conditions that led to the rampant spread of very deadly disease.

[Kralizec]

Other fun stuff was the gas warfare, and why not all kinds of flame-spewing nastiness while we're at it. As if the trench war wasn't horrible and overbearing enough before...

I bet the Germans were really sorry for having used that- the allies took to the idea and used way, way more of that stuff eventually then the inventors themselves, who found their weapon generally less effective due to wind direction...

[Watchman]

Strictly speaking the French actually started it (tear gas in bunker assaults or somesuch), but it sort of escalated really fast thereafter...

Don't remember off the top of my head who was the first to use flame-projectors. By the late war everyone already had man-portable flamethrowers a-plenty anyway, so I don't think it really matters.

[Geoffrey S]

In other words, it was far from the static, stubborn and idiotic mess hindsight has often made it out to be. The classic over the top suicide charge was largely an early war thing, and a significant number of developments which proved useful for later conflicts were developed in that context.

[Pannonian]

In other words, it was far from the static, stubborn and idiotic mess hindsight has often made it out to be. The classic over the top suicide charge was largely an early war thing, and a significant number of developments which proved useful for later conflicts were developed in that context.
There wasn't much alternative anyway. If you're relatively safe in a hole in the ground, but you want to get to the other side to occupy ground, the only thing you can do is go "over the top". The only questions are how the supporting arms help you get there, and how your getting there is supported afterwards.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I bet the Germans were really sorry for having used that- the allies took to the idea and used way, way more of that stuff eventually then the inventors themselves, who found their weapon generally less effective due to wind direction...

It was another thing that came down to a bad descision - if the gap created had been exploited, who knows what could've happened?

[Tribesman]

In relation to the Somme and the creeping barrage .
The French had already adapted , while the British mostly went with a timetable of predicted movement the French went with a forward controled movement , it meant that they could advance the barrage in time with the troops (or call it back) rather than attempting to advance the troops in time with the barrage .
It was the main reason why the French made it to their objectives on day 1 of the Somme and the British didn't .

[Watchman]

It was another thing that came down to a bad descision - if the gap created had been exploited, who knows what could've happened?The exploiting bit tended to be easier said than done. For one thing, in the comparatively clear and intact grounds behind the trench lines mobile troops like cavalry and armoured cars could be used to the full - and were very useful for containing penetrations.

'Sides, war gases had the real problem they tended to linger and were just as detrimental to your troops if protection wasn't topnotch - and even then, the filters in the masks only lasted for so long. That's one reason they later were no longer used to try to clear ground for assaults, but rather harass, pin down artillery, and create "barrier zones" that blocked enemy reinforcements.

[Pannonian]

'Sides, war gases had the real problem they tended to linger and were just as detrimental to your troops if protection wasn't topnotch - and even then, the filters in the masks only lasted for so long. That's one reason they later were no longer used to try to clear ground for assaults, but rather harass, pin down artillery, and create "barrier zones" that blocked enemy reinforcements.
One charming method of harassment the British used was to pick out certain units for special treatment, following them wherever they'd been posted, and gassing them.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The exploiting bit tended to be easier said than done. For one thing, in the comparatively clear and intact grounds behind the trench lines mobile troops like cavalry and armoured cars could be used to the full - and were very useful for containing penetrations.

'Sides, war gases had the real problem they tended to linger and were just as detrimental to your troops if protection wasn't topnotch - and even then, the filters in the masks only lasted for so long. That's one reason they later were no longer used to try to clear ground for assaults, but rather harass, pin down artillery, and create "barrier zones" that blocked enemy reinforcements.

Another important thing to note is that communication was by and large terrible during an assault. The higher ups usually couldn't communicate with their troops after the assault began, especially as units started to move deeper into enemy territory. Once communication deteriorated things would bog down on their own, adding armored cars, cavalry, enemy artillery, enemy fortifications, mud, gas and even the occasional aircraft to the mix really didn't help.

[KrooK]

For me world war one was one big lasting of resources. I can't understand why Germans who made modern warfare on eastern front did so illogical on western.

BTW first time poison gas became used into 1915 on eastern front.

[Kralizec]

For me world war one was one big lasting of resources. I can't understand why Germans who made modern warfare on eastern front did so illogical on western.

I don't recall the specifics, but it started as limited ad hoc trenching when the Germans lost their momentum. The French started a countertrench, and both tried to expand their line fast enough so that they could work around the flank of the other. Eventually the line ran from Switzerland to the Channel.

[CBR]

The troop density was lower on the eastern front so it was not as easy to create the same strong defense lines as seen in the west. The low quality of the Russian army also helped of course.


CBR

[Geoffrey S]

More room, combined with significantly more modern logistics, meant that German advantages could for more efficiently be pressed against Russia - similar things can be seen in more outlying regions of the Ottoman empire.

[Tribesman]

BTW first time poison gas became used into 1915 on eastern front.

No it wasn't , the eastern front had the first large scale use of tear gas which isn't classed as a poison gas as such and anyway it had been used since august 1914 on the western front.

[Csargo]

I thought the first use of poisonous gas was on the Western Front in 1916.

[Tribesman]

I thought the first use of poisonous gas was on the Western Front in 1916
Nope , asphyxiants were used in april 1915 , the tear gas used earlier apperantly doesn't count as poisonous because it isn't lethal(apart from in very heavy concentrations or due to an allergic reaction) .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

First used about a week before the Second Battle of Ypres on the Western Front, and in the Battle of Bolimov on the Eastern Front.

[KrooK]

I don't meant tear gas - I meant chlorium (Cl).
As Maniac said it has been first time used by Germans 31.05.1915 on eastern front during battle of Bolimov. Earlier (31.05.1915) at same place Germans used tear gas however it was too cold and gas did not do any damage.

[Northnovas]

I don't meant tear gas - I meant chlorium (Cl).
As Maniac said it has been first time used by Germans 31.05.1915 on eastern front during battle of Bolimov. Earlier (31.05.1915) at same place Germans used tear gas however it was too cold and gas did not do any damage.

22 Apr 15 the Germans used 160 tons of chlorine against the French and Colonials. Bolimov was the first use but the casualties were only in the hundreds. At Ypres there were 6,000 French and colonials that died within minutes but like other tactical errors of the Great War the German High Command was unsure of the new weapon and did not exploit the gap; no reserve troops. By the time they moved in it was evening and the British and Canadians had closed the gap left by the French and stopped the German advance.

[Tribesman]

I don't meant tear gas - I meant chlorium (Cl).

Well then you shall have to provide some details since as far as I know there was absolutely no use of Chlorine gas at Bolimov and all that was used was T-Stoff

[Northnovas]

The first gas attacks of World War I were by the French and then the Germans at Bolimov. However, it was tear gas in both cases and should have clarified that for the Battle of Bolimov.
The first poisonous gas (CI) chlorium was used on the Western Front at Ypres April 1915.

[KrooK]

Ypres - 150 tons of chlorium
Bolimov - 264 tons of chlorium

I think that problem is how are we classyfing tear gas. If decisive would be calling it gas, Bolimov will be first. If we are talking about highly poison gas - Ypres would be first.

And there were from 1500 to 11.000 deaths - Russian tells about 1500-2000 but their sources are not reliable.

[Tribesman]

~:rolleyes:

[Watchman]

Although by what I've read of it, mass deaths from period war gases only actually happened as the result of wholesale mass panic and rout - leaving those who'd been disabled by the initial exposure lying there in the poison clouds, which is naturally quite fatal to anyone.

Where even unprotected troops retained enough presence of mind to at least take along their succumbed comrades when they abandoned their positions, the body counts were AFAIK downright minimal - although large numbers of soldiers would still be hors de combat for a while as they recovered from the symptoms of the exposure. Not to forget that there were instances where troops stubbornly held their positions and repelled assaults, in spite of having no better protection than wet rags... (urine apparently neutralised some of the early gases surprisingly well...)

Heck, the doctors, engineers and whatnot in the business of devising countermeasures to the gases repeatedly willingly exposed themselves to the stuff, in both laboratory and the trenches, merely to observe the symptoms and later tests treatment methods...

As such it should come as no surprise that the armies regarded training in "gas discipline" at least as important a countermeasure as the actual masks and rebreathers. Panic was at least as deadly a hazard as the poison itself.

[Veho Nex]

I love all the infor guys im learning alot, and i love ww1. Please keep it coming

[Craterus]

What other aspects of the First World War would you like to hear about? I'm sure the experts would be happy to oblige.

[Veho Nex]

Everything, planes, naval, general assualts with the tank spreads, the works where and what and when.

[Veho Nex]

come on lads we need some info... err i need some info

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Everything, planes, naval, general assualts with the tank spreads, the works where and what and when.

That's an awful lot. Any specific questions? On aviation especially I could help you.

[Veho Nex]

How were they used, what was the point of bombing when (as far as i know) it was dropping dynamite off the side of the plane

[The Foolish Horseman]

In WW1, Airplanes were used for several purposes:

Scouting: The Planes were often flown just over the trenches of the enemy to see if they were dead or alive. If they were alive i believe they threw grenades down to not only kill the enemy, but to also alert allies of the threat

Gas Mssions: Towards the end of the war, pilots used to throw mustard gas canisters from their planes onto enemy fortifications. However there is one story of a canister exploding while the pilot held it, blinding him and he crashed into no mans land, decaptitaing himself on the propeller in the prcess* cringes*

Bombing: previously mentioned, when the RFC were busy supporting the BEF in 1915, they used to throw grenades into the trenches. There is one story of a RFC plane shooting down a forced down a German Etrich Taube which had approached their aerodrome while they were refueling their Avro. Another RFC machine landed nearby and the RFC observer chased the German pilot into some nearby woods.


The main "naval" roles of the RNAS (ignoring for the minute the service's direct "competition" with the RFC) were fleet reconnaissance, patrolling coasts for enemy ships and submarines, and attacking enemy coastal territory. The RNAS systematically searched 4,000 square miles (10,000 km²) of the Channel and the North Sea for U-boats. In 1917 alone, they sighted 175 U-boats and attacked 107. Because of the technology of the time the attacks were not very successful in terms of submarines sunk, but the sightings greatly assisted the Navy's surface fleets in combatting the enemy submarines.
It was the RNAS which provided much of the mobile cover using armoured cars, during the withdrawal from Antwerp to the Yser, in 1914. Later in the war, squadrons of the RNAS were sent to France to directly support the RFC. The RNAS was also at one stage entrusted with the air defence of London. This led to its raids on airship stations in Germany, in places as far from the sea as Friedrichshafen.
Before techniques were developed for taking off and landing on ships, the RNAS had to use seaplanes in order to operate at sea. Beginning with experiments on the old cruiser HMS Hermes, special seaplane tenders were developed to support these aircraft. It was from these ships that a raid on Zeppelin bases at Cuxhaven and Wilhelmshaven was launched on Christmas Day of 1914. This was the first attack by ship-borne aircraft. A chain of coastal air stations was also constructed.



The RNAS, by the start of the war had more planes than the RFC. THe RNAS, by the time the RAF formed on April 1st 1918 had 67,000 officers and men, 2,949 aircraft, 103 airships and 126 coastal stations. The RFC had 18 squadrons, composing of around 45,000 men, 1,800 planes and 21 bases in the UK and France

[Veho Nex]

EHH.... I dont know what half of the acronyms you just said mean

RFC?
BEF?
RNAS?

[Tribesman]

RFC?
BEF?
RNAS?

Air force
Army in western europe
Navy air force

[Craterus]

Or, more specifically:

Royal Flying Corps
British Expeditionary Force
Royal Naval Air Service

[Veho Nex]

Dunke

wow... i meant Danke