What coudld have happened? WW1

[Avicenna]

This is what they were trying to do. Contrary to common belifes they actually managed quite well with breaking throught the first lines of defence. this was becouse artillery was massed and could quite well destroy and paralise the enemy. The mayor proplem was that the enemy could get reinforcment quiker wich you guys have said.

You must remeber that this was only 50 years sence the American civil war, were people still fought in lines and nobody moved untill order and there were no squads or lower formation of units. In ww1 leftovers were that the commands were still coming from the generals and not from locale officers. And there were also no quick safe communications.

This in effect meant that once an attack started the artillery covering fire usally fired to rapatly, leaving the infantry behind becouse they had no way to quikly update the artillery what was happening. When the breakthrough was made they needed to ask the generla or division commander or someone what to do after having reported on thier situaition. Which means that they needed to send a runner or a horse or something wich overall before the orders came back meant that it would take over 5 hours before any action could be made. Even if reinforcment was sent when the word get through they would still be hours away. while the enemy could report and counter-attack in less then 2-3 hours. As you all see this means disaster for the attacking force. This was only changed when the tanks came and the orders were to attack a far flung objective.


So what we could do gentlemen is to allow our officers to use what the german developed misson-type tactics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_control. And also station reserves closer to the front-lines and have them move once you think the forward troops would have broken through. And finally let the artillery lower thier timetables so that the infantry could be supported by a rolling line of flame.
All this could have been done in ww1, and was done by the germans when they developed infiltration tactics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiltration_tactics.

The tactics were implemented.. at near the END of the battle of the Somme.

Artillery was also not effective as you said. The Germans just stayed in their bunkers and had a hard time going to sleep, popping out when the shelling was finished. You also seem to miss out my first part. Bomb them until they're all dead due to starvation or they surrender. The rest is just a precaution.

By the way, why does the time lapse between orders given and implemented apply only to the Allies? I don't recall the Germans being less rigid.

[Sirex1]

The tactics were implemented.. at near the END of the battle of the Somme.

Artillery was also not effective as you said. The Germans just stayed in their bunkers and had a hard time going to sleep, popping out when the shelling was finished. You also seem to miss out my first part. Bomb them until they're all dead due to starvation or they surrender. The rest is just a precaution.

By the way, why does the time lapse between orders given and implemented apply only to the Allies? I don't recall the Germans being less rigid.

Yeah but you are missing my point, you won't stick out your head if the artillery is still firing on you. And if the artillery is hitting you but stops when the enemy is only 1-2 min away you got a proplem instead of 10 min. The artillery had proplem to be right in front of the infantry becouse no quiqe communication was available, becouse the infantry got behind in the timetable.

Your tactics can be used agaisnt you, did you know that they could activly bomb each outhers supplylines, but during the quite times they refused, becouse thier supply lines would be bombed in return. And thus only an attrition way, and not a way to make a succefull attack wich i think was the topic.

The germans sufferd from these proplems too, but not after they developed the infiltration tactics, in wich stormtroopers got in first and by passed strong defence to attack communication and logistic and the like, and also isolating defences wich the main infantry dealt with later on.

But you seem to know about the later allies tactics, could you please teach me some. I read Kerrigans ww1 book, but that wa a time ago and i don't really remember that tehy did any big cahnge in tactics untill the tanks came.

[Pannonian]

But you seem to know about the later allies tactics, could you please teach me some. I read Kerrigans ww1 book, but that wa a time ago and i don't really remember that tehy did any big cahnge in tactics untill the tanks came.

The tanks were a comparatively minor part of the revolution in allied tactics. More significant was the rolling barrage, with infantry urged to err on the side of being too close rather than too far behind the barrage. Also, the development of advanced squad tactics, with a synergy of rifle, machine gun and bomb specialists, each covering for each other, and multiple squads attacking strongpoints, each squad capable of leading or working round the flanks, and rearranging as circumstances dictated. By the end of the war, the British and Commonwealth army in particular was probably as good as any infantry-based army could have been, given the technology they had, putting into practice all the various ideas that have since become established doctrine. I recommend Paddy Griffith's "Battle Tactics of the Western Front" for an illuminating read.

Welcome to Paddy Griffith's Web Site

[Sirex1]

The tactics were implemented.. at near the END of the battle of the Somme.

Artillery was also not effective as you said. The Germans just stayed in their bunkers and had a hard time going to sleep, popping out when the shelling was finished. You also seem to miss out my first part. Bomb them until they're all dead due to starvation or they surrender. The rest is just a precaution.

By the way, why does the time lapse between orders given and implemented apply only to the Allies? I don't recall the Germans being less rigid.

Yeah but you are missing my point, you won't stick out your head if the artillery is still firing on you. And if the artillery is hitting you but stops when the enemy is only 1-2 min away you got a proplem instead of 10 min. The artillery had proplem to be right in front of the infantry becouse no quiqe communication was available, becouse the infantry got behind in the timetable.

Your tactics can be used agaisnt you, did you know that they could activly bomb each outhers supplylines, but during the quite times they refused, becouse thier supply lines would be bombed in return. And thus only an attrition way, and not a way to make a succefull attack wich i think was the topic.

The germans sufferd from these proplems too, but not after they developed the infiltration tactics, in wich stormtroopers got in first and by passed strong defence to attack communication and logistic and the like, and also isolating defences wich the main infantry dealt with later on.

But you seem to know about the later allies tactics, could you please teach me some. I read Kerrigans ww1 book, but that wa a time ago and i don't really remember that tehy did any big cahnge in tactics untill the tanks came.