[Michaelj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul

The massacre of General Elphinstones army.

Basically because of Elphinstones incompetance, Britain lost Kabul because Elphinstone was too scared to attack the locals. They revolted and his own officers had mutinous minds. When he retreated for a safe passage he gave almost all his cannons and weapons to the enemy. Bad mistake.

The Afghans just took advantage and did constant guirella attacks. The British forces in the end were running about, attacking their own soldiers and trying to escape this madness. What does Elphinstone do? Hands himself in as a hostage to the enemy, leaving the remaining forces leaderless.

16,000 people and 1 survivor.

the aftermath of the battle was shocking, imagine what men would do to people who murdered their own people in the way they did?

If you like fiction then read Flashman, very good novel where it describes everything in detail with a good plot. Especially with the Afghan leaders. (the main leader was supposedly trying to stop the massacre but they were ignoring him).

[pol pot noodles]

Holy moly that's shocking incompetence, on a level worthy of an Italian.

[Mazzini]

Haig?

He ignored Rawlinson's ideas of 'bite and hold' and instead again went for a 'one big push' tactic at Passchendaele, despite it not working at the Somme. Hundreds of thousands died - 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme alone, a third of which were dead. He was also outdated because he thought cavalry charges were the big thing but because of the invention of the machine gun, they didn't work.

[Akbar2k7]

(Original post by Mazzini)
Haig?

He ignored Rawlinson's ideas of 'bite and hold' and instead again went for a 'one big push' tactic at Passchendaele, despite it not working at the Somme. Hundreds of thousands died - 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme alone, a third of which were dead. He was also outdated because he thought cavalry charges were the big thing but because of the invention of the machine gun, they didn't work.

I was going to say the same thing(though in a less articulate manner), I guess he was too used to fighting an inferior enemy.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Akbar2k7)
I was going to say the same thing(though in a less articulate manner), I guess he was too used to fighting an inferior enemy.

Yeah, he got most of his experience from the Boer War (1899-1901) and a lot of stuff changed in the early 1900s.

[Patriot Rich]

People give Haig an unfairly bad press. He was fighting a constantly modernising war and he adapted to it and learnt from his mistakes. The problem is that in war, these mistakes can cost thousands of lives. Remember the Somme was a victory thanks to new British tactics such as the creeping barrage and of course the tank. The first day of the Somme was also held back by factors outside his control, such as the poor quality of British shells causing many to fail to explode. British casualties were also comparable to the other Allied powers in similar operations so there's little reason to think he was exceptionally bad. Churchill's blunder in the Dardanelles was far more catastrophic, at least Hague rarely lost (although it was usually a bloody stalemate).

(Original post by Mazzini)
Haig?

He ignored Rawlinson's ideas of 'bite and hold' and instead again went for a 'one big push' tactic at Passchendaele, despite it not working at the Somme. Hundreds of thousands died - 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme alone, a third of which were dead. He was also outdated because he thought cavalry charges were the big thing but because of the invention of the machine gun, they didn't work.

Massed British cavalry charges against German machine guns is a Hollywood invention. Cavalry were essentially mounted infantry, using their horse to cover ground rapidly and dismounting to fight. There was the occasional small scale action, which often met with success, but they were more like raids against exposed German units. In the East against the Turks however it was a whole different story.

[cl_steele]

if you look at one of the regiments involved in this, baring in mind it is from wiki and all and it paints a far more honourable picture of what happened, just look up the 44th regiment of foot.

however saying generals are incompetant is a bit like shooting fish in a barrell, its very easy with hindseight but unless we were there at the time and in their position do we really have any right to comment on their decisions? whos to say we wouldnt have made the same choices?

[Michaelj]

(Original post by cl_steele)
if you look at one of the regiments involved in this, baring in mind it is from wiki and all and it paints a far more honourable picture of what happened, just look up the 44th regiment of foot.

however saying generals are incompetant is a bit like shooting fish in a barrell, its very easy with hindseight but unless we were there at the time and in their position do we really have any right to comment on their decisions? whos to say we wouldnt have made the same choices?

No, the general before him held Kabul and fought off all reblious threats. The general after him, fought back the rebels who massacred the army and won back the hostages. Read Flashman if you want a good insight in it, the author really paints the general. He didn't even wanna be there! He didn't have a clue on how to command.

This general made tons of mistakes and to become a general in them days you had to buy your way through their ranks. Obviously you couldnt jump from lieutenant to general with 10k cash but each rank cost money.

On the other posts comments on Haig, he was pretty bad also I suppose...

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Michaelj)
No, the general before him held Kabul and fought off all reblious threats. The general after him, fought back the rebels who massacred the army and won back the hostages. Read Flashman if you want a good insight in it, the author really paints the general. He didn't even wanna be there! He didn't have a clue on how to command.

This general made tons of mistakes and to become a general in them days you had to buy your way through their ranks. Obviously you couldnt jump from lieutenant to general with 10k cash but each rank cost money.

On the other posts comments on Haig, he was pretty bad also I suppose...

ah the dayd of being able to buy your commission
oh undoubedly so but the specific bit i was reffering to was the last stand by that regiment with the classic British 'stiff upper lip' to the end.
but i was more reffering to the generals of contemporary times not the rich smucks who could buy their influence.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Patriot Rich)
People give Haig an unfairly bad press. He was fighting a constantly modernising war and he adapted to it and learnt from his mistakes. The problem is that in war, these mistakes can cost thousands of lives. Remember the Somme was a victory thanks to new British tactics such as the creeping barrage and of course the tank. The first day of the Somme was also held back by factors outside his control, such as the poor quality of British shells causing many to fail to explode. British casualties were also comparable to the other Allied powers in similar operations so there's little reason to think he was exceptionally bad. Churchill's blunder in the Dardanelles was far more catastrophic, at least Hague rarely lost (although it was usually a bloody stalemate).

Massed British cavalry charges against German machine guns is a Hollywood invention. Cavalry were essentially mounted infantry, using their horse to cover ground rapidly and dismounting to fight. There was the occasional small scale action, which often met with success, but they were more like raids against exposed German units. In the East against the Turks however it was a whole different story.

I never said they were "massed". And my views are not based on Hollywood. I'm studying Haig and WWI in History at the moment (got an exam tomorrow on it).

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Mazzini)
I never said they were "massed". And my views are not based on Hollywood. I'm studying Haig and WWI in History at the moment (got an exam tomorrow on it).

Who is your teacher, Edmund Blackadder?
You should read Mud, Blood and Poppycock, by Gordon Corrigan. It's does a pretty good job of explaining why the phrases 'lions led by donkeys', or more specific to this discussion the old 'Haig the cold-hearted butcher' is a myth.

[Michaelj]

(Original post by cl_steele)
ah the dayd of being able to buy your commission
oh undoubedly so but the specific bit i was reffering to was the last stand by that regiment with the classic British 'stiff upper lip' to the end.
but i was more reffering to the generals of contemporary times not the rich smucks who could buy their influence.

The general handed himself in as a hostage way before the last stand. Ironically when he left the army was in charge of captains or majors.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Who is your teacher, Edmund Blackadder?
You should read Mud, Blood and Poppycock, by Gordon Corrigan. It's does a pretty good job of explaining why the phrases 'lions led by donkeys', or more specific to this discussion the old 'Haig the cold-hearted butcher' is a myth.

I never said he was a "cold-hearted butcher". What I said was that he failed to adapt after the Somme (eg at Passchendaele) when his tactics there did not work. It took four months to gain the original objective point at the Somme.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Mazzini)
I never said he was a "cold-hearted butcher". What I said was that he failed to adapt after the Somme (eg at Passchendaele) when his tactics there did not work. It took four months to gain the original objective point at the Somme.

'Cold-hearted butcher' is my umbrella term to describe criticisms of Haig, since they usually relate eventually to the number of deaths that British troops suffered in battle. Which you did actually bring up.
As for the Somme, there were a number of factors that were outside of Haig's control that directly affected the battle, such as faulty shells (75% of which didn't go off), there was also the fact the majority of his men were from Kitchener's army and as such were fresh and poorly trained, there was also direct pressure from London and Paris to engage the Germans along the entire front in massive numbers to relieve pressure from Verdun. Then there was your comment regarding cavalry which is ignorant of the fact that not only were cavalry never intended to be used as a head on charge, but also of the fact that cavalry were successfully employed in flanking moves to great effect in some battles in the closing stage of the war, off the top of my head at Ameins in 1918 and also at Megiddo in the Middle East.

[Michaelj]

I don't think being highly trained in ww1 would of changed the fact you're charging infront of a trench with machine guns.

[Kamaljot]

This is from an essay a wrote on General Haig:
From the sources above and analysing both sides of the argument I conclude that Haig was not incompetent. Haig was just a mere scapegoat for losses of many lives; the true culprits are the generals who were to coward to share the blame and the Prime minister, George Lloyd, who appointed him for the Somme and then later after his death deemed him incompetent and a ‘second-rate commander’. The Somme was a horrible disaster in the British military history which tarnished a great leader who inspired many across England. Many of us get taught ‘The Battle of the Somme’ as the biggest military failure of England but they never show the bigger and much more successful picture, we accomplished the following we captured Thiepval, Broke the Stalemate, gained land, freed the French at Verdun, killed Germans and we gained experience about modern warfare as well as inventing useful and effective techniques. But even though Haig chose to ignore some obvious warning and information given by experienced soldiers, such as he didn’t take warning of the pilots regarding the third trench. Many of the message’s and messengers who were sent off to Haig to tell him the news probably ‘sugar coated’ the truth in fear of Haig’s explosive anger, which may have restricted the quick actions that should have taken place much earlier such as preventing so many deaths in the Battle of the Somme. I feel that the Somme was planned well but nothing went accordingly, Haig was not solely to blame for one of the greatest tragedies in England’s military history.

[The Marshall]

The duke of wellington

[Michaelj]

(Original post by The Marshall)
The duke of wellington

B/s! He was without a doubt one of our best of all time!

[Mazzini]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
'Cold-hearted butcher' is my umbrella term to describe criticisms of Haig, since they usually relate eventually to the number of deaths that British troops suffered in battle. Which you did actually bring up.
As for the Somme, there were a number of factors that were outside of Haig's control that directly affected the battle, such as faulty shells (75% of which didn't go off), there was also the fact the majority of his men were from Kitchener's army and as such were fresh and poorly trained, there was also direct pressure from London and Paris to engage the Germans along the entire front in massive numbers to relieve pressure from Verdun. Then there was your comment regarding cavalry which is ignorant of the fact that not only were cavalry never intended to be used as a head on charge, but also of the fact that cavalry were successfully employed in flanking moves to great effect in some battles in the closing stage of the war, off the top of my head at Ameins in 1918 and also at Megiddo in the Middle East.

I didn't use it, though. I thought that it was a third which were duds, not 75%, anyway? I know there was pressure from the French to relieve Verdun; that was the point of the Somme to begin with. But basic tactics, such as walking across no man's land, were ridiculous and the high command was far behind the trenches and hardly ever visited the front line.

[The Marshall]

(Original post by Michaelj)
B/s! He was without a doubt one of our best of all time!

Then how come he was losing at Waterloo? He was nothing in front of Napoleon the great. Without the Germans , you would have lost.