Back
to top
The generals of WW1
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Why do you think the generals of WW1 struggled so much on the Western front?
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by Jacob :))
Why do you think the generals of WW1 struggled so much on the Western front?
Why do you think the generals of WW1 struggled so much on the Western front?
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by Fezzick123)
The last war of a comparable size (Napoleonic Wars) had ended pretty much 100 years previously, so no one had any memory of large scale warfare. Also, generals had become used to fighting colonial wars, so the large scale fighting on the Western Front came as a shock to them. In short, WWI was like nothing that had come before, meaning that the generals faced a steep learning curve.
The last war of a comparable size (Napoleonic Wars) had ended pretty much 100 years previously, so no one had any memory of large scale warfare. Also, generals had become used to fighting colonial wars, so the large scale fighting on the Western Front came as a shock to them. In short, WWI was like nothing that had come before, meaning that the generals faced a steep learning curve.
0
reply
(Original post by Fezzick123)
The last war of a comparable size (Napoleonic Wars) had ended pretty much 100 years previously, so no one had any memory of large scale warfare. Also, generals had become used to fighting colonial wars, so the large scale fighting on the Western Front came as a shock to them. In short, WWI was like nothing that had come before, meaning that the generals faced a steep learning curve.
The last war of a comparable size (Napoleonic Wars) had ended pretty much 100 years previously, so no one had any memory of large scale warfare. Also, generals had become used to fighting colonial wars, so the large scale fighting on the Western Front came as a shock to them. In short, WWI was like nothing that had come before, meaning that the generals faced a steep learning curve.
(Original post by ageshallnot)
Have to disagree... the Franco-Austrian, Austro-Prussian and particularly the Franco-Prussian wars all involved armies and battles of comparable size to the Napoleonic Wars. The battle of Gravelotte-St Privat in 1870, for example, involved more than 110,000 French and 180,000 Prussians.
Have to disagree... the Franco-Austrian, Austro-Prussian and particularly the Franco-Prussian wars all involved armies and battles of comparable size to the Napoleonic Wars. The battle of Gravelotte-St Privat in 1870, for example, involved more than 110,000 French and 180,000 Prussians.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by ageshallnot)
Have to disagree... the Franco-Austrian, Austro-Prussian and particularly the Franco-Prussian wars all involved armies and battles of comparable size to the Napoleonic Wars. The battle of Gravelotte-St Privat in 1870, for example, involved more than 110,000 French and 180,000 Prussians.
Have to disagree... the Franco-Austrian, Austro-Prussian and particularly the Franco-Prussian wars all involved armies and battles of comparable size to the Napoleonic Wars. The battle of Gravelotte-St Privat in 1870, for example, involved more than 110,000 French and 180,000 Prussians.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Jacob :))
So what was the difference? Obviously the length of the conflict. I don't think the artillery was that different was it? Was the machine gun the deciding factor?
So what was the difference? Obviously the length of the conflict. I don't think the artillery was that different was it? Was the machine gun the deciding factor?
- Generals from all sides were inexperienced in trench warfare.
- Weapon technology had progressed a lot since 1871, most notably with the development of machine guns.
- Europe's armies, particularly Britain's, were geared towards colonial wars against technologically inferior enemies, not against up to date militaries.
- European generals weren't used to commanding so many troops.
0
reply
Report
#7
I'd say it's the clash of the old and the new. The military tactics of the time were still those used decades before, and this was faced by the devastating technology of the time; this was most hauntingly illustrated with the slow, ordered marching of soldiers towards well-defended light machine gun emplacements. My view is that the tactics used by the generals were outdated and, so, the losses were so high and the progress so slow. The fact that generals believed they could simply march simply to victory meant that no decisive victories were ever won.
0
reply
(Original post by mevidek)
I'd say it's the clash of the old and the new. The military tactics of the time were still those used decades before, and this was faced by the devastating technology of the time; this was most hauntingly illustrated with the slow, ordered marching of soldiers towards well-defended light machine gun emplacements. My view is that the tactics used by the generals were outdated and, so, the losses were so high and the progress so slow. The fact that generals believed they could simply march simply to victory meant that no decisive victories were ever won.
I'd say it's the clash of the old and the new. The military tactics of the time were still those used decades before, and this was faced by the devastating technology of the time; this was most hauntingly illustrated with the slow, ordered marching of soldiers towards well-defended light machine gun emplacements. My view is that the tactics used by the generals were outdated and, so, the losses were so high and the progress so slow. The fact that generals believed they could simply march simply to victory meant that no decisive victories were ever won.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Jacob :))
You could blame that on ineffective artillery. If at the Somme the artillery had actually broken the wire and driven out the German it could have actually gone well.
You could blame that on ineffective artillery. If at the Somme the artillery had actually broken the wire and driven out the German it could have actually gone well.
0
reply
(Original post by mevidek)
But the nature of warfare had changed. Artillery wasn't ineffective, both sides were just dug in so well.
But the nature of warfare had changed. Artillery wasn't ineffective, both sides were just dug in so well.
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by Jacob :))
It got much better though. The use of rolling barrages in particular.
It got much better though. The use of rolling barrages in particular.
0
reply
(Original post by mevidek)
That still doesn't explain why neither side managed to break through at all during the War. I'd still say that the clash of the eras caused the 4 year-long stalemate.
That still doesn't explain why neither side managed to break through at all during the War. I'd still say that the clash of the eras caused the 4 year-long stalemate.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Jacob :))
Yeh of course.
Yeh of course.
0
reply
Report
#14
Also, the generals (who were usually fairly old) had been taught that in a war, an attacker always has the advantage. However, the opposite was true in WWI. You may have read about the first British attack on the German trenches at the Battle of the Somme, where the defending Germans literally used machine gun fire to cut down British troops in their thousands
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
