Why does Haig get the shaft?

[ltmaverick25]

I think many people also forget about the evolution of machine gun tactics and establishments during the war.  The battlefield density of machine guns and the effectiveness of machine gun employment changed dramatically during the first years of the Great war.

You are absolutely right about that.  Haig's problem though is that he was out of touch.  He refused to visit the front because he wanted to remain detatched.  He has no idea what he was dealing with and he would not listen to what others were telling him.  This would only change during the 100 days offensive that won the war.  But even then, all he did was to send the Canadian Corps in first, battle after battle, which in a sence was a good idea because they had become masters of the offensive.  The problem is he never bothered to learn and understand why.

 

[hugh19]

So he never used the Aussies or Kiwi's or the 51st Highland div or the Guards div or any of the other highly rated Imperial troops, just the Canadian Corps eh?

 

[ltmaverick25]

Vimy Ridge seems to me to be an anachronism in WW1 battles,firstly if one has
seen the ground,there seems to be very little room on the ridge for the defence
in depth that the Germans seemed to favour, as the back side of the ridge is
almost vertical bringing up reserves would have been very difficult and the
lack of observation for the German arty down on the plain would have made it
very difficult to bring effective fire on an attacking enemy.Please do not think
that I am in anyway trying to diminish the splendid effort of Gen.Bing or the
Canadian Corps,just that because of the terrain it seems somewhat different
to other battles on the Western Front.
                                           Regards

You are right about the defence in depth.  To lay out a defence in depth was to lose the ridge.  They could not hold it and employ that type of defence at the same time.  There was a debate in German command as to weather to pull back and develop some depth thereby giving up the ridge (they knew an attack was coming) or stand firm.

They chose to stand firm, they also chose to leave their reserves extremely far back (dont have the distance handy right now).  The reasoning for this was that they had successfully held out for extremely long periods of time against the British and the French who had tried to take the ridge before.  The Germans basically used the exact same tactics against the Canadians as they had successfully used before.  They had absolutely no reason to beleive it was not going to work.  That is why I continue to argue that although elements of these new tactics were springing up at the Somme and Verdun, the first time they were fully brought to bear and implemented EFFECTIVELY was Vimy, and thats what caught the Germans off guard.  The Germans were caught using a pre modern system of defence vs a modern system of attack and the results speak for themselves.

They didnt make that mistake again.  Which is exactly why the breakthrough aspirations of the British and the French became completely unrealistic.

As for the tactics themselves.  The Canadian Corps did not exist in a bubble of isolation, they were part of a larger British formation and had the benefit of absorbing lessons learned from the Brits, as well as several professional British staff officers.  As was discussed they also had the chance to learn from the French.  The Corps didnt create these new tactics without any help from anyone else, but they did perfect them and embrace them in ways that no other army on the western front did.

 

[hugh19]

One of the Coprs staff officers went on to be CIGS.  Alanbrooke to be exact.

 

[ltmaverick25]

So he never used the Aussies or Kiwi's or the 51st Highland div or the Guards div or any of the other highly rated Imperial troops, just the Canadian Corps eh?

Im not saying that at all.  I honestly dont have much background with the other commonwealth armies, one of the drawbacks of specialization.  The vast majority of scholarship that I have read is from Canadian authors to date.  Im only just beggining to come to the end of those publications.  Give me another 5 years and ill have the other stuff down too  I have read in several instances though that the Aussies were highly regarded, thats about as much background as I have in that area.

 

[hugh19]

Well good to see you can admit you have limited subject knowledge. I am no expert but have done much reading on  the subject, and have a fair knowledge. The canadian where well used but as part of a team effort. During the hundred days the Canadian Corps had the biggest battalions as I am sure you know. As well as much more firepower per division than a contemparary Imperial division. Which is why they got some hard roles, that and a excellent staff. But the Brits used there own troops just as much. I do beleive you have fallen for the myth that only Canadian/Australian troops did the fighting while the brits had tea.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Well good to see you can admit you have limited subject knowledge. I am no expert but have done much reading on  the subject, and have a fair knowledge. The canadian where well used but as part of a team effort. During the hundred days the Canadian Corps had the biggest battalions as I am sure you know. As well as much more firepower per division than a contemparary Imperial division. Which is why they got some hard roles, that and a excellent staff. But the Brits used there own troops just as much. I do beleive you have fallen for the myth that only Canadian/Australian troops did the fighting while the brits had tea.

I would not say that I have limited subject knowledge, just that I am specializing in Canadian military history, and even though a smaller field then say British or American history, still quite large for one grad student.

As for falling into that trap, thats not the case.  When I publish my article ill post a link here for you guys to view if you wish.  As ive said many times in this thread the Canadians were operating as part of a larger British formation.  They had help, they had support, they were trained and mentored by other armies.  Im not trying to say that only Canada fought this war.  I am arguing however that the Canadian Corps ended the war being the best army on the offensive.  I am not the first to make such a claim though.  Many British, American, Canadian and German authors have made those conclusions long before I did.

The article that im writing will involve taking Steven Biddles theories of modern system force employment on the offensive through limited aims objectives and use a case study to test it - Vimy, and spit out some results.

As an aside some of the research I am engaged in involves reading the personal correspondences of German soldiers to their families to see what they had to say about all of this.  Slow goings since I do not speak a word of German and have to rely on collegues for translation.  But so far, based on what im reading, (and my research is only preliminary at this point so things could change) it seems that the Canadians were the most feared by the Germans come late 1917 onwards.  Prior to that, almost no mention.

 

[ltmaverick25]

I would be careful about saying that infantry had never advanced while the artillery was firing before Vimy. The Japanese had done that in 1904/05, and I have read about the French using a rolling barrage during Verdun counter-attacks. German "Storm Troop" tactics evolved over time and had been doing so before Vimy. The Germans are reported to have used rolling barrages and "combined arms" tactics in 1915. The German general Bruchmuller employed rolling barrages in 1916 in the east and had worked very hard to ensure the cooperation of the artillery and the infantry. Lupfer's Dynamics of Doctrine is a good little read that gives an overview of doctrinal development during WW1. There is a link in this thread that I tried to get going last year. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70754.0.html

I just had another thought on this.  Any idea if the tactics that the Japanese used in 1904/05 were known to Allied or German allies at the onset of the Great War?  It would be interesting to know what information they had and didnt have and what role if any, that information may have played on the formulation of tactics and doctrine. 

My guess is that, they either didnt know, or more likely if they did know they likely ignored it due to completely idiotic racial superiority sentiments at the time.

 

[hugh19]

I do agree the Canadian Corps was very effective in the assault. Mind you during the 100 days the Canadian corps fired 25% of all artillery ammunition used by the BEF.

 

[Old Sweat]

One of the Coprs staff officers went on to be CIGS.  Alanbrooke to be exact.

Ironsides also served as a staff officer in the Canadian Corps.

 

[hugh19]

So make that two then LOL.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I just had another thought on this.  Any idea if the tactics that the Japanese used in 1904/05 were known to Allied or German allies at the onset of the Great War?  It would be interesting to know what information they had and didnt have and what role if any, that information may have played on the formulation of tactics and doctrine. 

My guess is that, they either didnt know, or more likely if they did know they likely ignored it due to completely idiotic racial superiority sentiments at the time.

Military attachés and observers in the Russo-Japanese War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_attach%C3%A9s_and_observers_in_the_Russo-Japanese_War

 

[ltmaverick25]

Thats interesting.  Given that the British had a total of 50 divisions in the field at the time, and the Canadians represented only 4 divisions, that would seem to suggest the Canadians were doing alot of the heavy lifting.  Due to the increased size of the divisions, I divided 6 into 50 which came to 12 percent.

So in essence the Canadians were firing more then their proportional share of artillery.  My assessment of this is that because they became the British shock army, they were constantly the vanguard, and were sent in first, which would explain a higher proportional use of artillery.  Either that, or they just happened to miss alot

 

[ltmaverick25]

So make that two then LOL.

There were actually dozens of British Staff Officers in the Canadian Corps at the time, and all of them, from what I can tell proved to be invaluable to the formations they served.

 

[hugh19]

Gunners using a early form of spray and pray?  ;D

They did do much heavy lifting in the 100 days as the brits did get worn out from the german offensives.

 

[hugh19]

I meant two that became CIGS.

 

[Old Sweat]

The European armies had military observers in the field during the Russian-Japanese War. I know Tango2Bravo has done research on that war and may have more to add. The depth of my available knowledge is a largely unread account of the war in my library. I do know that Canada sent at least one military observer as part of the British team and that officer eventually rose to become the Chief of the General Staff.

 

[ltmaverick25]

The European armies had military observers in the field during the Russian-Japanese War. I know Tango2Bravo has done research on that war and may have more to add. The depth of my available knowledge is a largely unread account of the war in my library. I do know that Canada sent at least one military observer as part of the British team and that officer eventually rose to become the Chief of the General Staff.

I was just reading over the link that Tango2Bravo provided.  This may be worthy of a detailed study.  If the information about the effectiveness of creeping barrages was available 10 years prior to the onset of war, why was it not absorbed into a doctrinal template?  I will have to inquire with one of my social historian friends about this.  They will have a field day with it.

 

[George Wallace]

Im not saying that at all.  I honestly dont have much background with the other commonwealth armies, one of the drawbacks of specialization.  The vast majority of scholarship that I have read is from Canadian authors to date.  Im only just beggining to come to the end of those publications.  Give me another 5 years and ill have the other stuff down too  I have read in several instances though that the Aussies were highly regarded, thats about as much background as I have in that area.

Kinda like building a bridge but not knowing what the footings are on either bank.  As you are stating that the Canadians were only a part of the larger British Commonwealth effort, it would be a good idea to know what that overall effort was.  You are only presenting one portion of the puzzle, and perhaps even then missing some key pieces.

And I do find exception in your statements on the Canadian Cavalry.  The Canadian Cavalry Brigade was in the Pursuit at the time of the Armistice.  I would conclude that in the latter part of the war, after fighting in the trenches, they were being employed more actively as cavalry.  Don't get any LdSH(RC) or RCD going on the Battle of Moreuil Wood.


PS.  If you are doing up a paper, I do hope you are more careful of your grammar and spelling.  Just try the Spell Check on your next post and see what we are putting up with.

 

[hugh19]

I would say for the british it was due to the fact they had very little artillery to do it with plus, thier doctrine was geared more for colonial intervention then a full scale european war.