# The Somme; 90 years on



## big bad john (22 Jun 2006)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/TheSomme90YearsOn.htm

The Somme; 90 years on
22 Jun 06 
The 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme will be marked on 1 July 2006 with a day of commemorative events across the Somme area of France. Events will be attended by senior members of the Royal Family, Senior UK, Commonwealth and French Government Ministers, and WWI veteran Henry Allingham.


Private Thomas Seville, 7th King's Own (Royal Lancashire Fusiliers) killed in action leading a bombing party against a German trench at La Boisselle, 4 July 1916. 
[Picture: MOD] 
The Battle of the Somme started on July 1st 1916 and raged on until November of that year. It was planned by the allies to relieve the pressure on the western front, which had been locked in the stalemate of trench warfare for a year and a half. But the offensive was unsuccessful, with more than one million casualties on both sides and the war continued for a further two years.

The British forces suffered nearly 60,000 casualties on the first day alone, giving July 1st the unfortunate distinction of being the bloodiest day in British military history. The total amount of casualties when the battle was finally abandoned in November included 420,000 British, 200,000 French, and 500,000 Germans.

A number of events will be taking place throughout the day, at key sites of the battle, including:

Canadian Commemoration at Beaumont Hamel 
British and Commonwealth Commemoration at Thiepval Memorial 
Irish Commemorations at Ulster Tower 
Irish Commemorations at Guillemont 
Australian Commemoration at Fromelles Memorial
Squadron Leader Howard Leader, a member of the Somme 90th Anniversary project team, said:

"The Battle of the Somme was one of the costliest of the First World War. It is absolutely fitting that we should remember all those who gave their lives. On Saturday 1 July we will pay tribute to those of all nationalities on all sides, who died or suffered during that difficult period.

"It is very important that younger generations should understand the experiences of older generations as they helped shape our national culture, our freedom and our democracy, providing the opportunities and prosperity that we enjoy today."


----------



## Red 6 (22 Jun 2006)

What's the current take concerning the casualty rates on the Somme? Do most historians consider it a waste of lives, or a nesessary component of the campaign? I would suppose this question could apply to the overall allied casualties in World War I. I'm awfully interested to hear some of your opinions on this one.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Jun 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> What's the current take concerning the casualty rates on the Somme? Do most historians consider it a waste of lives, or a nesessary component of the campaign? I would suppose this question could apply to the overall allied casualties in World War I. I'm awfully interested to hear some of your opinions on this one.



Check out MUD, BLOOD AND POPPYCOCK for a unique take on that by a professional British staff officer of the modern era.  The Somme was a huge watershed in the war in that tactics evolved for the better - and had been evolving by then, in fact. Some divisions captured their objectives almost without loss on the 1st day of the offensive - others got destroyed as is well known.  The Army was slow to disseminate info, but Haig is seen much more favourably these days by current historians than in the 1930s. His reputation during the war and immediately after was quite good, also - a lot of people don't realize that today. 

The whole bloody war was a waste, but it was definitely in Britain's interest - and Canada's - to have participated, and once you pledge yourself to participating, you have to fight to win. And we certainly did.

I'll quote myself on this:

"The Somme was proof that the British Army was going through a learning process. Drill and rote had been necessary to hammer together entire battalions of soldiers in the so-called "Kitchener's Army". While 20,000 fatalities and 40,000 wounded men would be history's testament to their lack of military skill, there still existed amongst the piles of corpses the first glimmers of tactical and operational innovation. It should be noted that even successful battles such as the capture of Vimy Ridge, in which successful tactics and weapons pioneered after the Somme were employed (small unit tactics and wire-cutting shells chief among these), successful divisional operations were still costing thousands of friendly casualties. Successful battles in the First World War were only less tragic and costly in human terms by matter of degree. "

No one learns how to fight an Army overnight - which is why it is always so dangerous not to have one in peacetime.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jun 2006)

I have always found it interesting that those historians, journalists, etc., that proclaim against the "slaughter" and tactics of the First World War have not once put forth a valid alternative backed up by a detailed military estimate based on the tactics, equipment and knowledge available at the time.

I will second the vote on "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" as a worthwhile read, in which the author gives detailed analyses of a variety of myths about the War.


----------



## Red 6 (23 Jun 2006)

I read some of Lyn MacDonald's books (_Somme,_ and _They Called It Passchendaele_) quite a few years ago. He took Haig, Rawlinson, and the rest to the wood shed in the literal sense on the way lives were used up. It's hard for me to think about WWI and not be appalled at the casualty rates.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Jun 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I read some of Lyn MacDonald's books (_Somme,_ and _They Called It Passchendaele_) quite a few years ago. He took Haig, Rawlinson, and the rest to the wood shed in the literal sense on the way lives were used up. It's hard for me to think about WWI and not be appalled at the casualty rates.



Did MacDonald suggest a better way of doing things?

As I mentioned in my post, even a successful battle like Vimy Ridge cost many lives - and statistically, an infantryman in the Second World War had more of chance of being killed or wounded than his counterpart in the First World War.


----------



## Red 6 (23 Jun 2006)

No, I don't think he did, as I recall. I wasn't making a judgment, just commenting on what I remember.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Jun 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> No, I don't think he did, as I recall. I wasn't making a judgment, just commenting on what I remember.


He is a she.


----------



## Red 6 (23 Jun 2006)

You are absolutely right, Michael. OOps :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Jun 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right, Michael. OOps :



But in all seriousness, I dont' think her reaction to Haig et al are in line with other more recent historians. I've not read MacDonald though - I hear she is quite good. Some might label Corrigan (MBandP) as revisionist, others might label MacDonald that way. Part of the battle for the 'truth' I suppose.


----------



## ExSarge (23 Jun 2006)

There are truths and then there are truths. The danger with any history is the "when". Not the when of the historical event but the when of the historian. We all tend to understand events based on contemporary morals and norms. An example would be the way the wounded or prisoners were treated after a battle in the middle ages. What we, based on our 21 century sensibilities would consider callous and brutal treatment was seen at the time as normal and unremarkable. Haig, and his leadership must be viewed and judged in context of the times. On a personal note, I think Lyn McDonald's "Somme" is an eloquent beautifully written work. On the other hand I find that books written during the 70'es "anti-war" craze must be approached knowing that there may be an agenda at play.


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER (23 Jun 2006)

Is anyone going to the 90th anniversary of vimy next year?
I"m a new reservist and I"m going with school so unfortunatly I don't believe I will be able to wear my uniform as its a school trip and I'll just have nearly a year in the reserves at the time. 
( I would Consider this a real honor)
I'll be going to beumont hamel amoung other places. 
My school's Adanced Media course is making a documentary about the trip and I"m going to be doing the historical research so I"ll be peppering this site with questions over the next few months.
-thanks 
Eric


----------



## TMM (23 Jun 2006)

History TV has what looks to be a good special on next week: http://www.historytelevision.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=93208


----------



## Red 6 (26 Jun 2006)

The Military Channel is showing a program on the Somme next weekend in the US. It looks to be part recreation and part original film. Do ya'll get the Military Channel in Canada?


----------



## SigOpDraco (26 Jun 2006)

It's coming on the History Channel here in Ontario on Friday at 8, and on my box its on the military channel on Saturday at 7 or 8.


----------



## ExSarge (26 Jun 2006)

This is one of those programs that I'm really looking forward to. I understand the reenactments were filmed in the Ukraine, with a portion of the trench lines reproduced from WWI trench maps of the Somme. It should be a good program.


----------



## Bill DD (26 Jun 2006)

This is my first post since joining 10 minutes ago, I have just watch a programme on UK TV in Nottingham showing 'The Royal Newfoundland Regiment' and their heroic advance on the Somme - everyone a hero - led by incompetents.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jun 2006)

Bill DD said:
			
		

> This is my first post since joining 10 minutes ago, I have just watch a programme on UK TV in Nottingham showing 'The Royal Newfoundland Regiment' and their heroic advance on the Somme - everyone a hero - led by incompetents.



Fair enough; how would you, personally, have relieved the pressure on Verdun, then?


----------



## Bill DD (27 Jun 2006)

To all my detractors - sorry!

All I was reporting was the recognition attributed to The Royal Newfoundland Regiment on the Somme. 'Lest we forget - what!!!!


----------



## Red 6 (27 Jun 2006)

Bill: No worries. Feelings still run strong about the First World War and everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the subject.


----------



## Bill DD (27 Jun 2006)

Thanks for that - I am part of a 1st WW Study group associated with the Imperial War Museum in London - Both my maternal & paternal Grandfathers died in the Great War, My Father was wounded in the second and I was wounded in Northern Ireland - dues paid?

Regarding the sudy group we are entitled to view footage shot during WW1 and access many of the documents written during this time.

I am the Chair of the County Welfare Committee of the Royal British Legion and whatever happens 'We WILL remember them

 :fifty:


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jun 2006)

I'm not sure if this is the same program that TMM cited on the first page of this thread, but the History Channel is airing "*Battle of the Somme: The True Story*" at 7:30 PM EST on 1 July. 

It apparently uses current forensics to examine footage shot during the actual battle, and features two former-RCR from Newfoundland (Howard & Derm Coombs) to discuss the annihilation of their relatives in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment that day.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jun 2006)

What`s lacking so far is Canadians on the Somme - here is a recent addition to our 54th Bn CEF Website.

HC Smith`s War http://www.54thbattalioncef.ca/WARPAGES/HC%20SMITH.htm#HENRY%20CROZIER-SMITH 

He describes it as "The whole country here seems to be one huge camp as far as the eye can see. " - 

How to find locations with a fair degree of accuracy - see the northern most point on the Canadian Sector here. Its a reverse engineered grid reference for a point called Desire Trench. All comments are welcome.

http://cobwfa.ca/mapping_fichiers/fullscreen.htm

A Somme map showing 4th Cdn Div ops http://www.54thbattalioncef.ca/images/somme991.jpg

Casualty rates for a typical Cdn Inf Bn - showing 72 KIA in Nov 1916 from 54th BN http://www.54thbattalioncef.ca/images/KIA54.jpg

KIA or Died of wounds on the Somme operations - HC Smith died of wounds

The unit lost 125 soldiers blown to bits during their time on the Somme - no known grave and their names are on the Vimy Memorial.
143 were lost in total - the other 18 being MIA or Died of Wounds.

04-Oct-16	135750	Pte	Johns, LD
14-Oct-16	463361	Pte	Reynolds, J
14-Oct-16	126204	Pte	Elvin, F
14-Oct-16	160663	Pte	Maupin, NB
14-Oct-16	464640	Pte	Weir, OL
15-Oct-16	219864	Pte	Provins, G
15-Oct-16	443673	Pte	Wilson, D
15-Oct-16	463937	Pte	Paterson, A
16-Oct-16	126050	Pte	Vipond, HN
17-Oct-16	442491	Pte	Stratton, BA
17-Oct-16	443769	LCpl	Little, G
17-Oct-16		Lieut.	Fenton, HJ
18-Oct-16	138724	Pte	Wood, GW
21-Oct-16	474260	Pte	Freemark, PJ
23-Oct-16	404805	Pte	Sconce, R
23-Oct-16	160975	Pte	Lugg, G
25-Oct-16	443319	Pte	Steedman, VJ
25-Oct-16	403409	Pte	Corrigan, H
25-Oct-16	106707	Pte	Knight, M
25-Oct-16	464603	Pte	McNutt, WGS
25-Oct-16	472956	Pte	Parrell, GF
25-Oct-16	443850	Pte	Schubert, BA
25-Oct-16		Lieut.	Stanford, AG
26-Oct-16	443398	Sgt	Taylor, JL
26-Oct-16	160329	Pte	Feetham, EW
26-Oct-16	160527	Pte	Elkins, EG
26-Oct-16	443183	Pte	Pemberton, E
26-Oct-16	472968	Lcpl	Farley, E
05-Nov-16		Lt	Acheson, DAH
08-Nov-16	443425	Cpl	Murton, L
08-Nov-16	220004	Pte	McElligott, J
08-Nov-16	127539	Pte	Thomas, A
13-Nov-16	474343	LCpl	Davis, CH
14-Nov-16	160098	Pte	McLean, AF
14-Nov-16	127547	Pte	O'Drowsky, RS
18-Nov-16	127206	Pte	Willis, F
18-Nov-16	443749	Pte	Tattrie, W
18-Nov-16	442748	LCpl	Nicholson, F
18-Nov-16	442752	Pte	Oust, O
18-Nov-16	442591	Pte	Nuttall, JW
18-Nov-16	126859	Pte	Clark, FK
18-Nov-16		Capt	King, JH
18-Nov-16	443955	LCpl	Shaw, AF
18-Nov-16	443483	Pte	Stocks, RJ
18-Nov-16	463370	Pte	Scott, A
18-Nov-16	127389	Cpl	Ryder, GT
18-Nov-16	440236	Sgt	Pratt, BF
18-Nov-16	443837	Pte	Smith, MJ
18-Nov-16	443801	Pte	Bowes, ML
18-Nov-16		Capt	King JH
18-Nov-16	443605	Pte	Bechard
18-Nov-16	443652	Pte	Holder, P
18-Nov-16	474067	Pte	Heath, PA
18-Nov-16	442438	Sgt	Macandrew, JN
18-Nov-16	443645	Cpl	Walkley, GH
18-Nov-16	443956	Pte	Myers, JH
18-Nov-16	160290	Pte	Boon, SW
18-Nov-16	443606	Pte	Baird, J
18-Nov-16	161030	Pte	Baldwin, W
18-Nov-16	443647	Pte	Belcher, A
18-Nov-16	443437	Pte	Harrison, J
18-Nov-16	443151	Pte	Nelson, HC
18-Nov-16	443821	Pte	Joy, W
18-Nov-16	115836	Pte	Murison, WJ
18-Nov-16	160858	Pte	McColl, W
18-Nov-16	138258	Pte	Bradley, G
18-Nov-16	161114	Pte	Myson, J
18-Nov-16	161261	Pte	Echlin, JE
18-Nov-16	126412	Pte	Emeny, H
18-Nov-16	443474	Pte	McDiarmid, DW

Missing 9 - bodies never found - on the Vimy Memorial
27-Sep-16	77386	LCpl	Erskine, J
08-Nov-16	219810	Pte	Hutton, JA
18-Nov-16	442513	Cpl	Younger, HB
18-Nov-16	160242	Pte	Choules, RW
18-Nov-16	187531	Pte	Blaine, EJ
18-Nov-16	464313	Pte	McLaughlin, J
18-Nov-16	442839	Sgt	Keith, D
18-Nov-16	443247	Pte	Fulkerson, F
18-Nov-16	160242	Pte	Elkins, RW

29 soldiers died of wounds suffered on the Somme

12-Oct-16	443593	Pte	Charters, T
14-Oct-16	442367	Pte	Day, FC
14-Oct-16	443331	Cpl	Trafford, AC
15-Oct-16	464021	Pte	McLaughlin, T
19-Oct-16		Lieut.	Renouf, E
23-Oct-16	442570	Pte	Lee, AE
24-Oct-16	442480	Pte	Skillicorn, JH
26-Oct-16	126001	Cpl	Welsh, M
28-Oct-16	219523	LCpl	Newis, GW
28-Oct-16	442353	Pte	Chapman, S
03-Nov-16	442659	Pte	Fearon, J
10-Nov-16	464371	Pte	Urquhart, H
10-Nov-16	442770	Pte	Richardson, L
18-Nov-16	126760	Pte	Washburn, HN
18-Nov-16	442712	Pte	Logan, H
19-Nov-16	474883	Pte	Mitchinson, R
21-Nov-16		Lieut.	Esslemont, J
21-Nov-16	443675	Pte	Wilson, WE
24-Nov-16	443643	Pte	Wetherall, J
25-Nov-16	443455	LCpl	Steel, J
27-Nov-16	126924	Pte	Lovering, J
27-Nov-16	126924	Pte	Lovering, J
28-Nov-16	442483	Pte	Smith, HC
01-Dec-16	127388	Pte	Juhlin, EAW
02-Dec-16	443396	Pte	Morrison, JH
05-Dec-16	443166	Pte	Bryant, P
05-Dec-16	434166	Pte	Bryant, E
06-Dec-16	442838	Pte	Rennie, CK
10-Dec-16	161009	Pte	Atherton, J

Details of where they lie today are here http://www.54thbattalioncef.ca/WARPAGES/PCas16.htm

More on the 54th BN here http://www.54thbattalioncef.ca/index.htm -- fire the Lewis Gun at the top of the page

The Veterans Affairs site says @ http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=feature/bh_somme2006&CFID=4616590&CFTOKEN=44591052

More than 24,000 Canadians and 700 Newfoundlanders were killed, wounded or went missing in the Somme Region in 1916. They fulfilled their duty against overwhelming odds. Their unbreakable spirit, unwavering courage and selfless sacrifice so many years ago continues to have a profound influence on our Canadian way of life. Their legacy is our heritage - and, together, we will honour their memory.

Canadian battle casualties at the Somme had totalled 24,029, (killed, wounded and missing) p. 174 - Offiicial History of the CEF which is here http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/downloads/Official_Histories/CEF_e.PDF

When it opens up in your PDF Reader enter the search term Somme.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (28 Jun 2006)

Not sure if one of the original questions has been answered - or batted back across the net - what would you have done on the Somme?

I think the most promising answer is the massive concentration of Artillery like they did at Vimy 16 weeks after the Somme petered out.

Guns and doctrine seem to have come together in a very cooridnated way vs the on and off Bn attacks on the Somme. Brits played out and we helped them catch their breath?

Now to those who say it couldn;t have been done - I suggest - trace the incoming artillery units on the British Orbat..... not sure how you`d do that - but it is a fact that they hit them hard on a narrow frontage (compared to the whole line) on 9 April 1917. I have also read that the key was the artillery was able to prevent the arrival German Reserves who were some 8 hours march east of Vimy Ridge whereas the net aim in the Somme operations were to keep the Germans to cover the Somme rather than force them out of it.

In the case of the Somme - I understand its basically a long uphill slope and the German Reserves were right behind the line.

Comments all?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Jun 2006)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Not sure if one of the original questions has been answered - or batted back across the net - what would you have done on the Somme?
> 
> I think the most promising answer is the massive concentration of Artillery like they did at Vimy 16 weeks after the Somme petered out.
> 
> ...



High explosive rarely demoralized or killed enough Germans to make weeklong bombardments worthwhile nor concentrations of same; the Somme was no different. I believe the problem at the time was a lack of wire-cutting shells, which would have allowed the infantry to move forward unimpeded. The complexities of the rolling barrage, box barrage and various other helpful artillery programs were still being perfected. It is well and good to say "why not just do what they did a year later", but the salient point here is that the British - all the Allies, and for that matter the Germans - were all learning, and learning slowly. They didn't do it because it hadn't yet occurred to them.

No, artillery wasn't the decisive key. The reorganization of infantry into platoons and even sections was what made the difference at Vimy (and wire cutting shells). Intensity of barrage was one of the things Haig was banking on, and look how well THAT worked out for him. The most successful divisions on Day One were those that either used smoke cover, or else leaned on the barrage by crawling into No Man's Land in anticipation of Zero, followed by a sprint to the German lines.  I'll reiterate - had those kinds of lessons been disseminated more quickly, or had division commanders been allowed to exercise more leeway in using sensible tactics (as Middlebrook called them), that would have made a lot of difference.


----------



## Bill DD (28 Jun 2006)

[b]OVER THE TOP - JULY 1ST 1916[/b]

It is utterly impossible to describe one's feelings during the hours of waiting for zero hour- the mind is full of wild thoughts and fancies which are utterlybeyond control. Recollections of friends and dear ones, places we have seen and known and different phases of life all seem to pass in review before ones eyes and one is recalled to the bitter realities of the moment by the officers voice '*Fifteen minutes to go boys - get ready' Immediately there is a great stir and excitement, a final setting of equipment etc and examination of arms and then a handshake with one or two dear comrades.  Over you go boys - and we are away on that strange journey across 'NO MAN'S LAND

Thomas Hudson, Private, Lancashire Fusiliers*


----------



## Red 6 (28 Jun 2006)

This is a fascinating thread. In the modern era, soldiers are recognized as innovators who are adaptable to chaniging circumstances. Commanders at all levels are charged with two functions: 1) Accomplish the mission, and 2) Look out for the welfare of their soldiers. These are releatively simple benchmarks. It doesn't take anybody in combat long to figure out that if you get wasted, the war won't stop because of it. I'm a firearms instructor for my agency and just yesterday, we were out on the range with our recruit academy. During a discussion about deadly force encounters, I used the analogy of a big lottery that you throw your badge number into at the start of every watch. Maybe it gets pulled, maybe not. For World War I, it seems as if the deck was stacked against the infantryman at the sharp end of the spear. I'll go out on a limb here and say that most of us probably recognize that there is a differnet attitude in the modern era to casualties then in World War I.  

It seems to me the many/most of the innovations in World War I were either at the tactical level, or technical in nature. Tanks, chemical agents, that sort of thing, were introduced and employed, but it seems to me that they didn't alter how missions were carried out at the operational level. The basic way offensives were carried out doesn't seem to have changed much during the course of the war, at least on the allied side.


----------



## JackD (28 Jun 2006)

hello - I've been following this most interesting thread, and of course cannot add much to the discussion beyond bringing notice to all of you this most interesting website i discovered http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/index.htm


----------



## Bill DD (28 Jun 2006)

JackD.............Many thanks, some hours (or days) of reading and study here


----------



## big bad john (29 Jun 2006)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2248115,00.html

The stamp, above, which reproduces J.P.Beadle's painting The Battle of the Somme - Attack of the Ulster Division has been issued in Ireland for the anniversary of what was the greatest First World War offensive. Many believe the gains made were not worth the loss of life 





Ireland will honour men who fell at the Somme
By David Sharrock, Ireland Correspondent 





A SOLEMN ceremony to mark the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme will be attended in Dublin this weekend by the President and Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, in a further sign that Ireland’s historic wounds are finally beginning to heal. 
Unionist politicians from Northern Ireland will stand side-by-side at an official state ceremony at the National War Memorial Gardens, in Islandbridge, with their southern brethren in memory of the 49,000 Irishmen who died during the Great War. 



Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach, recently said of the Battle of the Somme: “More than 5,000 men of the 36th Ulster Division fell in the first two days in July 1916. They fought alongside 200,000 Irish men from every county of Ireland. 

“Their bravery was no less than that shown by the insurgents of Easter Week.” 

He was referring to the 1916 Easter Rising, a failed military rebellion against British rule in Ireland, which today is at the heart of the Republic’s foundation. The 1916 Rising sparked a resurgence in Irish nationalism which led, in a few short years, to independence and the partition of Ireland. The hundreds of thousands of Irish soldiers returning home after the war found that they had been written out of the island’s historical narrative. In Northern Ireland the Somme became a cornerstone of Unionism’s justification: its fallen dead had paid in their own blood to remain part of the United Kingdom. 

Although the number of southern Irishmen who served in the British Armed Forces was far greater, the emerging Free State and subsequent Republic chose to forget about the sacrifices of its own citizens. 

But the peace process has wrought a profound change in cross-border attitudes towards Ireland’s shared history, and the Somme commemoration this weekend is being seen as a consequence of that. 

In an editorial this week The Irish Times said that the 1998 Good Friday agreement had allowed a common history “to be examined anew and to be publicly acknowledged in a completely different way”. 

The ceremony comes hard on the heels of the revival two months ago of a state military parade through the centre of Dublin to commemorate the 1916 Rising. 

Televised live, the ceremony had been abandoned with the outbreak of the modern Troubles in the North. However, the ruling Fianna Fail party, which Mr Ahern leads, judged that it was a propitious moment to “reclaim” a part of the state’s history, which had been “colonised” by Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA’s political wing. Last week Mr Ahern unveiled a postage stamp commemorating the Battle of the Somme, in a very public acknowledgement of Ireland’s British military history. 

Both the 36th (Ulster) Division and the 16th (Irish) Division took part in the Battle of the Somme. Politicians of the time hoped that the common experience of Unionists and nationalists fighting alongside one another would heal rifts in Ireland over plans to grant the island Home Rule. In the event, Unionists saw themselves as fighting to remain part of the UK while nationalists believed that their participation would hasten Home Rule.


----------



## big bad john (29 Jun 2006)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/CommemorativeBookletOnSommeNowAvailable.htm

Commemorative booklet on Somme now available
28 Jun 06 
To tie in with the Battle of the Somme’s 90th anniversary commemoration events the MODs Veterans Policy Unit have produced a booklet about the battle, which is available from today as a pdf download, see related links.


The Battle of the Somme Commemorative Booklet
The booklet gives a good overview of the background to the First World War, the British Army, preparations and tactics for the battle, details of the battle itself and those who fought in it, the aftermath of the battle and details of the site today.

The booklet will act as a souvenir to those taking part of the 90th anniversary events and also help educate anyone not going to France for the commemorations, but who is interested in the Battle.

The anniversary will be marked on 1st July, the day the battle commenced in 1916, with events at key sites of the battlefield in northern France.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jun 2006)

See 

Generals, Generalship and History; split from Re: The Somme 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46532.0.html

for the split tangent on generalship.


----------



## big bad john (30 Jun 2006)

There are 6 new articles on the Somme on the MOD web site worth a look.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Jul 2006)

Just finished watching a 2 hour doc on the history channel about this.  Over a million casualties on all sides, what a meat grinder....


----------



## Red 6 (1 Jul 2006)

The Recruiting Sergeant:

Two recruiting sergeants came to the CLB,
for the sons of the merchants, to join the Blue Puttees
So all the hands enlisted, five hundred young men
Enlist you Newfoundlanders and come follow me

They crossed the broad Atlantic in the brave Florizel,
And on the sands of Suvla, they entered into hell
And on those bloody beaches, the first of them fell

[Chorus]
So it's over the mountains, and over the sea
Come brave Newfoundlanders and join the Blue Puttees
You'll fight the Hun in Flanders, and at Galipoli
Enlist you Newfoundlanders and come follow me

Then the call came from London, for the last July drive
To the trenches with the regiment, prepare yourselves to die
The roll call next morning, just a handful survived.
Enlist you Newfoundlanders and come follow me

[Chorus]

The stone men on Water Street still cry for the day
When the pride of the city went marching away
A thousand men slaughtered, to hear the King say
Enlist you Newfoundlanders and come follow me

[Chorus x3]


----------



## Bill DD (1 Jul 2006)

In To-days copy of 'The Daily Mail' there is the following dedication.  I thought you might like to share these thoughts:

'In Memory of the NEWFOUNDLANDERS and LABRADORIANS who fought at the Battle of the Beaumont Hamel on 1st July 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme.

The Newfoundland Regiment, now the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was decimated in the attack. Seven Hundred and ten of the 790 officers and men who went into action became casualties: 272 were killed , died of their wounds or were missing and presumed dead, and 438 others were wounded. The British Army suffered 57,500 casualties that morning; no other unit paid a greater toll than the Newfoundland Regiment. We remember their gallantry & heroism

They were Better than the Best.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (1 Jul 2006)

I clipped the Somme chapter out from the CEF History for you. See www.cobwfa.ca

and of course I put in an advertising plug for Army.ca and its SOMME 90 Years On thread! 

HAPPY CANADA DAY WEEKEND EVERYONE!


----------



## Bill DD (1 Jul 2006)

1st class web site -have saved in favorites to explore at my leisure


----------



## big bad john (1 Jul 2006)

In an unusual move the MOD has publish a non casualty report on a Saturday, it is about the Somme.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/LochnagarCeremonyBeginsDayOfSommeCommemorations.htm

Lochnagar ceremony begins day of Somme commemorations
1 Jul 06 
At precisely 0728 on the morning of 1st July 1916, a huge mine was detonated at La Boisselle to launch the British offensive along an 18 mile front.


A sombre ceremony takes place at Lochnagar crater in the early morning mist, Saturday 1 July 2006, ninety years on from the exact moment that signalled the start of the Battle of the Somme. 
[Picture: Lance Corporal Lewis Montague; Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, Royal Regt of Scotland] 
The blast hurled debris a mile into the air and left a crater, now known as Lochnagar crater, 200 feet across and 90 feet deep, which subsequently became the scene of fierce fighting for control of its rim. 

At exactly the same moment this morning, Saturday 1 July 2006, 90 years later, a rocket flare soared into a clear morning crater, blew, an eerie echo of the sound thousands of 'Tommies' heard as they nervously waited to begin their perilous advance across a pulverised no-mans-land. 

A loan piper advanced around the crater rim and joined the Somme pipe band next to a large wooden cross, scene of today's ceremony. Prayers, readings, and instrumental recitals lent dignity to the occasion, with a liturgy of inscriptions from a selection of graves up and down the Somme valley. 

These inscriptions were slowly read out as organisations from Britain, France and Germany laid their wreaths. Before them stood nine small wooden crosses, each bearing a rusting British, French or German tin hat. The congregation of more than a thousand people stood silent as the colours and standards of the Royal British Legion, Army Cadets and other veterans' organisations were lowered for the 'Last Post'. 

Silence

Then, two minutes silence, broken only by birdsong, the very birdsong that survivers of the first day's fighting remember as the week long artillery bombardment lifted and they waited for the whistle to go.

As the bugle notes drifted away, young children carrying baskets of poppy petals walked to the crater's edge and cast them to the summer breeze. It is almost certain that wherever they landed, ninety years ago a young man would have fallen. 

One of those present, Colonel Hugh Boscawen, Director of Defence Studies for the Army, said: 

"It is hard to believe, looking at this prosperous countryside, that so many people fought and died here. It is important, if we wish to honour these men, that we strive to work to avoid this sort of conflict and to gain the peace that these soldiers were prepared to die for. 

"It is humbling to be able to visit these places today and to see the cemeteries like true "English gardens". We wish to pay our respects to those who fought here and also to make sure we learn the lessons we can draw from this momentous battle."


----------



## sarntmajor1951 (2 Jul 2006)

The BBC gave excellent courage to the commemoration service for the Newfoundland Contribuition to that battle sadly little known to the average Brit.The band and guard of honour looked excellent and splendid ambassadors for Canada and her great army. A brief account was given of the part played by the Newfoundlanders and their hoffific casualty rate. They showed the band and guard marching on and the address by the Colinel in Chief HRH Princess Royal an d the singing of "Ode to Newfoundland" by the attending persons.
I hope this is of interest to all patriotic Canadians with high regards from a British admirer of our cousins across the pond.


----------



## Derka Derka Jihad (2 Jul 2006)

Here's some links:

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/07/02/1664302-sun.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5134766.stm?ls


----------



## Red 6 (2 Jul 2006)

I watched the Military Channel program about the Somme last night. It was only an hour, but could've easily been two. The reenactments were amazing. There were some outstanding aerial shots of the battlefields by Thiepval and the Schwaben Redoubt, but I wish they'd superimposed CGI to show the trace of the trench lines. Overall, it was a good program and a fitting commemoration.


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Jul 2006)

You ask for opinions on the slaughter of the Great War? Well, here's mine;

It was absolutely nescessary for those massive battles to take place.  Yes, the casualty rates were appalling, but the ONLY way to win that war was on the Western Front against Germany.  Germany being the most powerful of the Central Powers, it was only against Germany that victory could be achieved.  Those morons in the British Parliament (First and foremost David Lloyd George) who were so adamant that the BEF should fight in other theatres to "knock the props from under Germany" and force her to surrender were delusional.  Their only motive in this theory was to avaoid taking these huge casualties being inflicted upon the BEF by Germany.  Examples include Gallipoli (complete fiasco), Salonika (Waste of nearly 200,000 British troops that could have been much better used in France) and Palestine where a quarter million British troops were wasted screwing around in the desert. (Palestine is in no way going to provide a decisive result against the Germans in France.)

It also has to be remembered that when the BEF was taking these ghastly casualties in France - they were serving a valid purpose, mainly sapping the German Army of it's strength.  Let us also not forget that the French were completely exhausted by the Battle of Verdun and as a direct result of Verdun, led to the French Army's mutiny in 1917 in which over 80 Divisions flat out refused to take offensive action.  This placed the onus of attack squarely on the British Army's shoulders.  It was at the Battle of Third Ypres or more commonly referred to as Passchendaele that the German Army was broken.  From this point on, the German Army was doomed to lose the war.  They tried one last gasp with the Micheal offensive but it was doomed to failure right from the beginning.  The same problem that plagued the Germans when trying to carry out the Schlieffen plan in the opening stages of the war came back and haunted them in the 1918 offensive.  The German Army could only advance as far as the feet of their worn out Infantry could take them.  They had no mass amounts of Cavalry to exploit gaps created, the Infantry advanced to quickly to stay in support range of the Guns, their supply lines were dangerously long and vulnerable, and lastly - the German Army never prescribed to Tanks in the Great War. (How ironic)  Yes, they had the A7V, but it was not in large numbers nor was it very reliable.

Gen. Sir Douglas Haig should be regarded as one of the most brilliant General's in Britain's history.  He never waivered in his resolve to defeat the German's despite taking horrendous casualties.  The British had their fair share of incompetent General's, but Haig was not one of them.  He did what had to be done to win that war.  The huge casualty lists coming out of France in the Great War served a purpose.  The causualty lists that came out of Gallipoli and Palestine were the tragic wastes because those theatres could not produce a decisive victory, but provide merely a sideshow from the main event in France.

Regards


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Jul 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> You ask for opinions on the slaughter of the Great War? Well, here's mine;
> 
> It was absolutely nescessary for those massive battles to take place.  Yes, the casualty rates were appalling, but the ONLY way to win that war was on the Western Front against Germany.  Germany being the most powerful of the Central Powers, it was only against Germany that victory could be achieved.  Those morons in the British Parliament (First and foremost David Lloyd George) who were so adamant that the BEF should fight in other theatres to "knock the props from under Germany" and force her to surrender were delusional.  Their only motive in this theory was to avaoid taking these huge casualties being inflicted upon the BEF by Germany.  Examples include Gallipoli (complete fiasco), Salonika (Waste of nearly 200,000 British troops that could have been much better used in France) and Palestine where a quarter million British troops were wasted screwing around in the desert. (Palestine is in no way going to provide a decisive result against the Germans in France.)
> 
> ...



Ah, an unabashed attritionist. But how should the British have known that their (to me, sensible) decision to go for the flanks, at Gallipoli, et al, would fail?


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Ah, an unabashed attritionist. But how should the British have known that their (to me, sensible) decision to go for the flanks, at Gallipoli, et al, would fail?


Good point (write this date down someone, quick!).  The concept of the soft underbelly wasn't a WWII invention.  We couldn't very well invade up through Italy in 1915, as they were on our side, allegedly.  The purpose of Galipoli was to seize control of the Dardanelles, a most important strategic acquisition.  Underestimating the "worth" of the Turkish defenders was the biggest obstacle to success at Galipoli, I believe.


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Jul 2006)

BINGO! As stated by Kat - THAT, was the goal........... capture of the dardanelles to give the Russians a warm water port that could be used year round.  Insofar as turning a flank.......... ehhhh....... not so much - possibly as a secondary goal, but by no means was Gallipoli intended to turn a flank.  Turkey didn't threaten at ANY point to pose a major threat to the Allies and as such was a more or less useless ally to Germany.  IF Turkey WAS knocked out via the dardanelles expedition, would the Germans have surrendered? The answer of course is a resounding NO.  Much the same with Austria-Hungary...... if they were forced to capitulate by the Russians, would Germany have surrendered? Once again...... NO.  Ergo, these sideshows were exactly that, sideshows that could provide no decisive victory against Germany.

Let us also not forget, the ONLY reason the British Empire went to war was to protect Belgian neutrality that Great Britain had guarenteed by the Treaty of London in 1839.  Hence the reasoning of clinging to the Ypres salient despite the fact that strategically, it would have been much wiser for the BEF to have taken up a position farther to the rear of Ypres that was drier and more easily defendable rather than stay as they did and draw enfilading fire from three sides.  It was a symbol and as such it had to be held.

Attritionist? No Micheal, I am not an attritionist, but when you look at the situation on the Western Front, attack was the best option.  The French Army had proved time and again that they could not be trusted to do what their General's said they would do, and I can provide a list of Battles in which the French Army had vowed heavy support to the British but it never materialized.  The French after Verdun were a broken shadow of their former self and never fully recovered. By Haig continuing his offensive in Flanders from July to November 1916, it was keeping the German Army having to react to British initiatives rather than allowing them to dictate where and when a Battle would be fought.  This is one of the Great War's truths that is so often overlooked.  By sitting pat in a defensive position, you are giving the enemy a chance to come up with a plan, gather the resources to carry it out and then execute it.  By staying one step ahead and attacking when and where you choose, you force him to react to you.  It also kept the German Army occupied from the French and gave the French Army valuable time to try and get it's s@!* together.  

David Lloyd Goerge was a pacifist who constantly meddled in Army affairs in which he had no business. He couldn't stomach the losses being taken by the BEF because he was afraid of what it was going to do to his political career.  He tried several underhanded, sneaky backstabbing plots to undermine Haig and Gen. Robertson including holding back needed reserves from England and sending untold Divisions of the BEF to useless theatres such as Italy, Salonika and Palestine.  He told the French government that the British would take over an additional 26 miles of Front in November of 1917 which spread the BEF dangerously thin and ended up costing more British lives than nescessary during the Micheal offensive of 1918 by vitue of Gen. Gough's Fifth Army ending up being right at the brunt of the German offensive when that was supposed to be defended by French forces.  The list goes on and on about what a sack of ______ David Lloyd George was.

The ONLY way to win the Great War was to defeat Germany, the only way to defeat Germany was to kill Germans, and that means having your own soldiers die.  It is a fact of war.  It is also a fact that it was British (particularly Canadian & Australian) formations that were the tip of the sword that took the fight to the Germans and forced them to surrender.

Regards


----------



## klambie (3 Jul 2006)

While not directly on topic re: the Somme, I'd recommend Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory as a good revisionist look at the performance of the BEF in WW I.  His chapter on the Somme makes the point that an attritional battle was all that the BEF was capable of fighting at that point in the war, and that while it is a stretch to call it a strategic victory, it laid a critical foundation for the successes of 1917-18.  As reccecrewman has indicated, it was unquestionably successful in seizing the initiative from the Germans.


----------



## ExSarge (4 Jul 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> The ONLY way to win the Great War was to defeat Germany, the only way to defeat Germany was to kill Germans, and that means having your own soldiers die.  It is a fact of war.  It is also a fact that it was British (particularly Canadian & Australian) formations that were the tip of the sword that took the fight to the Germans and forced them to surrender.




Robert E. Lee or perhaps it was James Longstreet once said "To be a good soldier you must love the army, to be a good leader you must be willing to order the death of the very thing you love. That’s why there are so many good soldiers and so few good leaders!"

A "good leader" knows he will take casualties and is prepared for that. He does not however throw his resources away! A battle of attrition, using frontal attacks against prepared positions, defended by a seasoned enemy is the game plan of a rank amateur! Even by the leadership standards of 1916 this was seen as wasteful of lives. Yes the side shows could not have provided a victory against Germany, they were not intended to. Their function was to divert resources away from the western front. Unfortunately they were bungled and the only resources diverted were allied.

 I agree with you, the war had to be taken to the Germans. Seize and maintain the initiative is a maxim that every leader should have tattooed on the inside of his eye lids! The battle of the Somme did not accomplish that! Rather then bleed the German army, it bled the British army. If you look forward to 1917/18 you will see that as a result the British army was forced to dilute itself with inferior conscripts. The junior leaders who died on the Somme were replaced by less capable individuals. The overall effect of this battle was to lessen the fighting power of the army. It's one of the reasons that the Australian and Canadian armies became the shock troops they were.

What could they have done instead? Here we get into dangerous ground. The problem with "what ifs" is of course there is no end to the possibilities. We do know that a plan way put forward by the Navy (Jackie Fisher?) to force the narrows and enter the Baltic. In fact two Cruisers armed with 15" guns were laid down with this in mind, the Furious and one other (sorry name escapes me at the moment). The plan was to land an amphibious force in Germany. Would it of worked? Unlikely, but the point is someone was thinking outside the box! There were other options!


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Jul 2006)

Admiral Fisher did suggest an amphibious landing on German shores in the Baltic.  I myself have often wondered at the possibilities this offered.  As for the frontal attacks................ OK, since the last major conflict in Europe, barbed wire and machine guns were new, and comms were virtually non-existant.  Frontal attacks were virtually the only option open to either side in 1916.  The frontal attacks allowed for new changes in warfare to become adopted.  Fire and movement, movement in small groups from protective hole to protective hole to take an objective, the rolling barrage, infantry assaulting from close range behind tanks as they roll forward...............  It was all an evolution in warfare in the works.  

The new modern weapons of war needed new modern tactics to go with them and the only way to figure out these tactics is trial and error.  It's very easy for people today to look back at battles fought in 1916 and say, well, they should have done this instead of the suicidal frontal attacks.  It's not as though the soldiers were sent forward, alone to take enemy positions.  Bombardments of immesurable size always preceded an offensive to give the infantry the best possible chance at getting rid of the wire and blowing out defensive pillboxes and such.

I disagree with your statement saying that these frontal attacks killed off future brilliant leaders in the British Army and forced the British to keep underqualified men in command of various formations.  Rather, I submit to you that the British handicapped themselves in this regard which is why Canadian & Australian formations were so successful.  The British regular Army in 1916 was still very much set in it's old ways and those ways were grossly outdated.  Whereas Canadian formations by example were primarily citizen soldiers who were not bound by the rules professionals went by.  They had initiative of their own, and it proved successful on the battlefield.  It would be quite a stretch to say some Lt. or Capt. in a British rifle company who was killed in an assault would have risen to prominance in the Army and put forth some radical idea that would have caused less casualties while still bringing the German Army to it's knees.

Give Dancocks' Canadians at Passchendaele a read............... He explains quite well as to why the modus opendi of Haig was nescessary and successful.

Regards


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jul 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> The battle of the Somme did not accomplish that! Rather then bleed the German army, it bled the British army. If you look forward to 1917/18 you will see that as a result the British army was forced to dilute itself with inferior conscripts.



One reason the Somme was so disastrous was that they were already full of inexperienced soldiers: the Kitchener divisions and Pals battalions. The reason you make your men march in a straight line very slowly is because command and control of inexperienced troops requires it...


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Jul 2006)

> The reason you make your men march in a straight line very slowly is because command and control of inexperienced troops requires it...



No Micheal, the reason they marched in a straight line very slowly was so they wouldn't fall off the duckboards and drown in the mud.  ;D

Regards


----------



## Red 6 (4 Jul 2006)

It seems to me the way the British employed artillery in these protracted pre-assult bombardments hindered them more than it was an assist to the front-line troops. I understand the concept of cutting wire, and collapsing enemy trenches. But, from reading veterans' accounts, and historical works, more often than not, the artillery didn't meet these two ctirical objectives. Instead, the battlefield was turned into a moonscape, which made the infantry's mobility problematic, and caused no amount of trouble for tanks. The box barrages and creeping barrage in front of the advancing infantry seem to have been much more effective than traditional bombardments. 

The way the British Army evolved in terms of conscription is a relevant example of how armies change as they grow and absorb casualties during a long war. I don't think (given the level of casaulties they took) that the growth could've been managed any better. This topic has always interested me, the way armies adapt to growth and the demands of the battlefield. There are definitely different approaches to it. I wonder of there could've been a better one than the Pals Battalions of Kitchener's Army?


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Jul 2006)

> Instead, the battlefield was turned into a moonscape, which made the infantry's mobility problematic, and caused no amount of trouble for tanks.



I'll agree that it did have it's drawbacks.  You failed to mention it's biggest flaw, namely letting the Germans know that something big was going to happen due to the size and longevity of the bombardment.........  As for the tank argument......... well, tanks were only used en masse twice.  The first at Cambrai and the second at Arras, so I don't find that argument holding much water.



> British Army evolved in terms of conscription is a relevant example of how armies change as they grow and absorb casualties during a long war. I don't think (given the level of casaulties they took) that the growth could've been managed any better. This topic has always interested me, the way armies adapt to growth and the demands of the battlefield.



All Armies evolved during the Great War.  The British went from 4's to 3's, meaning they now only took 3 Battalions to make up a Brigade and size compositions changed in smaller formations as well, but the German and French Armies had put this into practice long before the British had.  As for changing the Regimental system that you propose? No, never........... The British (and as a result Canadian) Army's Regimental system is beautiful.  Men in war fight best for each other rather than the political cause or King or dictator or whatever official reason they're there.  The morale and pride from being a member of a Regiment is huge.  These men fought for their Regiment's honour and they're pals that they knew from back home.  Proof of the value of the Regimental system is everywhere.  I know of guys that wear my Unit's capbadge but still proclaim that the're Hussars (Princess Louise's 8th Canadian Hussars) despite the fact that 8CH was removed from the Reg Force orbat years ago.  There were noted cases of Fort Garry Horse crewman walking off the parade square when they were ordered to remove their FGH capbadges and replace them with 12eRBC badges...............

Regards


----------



## Red 6 (4 Jul 2006)

I didn't propose changing any regimental system. For the perspecitve of tradition, the regiment is the heart of an army. It's a shame the US Army hans't figured it out yet. I just wondered out loud if there was a possible better way to manage the explosive growth of an army at war.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jul 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> The British (and as a result Canadian) Army's Regimental system is beautiful.  Men in war fight best for each other rather than the political cause or King or dictator or whatever official reason they're there.  The morale and pride from being a member of a Regiment is huge.  These men fought for their Regiment's honour and they're pals that they knew from back home.  Proof of the value of the Regimental system is everywhere.



On the contrary, the First World War made it obvious Canada could totally abandon the regimental system, which is exactly what happened in 1914.  Few of the CEF battalions had any connection with the Militia in Canada; this point was discussed recently by pbi and myself in another thread. Regimental traditions can and were made up on the spot out of whole cloth - to little detriment.  Check out the history of the 10th Battalion by Daniel Dancocks (you invoked his name earlier today).  And tell me how many times the traditions of the 103rd Calgary Rifles or 106th Winnipeg Light Infantry are mentioned...

Don't confuse normal unit cohesion with the Regimental System in all its glory. The CEF was not an example of the latter, but the former.


----------



## Red 6 (4 Jul 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> I'll agree that it did have it's drawbacks.  You failed to mention it's biggest flaw, namely letting the Germans know that something big was going to happen due to the size and longevity of the bombardment.........  As for the tank argument......... well, tanks were only used en masse twice.  The first at Cambrai and the second at Arras, so I don't find that argument holding much water.
> 
> Regards



Armor may be have used in large tactical groupings on a fairly limited basis in the 1st World War, but tanks were used on the battlefield in small numbers in quite a few campaigns.


----------



## ExSarge (4 Jul 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> As for the frontal attacks................ OK, since the last major conflict in Europe, barbed wire and machine guns were new, and comms were virtually non-existant.  Frontal attacks were virtually the only option open to either side in 1916.  The frontal attacks allowed for new changes in warfare to become adopted.  Fire and movement, movement in small groups from protective hole to protective hole to take an objective, the rolling barrage, infantry assaulting from close range behind tanks as they roll forward...............  It was all an evolution in warfare in the works.



This brings me back to an earlier post of mine, the quality of staff officer produced by the British Army prior to the war. They trained for small limited wars against inferior foes. Against a modern European power they were out of their depth. Granted that the war produced a remarkable evolution in weapons and warfare, but the basics of assaulting a prepared position has not changed since the time of Caesar. In 1916, with the command and control available, the state of artillery science, and other factors considered, a 5 to 1 ratio of attacker to defender was needed to be successful. Even then the causalities could be expected to be heavy. To say that the machinegun, barbed wire and artillery support were something the leaders needed time to learn to use or overcome is an understatement. They had 22 months prior to the battle of the Somme to get ahead of the learning curve, they failed to do that!  As a result a lot of good men died. 



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> I disagree with your statement saying that these frontal attacks killed off future brilliant leaders in the British Army and forced the British to keep underqualified men in command of various formations.  Rather, I submit to you that the British handicapped themselves in this regard which is why Canadian & Australian formations were so successful.  The British regular Army in 1916 was still very much set in it's old ways and those ways were grossly outdated.  Whereas Canadian formations by example were primarily citizen soldiers who were not bound by the rules professionals went by.  They had initiative of their own, and it proved successful on the battlefield.  It would be quite a stretch to say some Lt. or Capt. in a British rifle company who was killed in an assault would have risen to prominence in the Army and put forth some radical idea that would have caused less casualties while still bringing the German Army to it's knees.



I didn’t say “Brilliant” I said junior leaders who died were replaced by less capable replacements. My point being that those individuals who provide a level of seasoning and who pass on the lessons learned were simply not there. Again because of their absence lessons had to be relearned, and men died. I did not mean to imply that these individuals would rise to command the army (although survivors of this group did in WWII!).



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Whereas Canadian formations by example were primarily citizen soldiers who were not bound by the rules professionals went by.  They had initiative of their own, and it proved successful on the battlefield.



The myth of the steely eyed "colonial" citizen soldier outwitting the dastardly Hun was first put forward by Sam Hughes and is just that...a myth! It does a disservice to the professionalism that the Canadian Corp developed.

I know I'm showing a lot of bias here, but I get a little hot when I feel someone is suggesting (rightly or wrongly) that men die as a learning experience for a staff officer!. I once spent a very uncomfortable afternoon getting shot at while a staff officer in a helicopter 2000 ft above me tried to micromanage my squad. Getting shots bad enough, getting shot while acting as a training aid is just damn insulting!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jul 2006)

I missed that bit about the citizen soldiers - I agree, it is utter nonsense. The Canadian Corps consisted of professional, full-time paid soldiers with senior commanders who had experienced war in large numbers as part of the First Contingent at Second Ypres and the summer of 1915.  And they didn't need a "regimental system" to be professionals; they simply took pride in the number their regiment was given and worked hard at getting better.

The British get a bum rap all too often - even on the first day of the Somme, there were some divisions and battalions that were feeling their way to new tactical solutions - even stuff as simply as just lying in No Man's Land during the barrage and then running to the enemy's trench when it lifted. At least one division relied on a smoke barrage. The Canadians weren't the only ones doing good things, and it took the Canadians a long time to figure out what worked and what didn't. See Festubert in 1915...


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Jul 2006)

See *The Regimental System vs. A System of Regiments; split from Re: The Somme*
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46811.0.html
for the tangent the happened here.

Further discuussions on The Battles of the Somme, 1916, may continue with this thread.


----------



## xavier (4 Jul 2006)

Recceguy:
A  very interesting analysis. I have a different perspective about such 'useless' theatres.  It was necessary for the British and French to send troops to Italy after the defeat at Caparetto. That defeat threatened to knock  the country out of the war. If Italy had desisted, the Germans and Austrians would've transferred their armies to France. The French were in no shape to fight after Verdun and the Brits and teh Commonwealth armies wouldn't have been able to withstand the German/Austrian onslaught  I suspect that the Centrals powers would've won WW I or at least negotiate peace terms to their advantage.  

With respect to the Mideast, I agree. the Ottoman empire had been in decline for some time and just because it was an German ally didn't necessary signify that the Mideast was as strategic as the Allied  politicians assumed


xavier

xavier


----------



## JackD (5 Jul 2006)

But wasn't part of the Allied Mideast policy - or perhaps the catalyst of the Mideast policy - the safeguarding of the Suez Canal - and wasn't the catalyst  of the campaigns against the Ottoman Empire the necessity to safeguard the Basra oil refinery and terminal? I believe this was mentioned in a "Military History" article five or so years previous (sadly, the issue referred to is lost to recollection)


----------



## time expired (6 Jul 2006)

The interesting thing about all the WW1 anti war litrature is that most of it was published 10 to 15 years
after the war and reflected a revultion less with the war as with it aftermath high unemployment and a lack of economic growth.Of course the polititians and
left wing intelectuals jumped on the bandwagon, somethings never change,and declared their disgust
with war and generals in general and General Haig in particular.This became a well supported populist
movement where generals and in fact all thing military were scorned by large sections of the public
and caused Britian to be totaly unprepared for WW2 and also resulted in Chambellins appeasment
policy in 1938 and war.Doesnt it sound all so familiar.


----------



## sarntmajor1951 (9 Jul 2006)

If the doumentary to be shown on the Military Channel [we dont get that in theUK] is the same one screened and made by the BBC Norddeutscher Rundfaunk and I suspect it is [I just re-watched it from DVD] I warn Canadians that no mention is made in it of the part played by the Canadians and Newfoundlanders in the battle . It concentrates as far as the first dayis concerned on a company of the 2ns Salford Pals Battalion  ans on some Westphalians,
Never the less for military history buffs it is well done and woth watching.


----------



## Red 6 (9 Jul 2006)

Roger SgtMaj: That was the same one we saw over on this side, the one about the Salford Pals. What did you think of the live action reenactments?


----------



## reccecrewman (10 Jul 2006)

It was well done - I rather enjoyed it. Going completely off topic here now, the British are very good at putting together military documentaries & films.  I actually enjoyed seeing British Army training videos because they were so much better than ours.  Ours put me to sleep, the one I saw of British soldiers MAT was the best training video I ever saw.

Back onto topic now


----------

