Tanks!!! This is truly an interesting though tragic battle in a war that is all too often forgotten. I wish that all the brave men that died in that conflict found peace.
the creeping barrage was used on day one, not only in Sept as this suggests. The problem was that the infantry couldn't keep up with the creeping barrage, and were left behind and exposed
Thumb's up if you could imagine the German's reaction's when they see the first ever tank invented by the British slowly making it's way towards them :P
The British and Canadians both fought well during the war. Even in our great victories, it would not have been possible without British support. While Currie did very well, there were also good British commanders
@dave777blaster There's always some stupid Canadian cunt like you coming to these videos and talking down the British troops. Why don't you accept, everyone in the empire fought well, the Indians, the Canadians, New Zealanders, the British, and the Australians.
@dave777blaster Fair enough. But there is a very common misconception that all the WW1 generals were idiots. It's not true. WW1 was the first war of its kind. Do people really believe Haig was an idiot for believing in cavalry tactics? This sort of war had never happened before. There was no way of dealing with trench warfare.
Also it isn't fair to say British Generals were bad ,it's just that were slow to pickup new techniques, of a new type of war.That's why The Canadian General was held in higher regard ,he was able to adapt where as the British Generals were slow to adapt to new methods.
The lower ranks of all armies were steadfast in their duties in what is easily the worst world war
@dave777blaster I the British high command was the most imaginative of all the armies, it had to be. The germans just used infiltration tactics and the French used attrition. The British developed and invented combined arms, which is still used to this day. By the end of the war, the BEF was the best army in the world
@simranjeet36 remember the war was taken place 1914 - 1918, many of the lieutenants, Officers, we're from the old wars of the 1800's... they was taught to talk, it was a honour thing.
Just look at the red coats etc. I do understand were you're coming from but try to remember it was nearly 100 years ago now... alot has changed.
@plasticbudgie actually that's not true, virtually all of the junior officers were volunteers in the new armies, and had only joined the army in 1914 or 1915
The Canadians British and French fought with mixed results until the rolling barrage was used in conjunction with meticulous planning . Something came late to the war because of the less than competent British and French Officers.
Even when shown the plans they all scoffed at it. It was left to The Canadians to show them how to conduct warfare properly that things began to improve. The men from all the nations were all brave and true.
@dave777blaster 'The Canadians to show them how to conduct warfare properly that things began to improve' Canada was just one part of the British Forces, indeed they did not even make up one whole 'Army' but were at the corps level. Added to that they were led by Generals Julian Byng and Henry Horne (both Englishmen). Also the best person at the rolling barrage was the cautious British General Plumer who did quiet well without the small ad-hoc canadian artillery formations.
It makes me wonder how today the English and the Germans are still not in total peace. Watching all these clips makes you realise how pointless the war was and both nations were simply fighting for their country not just to kill inncoent fighters.
at 0.12 you see the rd form la bouselle to oviliers ! just of the roman rd to albert... in "The somme' by peter barton you can see a panorama taken 2 days later, at last exact spot, you can cleary see the dead infantryman ...
@Channypogosticks You are incorrect. The creeping barrage was a phenomenom of the FIrst World War. Napoleon had the 'Grand Battery' approach, which is not too disimiliar to the barrage on the first 7 days of the Somme operation. The Creeping barrage is firing over the heads of your own men with long range artillery (not smoothbore cannons) to a set timetable, using map references and to specific geographic gradients- not pointing the grand battery at one point on the field.
@fp470 This video is not right. The creeping barrage was not an innovation of the Somme. June 13 1916 Mount Sorrel. The 1st division of the Canadian Corps closely followed the Corps carefully planned artillery barrage and caught the Germans in their dugouts. “The staff, the artillery and the infantry had all worked on the problems involved in staging an attack and they had produced some new approaches.” They also discovered how to defeat the German counter attacks.
@fp470 I don’t believe this is the first success with following a creeping barrage in the British Empire but the Canadians did do it before the Somme. The Canadian Corps had their own artillery from earlier on and they took over the lead in the scientific approach to artillery from the British during the Somme. Apparently.
@1Dougy85 You are incorrect or misreading history. The Somme did not use the creeping barrage but mass barrage. The Canadians did not do it before teh Somme, the French invent cordon sanitaire which is adapted into the rolling barrage then it is adapted by the British Army as a whole. The Canadians may have just featured in an attack were it was used by the British artillery. The canadians did not have enough aritllery to affect a rolling barrage which requires such a ratio of guns:yards.
@sasktank Lets see...the French use it in 1915 and the british forces dont adopt it till 1916 and since the Candian corps did not have its own artillery(but directed British Artillery assigned to it)- at least until the end of the war then....not so.
The French Artillery Doctrine of 'Cordon Solitaire' is where the UK got the idea from.
The Canadians do invent one thing to their credit, the Machinge Gun barrage relying on bullet drop timetables of suppresing fire.
The creeping barage was a good idea at the beggining, however because the guns kept firing as the infantry went into the trenches, by the time they could take the next lot, the artillery cover was too far ahead, maybe if the guns stopped firing for a bit, then started again it might have worked.
The importance of the tank is really overstated here. They moved too slowly & frequently broke down. Plus, once the Germans got over their initial shock, they figured out that tanks were pretty easy to knock out.
It doesnt overstate them here. The documentary conveys them as a new and experimental weapon that had little value aside of terror. It would be in 1917 that tanks would play the correct supporting role, with infantry and ground attack aircraft, from a position of surprise.
The whole documentary is getting at that te Somme was a massive learning experience where the British learn much on how to fight a war.
The Brits never learned how to fight this war. They continued to lose men wholesale in 1917 & 1918. Whatever ground they gained at Cambrai - with the use of tanks - was quickly lost to German counterattacks. The German offensive of 1918 almost split the British from the French. It came very close to breaking the back of the British Army. Whole battalions surrendered en masse. The British never understood the tactics the Germans used (i.e. stormtroopers).
Yes they did, go read something other than AJP Taylor; Ypres, Hamel, Arras all are examples ot the development of the better tactics on micro and grand levels. Cambrai is the poster of success and failure but it was not the extent or high water mark of development. The German offensive of 1918 did not seriously threaten the British sector and in parts the French deliberately withdrew to overstretch the Germans. 1918 offensive not unimportant it has been overstated and not assessed properly
Sorry, I don't have any books by AJP Taylor. If the German offensive of 1918 wasn't a serious threat to the Allies, then why did their governments call an urgent meeting that was held at Doullens on March 26th? Why did they suddenly feel the need to name Foch supreme commander? The Germans were at the Marne by June 5th. After their losses at Third Ypres & the first five or six weeks of the German 1918 offensive, the British were effectively finished as an offensive force.
@DeanVX05 From the perspective of the Entente commanders the German 1918 offensive was a serious threat. Indeed had it of been successful we can only dream. The facts were that the acheivments were illusory, a post war study reveals that despit its successes it was because..l.
b. Hindenburg and not Ludendorff ran the operation to its detriment
c. The French actually surrenderd territory to spread ghe Germans too thin and then countered with their allies in th 100 days that smashed the Germans
@fp470 That's kind of an odd way to fight a war, don't you think? Surrender vast amounts of territory in your own country to an enemy on purpose? Don't you think it's more likely that the Germans hit the British & the French so hard that they nearly broke their backs? When Clemenceau & Poincare asked Petain what the Germans were doing, he simply replied, "First they'll beat the British, then they'll beat us."
@DeanVX05 As the Germans did hit the Anglo-French very hard, Foch as supreme commander encourage d apolicy of measured territorial concession. One of the problems off ww1 is no one would budge an inch, by the end of the war they learn the lesson that drawing in your opponent is a good thing. The Germans had to man wide borders in the strategically unimportant south.
@fp470 Actually it was the Germans who were willing to budge an inch. One of the ways they dealt with Allied attacks was to simply pull back from their front line trenches, & then zero in with their artillery once Allied troops occupied that trench. The Germans were so deeply into France by the end of 1914 that they could afford to lose some ground, as long as they extracted a high price in lives as they were losing it (which they did).
@DeanVX05 Yes however this flexible defence in depth started to come undone as the Entente develop superior military capabilities. Flash and sound spotting of artillery meant that during 1917 the Germans had to abandon such flexible arrangements. The intense reliance on the hindenburg static defence doctrine undone alot of the acheivments of 1916. In 1917 and 1918 the entente have the superiority to play the Germans
@fp470 So if they were "playing" the Germans, why did the British & French suffer so many casualties in 1917 &1918? As General Fayolle noted in his diary in early 1917, "Evening. Sadness. Two causes: the mentality of Foch...and the absence of any grand perspective at the top. What is the plan for 1917?" Given what happened at Chemin des Dames & Passchendaele, it would seem that the Allies still had a lot to learn. Perhaps if they'd followed the lessons of General Von Mudra more closely....
@DeanVX05 The Germans in 1917 and 1918 were still danergous strategically, however they really had not capitalised on their early war gains. The Entente during 1917 transferred from French to British leadership. Passchendaele whilst important for its loss was part of a wider operation, but failure for popular historians to see the forest of the trees....
@fp470 Maybe they couldn't see the forest for the trees because the British turned it into a swamp. Didn't they realize that the water table in northwestern Belgium lies just under the surface? The Passchendaele offensive had to be delayed until August because the Germans started using Mustard Gas in July, which caused massive British casualties. And August turned out to be unusually wet in Flanders. So the weather + the exposure of the water table added up to disaster for the British.
@fp470 The Spanish American War took place 20 years before America's involvement in WW1. And I think you would agree that there had never been a war like WW1 before. So whatever experience American officers might have gained in fighting the Spanish American War would not have helped them on the Western Front during WW1. Also, only one of the two brigades that made up the 2nd Division were Marines. The US Army troops did just as much fighting, & did just as well.
Entente Commanders were eager for US troops as reserves because they were short on men. The path the war took prior to British intervention in 1914 saw the German attack a large chunk of France. So all the Germans needed to do was hold that land-a hard job but much easier than the Anglo-French job of retaking it. Attacking is harder then defending, especially in WW1, both tactically and strategically!
So why did the Entente want the US as reserve forces after that aside...
The American morale was high, having avoided three and a half years of war and had largely been brought up to scratch by British and French training camps and joint Marine-Entente training docrtines.
... They were to be a reserve however. That is right the guys who replace those who are too weak to fight, to fill in the gaps and man the rear lines. Then after much of the fighting has been done and the attackers expended the US move up and capture the enemy's rear positions and solidify.
1. The US used some 1914 style tactics of the British and French when the war resumed a semi-open phase. This was not solid trench lines of 1916 but the Hindenburg line had been broken.
2. The Americans were more numerous than the British by the end of 1918 but were not in the 'crucial nothern zones' of the W. Front. Although I wil give credit where it is due. As a RESERVE unit, a number of American divisions assisted in teh defence of Paris in 1918- as part of a mulitnational garrison, during the Height of the German offensive.
@fp470 When the Germans were planning their 1918, they faced two problems:
1) An attack aimed at Paris would expose their flanks.
2) An attack through the 'crucial northern zone' would leave most of France untouched.
So the Germans first planned to hit the British so hard - in the 'crucial northern zone' - that they would take the fight out of them. They would then turn south & take Paris. The territorial gains provided the Germans with a huge buffer zone when they did turn south.
1. Yes they turned much of N.France and Belgium into a quagmire but this is because of the technology of shell designe amoungst ALL nations. It is then the UK that develop a new shell fuse that does two things;
a. Explode in such a way to push out to make shallower craters
b. Does not posses a 15 per cent failure rate, thus reducing the number of shells you have to throw to balance out the 'duds'
c. Very few people knew about the Water table of Belgium in either the French, German or French armies. The Belgians probably knew but nobody on either side asked them
@fp470 But you don't hear stories about the Germans turning the battlefield into a quagmire, even though they had heavier artillery (i.e. the Krupp-Skoda 305 & the 210 mm howitzer). One of the reasons they chose to attack Verdun in February 1916 was because it was winter & the ground was still frozen. So they didn't have to worry turning the battlefield into a swamp. It wasn't like Belgium was a band new country that no one knew about before the war. Just a little research might've helped.
5. Research. Absolutely I agree that pre-war research would have been valuable to reducing the British's chances in Belgium. However the levels and access to information was not a feature. Unless the war authorities could interoggaate and confiscate individuals from the Institute de France or the British Royal Geographical Society where would they get the information? I highly doubt water table information was generally avaliable in 1914.
Yes the offensive was delayed. You have identified a cause that the British were bound by due to circumstance and the fog of war to then use as evidence for why the offensive was delayed till later. The offensive was needed however as 3rd Ypres was already underway and you cant stop it once it starts.
Passchendaele was a victory however and made other German positions untenable and thus the overall victory of 3rd Ypres
@fp470 If dictated by circumstances, an offensive can always be stopped. The Germans wound down offensive operations in Verdun during the summer of 1916 because they had to shift resources to the Somme.
If your men are being slaughtered & you've turned the ground they're trying to attack over into cottage cheese, wouldn't you say to yourself, "ya know, maybe we need to call this off & re-think our strategy before all of our men are killed."
1. Spanish-American War & US troops. My comment was in relation to the professionalism of pre-war American units, specifically the Marines. I do not content that the Marine units had Spanish-American war veteran soldiers but that ...
2. .....a. That the units were largely if not exclusively professional soldiers. B. I was alluding to the fact that those units would have had established officer and NCO corps with combat experience. Professional soldiers in pre-war units have better cohesion and levels of skill than volunteer civilian-soldier demographics.
3. Verdun. The Germans did not turn Verdun into a quagmire because they occupied the positions closest to the water table. They did however turn the French forts and surrounds into lunar landscape. The British, at French insistence, attacked at the Somme- which being a river plain had a water table issue; however they begin in July which is summer. In European climes winter rainfall is higher. Also the Germans are defensive for much of the war. ....
4....They launch few offensive actions other than the initial war, Verdun and the 1918 offensives. It was necessary to attack at the Somme since intelligence found that the Germans would have to withdraw from the Verdun attack as the two positions were interchangeable and significant from the German perspective but both could not be maintained simultaneously. It was a way to out strategy the Germans whilst the Germans were out doing the French tactically.
@DeanVX05 6. You can wind down offensive operations if you are the attacker. The British were in effect counterattacking the German sector command that threatened Verdun. As the attackers they had the iniative, the Somme was aimed at taking that away and regaining French iniative. Also the British won the Somme and the German army never fully recovered from those dual-losses.
...8 Somme continued. Also the German offensive at Verdun is only stopped because the political leader4ship of Germany realised Von Falkenhayn was not taking prudent or strategically wise decisions. Von Falkenhayn is replaced by Hindenburg who then realises that Germany should not have committed to two major actions and fall back to the Hindenburg line
...Ypres effectively dilocated the German right wing which had always been the area to shut down Entente operations further south. Both sides had botched operations up until 11 Nov 1918, but the thing we see in the 100 days campaign is pure brilliance.
@fp470 If US forces were so unreliable, why did Haig demand they be used to fill in his own depleted ranks? (As long as they were white). Why did the French rename Belleau Wood after the US Marines who fought there? Why were the Americans holding a larger section of the line by September 1918 than the British? Have you read what General von Conta's staff said about the US Second Division? And they did all this using the same tactics the French had used in 1914.
@fp470 Comments by General von Conta's staff: "The personnel must be called excellent...a very good division, if not an assault division....attacks of the marines carried out smartly & ruthlessly. The moral effect of our fire did not materially check the advance of the enemy. The nerves of the Americans are still unshaken." Now if the Germans were saying this about US troops, how unreliable could they have been?
Its not just the General fault, but its easy and poor history to blame just them.
1. These Guys were the worst force ever fielded by Britain, poorly trained, issue with equipment and a lack of experienced NCOs and proffesional officers (eg. like Cpt Tweed a rich civilian they made an officer.
2. The faulty technology and weapons systems of the day- they thought that the Artillery would destroy it all, think 'Shock and Awe' ala 1916. It is unfortunate that such abilities did not yet exist.
The were ordere to walk because they though the bombardment that had gone for several days would have killed all the German. They werent expecting anyone to have lived...shock and awe ala 1916. But the artillery shells werent that great, and couldnt penetrated bunkers. Also not all the line walked, only the British New Army (1914 volunteers) who were poorly trained walked. The pre-war units aactually ran and got to their objectives. It was because they feared New Army would get confused.
Also, in some cases the troops were wearing heavy packs and had to run about a mile. Due to them being new recruits and not having the fitness levels of a modern or professional soldier they were told more to save themselves for the last few yards.
@Hperman09 For the same reasons armys marched slowly filed together in the 1700`s and 1800`s if you can slowly march towards your enemy even taking heavy less and show no fear it will shatter your enemys resolve and make them think you are unstopable
What do yu mean by real leader? Placed himself in danger? He is only a battalion commander or major. They are expected to be in the combat zone. Although he wants to go forward...which in a modern war can be very dangerous.
It is the place of command to be at the rear but to move forward with the army.
no wonder they said that. i think they were probably being nice. lol. as the russians nearly caused a war with germany france and Britain by mistaking aforesaid countries merchant fleet for japaneese warships. fortunately the gunnery was so bad they only managed to hit one ship. that was towing the target when they were practising later, to be fair tho. they did have to sail a part of the baltic fleet to the pacific.
my info on that war isnt the greatest. tho i know the sea conflict. i know that the japaneese had modern up to date warships with training bassed on the British Navy. incidently. it was us brits who yet again invented a new kind of warfare with the torpedoing of italian ships by carrier launched air craft at tarento also taken on board by the japaneese) conversly the modern russian fleet that was destroyed was replaced by a mis match of modern and decrepit ships commanders and men.
wir sprechen über den ersten Weltkrieg und wie er von anderen Kriegen kettch23 entwickelte. fühlen Sie sich frei, innen zu verbinden. aber ich muss Sie warnen. mein Deutsch ist schrecklich.
@matrickan@matrickan:Nope not the greatest at all. Not only the wrong war but U got them mixed up. The Japs did have "modern warships and RN training before WW1 and they did destroy the Russian Fleet in 1905 (a decade BEFORE WW1 in the Russo-Japanese war, but he then shifts to WW2-Taranto in1940 as well as Pearl Harbour,He is not a student of history. I would be sympathetic it wasn't for the appalling spelling. Nope-WRONG WAR". Sad isn't it?
@swannie52 forgive my poor spelling as i am dyslexic. perhapse you shouldnt take things out of context. then maybe you would be a better student of history. i use where ever possible primary sources of information. you use your own imagination i see. yes the japanese did have modern warships. yes they were based on the RN yes they did beat the russians. and you`ll find theytreated their prisonors with the greatest of respect. totaly different from WW II
@swannie52 forgive my poor spelling as i am dyslexic. perhapse you shouldnt take things out of context. then maybe you would be a better student of history. i use where ever possible primary sources of information. you use your own imagination i see. yes the japanese did have modern warships. yes they were based on the RN yes they did beat the russians. and you`ll find theytreated their prisonors with the greatest of respect. totaly different from WW II
You too mate, nice to have an intelligent chat for a change. Oh the Russo-Japanese war 1905 is really interesting, it served as a micro-chasm of what WW1 would be like, however everybody at the time just blamed Russian inadequacy rather than studying the strategy/tactics and technology of the conflict-although information was and still is sketchy. The Strategy of the Great war wasnt bad only the technology-tactics and strategic integration.
WW1 after becomming bogged down for so long cause the final evolution into modern mobile warfare. the fire and manouver practices of modern military. sandhurst and west point were still teaching 19th century doctrine at the beginning of WW1
No doubt,(docttrine of Sandhurst and W.POint) during the great war its military papers that changed docrtine and tactics. Cambrai was only a small battle but done sooo well that Haig made that General of that battle (Monash) write out detailed how to lists for every corps commander and up to read and meet on it. General Plumber's military papers also led the change. This didnt occur till late 16- early 17. But the change was dramatic. Thos princicples subsquently were taught at Sandhurst and WP.
fron the US civil war to the franco prussian war to the boar war. all contiributed an aspect of what became "modern" warfare. all sides in WW1 at the beginning tried to fight it like erlier wars. the vickers gun ( a decendant of the gattling from the US civil war) was more manoverable than any thing before and deployed in greater numbers. better artilliry (franco prussian war) and better understanding of the principals of firing a rifle and modern bolt actions. (boar war )
The Boar war was a large war, but it didnt contain large battles. The Brits blitz the boars in a few months. Its then the long, slow, horrible and low intensity asymmetrical warfare that then follows which made the deployments so big; it wasnt a war against another industrial nation. Also the Russians lost the Crimean war so their assesment of the British might be skewed. I agree that Lord Raglan could have done better in teh Crimean but he didnt do a bad job. It was moreso British policy makers
I agree ww1 was a turning point, howver to have a turning point you need a dialectic to occur. YOu need a thesis to meet its antithesis to arrive at somethign new. 19th century warfare meets 20th century realities to arrive at the development of the modern way of fighting war. The lessons, tactics and doctrine of WW1 still informs people today. The Same stuff taught at Sandhurst and Westpoint were things invented between 1916-1918.
fp470. what are you trying to say? that the two boar wars didnt take place?
they were the biggest deployment of british troops with an army numbering in the millions. WWI was a true truning point. from traditional concepts of war to the the early development of mobile warfare. most of the best german WWII commanders were from WWI. Rommel perhapse the most famous one
the idea of creeping artillery barrage, bite and hold, and limited gains gave the british tiny victories but added together were great victories. too many commanders were horny for napoleonic victories.
at last, after thousands of lives that lost, these commanders manage to find way how to assault enemy's position.. these commander needs to be hang for sending lads to their death while they are sitting in their office and sip hot coffee..
Ease off the commanders, it was the first major war fought since the Crimean (and that wasnt that big). This was a revolution in military science and the fact we did this well was amazing.
Look at 757. That tank was on a demonstration in front of George V. it was not taken at the Somme. I remember the footage from another documentary. The crew were all unconscious from concussion when the tank stopped. 38 tons and nooo padding or suspension! The engine was free mounted in the centre and it had a crew of 9. All except the driver without seats. Think about it when you run it.
I'm far from even an amateur military historian but from what I recall from history classes Operation Overlord was the beginning of the end for Germany in WW2, after which their defeat was inevitable. The actual "turning point" in the WW2 European theater was in 1943, probably either Tunisia or the invasion of Sicily which was when the allies started pushing them back from the peak of their expansion.
Good, nobody really knows that. They also says 1944 was the turning point, ireally hate it when somebody says that. I would put the turning point earlier like 1942, with stalingrad, El Alamien, and the Bomber Campaign bombing German cities like Hamburg.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
D day was the turning point in WWII idiot, we broke there defenses and that let us to move into eastern Europe Towards Germany while Russia pushed towards the eastern front. Basically trapping them. There forces spread WAY to thin. But still they put up a great fight.
In my opinion it was when the british took persien and middle east, and through that defeated the Turks. On the western front, nothing changed between 1914 to 1917 (+/- 500 yards) but when the germans lost their most trusted alliered (and oil) they where trapped in.
Hail to the great German defenders of truths and wisdoms of the German Empire. It is a shame that these worthless Franks and Normans were trusted in peace as they stole the riches of Germany and helped Hitler take over Germany.
Watching those men cut down like grasses seems horrifying. Imagine being stuck in something like that. How did these British and French soldiers find the courage to do that?
Serious military training and, underneath, great patriotic education, plus either Christianism (=sense of sacrifice) or fighting for Human Rights. That's what I can say after reading dozens of French soldiers diaries (and some British & German too).
I think your talking about the second boer war (1899 to 1902) you might say it's our vietnam, we lost a shocking amount of men to farmers with nothing but rifles & horse's we eventally won by nearly wipeing out the dutch south africans by putting them all in concentration camps. Yeah, you heard right we can be relly bad basterds when we need to be.
Enough with these swearing comments aside. I just want to appalud Maxwell's thinking and tenacity. He said in the clip, "...The matter of the fact, I do. The men want to see you out there with them, and fight with them; whilst smoking your pipe with an up-right posture". That's classic! LOLZ. However, it goes to show the leadership and charisma he possess. I wish that we have more commanders like that in this world.
if uv got nothin respectful t say clear of u wudnt b sayin all tht crap if ud went threw it they died for us shw sum respect R.I.P all who lost their lives
Hey I respect every country, every men who died in ww1, i was just saying that a single war can change the WHOLE WORLD nothing disrespectful about that is there?
this idea that the Somme was turned into a victory is idiotic. Yes it inspired change, but in no way can it be considered a win. Never did command or attack quality of the British surpass that of the Germans
It was largely the British (and its Dominions) who brought about the final capitulation of the Imperial German army in the Hundred Days offensive.
The Americans did fuck all until mide 1918 and by then the Allies were already preparing to go on the Offensive. American troops fighting against the worst German troops at the front in the South had no real decisive result as the French and British had already held most of the German attack.
It was the Royal Navy blockade, the French army in 1914, the Anglo-Franco Offensives of 1914-17, and the British army after 1917 into 1918 that won the War.
The Americans didn't have to do anything to win the war for the allies. Their presence alone put the writing on the wall. just read what the German generals and marshals themselves said.
Tanks!!! This is truly an interesting though tragic battle in a war that is all too often forgotten. I wish that all the brave men that died in that conflict found peace.
saxaphone1987 3 weeks ago
At 6:40 is that real combat footage?
MasterKman0 1 month ago
watching this for history hw
shabby360 2 months ago
the creeping barrage was used on day one, not only in Sept as this suggests. The problem was that the infantry couldn't keep up with the creeping barrage, and were left behind and exposed
THthefirst 6 months ago
Thumb's up if you could imagine the German's reaction's when they see the first ever tank invented by the British slowly making it's way towards them :P
TheDawnOfTheGood 7 months ago
@TheDawnOfTheGood yeah it was like something out of a fiction novel to them
Killmaster851 7 months ago
The British and Canadians both fought well during the war. Even in our great victories, it would not have been possible without British support. While Currie did very well, there were also good British commanders
panz4er 7 months ago
Creeping barrage preceded the Somme.
browsfan 10 months ago
water tank anyone ?
teddythebenny 11 months ago
" Had the war continued another year I would have made General Currie able commander of all of the British forces "
The PM of Britain Loyd George
The Canadian General Currie made all of the British Officers look bad
That should give you an Idea of what leadership is about
dave777blaster 11 months ago
@dave777blaster
fp470 11 months ago
@dave777blaster There's always some stupid Canadian cunt like you coming to these videos and talking down the British troops. Why don't you accept, everyone in the empire fought well, the Indians, the Canadians, New Zealanders, the British, and the Australians.
TheLiberalKnight 7 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight the British soldiers fought very well ,their commanders should of been terminated
dave777blaster 7 months ago
@dave777blaster Fair enough. But there is a very common misconception that all the WW1 generals were idiots. It's not true. WW1 was the first war of its kind. Do people really believe Haig was an idiot for believing in cavalry tactics? This sort of war had never happened before. There was no way of dealing with trench warfare.
TheLiberalKnight 7 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight That's true .
Also it isn't fair to say British Generals were bad ,it's just that were slow to pickup new techniques, of a new type of war.That's why The Canadian General was held in higher regard ,he was able to adapt where as the British Generals were slow to adapt to new methods.
The lower ranks of all armies were steadfast in their duties in what is easily the worst world war
dave777blaster 7 months ago
@dave777blaster Exactly. General Currie should have been the allied commander, not only the British one.
TheLiberalKnight 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrNoobslayer123 4 months ago
@dave777blaster I the British high command was the most imaginative of all the armies, it had to be. The germans just used infiltration tactics and the French used attrition. The British developed and invented combined arms, which is still used to this day. By the end of the war, the BEF was the best army in the world
dmax631 5 months ago
Comment removed
dave777blaster 11 months ago
Why didn't the Brits just fkinf RUN
simranjeet36 11 months ago
@simranjeet36 remember the war was taken place 1914 - 1918, many of the lieutenants, Officers, we're from the old wars of the 1800's... they was taught to talk, it was a honour thing.
Just look at the red coats etc. I do understand were you're coming from but try to remember it was nearly 100 years ago now... alot has changed.
plasticbudgie 11 months ago
@plasticbudgie actually that's not true, virtually all of the junior officers were volunteers in the new armies, and had only joined the army in 1914 or 1915
THthefirst 6 months ago
The Canadians British and French fought with mixed results until the rolling barrage was used in conjunction with meticulous planning . Something came late to the war because of the less than competent British and French Officers.
Even when shown the plans they all scoffed at it. It was left to The Canadians to show them how to conduct warfare properly that things began to improve. The men from all the nations were all brave and true.
dave777blaster 1 year ago
@dave777blaster 'The Canadians to show them how to conduct warfare properly that things began to improve' Canada was just one part of the British Forces, indeed they did not even make up one whole 'Army' but were at the corps level. Added to that they were led by Generals Julian Byng and Henry Horne (both Englishmen). Also the best person at the rolling barrage was the cautious British General Plumer who did quiet well without the small ad-hoc canadian artillery formations.
fp470 11 months ago
Comment removed
dave777blaster 11 months ago
It makes me wonder how today the English and the Germans are still not in total peace. Watching all these clips makes you realise how pointless the war was and both nations were simply fighting for their country not just to kill inncoent fighters.
mikee2k11 1 year ago
esto fue grande
matusalem72 1 year ago
Ballsack. Everyone just got owned.
CamelBallZee 1 year ago
@CamelBallZee lol wtf?
DJsharp707 1 year ago
@DJsharp707 Yup. A skrow tum.
CamelBallZee 1 year ago
at 0.12 you see the rd form la bouselle to oviliers ! just of the roman rd to albert... in "The somme' by peter barton you can see a panorama taken 2 days later, at last exact spot, you can cleary see the dead infantryman ...
luvpump1 1 year ago
Thats not correct... the Sommes didn't make the creeping barrage tactic. In fact Napoleon used it a century ago.....
Channypogosticks 1 year ago
@Channypogosticks You are incorrect. The creeping barrage was a phenomenom of the FIrst World War. Napoleon had the 'Grand Battery' approach, which is not too disimiliar to the barrage on the first 7 days of the Somme operation. The Creeping barrage is firing over the heads of your own men with long range artillery (not smoothbore cannons) to a set timetable, using map references and to specific geographic gradients- not pointing the grand battery at one point on the field.
fp470 1 year ago
Comment removed
1Dougy85 1 year ago
Comment removed
1Dougy85 1 year ago
@fp470 This video is not right. The creeping barrage was not an innovation of the Somme. June 13 1916 Mount Sorrel. The 1st division of the Canadian Corps closely followed the Corps carefully planned artillery barrage and caught the Germans in their dugouts. “The staff, the artillery and the infantry had all worked on the problems involved in staging an attack and they had produced some new approaches.” They also discovered how to defeat the German counter attacks.
1Dougy85 1 year ago
@fp470 I don’t believe this is the first success with following a creeping barrage in the British Empire but the Canadians did do it before the Somme. The Canadian Corps had their own artillery from earlier on and they took over the lead in the scientific approach to artillery from the British during the Somme. Apparently.
1Dougy85 1 year ago
@1Dougy85 You are incorrect or misreading history. The Somme did not use the creeping barrage but mass barrage. The Canadians did not do it before teh Somme, the French invent cordon sanitaire which is adapted into the rolling barrage then it is adapted by the British Army as a whole. The Canadians may have just featured in an attack were it was used by the British artillery. The canadians did not have enough aritllery to affect a rolling barrage which requires such a ratio of guns:yards.
fp470 1 year ago
the creaping barrage was invented and first used by the Canadian army
sasktank 1 year ago
@sasktank Lets see...the French use it in 1915 and the british forces dont adopt it till 1916 and since the Candian corps did not have its own artillery(but directed British Artillery assigned to it)- at least until the end of the war then....not so.
The French Artillery Doctrine of 'Cordon Solitaire' is where the UK got the idea from.
The Canadians do invent one thing to their credit, the Machinge Gun barrage relying on bullet drop timetables of suppresing fire.
fp470 1 year ago
lol they were walking wihle germans shoot with maschin-guns
TheSabbath8 1 year ago
@TheSabbath8 yeah it's fricken hilarious isn't it... shut the hell up.
Delogros 1 year ago
My great grandfather was there, 111 Infanterie, Pionier Kompanie 221
dawnrun911 1 year ago
The creeping barage was a good idea at the beggining, however because the guns kept firing as the infantry went into the trenches, by the time they could take the next lot, the artillery cover was too far ahead, maybe if the guns stopped firing for a bit, then started again it might have worked.
jerryplane 1 year ago
The importance of the tank is really overstated here. They moved too slowly & frequently broke down. Plus, once the Germans got over their initial shock, they figured out that tanks were pretty easy to knock out.
DeanVX05 2 years ago
It doesnt overstate them here. The documentary conveys them as a new and experimental weapon that had little value aside of terror. It would be in 1917 that tanks would play the correct supporting role, with infantry and ground attack aircraft, from a position of surprise.
The whole documentary is getting at that te Somme was a massive learning experience where the British learn much on how to fight a war.
fp470 2 years ago
The Brits never learned how to fight this war. They continued to lose men wholesale in 1917 & 1918. Whatever ground they gained at Cambrai - with the use of tanks - was quickly lost to German counterattacks. The German offensive of 1918 almost split the British from the French. It came very close to breaking the back of the British Army. Whole battalions surrendered en masse. The British never understood the tactics the Germans used (i.e. stormtroopers).
DeanVX05 2 years ago
Yes they did, go read something other than AJP Taylor; Ypres, Hamel, Arras all are examples ot the development of the better tactics on micro and grand levels. Cambrai is the poster of success and failure but it was not the extent or high water mark of development. The German offensive of 1918 did not seriously threaten the British sector and in parts the French deliberately withdrew to overstretch the Germans. 1918 offensive not unimportant it has been overstated and not assessed properly
fp470 2 years ago
Sorry, I don't have any books by AJP Taylor. If the German offensive of 1918 wasn't a serious threat to the Allies, then why did their governments call an urgent meeting that was held at Doullens on March 26th? Why did they suddenly feel the need to name Foch supreme commander? The Germans were at the Marne by June 5th. After their losses at Third Ypres & the first five or six weeks of the German 1918 offensive, the British were effectively finished as an offensive force.
DeanVX05 2 years ago
@DeanVX05 From the perspective of the Entente commanders the German 1918 offensive was a serious threat. Indeed had it of been successful we can only dream. The facts were that the acheivments were illusory, a post war study reveals that despit its successes it was because..l.
a
fp470 1 year ago
Comment removed
fp470 1 year ago
@DeanVX05 @DeanVX05
. Poorly co-ordinated after its begining
b. Hindenburg and not Ludendorff ran the operation to its detriment
c. The French actually surrenderd territory to spread ghe Germans too thin and then countered with their allies in th 100 days that smashed the Germans
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 That's kind of an odd way to fight a war, don't you think? Surrender vast amounts of territory in your own country to an enemy on purpose? Don't you think it's more likely that the Germans hit the British & the French so hard that they nearly broke their backs? When Clemenceau & Poincare asked Petain what the Germans were doing, he simply replied, "First they'll beat the British, then they'll beat us."
DeanVX05 1 year ago
@DeanVX05 As the Germans did hit the Anglo-French very hard, Foch as supreme commander encourage d apolicy of measured territorial concession. One of the problems off ww1 is no one would budge an inch, by the end of the war they learn the lesson that drawing in your opponent is a good thing. The Germans had to man wide borders in the strategically unimportant south.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 Actually it was the Germans who were willing to budge an inch. One of the ways they dealt with Allied attacks was to simply pull back from their front line trenches, & then zero in with their artillery once Allied troops occupied that trench. The Germans were so deeply into France by the end of 1914 that they could afford to lose some ground, as long as they extracted a high price in lives as they were losing it (which they did).
DeanVX05 1 year ago
@DeanVX05 Yes however this flexible defence in depth started to come undone as the Entente develop superior military capabilities. Flash and sound spotting of artillery meant that during 1917 the Germans had to abandon such flexible arrangements. The intense reliance on the hindenburg static defence doctrine undone alot of the acheivments of 1916. In 1917 and 1918 the entente have the superiority to play the Germans
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 So if they were "playing" the Germans, why did the British & French suffer so many casualties in 1917 &1918? As General Fayolle noted in his diary in early 1917, "Evening. Sadness. Two causes: the mentality of Foch...and the absence of any grand perspective at the top. What is the plan for 1917?" Given what happened at Chemin des Dames & Passchendaele, it would seem that the Allies still had a lot to learn. Perhaps if they'd followed the lessons of General Von Mudra more closely....
DeanVX05 1 year ago
@DeanVX05 The Germans in 1917 and 1918 were still danergous strategically, however they really had not capitalised on their early war gains. The Entente during 1917 transferred from French to British leadership. Passchendaele whilst important for its loss was part of a wider operation, but failure for popular historians to see the forest of the trees....
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 Maybe they couldn't see the forest for the trees because the British turned it into a swamp. Didn't they realize that the water table in northwestern Belgium lies just under the surface? The Passchendaele offensive had to be delayed until August because the Germans started using Mustard Gas in July, which caused massive British casualties. And August turned out to be unusually wet in Flanders. So the weather + the exposure of the water table added up to disaster for the British.
DeanVX05 1 year ago
1. On US troops. US marines were largely a pre-war formation and not to shabby. At Chemines De Daimes and Belleau Wood they did well. But why?
1. They were mostly a pre-war unit
2. Many of their officers and doctrines had been blooded in the Spanish-American War
The majority of US Forces
The Argonne and Sedan were horrible debarkales.
The Difference
When US forces intermingled with Anglo-French they do well
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 The Spanish American War took place 20 years before America's involvement in WW1. And I think you would agree that there had never been a war like WW1 before. So whatever experience American officers might have gained in fighting the Spanish American War would not have helped them on the Western Front during WW1. Also, only one of the two brigades that made up the 2nd Division were Marines. The US Army troops did just as much fighting, & did just as well.
DeanVX05 1 year ago
US troops continued....
Entente Commanders were eager for US troops as reserves because they were short on men. The path the war took prior to British intervention in 1914 saw the German attack a large chunk of France. So all the Germans needed to do was hold that land-a hard job but much easier than the Anglo-French job of retaking it. Attacking is harder then defending, especially in WW1, both tactically and strategically!
fp470 1 year ago
Us troops part 3
So why did the Entente want the US as reserve forces after that aside...
The American morale was high, having avoided three and a half years of war and had largely been brought up to scratch by British and French training camps and joint Marine-Entente training docrtines.
fp470 1 year ago
US troops part 4
... They were to be a reserve however. That is right the guys who replace those who are too weak to fight, to fill in the gaps and man the rear lines. Then after much of the fighting has been done and the attackers expended the US move up and capture the enemy's rear positions and solidify.
fp470 1 year ago
Other points on US forces (p.5)
1. The US used some 1914 style tactics of the British and French when the war resumed a semi-open phase. This was not solid trench lines of 1916 but the Hindenburg line had been broken.
fp470 1 year ago
@DeanVX05
Part 6
2. The Americans were more numerous than the British by the end of 1918 but were not in the 'crucial nothern zones' of the W. Front. Although I wil give credit where it is due. As a RESERVE unit, a number of American divisions assisted in teh defence of Paris in 1918- as part of a mulitnational garrison, during the Height of the German offensive.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 When the Germans were planning their 1918, they faced two problems:
1) An attack aimed at Paris would expose their flanks.
2) An attack through the 'crucial northern zone' would leave most of France untouched.
So the Germans first planned to hit the British so hard - in the 'crucial northern zone' - that they would take the fight out of them. They would then turn south & take Paris. The territorial gains provided the Germans with a huge buffer zone when they did turn south.
DeanVX05 1 year ago
On the British
1. Yes they turned much of N.France and Belgium into a quagmire but this is because of the technology of shell designe amoungst ALL nations. It is then the UK that develop a new shell fuse that does two things;
a. Explode in such a way to push out to make shallower craters
fp470 1 year ago
@DeanVX05 British continued...
b. Does not posses a 15 per cent failure rate, thus reducing the number of shells you have to throw to balance out the 'duds'
c. Very few people knew about the Water table of Belgium in either the French, German or French armies. The Belgians probably knew but nobody on either side asked them
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 But you don't hear stories about the Germans turning the battlefield into a quagmire, even though they had heavier artillery (i.e. the Krupp-Skoda 305 & the 210 mm howitzer). One of the reasons they chose to attack Verdun in February 1916 was because it was winter & the ground was still frozen. So they didn't have to worry turning the battlefield into a swamp. It wasn't like Belgium was a band new country that no one knew about before the war. Just a little research might've helped.
DeanVX05 1 year ago
5. Research. Absolutely I agree that pre-war research would have been valuable to reducing the British's chances in Belgium. However the levels and access to information was not a feature. Unless the war authorities could interoggaate and confiscate individuals from the Institute de France or the British Royal Geographical Society where would they get the information? I highly doubt water table information was generally avaliable in 1914.
fp470 1 year ago
Yes the offensive was delayed. You have identified a cause that the British were bound by due to circumstance and the fog of war to then use as evidence for why the offensive was delayed till later. The offensive was needed however as 3rd Ypres was already underway and you cant stop it once it starts.
Passchendaele was a victory however and made other German positions untenable and thus the overall victory of 3rd Ypres
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 If dictated by circumstances, an offensive can always be stopped. The Germans wound down offensive operations in Verdun during the summer of 1916 because they had to shift resources to the Somme.
If your men are being slaughtered & you've turned the ground they're trying to attack over into cottage cheese, wouldn't you say to yourself, "ya know, maybe we need to call this off & re-think our strategy before all of our men are killed."
DeanVX05 1 year ago
1. Spanish-American War & US troops. My comment was in relation to the professionalism of pre-war American units, specifically the Marines. I do not content that the Marine units had Spanish-American war veteran soldiers but that ...
fp470 1 year ago
2. .....a. That the units were largely if not exclusively professional soldiers. B. I was alluding to the fact that those units would have had established officer and NCO corps with combat experience. Professional soldiers in pre-war units have better cohesion and levels of skill than volunteer civilian-soldier demographics.
fp470 1 year ago
3. Verdun. The Germans did not turn Verdun into a quagmire because they occupied the positions closest to the water table. They did however turn the French forts and surrounds into lunar landscape. The British, at French insistence, attacked at the Somme- which being a river plain had a water table issue; however they begin in July which is summer. In European climes winter rainfall is higher. Also the Germans are defensive for much of the war. ....
fp470 1 year ago
4....They launch few offensive actions other than the initial war, Verdun and the 1918 offensives. It was necessary to attack at the Somme since intelligence found that the Germans would have to withdraw from the Verdun attack as the two positions were interchangeable and significant from the German perspective but both could not be maintained simultaneously. It was a way to out strategy the Germans whilst the Germans were out doing the French tactically.
fp470 1 year ago
@DeanVX05 6. You can wind down offensive operations if you are the attacker. The British were in effect counterattacking the German sector command that threatened Verdun. As the attackers they had the iniative, the Somme was aimed at taking that away and regaining French iniative. Also the British won the Somme and the German army never fully recovered from those dual-losses.
fp470 1 year ago
...8 Somme continued. Also the German offensive at Verdun is only stopped because the political leader4ship of Germany realised Von Falkenhayn was not taking prudent or strategically wise decisions. Von Falkenhayn is replaced by Hindenburg who then realises that Germany should not have committed to two major actions and fall back to the Hindenburg line
fp470 1 year ago
...Ypres effectively dilocated the German right wing which had always been the area to shut down Entente operations further south. Both sides had botched operations up until 11 Nov 1918, but the thing we see in the 100 days campaign is pure brilliance.
fp470 1 year ago
@DeanVX05 Foch has had his critics, but he knew that given
a. The unrelaiblity of US forces despit their size
b. The need to marshal the French before they were at the end of their own supply
c. The need to capitalise on his control over British command in 1918
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 If US forces were so unreliable, why did Haig demand they be used to fill in his own depleted ranks? (As long as they were white). Why did the French rename Belleau Wood after the US Marines who fought there? Why were the Americans holding a larger section of the line by September 1918 than the British? Have you read what General von Conta's staff said about the US Second Division? And they did all this using the same tactics the French had used in 1914.
DeanVX05 1 year ago
@fp470 Comments by General von Conta's staff: "The personnel must be called excellent...a very good division, if not an assault division....attacks of the marines carried out smartly & ruthlessly. The moral effect of our fire did not materially check the advance of the enemy. The nerves of the Americans are still unshaken." Now if the Germans were saying this about US troops, how unreliable could they have been?
DeanVX05 1 year ago
why arent those brits running instead of walking like some grenadiers?!
0LuckyInternetUser0 2 years ago
Its not just the General fault, but its easy and poor history to blame just them.
1. These Guys were the worst force ever fielded by Britain, poorly trained, issue with equipment and a lack of experienced NCOs and proffesional officers (eg. like Cpt Tweed a rich civilian they made an officer.
2. The faulty technology and weapons systems of the day- they thought that the Artillery would destroy it all, think 'Shock and Awe' ala 1916. It is unfortunate that such abilities did not yet exist.
fp470 2 years ago 4
metralletas lemana hacen pupu¡¡¡¡¡¡
xajimas 2 years ago
i don't get it why does the British troops have to walk? they were easily slaughtered within minutes! can somebody answer for me please.
Hperman09 2 years ago 3
The were ordere to walk because they though the bombardment that had gone for several days would have killed all the German. They werent expecting anyone to have lived...shock and awe ala 1916. But the artillery shells werent that great, and couldnt penetrated bunkers. Also not all the line walked, only the British New Army (1914 volunteers) who were poorly trained walked. The pre-war units aactually ran and got to their objectives. It was because they feared New Army would get confused.
fp470 2 years ago 8
Also, in some cases the troops were wearing heavy packs and had to run about a mile. Due to them being new recruits and not having the fitness levels of a modern or professional soldier they were told more to save themselves for the last few yards.
Still, fucking insanity.
BillandBenRgangstas 2 years ago 16
well british command thought that there weren't much resistance left in germans after heavy bombadrment in their positions
doippa123 2 years ago 2
i already know. :)
Hperman09 2 years ago
Hperman09: The idea was that unit control and cohesion would break down if they ran. Oh and they would get tired, but better tired than DEAD.
To be honest in my opinion that doctrine had been out dated for at least 300 years, but yeah that was the idea behind it.
Finn001abd 2 years ago
@Hperman09
You see thats how things were up until then. Imagine any victorian era conflict and the men formed lines and walked.
Some better trained units ran and i know that in one instance at the somme it paid off.
Basically ww1 was the clash of industrial technology and archaic tactics.
This is stuff i was told on a school trip to the somme. Hope ive shed some light!
Ps nobody argue with me, im not interested
foxoftrot 2 years ago
@Hperman09 For the same reasons armys marched slowly filed together in the 1700`s and 1800`s if you can slowly march towards your enemy even taking heavy less and show no fear it will shatter your enemys resolve and make them think you are unstopable
1798Greenflag1916 2 years ago
because the generals were arrogant and blind. they presumed no body could survive the bombardment
volcolartist 2 years ago
Sounds like D Day during WWII, shoot enough shells and drop enough bombs the defenses ont he coast would be gone.
Luminahawke 2 years ago 2
wth y dont germans dress like they uasally do like in green uniform and that war green helmet?
ala4akbar 2 years ago
They didn´t wear green uniforms? They wear grey...
freitag42 2 years ago 3
maxwell is a real commander
a true leader
not a back end coward
MrXp3fuel 2 years ago 3
What do yu mean by real leader? Placed himself in danger? He is only a battalion commander or major. They are expected to be in the combat zone. Although he wants to go forward...which in a modern war can be very dangerous.
It is the place of command to be at the rear but to move forward with the army.
fp470 2 years ago
no wonder they said that. i think they were probably being nice. lol. as the russians nearly caused a war with germany france and Britain by mistaking aforesaid countries merchant fleet for japaneese warships. fortunately the gunnery was so bad they only managed to hit one ship. that was towing the target when they were practising later, to be fair tho. they did have to sail a part of the baltic fleet to the pacific.
matrickan 2 years ago
my info on that war isnt the greatest. tho i know the sea conflict. i know that the japaneese had modern up to date warships with training bassed on the British Navy. incidently. it was us brits who yet again invented a new kind of warfare with the torpedoing of italian ships by carrier launched air craft at tarento also taken on board by the japaneese) conversly the modern russian fleet that was destroyed was replaced by a mis match of modern and decrepit ships commanders and men.
matrickan 2 years ago
Erm wrong World War?
Kettch23 2 years ago 48
wir sprechen über den ersten Weltkrieg und wie er von anderen Kriegen kettch23 entwickelte. fühlen Sie sich frei, innen zu verbinden. aber ich muss Sie warnen. mein Deutsch ist schrecklich.
matrickan 2 years ago
@Kettch23 LOL wrong war to @matrickan
Xiia0Sn00pY 1 year ago
@matrickan @matrickan:Nope not the greatest at all. Not only the wrong war but U got them mixed up. The Japs did have "modern warships and RN training before WW1 and they did destroy the Russian Fleet in 1905 (a decade BEFORE WW1 in the Russo-Japanese war, but he then shifts to WW2-Taranto in1940 as well as Pearl Harbour,He is not a student of history. I would be sympathetic it wasn't for the appalling spelling. Nope-WRONG WAR". Sad isn't it?
swannie52 1 year ago
@swannie52 forgive my poor spelling as i am dyslexic. perhapse you shouldnt take things out of context. then maybe you would be a better student of history. i use where ever possible primary sources of information. you use your own imagination i see. yes the japanese did have modern warships. yes they were based on the RN yes they did beat the russians. and you`ll find theytreated their prisonors with the greatest of respect. totaly different from WW II
matrickan 1 year ago
@matrickan Forgive me. I was insensitive
swannie52 1 year ago
@swannie52 forgive my poor spelling as i am dyslexic. perhapse you shouldnt take things out of context. then maybe you would be a better student of history. i use where ever possible primary sources of information. you use your own imagination i see. yes the japanese did have modern warships. yes they were based on the RN yes they did beat the russians. and you`ll find theytreated their prisonors with the greatest of respect. totaly different from WW II
matrickan 1 year ago
@matrickan Can really tell your info on WWI really isn't "the greatest"...you're talking about WWII.
FFulmenTheFinnish 1 year ago
@matrickan japs were on the british side in this war.
MonsterPianos 1 year ago
@matrickan no just wrong world war, wrong continent( war theatre) and wrong nations XD
dagomankle 10 months ago
@matrickan and the americans also used tarpedo planes agenst the bismarak .... >.>
henjoe1cat 8 months ago
lol. and btw fp470. nice to meet you. lovin this convo
matrickan 2 years ago
You too mate, nice to have an intelligent chat for a change. Oh the Russo-Japanese war 1905 is really interesting, it served as a micro-chasm of what WW1 would be like, however everybody at the time just blamed Russian inadequacy rather than studying the strategy/tactics and technology of the conflict-although information was and still is sketchy. The Strategy of the Great war wasnt bad only the technology-tactics and strategic integration.
fp470 2 years ago
WW1 after becomming bogged down for so long cause the final evolution into modern mobile warfare. the fire and manouver practices of modern military. sandhurst and west point were still teaching 19th century doctrine at the beginning of WW1
matrickan 2 years ago
No doubt,(docttrine of Sandhurst and W.POint) during the great war its military papers that changed docrtine and tactics. Cambrai was only a small battle but done sooo well that Haig made that General of that battle (Monash) write out detailed how to lists for every corps commander and up to read and meet on it. General Plumber's military papers also led the change. This didnt occur till late 16- early 17. But the change was dramatic. Thos princicples subsquently were taught at Sandhurst and WP.
fp470 2 years ago
fron the US civil war to the franco prussian war to the boar war. all contiributed an aspect of what became "modern" warfare. all sides in WW1 at the beginning tried to fight it like erlier wars. the vickers gun ( a decendant of the gattling from the US civil war) was more manoverable than any thing before and deployed in greater numbers. better artilliry (franco prussian war) and better understanding of the principals of firing a rifle and modern bolt actions. (boar war )
matrickan 2 years ago
oh and fp470. in the crimea the russians said that we were lions. lead by donkeys. the british army commanders have a history of being ass`s
matrickan 2 years ago
The Boar war was a large war, but it didnt contain large battles. The Brits blitz the boars in a few months. Its then the long, slow, horrible and low intensity asymmetrical warfare that then follows which made the deployments so big; it wasnt a war against another industrial nation. Also the Russians lost the Crimean war so their assesment of the British might be skewed. I agree that Lord Raglan could have done better in teh Crimean but he didnt do a bad job. It was moreso British policy makers
fp470 2 years ago
I agree ww1 was a turning point, howver to have a turning point you need a dialectic to occur. YOu need a thesis to meet its antithesis to arrive at somethign new. 19th century warfare meets 20th century realities to arrive at the development of the modern way of fighting war. The lessons, tactics and doctrine of WW1 still informs people today. The Same stuff taught at Sandhurst and Westpoint were things invented between 1916-1918.
fp470 2 years ago
fp470. what are you trying to say? that the two boar wars didnt take place?
they were the biggest deployment of british troops with an army numbering in the millions. WWI was a true truning point. from traditional concepts of war to the the early development of mobile warfare. most of the best german WWII commanders were from WWI. Rommel perhapse the most famous one
matrickan 2 years ago
the idea of creeping artillery barrage, bite and hold, and limited gains gave the british tiny victories but added together were great victories. too many commanders were horny for napoleonic victories.
cheomire 2 years ago
at last, after thousands of lives that lost, these commanders manage to find way how to assault enemy's position.. these commander needs to be hang for sending lads to their death while they are sitting in their office and sip hot coffee..
grajeboys 2 years ago
Ease off the commanders, it was the first major war fought since the Crimean (and that wasnt that big). This was a revolution in military science and the fact we did this well was amazing.
fp470 2 years ago
Look at 757. That tank was on a demonstration in front of George V. it was not taken at the Somme. I remember the footage from another documentary. The crew were all unconscious from concussion when the tank stopped. 38 tons and nooo padding or suspension! The engine was free mounted in the centre and it had a crew of 9. All except the driver without seats. Think about it when you run it.
5000433 2 years ago
why are you guys talking about ww2?
Andiish08 2 years ago 24
finaly tanks coming
kskondr1 2 years ago 2
I'm far from even an amateur military historian but from what I recall from history classes Operation Overlord was the beginning of the end for Germany in WW2, after which their defeat was inevitable. The actual "turning point" in the WW2 European theater was in 1943, probably either Tunisia or the invasion of Sicily which was when the allies started pushing them back from the peak of their expansion.
sqTake2 2 years ago
Good, nobody really knows that. They also says 1944 was the turning point, ireally hate it when somebody says that. I would put the turning point earlier like 1942, with stalingrad, El Alamien, and the Bomber Campaign bombing German cities like Hamburg.
Asicparanhas 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Im pretty sure d-day was the turning point in europe but midway was the turning pint in the pacific
Nightlight1234567 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
D day was the turning point in WWII idiot, we broke there defenses and that let us to move into eastern Europe Towards Germany while Russia pushed towards the eastern front. Basically trapping them. There forces spread WAY to thin. But still they put up a great fight.
frostythesn0wman 2 years ago
d-day didn't change the tide of WW2 it was just a famous invation
freddypwns 2 years ago 4
The battle that changed the tide of world war 2 was d-day right? how about world war 1? was it the battle of verdun or the somme?
fads417 2 years ago
The battle of starlingrad definatley turned the tide of WWII, after all it was the first German loss of the war.
FleshMan7063 2 years ago 2
yeah but after that battle the germans still had control..... but after d-day the germans began 2 lose control of europe... correct if im wrong...
fads417 2 years ago
yeah but that was mostly by British & Canadian Forces
RazorCell7 2 years ago 2
the Germans only lost by a tread
if they only had Winter Supply
they might have stood a chance
by 1943 Rommel knew they lost the war
it must have been something a year before Stalingrad
maybe it was the Afrika Korps
RazorCell7 2 years ago
In my opinion it was when the british took persien and middle east, and through that defeated the Turks. On the western front, nothing changed between 1914 to 1917 (+/- 500 yards) but when the germans lost their most trusted alliered (and oil) they where trapped in.
Souvenir67 2 years ago
Isnt 4:54 Vimy Ridge battle 0_0? I studied in my History class when Canadians fought like that in Vimy Ridge
zabithezabi 3 years ago
britts and french did not know what is called cover back in the day somemany lifes lost because of their foolishness.
ivstiburon 3 years ago
LOL, thats coming from a wet wank!!
privatekeepout 2 years ago
Hail to the great German defenders of truths and wisdoms of the German Empire. It is a shame that these worthless Franks and Normans were trusted in peace as they stole the riches of Germany and helped Hitler take over Germany.
juxari 3 years ago
Well said. ^^
DancinGarou 2 years ago
Watching those men cut down like grasses seems horrifying. Imagine being stuck in something like that. How did these British and French soldiers find the courage to do that?
dday1304 3 years ago
Serious military training and, underneath, great patriotic education, plus either Christianism (=sense of sacrifice) or fighting for Human Rights. That's what I can say after reading dozens of French soldiers diaries (and some British & German too).
Fridomfry 2 years ago
why do they have to walk!!??
maximum667722 3 years ago
what war was the guy a vet of not wwi lt col
thehermanater 3 years ago
"what war was the guy a vet of not wwi lt col"
I think your talking about the second boer war (1899 to 1902) you might say it's our vietnam, we lost a shocking amount of men to farmers with nothing but rifles & horse's we eventally won by nearly wipeing out the dutch south africans by putting them all in concentration camps. Yeah, you heard right we can be relly bad basterds when we need to be.
kingsman565 3 years ago
ok tyvm
thehermanater 3 years ago
Best tactic i've ever seen i new they could do it
Bloodman456 3 years ago 3
Yes!Tanks ftw!
smoky90210 3 years ago 3
I have to say OH SHIT to 7:30 if i was a german
TacoBellRulez 3 years ago 2
Enough with these swearing comments aside. I just want to appalud Maxwell's thinking and tenacity. He said in the clip, "...The matter of the fact, I do. The men want to see you out there with them, and fight with them; whilst smoking your pipe with an up-right posture". That's classic! LOLZ. However, it goes to show the leadership and charisma he possess. I wish that we have more commanders like that in this world.
tanidn 3 years ago
if uv got nothin respectful t say clear of u wudnt b sayin all tht crap if ud went threw it they died for us shw sum respect R.I.P all who lost their lives
ps3kyle2k8 3 years ago 3
Hey I respect every country, every men who died in ww1, i was just saying that a single war can change the WHOLE WORLD nothing disrespectful about that is there?
Reiche2 3 years ago 3
It is sad that this war was called 'The War to end all wars 'when it actually started world war 2. Thers one saying after ww2 "Never Again"
Reiche2 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thoose german mg's must have got a sweet stats :P lots of kills xD
BandofBrothersfan92 4 years ago
Sweet? You need brain surgery...
borncoza 3 years ago
just kidding ;D i know that was a terrible thing to say sry :D
BandofBrothersfan92 3 years ago 3
It wasn't a video game, mate. Men died in their hundreds charging against the Machine gun fire. They are not stats, they are Hero's!
DopedUpMonkey 3 years ago 2
this idea that the Somme was turned into a victory is idiotic. Yes it inspired change, but in no way can it be considered a win. Never did command or attack quality of the British surpass that of the Germans
nosrednacolby 4 years ago 8
I agree with you. But, of course the Brits. will never admit it. The Germans lost only because they were overwhelmed by the entry of the us.
troyalldis 3 years ago
It was largely the British (and its Dominions) who brought about the final capitulation of the Imperial German army in the Hundred Days offensive.
The Americans did fuck all until mide 1918 and by then the Allies were already preparing to go on the Offensive. American troops fighting against the worst German troops at the front in the South had no real decisive result as the French and British had already held most of the German attack.
IForgottenHopeI 3 years ago 2
It was the Royal Navy blockade, the French army in 1914, the Anglo-Franco Offensives of 1914-17, and the British army after 1917 into 1918 that won the War.
IForgottenHopeI 3 years ago
The Americans didn't have to do anything to win the war for the allies. Their presence alone put the writing on the wall. just read what the German generals and marshals themselves said.
klined 3 years ago