Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ted I've done some reading on World War I and it amazed me that the British high command was so slow on the uptake of new tactics. You would expect that after 4 years of mass slaughter and the German adaption with their "Stosstrupen", that they would change like wise. After 4 years of getting mowed down by the thousands you expect a bit more participation or imagination. |
The "Stosstrupen" only became a major feature in German attacks in the spring of 1918, before then, German attacks had been similar to the Allied ones.
Also while the " Stosstrupen" was an effective tactic, it was still costly in human terms. The German army suffered nearly a million casualties in the last year of the war
Quote:
|
So can anybody tell me if there was a certain reason why Kitcheren, Haig and compagny were so unimaginative or unwilling to change?
|
They weren't.
Don't forget, it was the Allies who introduced the tank into the battlefield, while the German High Command dismissed it as a toy, until it was too late.
The allies also became far more effective in the use of artillery during WW1, especially the British. In fact at the end of WW1, British artillery was considered the best of all the nations involved.
While Haig can be rightfully criticized for his attacks in 1916-17, his handling of the British forces in the German spring attack in 1918, and the British counter attack in the 'Hundred Days Campaign' was excellent.
This is why modern historians have such a difficult time with Haig. In 1916-17 he was indeed a 'Donkey leading Lions', but in 1918, he actually lead the British army quite skillfully.