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.

So can anybody tell me if there was a certain reason why Kitcheren, Haig and compagny were so unimaginative or unwilling to change?

I feel most likely they were like France in WWII, their militaries were controlled by oldmen who didn't trust new tactics and decided to stick with the tactics that worked in the past.

That's just my opinion however.

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

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.

Do you have any books that you can recommend Redcoat? I keep finding out that I am short on my knowledge of the WWI.

By the end of the of WW1 the new tactics had started to come through. If read about the British assault in the Hindenburg Line, then you can see the start of the modern day tactics. Things would start of with a rolling barrage with the troops advancing about 50 to 100 yards behind the barrage. They would be supported with tanks, while squadrons of aircraft would also be strafing the trenches to wards the rear and attacking any reserve troops being sent up to reinforce the front lines. In two weeks the British troops had completely smashed through these lines which were supposed to be impregnable. When these lies fell Germany then sued for peace.
During the first few years of the war, there was not the tanks available , nor had any new tactics been thought out of dealing with this stalemate. Due to length of the front you could not flank it and had to attack it it head on, more often or not this was done to relieve the pressure on the French

A couple of issues:

1) German WWI tactics were based heavily on Bruchmüller's effective use of controlled artillery bursts and amalgamated with the fluid use of reserves...ie. a flexible defensive system.

2) The tank only played a propaganda role in WWI. They were too slow, broke down too quickly, and artillery or standard infantry tactics ripped them to shreds. That is the primary reason why the German high command decided against their usage.

3) The rolling barrage is not part of modern tactics. Controlled short artillery bursts are.

4) The British did not defeat the German military in WWI (or WWII). They were part of a massive alliance. One battle (even Amiens) did not decide matters. In WWI, Ludendorf decided to pack it in because of the impossibility of defeating the Allies over the long run. Over 3/4 of the German military however remained intact on the western front at the time of armistice. The war would have dragged on for a few more years given (a) German determination to continue the fight, (2) an end to starvation in Germany, (3) the transfer of all German troops from eastern Europe.

Ollie Garchy

The Tank was an effective weapon, it failed on the Somme due to the mud, but in Cambrai it showed what it could do. The German tanks were far to heavy with to many guns and were even slower than the English tanks which made them an easy target. Also just because the German Army threw in the towel in 1918, it did this because it could no longer hold it's position. Yes it was not only Britain that had brought this about, it was a full Allied effort.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

4) The British did not defeat the German military in WWI (or WWII).

No one has claimed they did. They merely mentioned Britains involvement in defeating the German Spring offensive of 1918, and Britains leading role in the allied attacks during the 'Campaign of a Hundred Days'

They were part of a massive alliance. One battle (even Amiens) did not decide matters. In WWI, Ludendorf decided to pack it in because of the impossibility of defeating the Allies over the long run.

Not quite true. Ludendorp packed it in, not because he knew thay couldn't defeat the Allies, but because he knew they were incapable of stopping the Allied advance

Over 3/4 of the German military however remained intact on the western front at the time of armistice. The war would have dragged on for a few more years given (a) German determination to continue the fight, (2) an end to starvation in Germany, (3) the transfer of all German troops from eastern Europe.
Ollie Garchy

Not years, months at the most.
At the time of the Germans asking for the armistice they had already lost all of their allies. Turkey and A/H had already collapsed and sued for peace. With the American army coming on to the battlefield in greater numbers each passing day, Germany was doomed.

My quick response:

(1) Ludendorf considered Amiens to have been catastrophic. He was however referring more to the collapse of German morale within the ranks and in Germany itself. I do not really want to touch this subject, but I will. It would make for a good thread. The postwar German stab-in-the-back "myth" always included the military component. That is, it is obvious that the war would have continued had German troops not surrendered in large numbers. Troop morale counts. The issue is why German soldiers surrendered.

(2) The Allies had pushed Turkey to the limit. The A-H Empire caved in for political reasons. Remember however that the Germans had defeated Russia in 1917. And the French military experienced the mutinies of 1917/1918. France, like the A-H Empire, was essentially neutralized. These points are often overlooked. The Allies did NOT have overwhelming power in 1918. That is why politicians chose to end the war with an armistice. After 1918, Germany (now the stab-in-the-back got really bloody) went through a civil war that permitted the Allies (particularly the French losers) to extract maximum concessions. German conservatives looked on these events and were convinced that the socialists had defeated Germany or completely eroded any platform on which to negotiate. (Hitler, mainly due to his twisted "education" in Vienna, blamed the Jews...God, what a "sorry-ass" conclusion to a complex question).

[On the side: This last subpoint makes me sick! If any of the neo-nazi freaks actually looked into the subject, they would realize that the Jewish-Germans fought with valour and fervour. Jewish scientists like Fritz Haber actually let their nationalism get the better of their logic. The chemist pressured the German military to unleash the first chlorine gas attack during the war and remained a hard supporter of chemical warfare until his death. Jewish support for Germany during WWI speaks volumes about Prussia/Germany.]

To get back to the subject, I have a hard time writing anything positive about British tactics during the WWI/WWII era. The country did not attach enough importance to the academic methodology of a general staff. Nor did London really sponsor the study of operations until WWII -- at least not in the German sense. The Germans, who profitted from the development of the staff concept during the Napoleonic wars, used historical data to develop and refine their tactics and operational art. They studied war like chemistry or engineering. They developed models, wargamed, and used simulations to extrapolate a solution. The British (in my opinion) fought war in a manner that mirrored the rigid class structures that so hampered every aspect of their society during the latter phases of industrialization. The affluent studied literature and the classics or Latin instead of chemistry or war. The workingmen were considered uneducated oafs. These men, the "simple" guys developing and maintaining factory equipment, proved more important that a million snobs with a good knowledge of Homer or Shakespeare.

Ollie Garchy

To get back to the subject, I have a hard time writing anything positive about British tactics during the WWI/WWII era. The country did not attach enough importance to the academic methodology of a general staff. Nor did London really sponsor the study of operations until WWII -- at least not in the German sense. The Germans, who profitted from the development of the staff concept during the Napoleonic wars, used historical data to develop and refine their tactics and operational art. They studied war like chemistry or engineering. They developed models, wargamed, and used simulations to extrapolate a solution. The British (in my opinion) fought war in a manner that mirrored the rigid class structures that so hampered every aspect of their society during the latter phases of industrialization. The affluent studied literature and the classics or Latin instead of chemistry or war. The workingmen were considered uneducated oafs. These men, the "simple" guys developing and maintaining factory equipment, proved more important that a million snobs with a good knowledge of Homer or Shakespeare.

This was my initial stance and the reason for starting this thread. Thanks for voicing my thoughts in a more coherent way.