When a tree is not a tree

WW1 always amuses me in some respects because it started very much as a 19th Century war with French in Blue and red uniforms, no one understanding things like helmets and a lot of cavalry, basically it was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons.
 
The more senior military commanders get, the more they tend to fall back on what they've been taught earlier in their careers. It's almost like they've got more to lose so they tend to get more conservative. It's the rare individual who has the personal courage to ignore accepted strategies and tactics and adapt to new situations with new and sometimes seemingly radical ideas.
 
British General Haig fought WW1 the same way he fought the Anglo Boer War, troops advancing over open ground the same as they did during the Boer War. He lost thousands of men to Boer riflemen and still never learned his lesson. It was around 1916-1917 that Haig was told to change his tactics as Britain was running out of men.

In many villages and towns around Britain in 1918 the only males were either very old or very young.
 
British General Haig fought WW1 the same way he fought the Anglo Boer War, troops advancing over open ground the same as they did during the Boer War. He lost thousands of men to Boer riflemen and still never learned his lesson. It was around 1916-1917 that Haig was told to change his tactics as Britain was running out of men.

In many villages and towns around Britain in 1918 the only males were either very old or very young.
"Over the top" futile attacks that had no chance of accomplishing anything.
 
Like lambs to the slaughter. Haig should have faced a court martial.

I certainly think Haig showed a somewhat callous disregard for the lives of his troops but then I would level the same accusation at Churchill.

He was a good general,leading the British army to victory .

Could have been done with far less casualties. Massive number of lives thrown away

He did lead them to victory but I think it is the casualty lists that damn Haig, he may have been a good general at the beginning of the war but his refusal to adapt to the new conditions of warfare are what make him look bad and extended the casualty lists beyond acceptable.
 
WW1 always amuses me in some respects because it started very much as a 19th Century war with French in Blue and red uniforms, no one understanding things like helmets and a lot of cavalry, basically it was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons.


WW2 saw even more dramatic changes in the way war was fought. The Poles actually still used mounted cavalry as did the Soviets. Many countries started the war with Biplanes that were lucky if they went 200 MPH. Tanks supported small guns and were usually lightly armored. Other than Germany in the beginning all countries pretty used tanks in an infantry support role.
As the war ended Germany was using the 1st modern first modern assault rifle (with night vision) the Sturmgewehr, developed a form of guided missile the glide bomb, was using jets in moderate numbers, and bombing London, Antwerp, etc. with ballistic missiles. True many of the German technologies fell short due to political delays and end of war conditions in war’s end Germany.

The allies had amazing advancements during WW2, not the least of which was in radar by the British who lead in that field which was practically nonexistent prior to the war. The American atomic bomb. As for conventional planes the P-51 Mustang combined British and American engineering and was revolutionary it’s been called a war winning aircraft. The B29 designed to travel greater than 3,000 miles. The allies designed the 1st analog computers were designed during WW2.
 
I have always been interested in the stories of Polish cavalry as I know the Poles had cavalry but I can not find any verified instances of it attacking German armour, there are instances where cavalry units were overrun by armour or where unmounted cavalry engaged German armour but nothing involving an actual attack by mounted lancers against German tanks.

I tend to regard that story as yet another myth of the war probably started by the Germans to "enhance" their technical superiority.
 
Here is an interesting video made by a school kid on Haig...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qPnLO1L8Pk[/ame]


and the slightly more profession version...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRyqu0wdRR0[/ame]
 
Last edited:
I have always been interested in the stories of Polish cavalry as I know the Poles had cavalry but I can not find any verified instances of it attacking German armour, there are instances where cavalry units were overrun by armour or where unmounted cavalry engaged German armour but nothing involving an actual attack by mounted lancers against German tanks.

I tend to regard that story as yet another myth of the war probably started by the Germans to "enhance" their technical superiority.

Monty I can't place it but I seem to remember some archive films showing some of this? However I can't remember the source for the life of me. I do know the Soviets used Cassock Calvary.
 
We always think of Germany invading Poland when in fact Russia was also in on the invasion , why didn't France and England declare war on Russia ? , politics make's for strange bedfellows .
 
Like lambs to the slaughter. Haig should have faced a court martial.


His was one case where the victors should have considered placing one of their own as a defendant in a war crimes trial. He seemed bound and determined to eliminate an entire male generation of his own countrymen and he almost succeeded.
By the way, I was kind of surprised to find his grave at the ruins of the Dryburgh Abby in Scotland. Anyone know the story behind that?
 
Haig was actually ore careful with the lives of his soldiers than some people think, field marshal French was replaced with hair, French was a bitter man who gained pleasure from belittling one of his better subordinates dorien-smyth.
He ruined his subordinates reputation and his own through blaming others for his mistakes and not following orders as well as being uncooperative with his French allies.
Having one of his subordinates took over because French had already besmirched dorien smyth.
With the nature of the fighting on the western front, how could haig of done differently?
The French replaced there generals constantly, but every time it all ended up the same, hundreds of thousands dead and injured for a few miles of land.
The truth is that Britain didn't have anyone who could replace him and do any better, the end results would of been the same. However the backs against the wall message and steadfastness of haig certainly helped save the british army in 1918.
 
Aye Bloody Haig his strategy was send in another million men .

Actually that was the strategy of all the major combatants on the western front. Over the top attacks against dug in defenders armed with machine guns and artillery, they didn't stand a chance. Britain and the common wealth lost ~ 900,000 men in WW1 where as France lost ~ 1,400,000 and Germany lost ~ 1,800,000 fighting on 2 fronts and against Serbia and Italy as well. Static warfare also occurred on the Italian front which claimed the lives of over 1,200,000 men and at Gallipoli where well over a hundred thousand died. It was a defenders war. Was the Somme any worse than Verdun?
WW2 saw some brief periods of warfare where things got tied down. At Kursk, Caen and Monte Casino. During these period as in WW1 heavy losses were suffered by the attacking troops due to strong enemy defenses.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top