Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is the premise that one must attack?
I mean look at D-day. They waited until they had overwhelming advantages in men and materials and then struck.
Would we give the planners a pass on D-day if they got annihilated on 10 previous attempts trying different odd tactics but going before they had truly dominating numbers, air superiority etc?
I view a number of the "innovative attacks" to still be somewhat 1/2 arsed lacking in coordination and concentration of force.
If you cannot launch an overwhelming attack, then hunker down...bait the enemy and let them run out into the open taking massive demoralizing casualties.
P.S. My comment was also a direct reference to Black Adder whose last season put the characters into the trenches during WW1. If you've never seen the show I would highly encourage it as it's hillarious and packed with stellar talent.
Neither side of the trenches had the resources to stockpile troops and supplies at a single attack point along the line without pulling them from somewhere else, leaving that sector undefended. Britain, France and Germany were exerting the maximum effort and had no large, un-used reserves to call upon. With D-Day, the allies had the luxury of building up US forces in GB for as long as they cared to take without adversely affecting the rest of their theaters of operation.
However, the Germans did manage to greatly strengthen the point of attack around Amiens in preparation for the Ludendorff Offensive in early 1918, but only because Russia had left the war and freed up hundreds of thousands of German troops which were rushed west. Not surprisingly, such a massive advantage in troops, ammunition, cannon and supplies enabled them to roll the allies back about 40 miles within a month and come almost within sight of Paris. They would have done so earlier had they been able.
But, they extended too far and the allies were able to mass an overwhelming number of troops for a counter-attack, mostly because of the million or more American troops which had become available.
The point is that for nearly 4 years, neither side had the capability of massing overwhelming strength for an attack. Their Generals knew that was what they needed as surely as you can see it now, but they simply could not do it until a change in the situation allowed it.
Why is the premise that one must attack?
I mean look at D-day. They waited until they had overwhelming advantages in men and materials and then struck.
Would we give the planners a pass on D-day if they got annihilated on 10 previous attempts trying different odd tactics but going before they had truly dominating numbers, air superiority etc?
The western allies tended to feel a need to attack to weaken pressure on the Russian front (where greater room to maneuver made successful german offensives more feasible). To sit in their trenches meant consigning Russia to collapse (that russia would collapse anyway, and the allies still win, could hardly be foreseen)
The german offensive in spring 1918 was an attempt to win the war before American forces reached the field in significant numbers. That, plus the blockade, meant Germany could not wait.
That said, many of the offensives seem pointless in retrospect - especially all the Italian offensives, and the German offensive at Verdun.
Because otherwise it is just hundreds of thousands of guys squatting in trenches to no particular purpose.
This was a war, you know, not a lawn party.
apart from Verdun, the Germans on the western front launched no major offensives from late 1914 to spring 1918. For very sound tactical and strategic reasons. If you can WIN by turtling up, why not?
apart from Verdun, the Germans on the western front launched no major offensives from late 1914 to spring 1918. For very sound tactical and strategic reasons. If you can WIN by turtling up, why not?
A) The Germans were fighting a two front war, they lacked suffcient men to launch serial offensives.
B) You write "apart from Verdun"...but there was Verdun.
C) The Germans were occupying French territory, it is up to the invaded party to expell the invader, so of course the French and British were on the offensive while Germany could afford to stand on the defensive. If the war had been fought on German soil, it would have been the Germans making continuous attacks and the French and Brits standing on the defensive.
A) The Germans were fighting a two front war, they lacked suffcient men to launch serial offensives.
B) You write "apart from Verdun"...but there was Verdun.
C) The Germans were occupying French territory, it is up to the invaded party to expell the invader, so of course the French and British were on the offensive while Germany could afford to stand on the defensive. If the war had been fought on German soil, it would have been the Germans making continuous attacks and the French and Brits standing on the defensive.
B = They launched verdun, but ,most of the rest of the war they did not attack in the west - did that mean it was a lawn party?
C - no, the reasons the Germans did not attack was because they had an excellent defensive position on the ridge line in front of the Chemin des Dames. Barring the prospect of throwing France out of the war, they had little to gain from an offensive. France and the UK had a reason to attack, because if they could dislodge the germans from the chemin des dame position, they could gradually weaken Germany. additionally they needed to attack to relieve russia, and had not better place to do so (but not for want of looking for a better place - Gallipoli was tried, and Lloyd George wanted to try somewhere else, like Salonika, but couldnt carry his view)
Offensives in war are made in order to win, not because of pride over territory (usually) or to avoid being part of a lawn party.
I just noticed how woefully incorrect your figures are.
WWI: 4,743,826 men in uniform. 53,513 battle deaths and 63,195 died from disease or injury.
WWII: 16,353,659 in uniform. 292,131 battle deaths and another 115,185 disease or injury.
When you add in the wounded, 1 in 12 became a casualty in WWI and 1 in 16 during WWII.
By comparison, 1 in 3 became a casualty during the Civil War, 1 in 40 in Vietnam, 1 in 615 during the Gulf War. In the current war, as of May, 2011, the casualty rate is 1 in 29.
Not to get into the middle of the pissing match, lol.
I think Felix's comments may have some merit, but it all comes down to how we define things. He said this:
Quote:
As is well known by those who study the field, line infantry units in WW2 and even Vietnam suffered the same or higher loss rate as line infantry in WW1.
You need to parse that a little bit to see what he was getting at...
"line infantry" = only frontline infantry combat units actually involved in combat.
"loss rate" = all casualties incurred, not necessarily just deaths, but wounds and losses to disease as well. This is also generally controlled for comparative purposes by "time on the line".
Basically you cannot look at the raw casualty figures and really determine anything, you need to control it to figure anything out and when you do you will find that what Felix is talking about is true to an extent. The British historian Gordon Corrigan in his work Poppycock has claimed that the British suffered higher losses in Normandy in 1944 then they did at the Somme in 1916. He arrives at this by looking at the total number of casualties and then controlling that by the number of divisions involved and the length of the battles. He determines that at the Somme the British suffered 89 losses per division per week versus 100 for Normandy. His general case is not that the Somme in WW1 wasn't bloody or that WW2 Normandy was worse, just that, the general "image" of WW1 being some slaughter for the ages beyond equal is largely inaccurate.
To further back this up, the British recently had media headlines mentioning that their casualty rate in Afghanistan was the same as what they experienced in WW2. When they adjusted for the fact that they only had three combat brigades in Afghanistan and these were doing all the fighting, they realized that the casualty rate among these units was approaching the average of what frontline combat units in WW2 endured. The point of their study was that while the losses were numerically low, the stress on the individual units was very high.
Looking back at the figures posted by stillkit, we can sort of make the same argument is we control for the changes in the composition of the forces. In WW1 there was a support to combat soldier ratio of 3:1 for the Americans. In WW2 this had increased to 7:1. These figures have been used and quoted in multiple threads on this forum and we all seem to agree on them.
Using that ratio...
WWI:
4,743,826 men in uniform. Divide by 3 and we get 1,581,275 combat soliders.
53,513 battle deaths and 63,195 died from disease or injury. This totals to 116,708 casualties or "loss rate".
116,708 / 1,581,275 = 7.4% loss rate
WWII:
16,353,659 in uniform. Divide by 7 and we get 2,336,237 combat soldiers.
292,131 battle deaths and another 115,185 disease or injury. This totals to 407,316 casualties or "loss rate".
407,316 / 2,336,237 = 17.4% loss rate
Now, we are doing two things here, first off we are counting all casualties as combat casualties. I imagine the vast majority are, so we'll just go with it. Now, WW2 was fought over a span of several years versus one for US involvement in WW1. However, major combat operations are pretty much limited to a two year period from mid-1943 to mid-1945. Not discounting anything before that, but for as apples-to-apples as possible, this is what we would need to use.
If we take our WW2 loss rate and divide it by two we get 8.7% per year versus the 7.4% per year in WW1. Even if we extend it to a three year period we get 5.8% in WW2 vs. 7.4% in WW1, not that big of a difference.
So, IMO, what Felix is saying really does have a lot of truth in it, the actual statistics are just difficult to work through to make everything comparable. Overall, what has really changed in terms of deaths is that more soldiers who recieve wounds are saved in modern times. In terms of casualties, the disease loss rate is much lower now then it was then. However, in terms of looking at the numbers of men actually involved in combat and who was shot, whether they died or were wounded, the numbers hold relatively constant.
They launched verdun, but ,most of the rest of the war they did not attack in the west - did that mean it was a lawn party?
As soon as Russian was defeated and withdrew from the war, what did Germany do? It went back to trying to win on the western front via taking the offense.
Quote:
C - no, the reasons the Germans did not attack was because they had an excellent defensive position on the ridge line in front of the Chemin des Dames.
What do you mean "no"..they pulled back to the ridgeline you reference because it was the best defensive position. That does not cause you not to attack, it is something you do when you have decided not to attack for the time being.
Quote:
Offensives in war are made in order to win, not because of pride over territory (usually) or to avoid being part of a lawn party.
I've not one clue what the above is supposed to mean or how it helps make whatever point you are trying to make.
Not to get into the middle of the pissing match, lol.
I think Felix's comments may have some merit, but it all comes down to how we define things. He said this:
You need to parse that a little bit to see what he was getting at...
"line infantry" = only frontline infantry combat units actually involved in combat.
"loss rate" = all casualties incurred, not necessarily just deaths, but wounds and losses to disease as well. This is also generally controlled for comparative purposes by "time on the line".
Basically you cannot look at the raw casualty figures and really determine anything, you need to control it to figure anything out and when you do you will find that what Felix is talking about is true to an extent. The British historian Gordon Corrigan in his work Poppycock has claimed that the British suffered higher losses in Normandy in 1944 then they did at the Somme in 1916. He arrives at this by looking at the total number of casualties and then controlling that by the number of divisions involved and the length of the battles. He determines that at the Somme the British suffered 89 losses per division per week versus 100 for Normandy. His general case is not that the Somme in WW1 wasn't bloody or that WW2 Normandy was worse, just that, the general "image" of WW1 being some slaughter for the ages beyond equal is largely inaccurate.
To further back this up, the British recently had media headlines mentioning that their casualty rate in Afghanistan was the same as what they experienced in WW2. When they adjusted for the fact that they only had three combat brigades in Afghanistan and these were doing all the fighting, they realized that the casualty rate among these units was approaching the average of what frontline combat units in WW2 endured. The point of their study was that while the losses were numerically low, the stress on the individual units was very high.
Looking back at the figures posted by stillkit, we can sort of make the same argument is we control for the changes in the composition of the forces. In WW1 there was a support to combat soldier ratio of 3:1 for the Americans. In WW2 this had increased to 7:1. These figures have been used and quoted in multiple threads on this forum and we all seem to agree on them.
Using that ratio...
WWI:
4,743,826 men in uniform. Divide by 3 and we get 1,581,275 combat soliders.
53,513 battle deaths and 63,195 died from disease or injury. This totals to 116,708 casualties or "loss rate".
116,708 / 1,581,275 = 7.4% loss rate
WWII:
16,353,659 in uniform. Divide by 7 and we get 2,336,237 combat soldiers.
292,131 battle deaths and another 115,185 disease or injury. This totals to 407,316 casualties or "loss rate".
407,316 / 2,336,237 = 17.4% loss rate
Now, we are doing two things here, first off we are counting all casualties as combat casualties. I imagine the vast majority are, so we'll just go with it. Now, WW2 was fought over a span of several years versus one for US involvement in WW1. However, major combat operations are pretty much limited to a two year period from mid-1943 to mid-1945. Not discounting anything before that, but for as apples-to-apples as possible, this is what we would need to use.
If we take our WW2 loss rate and divide it by two we get 8.7% per year versus the 7.4% per year in WW1. Even if we extend it to a three year period we get 5.8% in WW2 vs. 7.4% in WW1, not that big of a difference.
So, IMO, what Felix is saying really does have a lot of truth in it, the actual statistics are just difficult to work through to make everything comparable. Overall, what has really changed in terms of deaths is that more soldiers who recieve wounds are saved in modern times. In terms of casualties, the disease loss rate is much lower now then it was then. However, in terms of looking at the numbers of men actually involved in combat and who was shot, whether they died or were wounded, the numbers hold relatively constant.
Wait a minute here; Germany, England, France and Russia (until it quit) all had over 8 million men EACH in this war..
Wait a minute here; Germany, England, France and Russia (until it quit) all had over 8 million men EACH in this war..
I was just looking at the statistics for the US since they were posted. You can do the same exercise with any other nation. The whole point was to basically reinforce that WW1 while viewed as horribly bloody wasn't necessarily all that much worse then other wars when looked at on the "loss rate" basis among troops. Basically, the British at Normandy in WW2 suffered just as greatly as the British at the Somme in WW1. What tended to be different about WW1 was the shock value of the casualties involved in the major operations and the sheer scale of the conflict, something that had not been seen before. For general discussion purposes, WW2 was nearly as bloody an affair for those in combat as WW1 was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
