Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Herman Hum
This seems kind of a broad question.
I've found reading Pierre Berton's Vimy to be quite informative and helpful. It details the Canadian attack on Vimy Ridge and the tactics that they trained with and employed. It may not be indicative of all British forces, but, then again, they were successful primarily because they did not follow the standard British training regimen.
|
What you are referring to is what all sides on the western front eventually got to more or less.
The, irony of it, was that the recepie for advance in such conditions, adhered to in ww2 in similar cituations too, was already solved by it's main parts in 1915! Yes, bar tanks, the idea of a creeping barrage, with fire and movement to cover the last tens or hundred meters, as the barrage moved onto the enemy guns and secondary line.
The French Chasseur Battalions, of which there were not so many even in the multi million conscript army, there was only something like eight Chasseur battalions when ww1 started. But just like the German Jägers, or American Rangers, the idea was to recruit volunteers, and as the name tell's you, men of a hunting background, and men who had lived in the countryside all their lives were wanted.
This elite infantry was put into action in a forrest that the Germans were contesting in 1915. In the intence battles that ensued, the Chasseur, left to their own devices, and allowed freedom rarely seen in ww1, started to put together the puzzle that was how to advance against modern arms.
And they figured out the creeping barrage, they had their 75mm guns, that they had fire just infront of them, with some firing into the enemy positions behind the first line, when the Chasseurs had got close enough so that the barrage lifted from the enemy lines, the Chasseurs turned into fire and movement. They had some mg teams who would find a crater and start covering fire, also the whole unit was never up at once, but rather the other half was giving shots from any cover they could find, and if not lying on the ground, as the other half ran closer.
After this had been repeated, there was an incredibly larger ammount of men alive for the assault on the trench!
Hangrenades were thrown in first, and then it was the bayonet bit, unless the enemy surrendered.
Any normal sized bunker was avoided and flanked, but not forgotten, as the flamethrower men would come and burn the bunker crew, or make them surrender.
Anything that was larger than a flamethrower couldnt handle, was bypassed in the Kaiserslacht in 1918, this was infact the basic idea behind Blizkrieg. The only difference being that it was tanks doing the bypassing!
To, the Brit's were certainly aware of these tactis by 1917 when they marvelled at the exellent Vimy ridge attack, that used by en large the above mentioned tactics. The Canadians had an improvement that they had a portable light mg, instead of the heavy Maxim. The Germans did one better in 1918 when they brought out the Bermann smg's.
Also, the engineers of the Royal engineer corps, had tunneled away and bombed the largest mega bunkers from below! This was changed in ww2 by dropping a fiew bombs onto such positions.
So, why was Passchendale such a fiasco?
1. Haig. He just was so rigid, that he couldnt see the great opportunity that had arrisen, and although the plans were ready for the British attack on the next ridge form Vimy, Passchendale, Haig went on with his schedule and attacked a couple weeks later! If he had speeded up the attack, It is very probable that the Brits would have had much more success, and avoided the autumn rains, and the poignant poem from Sigfried Sassoon, that has become to embody the trench war feeling with the mindless attacks, "I died in hell" he wrote, "They called it Passchendale". He ended.
But, the Brits were not all bad, they pioneered the tank, and at Cambrai they saw the first tank breakthrough! And after the failure of the Kaiserslaght in the Summer of 1918, the Brits advanced along with the other Entente troops, with creeping barrages, fire and movement, and even the occasional ground attack from the RAF! (very rare though), flamethrowers where needed, although at this time the Phosporous or WP shell had been invented, and field howizers could fire a storm of these shells against a bunker area, and usually some of the horribly burning substance got in through the shooting slits, and wounded and agonized the wounded with such pain, that surrender was an option.
Also, the French and Americans had tanks too, and although the US troops were much more of the mind that they shoudl try all tank formations, the French who trained them on their Renault tanks, were more for infantry support.
And the Brits still put all the rusting tanks that they had into helping the infantry, appart form Cambrai, I belive that the shock that a massed tank attack delivered to the infantry facing it, was not appreciated until Heinz Guderian was given free hands to implement all the theories borne out of ww1.
Well, although somewhat muddled, I hope this was of some interest.
Mr Poundr.
![fraulein688 is on the path to success [1-99]](images/reputation/reputation_green.gif)
Tactics used
![Herman Hum is walking in the light [200]](images/reputation/reputation_greenh.gif)
![Herman Hum is walking in the light [200]](images/reputation/reputation_gold.gif)
![Pruitt is a glorious beacon of light [700]](images/reputation/reputation_goldstar.gif)
Yes, I have Infantry Attacks at home and its an excellent book about Rommel`s experiences and the tactics used in WW1. It also sheds light on some of the more forgotten parts of WW1.
Linear Mode
