The Evolution of British Infantry tactics in World War One
By Roger Daene
World War One on the Western Front is often times depicted as a series of senseless
battles where infantry ran across open fields only to be slaughtered by machinegun
and artillery fire. The popular conception is that there were little innovations
in tactics. Wilhelm Balck, a German division commander, had written many articles
and manuals on tactics before the Great War.[1] He said, “Bullets quickly write
new tactics.” After the Battle of the Marne in 1914 and the subsequent German retreat,
the war on the western front became more of a positional war rather than a war of
maneuver. The goal of the Allies and the Germans was to penetrate the enemy’s main
defense lines and exploit any breakthrough. The goal would be hard to attain because
of the unique nature of warfare in World War One. Never before in the history of
the world were so many new weapons introduced or old ones that suddenly became practical
enough to use on a wide scale. World War One would see the introduction of the airplane,
tank, and poison gas which had never been used on any battlefield. Although artillery
had been around for centuries, recent innovations allowed for larger pieces to be
developed that fired a heavier shell even greater distances than ever before. The
machinegun had been used on other battlefields but now the machineguns were more
mobile and would be used in greater numbers. Handgrenades became a practical weapon
and would see widespread use for the first time. Rifle grenades and trench mortars
allowed artillery support on a squad level which had not been available in previous
wars. Added to this, the size of the armies which would serve on the Western Front
had never been dealt with before. Commanders had to deal with communication problems
unheard of in previous wars and the communication problem was only exasperated by
the new weapons. The slaughter would be great on the Western Front as all armies
tried to incorporate the new weapons into their tactics and to coordinate their
use.
The various armies were nearly exhausted as a result of trying to break the stalemate
by 1917. The French army’s losses at Verdun in 1916 and the mutiny of 1917 had rendered
the French army offensively impotent. The Battle of the Somme in 1916 and the Battle
of Passchendaele in November 1917 bled the British army white. The German Army had
tremendous casualties blunting the Allied offensives, but with peace on the Russian
Front at the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, the German Army on the Western Front was reinforced
with nearly fifty-five divisions. They believed that with their renewed strength,
the German armies on the Western Front had enough forces for one last major offensive
operation and a chance to force a favorable peace before the weight of the American
army could be brought to bear.
The German Spring Offensive of 1918 has spawned several myths. The myth is that
the
stormtroop tactics used by the Germans were new and innovative and
nearly won them the war because the British 5th Army did not know how to react to
these new tactics. A later legend bloomed and continues to today that the Blitzkrieg
had its beginnings in 1918 in the German Spring Offensive. These myths have been
perpetuated by noted historians such as British historian A.J.P. Taylor in his book,
The First World War, published in 1963.[2] Recently, American historian
John Eisenhower continued the myth of new German tactics in his book,
Yanks: The
Epic Story of the American Army in World War I
published in 2001.[3]
This paper will focus on the evolution of British infantry and artillery tactics,
and the introduction of tanks and aircraft providing ground support that gave them
the advantage over their German opponents. The question to be answered is how these
advantages proved to be decisive. Second, various journals and memoirs of soldiers
and officers will be investigated to see if they understood the broad sweeping changes
taking place with the new tactics.
It is first necessary to define the meaning of the word “
tactics”. The
word can be used in two senses. The first is grand tactics. Grand tactics involves
the large-scale movement of large bodies of troops across the battlefield. Grand
tactics include the use of close air support and the creeping barrages. Critical
to grand tactics was communication. The problem of communication continued to plague
all the armies throughout the war and was never fully resolved. Proper communication
allowed commanders to stay in contact with frontline units and to direct artillery
support to reduce or suppress enemy strong points. The success of a creeping barrage
depended on communication between the artillery commanders and the advancing infantry.
Events on the battlefield disrupted that critical communication and sometimes the
results were catastrophic to the advancing infantry. The development of better wireless
communication became prevalent in the Second World War, which allowed for he hasty
deployment of troops at the critical moments in the battle. The second type of tactics
is termed Minor tactics. Minor tactics involve movements of troops at the platoon
level and deployment at both the squad or section level. The evolution of minor
tactics included the positioning of the Lewis machineguns on either the left or
right flank of the platoon.[4]
Once the fighting commenced on the Western Front in 1914, the evolution of tactics
began almost immediately. Early in the war, artillery, machineguns, and rifle fire
decimated infantry units as they maneuvered forward in column and deployed in line
for firing. If the infantry survived the rush across no-man’s land, the bayonet
was seen the way to clear an enemy position. As the war progressed; however, the
bayonet became obsolete as the weapon for clearing an enemy position.
The hand grenade replaced the bayonet as the weapon of choice for clearing an enemy
trench or to destroy a strongpoint. Charles Edmund Carrington wrote in his journal
about his experiences in the Great War and commented about the extensive use of
hand grenades. As he and his men attempted to clear the zigzag shaped trench of
the Germans, both sides predominantly began tossing hand grenades with an occasional
rifle or pistol shot when someone rose above the trench’s parapet to throw a grenade.
Amazingly, he records four different types of grenades used in just this one encounter.[5]
The presence of several types of grenades in one small unit action demonstrates
that both sides were trying to develop a useable and reliable hand grenade. As the
war progressed, soldiers received special training in the proper use of hand grenades.
Captain Churchill Dunn, of the 23rd Foot (which was also known as the Royal Welch
Fusiliers) records in his journal that the Germans first used hand grenades in October
1915 and the British introduced theirs in large numbers shortly thereafter. Dunn
records that certain men were chosen to be sent to special ranges to learn to throw
the grenade and these men were considered specialists.[6] Unlike today’s soldiers,
all of whom receive grenade training, only a few were chosen for this role during
the Great War, although any soldier could use a hand grenade if needed, but with
various degrees of success.
By 1915 the British General Staff realized that the rifle accuracy of the soldiers
had deteriorated and the Lewis gun was introduced to supplement the firepower of
the platoon. Whether or not the Lewis gun is an automatic rifle or light machinegun
is still debated but the frontline soldiers used it effectively in the role of a
light machinegun.[7] The extensive use of the Lewis gun gave the British troops
a decided advantage over their German counterparts. The German frontline soldier
recognized this value and used any captured Lewis guns. The guns were bored to accept
German ammunition. However, the German Army did not receive a light machinegun of
German manufacture until the spring 1918.
The relatively quick change and implementation of the new minor tactics nearly brought
the British a major victory in the Battle of Loos in September 1915. The British
infantry of General Douglas Haig’s I Corps suffered heavy losses but succeeded in
breaking the German lines. However, the failure to exploit this breakthrough was
at the grand tactical level. The reserve of two infantry divisions in reserve were
too far to the rear to be brought up in time to exploit this success.[8] Some blame
for the failure to exploit this breakthrough falls on Haig, the commander of I Corps.
He committed all his divisions to the attack and kept nothing as a reserve. Haig
expected draw upon the army’s reserve if he were successful.[9]
Although historians sometimes consider Loos to be a failure in the sense that the
big breakthrough was not achieved, the British High Command learned some valuable
lessons. For the first time a creeping barrage was successful and the troops could
take maximum advantage of the suppression fire provided by a creeping barrage. Machinegun
barrages were also used effectively to suppress a section of the trench or strongpoint.[10]
The British learned several costly lessons as well. The first lesson was that their
artillery shells could not cut the wire and the wire cutters provided to the troops
were too light to cut the thick strands of wire. Providing heavy wire cutters was
a simple undertaking compared to the task of developing a new type of artillery
shell capable of cutting the wire. The second lesson learned at Loos was that the
British lacked sufficient artillery. Although successful at times, units suffered
undue losses because of the lack of sufficient artillery.[11] It is a far easier
task for any army to increase the number of infantry units than to increase the
number of artillery units because of the very specialized training. Almost anyone
can be trained to load and fire an artillery piece but the fired shells must hit
their targets after they are fired. It would take the British until the Battle of
the Somme in 1916 to have sufficient artillery.
The minor tactics of Loos, were in fact, an adaptation of the very old tactic called
the “wave attack.” In a wave attack each battalion or unit had three separate lines,
one behind the other. Behind each battalion was another battalion deployed in an
analogous formation. As the first line became pinned or exhausted the second and
third lines would “pass through” the first line and continue the assault. These
lines were not the stiff and precise lines of the Napoleonic era but were rather
loosely strung out blobs of men. During the fighting at Loos, the 9th Scottish Division
effectively employed the wave attack. The frontline consisted of four battalions
in a line with a frontage of nearly 1,600 yards and by battering the German position,
like waves hitting an obstacle; the Scots overwhelmed the German frontline trenches.
The tactical notes of the Fourth Army in May 1916 emphasizes the need to practice
the tricky operation of the lines passing through one another. The troops also needed
to keep a certain distance between the lines so that the lines did not become bunched
together and provide a prime killing ground for the artillery.[12] Sergeant E. Blasdale
of the 12th Sherwood Foresters, in a letter home after the fighting around Loos
in October 1915 about this ever-present danger of “bunching up.” He states that
they went over the top at 11 a.m. on September 27th. They were met with heavy rifle
and artillery fire and suffered heavy casualties because they became disorganized
and became mixed up with other battalions.[13] Captain Dunn reports a similar thing
happened in his brigade. The first two waves were stopped at the edge of the German
wire and the second line became intermingled with the first line. The lead regiments
in the first two lines suffered heavy casualties. Prior to this attack, Dunn records
that German artillery pounded his brigade was pounded.[14] Effective counter battery
fire would have silenced the German batteries but effective counter battery fire
did not exist at this point.
In December 1916, French Captain Laffargue, who has been rightly called “The Father
of Infiltration Tactics” modified the effective tactics that had been employed at
Loos. His work dealt with the minor tactics used by the various attacking formations.
Laffargue argues that the first line of infantry should use their rifle fire as
well as any accompanying machinegun fire and light trench mortars to pin the enemy,
while the second line pass through the first line and directly assault the enemy
position. Strong points were to be bypassed and weak points in any defensive position
were to be quickly exploited. The supposed outdated “wave attack” had indeed found
new life in Laffargue’s work.[15]
Subsequent to the British development and implementation of their new tactics, on
May 27th, 1916, the German tactical innovator Captain Rohr published “Instructions
for the Employment of an Assault Battalion.” The new German tactics were a combination
of their own observations of the battles in 1914 and 1915 and their use of the captured
copies of Laffargue’s manuals. Even though many of the tactics exposed in Rohr’s
manual were already in use in many units, the manual formalized the tactics as the
standard tactic to be taught to all units and to all recruits.[16] Therefore, by
comparing the publication dates of British and German training manuals it appears
that both armies developed new infantry tactics at roughly the same time. The British
made significant gains in their use of the creeping barrage and artillery doctrines
in 1915.
The first German assault battalions took part in the titanic struggle at Verdun
in 1916 and this is erroneously cited as the first example of infiltration tactics.
The British had already begun to implement wholesale changes in their minor tactical
doctrine as early as the Battle of Loos in 1915. Immediately after the Battle of
Loos, nearly a year before Rohr used his assault battalions at Verdun, the British
infantry platoons in the company were being divided by their distinctively different
roles. The fighting platoons were to press forward with all haste and find and exploit
any weakness in the enemy line. The support platoon was to pin the enemy in their
position by suppression fire. (Suppression fire differs from normal firing. Suppression
fire is to be heavy and concentrated at one place so that the enemy does not dare
raise his head over the parapet of the trench or firing slit of the bunker to fire
at the advancing troops. Normal fire is a deliberate attempt to wound or kill the
enemy and is not aimed at causing the enemy to seek and remain behind cover.) The
third type of platoon was the carrying platoon whose job was to storm the trench
or strong point. The last group was the mopping up platoon. Their job was to destroy
or capture any enemy strong point or enemy stragglers.[17] The British employed
this type of attack first on a large scale in 1916. These tactics were very similar
to the German Stormtrooper tactics that would be copied and then employed on a large
scale at Cambrai in November 1917. Previously to the Battle of Cambrai, the Germans
utilized small Stormtrooper units that had been trained in the new tactics. These
Stormtrooper units were attached to larger infantry units which used the older tactics.
During the winter of 1917 and 1918, the entire German Army on the Western Front
underwent training in the new tactics. Thus contrary to popular myth, the British
adopted these tactics throughout their entire army fully a year before the Germans.
Although the tactics employed by the German and British were roughly equal, the
German stormtrooper had the advantage of infantry guns attached at the company level.
Infantry manhandled small artillery pieces over the battlefield. The Germans used
converted captured Russian 7.62 c.m. field guns to provide direct support rather
than the indirect fire offered by regular artillery units. These converted field
pieces destroyed difficult machine gun nests, bunkers, or pillboxes.[18]
Even though the British adopted the wave attack in 1916 with the tactical changes
suggested by Laffargue, the British suffered appalling casualties at the Somme beginning
on July 1st. Noted British historian Trevor Wilson in his assessment of the Somme
states that the British failed because the attacks were too small and unsupported
by either aircraft or effective artillery fire once the attack began. Too many attacks
were doomed to fail from the start and were either launched anyway or not called
off once it was deemed that the attack could not succeed. Too many casualties were
sustained because attacks continued when the only result could be a further loss
of life with no territorial gains.[19]
The common soldiers at the Somme understood the new infantry attack tactics. Private
Donald Fraser of the 31st Calgary Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force
supports this assertion in his journal. He elaborates on his understanding of the
differing roles of the platoons of his regiment in the Somme battle on September
14th, 1916. He says the attack was to be conducted in four waves. His platoon was
to serve as trench moppers. They cleared the captured trench of any remaining defenders.
After that was accomplished, they were to consolidate the position against the inevitable
German counterattack.[20] It is apparent that even the enlisted men understood the
new tactics and their role in it. It is also evident that the training of new soldiers
was done by the new regulations.
Subaltern Charles Carrington of the 1/5th Warwickshires and his men during the Battle
of the Somme asserts the successful implantation of the tactics. He provides in
his memoirs a startling account of an attack made by his regiment on July 16th,
which embodied the reasons for the failure at the Somme and illustrates the successful
implementation of the new tactics. The combinations of a well-designed German defense,
the lack of supporting artillery, and the lines only being separated by 15 yards
resulted in the attack ending with heavy casualties. During the night; however,
Carrington, using his own initiative, sought and found a weak point in the German
lines that he and his men exploited. They infiltrated the German position and established
a position deep in the German lines. In the morning, they drove back several German
counterattacks, and in time, the entire front sections of the German trenches were
forced to surrender because of Carrington being in their rear.[21] The British learned
important lessons about artillery fire from their experience at the Somme. The first
lesson was the use of the creeping barrage. The best infiltration tactics could
not succeed without the support of a creeping barrage against interlocking defenses.
The interlocking German defenses and the lack of a creeping barrage prevented many
of the initial gains from being exploited.[22] If the creeping barrage were utilized
effectively the artillery shells would explode fifty to one hundred yards in front
of the advancing infantry. The exploding shells roughly formed a wall of exploding
shells, flying debris, and chunks of dirt. This wall would advance at preset intervals
toward the enemy trenches. If the advancing infantry maintained the proper distance
between them and the barrage, they would catch the defending German infantry coming
out of their underground bunkers and dugouts. Once the trench was taken, the artillery
would continue firing between the first and second line of trenches so that the
British could consolidate their position in the newly captured trench and the Germans
in the second and third line of trenches could not counterattack because of the
barrage.[23] The task of artillery in a creeping barrage was to neutralize the target
rather than only destroy it. To neutralize a target means to pin the target by artillery
fire so that the target could not defend itself properly or in coordination with
other defending units. The British held a decided advantage with the creeping barrage,
as the Germans never effectively mastered it to the degree as the British. The main
reason for this is that the mastery of the creeping barrage is usually only accomplished
while on the offensive and not on the defensive. Mostly, except for the first few
months at Verdun, the German army remained on the defensive for much of 1916 and
1917. They therefore had little practical experience to refine the proper use of
the creeping barrage.
The second lesson learned from the Somme was that the role of artillery needed to
be changed. At the Somme, the role of artillery was to pulverize the enemy position.
A weeklong artillery bombardment with nearly one million shells dropping onto the
German positions preceded the British attack.[24] Incredibly the hard won lessons
of fire and maneuver and the wave attack learned at the Battle of Loos was forgotten
at the Somme as the British expected the German positions to be destroyed and only
a few dazed survivors left. The British troops at the Somme were ordered to advance
quickly across no man’s land and continue moving forward. As a result of the Germans
being dug in well, the artillery did not have the desired effect. 60,000 British
and Commonwealth troops fell on the first day of the offensive. In the succeeding
days the XIII and XV Corps utilized the creeping barrage that had first been tried
at Loos.
The lessons learned from the Somme were incorporated into the new British infantry
training manual issued in February 1917, SS143 “Instructions for the training for
Offensive Action”. Previously, the battalion commander might assign a machinegun,
grenade launcher, or a mortar to a platoon. The battalion commander also had the
authority to decide the paths taken by the platoons to reach their objectives.[25]
This new manual gave greater authority to the platoon or company commander regarding
the movement and deployment of the soldiers in their platoon or company. First,
the platoon commander directed movement across no-man’s land and directed the assault
on the German position. Second, each platoon was to be a self-contained unit. The
idea of a self-contained unit is that its composition of men and equipment was to
be complete. The new manual permanently integrated these weapons into the platoons
and the platoon commander decided deployment within the platoon. The shift of power
from their battalion commander to the platoon commanders was decentralization in
the command structure but was meant to allow the platoon or company commanders to
make decisions on the spot when needed.
Captain Dunn notes in his January 2nd 1917 journal entry that he believed the French
were ahead of the British in the recently learned attack techniques and in their
effective coordination of rifle-grenades and automatic rifle fire. In the same entry
he disagrees with the General Headquarters (GHQ) who had informed the troops that
the fighting quality and morale of the German army was in decline.[26] In this one
entry, Dunn acknowledges the need for the new training order by GHQ and perhaps
laments that the British are lagging behind the French in this area while he is
critical of the claims of GHQ about the quality and morale of the German army. His
entry shows he is aware of the changes at the local level and can evaluate the combat
readiness of his command compared to other commands. He is also aware of the strategic
status of the German Army. In other words, he accepts the valuable directions from
his corps commander but throws out the useless propaganda.
It can be argued that the British and German infantry tactics were roughly equally
effective but the British held the critically important advantages regarding their
use of counter battery fire, tanks, and ground support aircraft. The use of these
advantages ultimately gave the British the means by which they could defeat the
German forces in the later months of 1917 and stop the German offensive in 1918.
n 1918.
Each of these advantages will be examined in the ordered they were developed and
perfected. The British were the first to master counter battery fire. Counter battery
fire is defined as neutralizing the enemy’s artillery batteries by either forcing
them to withdraw or, in the best case scenario, destroying the guns themselves.
The purpose of counter battery fire was to remove the most effective weapon that
the defense possessed since the majority of casualties in the Great War were caused
by artillery fire. As a result, the greatest danger that attacking infantry had,
was not the machinegun, but defensive artillery support that would rip immense holes
in the attacking formations. If the defending artillery could fire on the attacking
infantry, the cohesion of the attackers would be ruined. Instead of hitting the
enemy trench like a wave, they hit it like a sprinkle and stopped in front of the
defenders’ trench. The key to attacking and taking the enemy’s position rested firmly
in the hands of the attackers’ artillery. If the medium and light artillery could
pin the enemy infantry in their trenches and thereby disrupt the defense, and if
the long-range guns could either destroy or force the withdrawal of the defender’s
artillery, the attacking infantry had a reasonable chance of taking their objectives.
Getting all these factors to work together was always the challenge but by 1918,
the experienced staffs could coordinate the large number of troops, guns, tanks,
and planes.
Before the British heavy guns could neutralize the defending German artillery, the
gunners had to know where the German artillery was. With the introduction of the
Tucker microphone, the British could determine the German gun’s characteristics,
including the caliber, muzzle velocity, direction of fire, and approximate range.
This stunning development gave the British the decided advantage of being able to
locate and bring fire onto the German guns before the German guns could locate the
British artillery because the Germans were using crude stethoscopes to locate the
British guns. The inability of the Germans to develop technology equal to the Tucker
microphone, limited their ability to knock out the British guns before being destroyed
or forced to withdraw from the British artillery fire.[27]
German artillery batteries could be neutralized with gas shells. The shells fired
at German artillery consisted of high explosive mixed with gas shells. Over several
hours of exploding gas shells and the resulting presence of the gas near the German
guns could force the guns to be withdrawn. The guns had to be withdrawn because
since the gas masks only had limited protection until they expired.[28] German Lieutenant
Fritz Nagel, an officer in a newly formed anti-aircraft unit, wrote about the British
counter battery fire. “British artillery constantly kept the whole area under fire,”
he noted. “High explosives were mixed with gas shells, forcing us to wear our gas
masks for hours. A gas mask was only safe if it fit very tight and this could best
be achieved over a well-shaved chin”[29] It is apparent from Nagel’s account that
the threat of gas being used in counter battery fire was an effective and daily
threat.[30]
Allied air superiority gave them an additional advantage in locating German artillery
positions. The British held air superiority between 1916-1918. The main practical
benefit of air superiority was that Allied reconnaissance pilots could photograph
German positions, whereas their German counterparts were not as successful photographing
the Allied lines. The introduction of wireless sets placed in aircraft just prior
to the Battle of Messines in June 1917 aided the locating of German artillery. Instead
of waiting for the plane to land and deliver a map marked with the position of German
artillery positions, the British batteries received the information immediately.[31]
The primary role of fighter planes in 1915 and 1916 was to protect the reconnaissance
planes and to shoot down the enemy’s reconnaissance planes. Although throughout
1915 and 1916 aircrafts occasionally strafed and bombed enemy troops and positions,
fighter planes began to take more of an active part in direct ground support beginning
in 1917 and especially in 1918. Canadian ace, Billy Bishop, records in his memoirs
that in April 1917, his squadron was ordered to fly over British advancing troops
and strafe German trenches or any concentration of enemy troops.[32] Throughout
the spring battles of 1917, squadrons were better organized to support the ground
troops. The process of integrating the advancing infantry and aircraft in a ground
support role was a slow evolutionary process. The series of battles that were known
as the Battle of Third Ypres, aircraft supported the infantry with varying degrees
of success.[33]
The effectiveness of Allied aircraft also helped to blunt the German Spring Offensive
of 1918. German Lieutenant Fritz Nagel wrote about one air attack by British planes
in March 1918 at the beginning of Kaiserschlacht, “This time British planes kept
roaring in, four or five at a time, strafing without mercy. With few interruptions
these flights and attacks continued all day long.”[34] According to Nagel’s account,
air attacks were a constant threat were difficult to defend against because the
planes flew so close to the ground while they were strafing infantry or artillery
targets. Consequently, it was difficult for his guns to fire at the planes because
of the constant danger of causing more damage to German units rather than hitting
the fast moving planes.[35]
Nagel’s record of Allied attacks was not an isolated event. General von Kuhl, the
chief of staff to Prince Rupprecht, reported that the constant Allied air attacks
disrupted the re-supply of the 2nd Army. During their attack on Albert, aerial attacks
inflicted one-half of the casualties suffered by the advancing Germans. Certainly,
Allied air superiority led to the failure of the 1918 Spring Offensive.[36] The
German infantry made excellent targets for the strafing aircraft because after the
German infantry broke through the initial Allied positions, they abandoned the stormtroop
tactics and resorted to the mass assault tactics that were more reminiscent of the
tactics used in 1914-1916.[37] Here is a noticeable difference between the British
and German infantry tactics. During the Allied advances beginning in July 1918,
there does not appear to be any record of them returning to skirmish line formations
of 1914-1915. British training included how to exploit a breakthrough without becoming
easy targets for German aircraft whereas the German training prepared their men
to attack and take trenches but not how to exploit breakthroughs. When the German
infantry changed their formations to maneuver columns to traverse the countryside,
they became easy targets for Allied aircraft.
Infantry tactics had been altered and implemented throughout 1916 and these changes
were the norm by Third Ypres. The purpose of artillery changed from destructive
fire missions to neutralizing fire missions after the Somme battles of 1916. The
Tucker microphone gave the British gunners the ability to locate the German guns
before the German guns located them. Air superiority aided the artillery in locating
German guns and by April 1917, aircraft were providing better and more efficient
ground support for the advancing infantry. ng infantry.
The last major tactical change in the British army was the use of tanks. Although
introduced in very small numbers at the end of the Somme battles in 1916, the tanks
would lumber onto the field in large numbers at the Cambrai offensive at the end
of November 1917. The Battle of Cambrai began with a massive rupture of the German
lines by 378 tanks and accompanying infantry. The dream of a breakthrough had been
achieved finally, but alas, it was not exploited. After many of the objectives were
taken, the ghosts of Loos retuned. As it happened after the breakthrough at Loos,
reinforcements were not made available and the infantry were exhausted.[38] The
German counterattack succeeded in pushing back the British and the battle ended
with little ground gained.
In explaining why Cambrai failed ultimately, Major General J.F.C. Fuller, of the
tank corps wrote, “The battle came to a halt because there was not a single tank
or infantry unit in reserve. Though planned as a decisive raid—for without reserves,
what else could it be?”[39] Fuller may be partially correct in his estimation of
why they ultimately failed to exploit the initial successes. Another reason was
the poor cooperation between the infantry and the tanks. This was particularly true
between General Harper’s 51st Highland Division and the tanks. Harper had no use
for these new tanks and during the attack on the Flesquires Ridge, the tanks lumbered
forward and the infantry lagged four hundred yards behind the tanks. The infantry
were following their general’s orders but in the process, the tanks attacked independently
of the infantry and were easy targets for German artillery. The British infantry
were forced to deal with machineguns without the aid of the tanks.[40] The Germans
had learned some valuable lessons from Cambrai. Although their own High Command
had been too short-sighted to see the need for developing their own tanks, the common
German soldier understood very quickly the threat posed by these new weapons. Nagel,
in his memoirs, stated that early in 1918, his anti-aircraft unit kept a careful
lookout for aircraft and tanks because his unit would have to protect the vulnerable
infantry from aircrafts and tanks. He wrote, “Serious breakthrough attempts always
were spearheaded by tanks.”[41] The British too learned lessons from Cambrai that
would be fully utilized in 1918, beginning at the Battle of Hamel, which began on
July 4th.
By July 1918, the German initial drive forward slowed. However, there was still
fierce fighting in many areas of the front. One of the German goals for their spring
offensive had been the rail junction in the city of Amiens that they still threatened
to capture as long as they held the heights at Hamel that overlooked Amiens. The
capture of these critical rail lines would prevent the Allies from moving supplies
and men to threatened sectors of the front quickly. After strengthening their defensive
position near Amiens, the Allied High Command planned to capture the high ground
along the ridge at Hamel. The first rate 13th Westphalian Division and supported
by one regiment of the third rate 43rd Division defended the critical heights. Overall
the German position was very sound.[42]
The Allied plan of attack was to be different from what had been done in previous
battles. At Cambrai, the tanks were too far forward of the infantry. The infantry
and tanks were to work together in the upcoming battle. General John Monash, commander
of the Australian Corps, who would be providing the infantry for the battle, worked
in close cooperation with Major General Hugh Elles and Brigadier General Courage
of the 5th Tank Corps on the plans. Prior to the battle, the infantry and tanks
rehearsed advancing together. The tanks would clear the way of any strong points
or machinegun posts while the infantry would be there to mop up and to destroy any
German artillery being used as anti tank guns. The infantry and tanks would advance
across no man’s land and closely follow the artillery’s creeping barrage.[43]
Two thousand recently arrived American infantry were attached to the 7,500 men of
the Australian Corps. In all, sixty tanks and ten Australian infantry battalions
with the attached equivalent of two American infantry battalions were attacking
about twenty seven dug in German infantry battalions.[44] The results of the battle
are more critical than the minute details of the battle itself. As a result of the
artillery, infantry, and tanks working in perfect coordination, the Australians
suffered 800 casualties and three tanks were destroyed. In return they routed the
Germans holding the ridge. In his diary, General Haig wrote the following about
the smashing victory at Hamel, “The most striking characteristic of the attack was
the close and effective cooperation between the tanks and infantry. Moving up and
down behind the barrage, the tanks either killed the enemy or forced him to take
shelter in the dugouts, where he became an easy prey for the infantry.” For the
first time, the tanks carried out the attack with the infantry, rather than an attack
by tanks and an attack by the infantry. This close cooperation was the precursor
to the Blitzkrieg of the next war.[45]
The Battle of Hamel was also the baptism by fire for the two thousand Americans.
Although not as disciplined, and too zealous at times, a new fresh army made its
appearance. The new American Army was an additional advantage the French and British
armies possesed. This type of psychological advantage in the summer battles of 1918
should be recognized. Although Nagel was not present at Hamel, he saw some American
prisoners later. He wrote, “They looked healthy, well-fed, and above all else, their
marvelous clothing and uniform accessories impressed us. Everything they had seemed
the best—fine heavy boots and thick and solid leather for gun holsters, belts and
gloves.”[46] According to Nagel, the Allied morale soared as a consequence of the
arrival of the American troops and German morale sank.
Hamel stands out in the history of military tactics because a force half the size
of the defenders could capture the dug in and entrenched enemy position with modest
losses. The Australians executed the evolving infantry assault tactics with precision
and in perfect cooperation with the tanks. The capture of the Heights at Hamel was
a tactical masterpiece because of two factors. First, the British artillery effectively
neutralized the German artillery. The neutralization allowed the Allied infantry
to advance across no-man’s land. Second, the infantry executed the evolving infantry
assault tactics in perfect cooperation with the tanks.
One month after the spectacular victory of Hamel, the Allies launched a massive
attack in the Albert-Moreuil sector on August 8th. This day accurately has been
described as the blackest day for the German army. Eight German infantry divisions
were routed by a massive Allied tank attack, supported by artillery, infantry, and
aircraft in close ground support. The victory was like the victory at Hamel but
on a much greater scale. The battles of Hamel and Albert were the true precursors
of the Blitzkrieg of 1939-1941. The German line had been broken they began their
retreat to the Hindenburg line. The war would be over in three months.[47]
The British infantry tactics evolved throughout the war. Although the Germans usually
receive credit for being innovative with their tactics and for developing the Blitzkrieg
tactics of the Second World War, it is evident that the British invented and first
implemented what became known as the Blitzkrieg. The British possessed two advantages
that turned the tide of the Western Front in their favor. They developed artillery
tactics and technology that gave them the needed advantage over the German artillery.
The Germans lagged behind in counter battery technology and in the use of a creeping
barrage. Both of these elements aided the British immensely. The second advantage
the British possessed was the tank. When the ground was relatively dry and when
supported, as they were at Hamel, by the infantry, the tanks could clear the wire
for the infantry and to provide direct fire support at any German strongpoint. The
tanks’ machineguns could suppress the German infantry in their trenches until their
own infantry arrived to capture the trench. The Germans had no answer for the tank.
The noted military historian John Keegan summarized the German’s failure this way:
“Germany’s failure to match the Allies in tank development must be judged one of
their worst military miscalculations of the war.”[48]
It is evident that GHQ understood the continuing need for the evolution of both
the grand and minor tactics. According to the various journals and memoirs, the
common soldier also understood the new tactics. The various authors of the sources
cited understood the three or four wave attacks and the need for suppression fire
from the Lewis guns. Also evident from the journals of those at Loos, they understood
correctly why their attacks failed and the need for effective counter battery fire.
From the one German officer’s memoirs, it can be seen that they too, understood
the damaging effects of counter battery fire, the danger tanks presented, the effects
of the growing Allied air power, and the growing realization that the arrival of
the Americans spelled the end to Germany’s chances of success. es of success.
Beginning with the Great War, victory on the battlefield ultimately comes from the
effective use of all the different types of infantry, artillery, tanks, and aircraft.
The Germans had a weak understanding of artillery and tanks compared to the British;
this led to their defeat on the battlefield in the West. The British effectively
integrated all four of the arms. From the common Allied soldier to the higher officers,
they worked, bled, and to bring about victory. Before the war started, an army possessed
infantry, artillery, and cavalry. By the end of the war, the infantry and artillery
had been improved, aircraft became very important, and the iron cavalry comprised
of the tanks had replaced the flesh and bones of the old horse cavalry.
Show Notes
Endnotes
[1]. Timothy Lupfer,
The Dynamics of Doctrine: The changes in German Tactical Doctrine
During the First World War
, (Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute,
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1981), vii.
[2]. A.J.P. Taylor. The First World War, (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.,
1963), 215.
[3]. John S.D. Eisenhower,
Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War
I
, (New York: Touchstone Books, 2001), 104.
[4]. Paddy Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art
of Attack 1916-1918
, (London: St. Edmunsbury Press, 1996), 22-24.
[5]. Charles Edmund Carrington, A Subaltern’s War, (New York: Arno Press, 1972),
79-83.
[6]. J.C. Dunn, The War The Infantry Knew: 1914-1919, (London: Jane’s Publishing
Company Limited, 1987), 103-104.
[7]. Griffith, Battle
Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 51-52.
[8]. Philip Warner, The Battle of Loos, (Chatham: Mackays of Chatham, 2000), 16.
[9]. Ibid., 21.
[10]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 53.
[11]. Warner, The Battle of Loos, 19-20.
[12]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 54-56.
[13]. Warner, The Battle of Loos, 207.
[14]. Dunn, The War The Infantry Knew: 1914-1919, 153-154.
[15]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 54-56.
[16]. Bruce Gudmundsson, Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918,
(New York: Praeger Publications, 1989), 86-87.
[17]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 57.
[18]. Gudmundsson, Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918,
47-48.
[19]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 57.
[20]. R.H. Roy, The Journal of Private Fraser, (Nepean, Ontario: CEF Books, 1985),
201.
[21]. Charles Edmund Carrington, A Subaltern’s War, (New York: Arno Press, 1972),
87, 99.
[22]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 63.
[23]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 143.
[24]. John Keegan, The First World War, (New York: Vintage Books, 2000), 290.
[25]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 77.
[26]. Dunn, The War The Infantry Knew: 1914-1919, 288.
[27]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 155.
[28]. Albert P. Palazzo, “The British Army’s Counter-Battery Staff Office and Control
of the Enemy in World War I,” The Journal of Military History Vol.63, No.1:60.
[29]. Fritz Nagel, Fritz: The World War I Memoirs of a German Lieutenant, Huntington,
West Virginia: Der Angriff Publications, 1981), 66.
[30]. Ibid. 66.
[31]. Griffith,
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of Attack
1916-1918
, 155-156.
[32]. William.A. Bishop, Winged Warfare, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1918), 90-91.
[33]. Greenhouse, Brereton. “Evolution of a Close Ground-Support Role for Aircraft
in World War I,” Military Affairs Vol. 39, Issue 1: 23.
[34]. Nagel, Fritz: The World War I Memoirs of a German Lieutenant, 77.
[35]. Ibid., 77.
[36]. Brereton. “Evolution of a Close Ground-Support Role for Aircraft in World
War I,” 27-28.
[37]. Tim Travers,
How the War was Won: Command and Technology in the British Army
on the Western front, 1917-1918
, (New York: Routledge, 1992), 86.
[38]. Bryan Cooper, The Ironclads of Cambrai: The First Great Tank Battle, (London:
Cassell Military Paperbacks, 1967), 222.
[39]. Ibid., 223.
[40]. Ibid., 113-117.
[41]. Nagel, Fritz: The World War I Memoirs of a German Lieutenant, 71.
[42]. R.A. Beaumont, “Hamel, 1918: A Study in Military-Political Interaction,”
Military
Affairs
Vol. 31, No. 1: 10-11.
[43]. Ibid., 12.
[44]. Ibid., 14.
[45]. Ibid., 16.
[46]. Nagel, Fritz: The World War I Memoirs of a German Lieutenant, 101.
[47]. Keegan, The First World War, 410.
Primary
Bishop, William A. Winged Warfare. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1918.
Carrington,
Charles Edmund. A Subaltern’s War. New York: Arno Press, 1972.
Dunn, J.C. The War The Infantry Knew: 1914-1919. London: Jane’s Publishing Company
Limited, 1987.
Nagel, Fritz. Fritz: The World War I Memoirs of a German Lieutenant. Huntington,
West Virginia: Der Angriff Publications, 1981.
Roy, R.H. ed. The Journal of Private Fraser. Nepean, Ontario: CEF Books, 1985.
Warner, Philip. The Battle of Loos. Chatham: Mackays of Chatham, 2000. (Please note:
The first eighteen pages of this book is an overview of the battle. The remaining
nearly 200 pages are copies of letters, diaries, and official reports.)
Secondary
Cooper, Bryan. The Ironclads of Cambrai: The First Great Tank Battle. London: Cassell
Military Paperbacks, 1967.
Eisenhower, John S.D. Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I.
New York: Touchstone Books, 2001.
Griffith, Paddy.
Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army’s Art of
Attack 1916-1918
. London: St. Edmunsbury Press, 1996.
Groom, Winston. A Storm in Flanders: The Ypres Salient, 1914-1918. New York: Grove
Press, 2002.
Gudmundsson, Bruce. Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918.
New York: Praeger Publications, 1989.
Keegan, John. The First World War. New York: Vintage Books, 2000.
Lupfer, Timothy.
The Dynamics of Doctrine: The changes in German Tactical Doctrine
During the First World War
. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Combat Studies Institute,
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1981.
Taylor, A.J.P. Taylor. The First World War. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
1963.
Travers, Tim.
How the War was Won: Command and Technology in the British Army on
the Western front, 1917-1918
. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Articles
Beaumont, R.A. “Hamel, 1918: A Study in Military-Political Interaction,”
Military
Affairs
. Vol. 31, No. 1: 10-16.
Greenhous, Brereton. “Evolution of a Close Ground-Support Role for Aircraft in World
War I,” Military Affairs. Vol. 39, Issue 1: 22-28.
Palazzo, Albert P. “The British Army’s Counter-Battery Staff Office and Control
of the Enemy in World War I,” The Journal of Military History. Vol.63, No.1:55-74.
© 2024 Roger Daene
Written by Roger Daene.
About the author:
Roger Daene received his Master of Arts degree in History from Cleveland State University.
He presently teaches for the University of Phoenix online and at their new campus in Jackson, Mississippi.
* Views expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent those of MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.