06 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"Most soldiers in ww1 were not trained and afraid to fight "
I think he's right. Modern infantry assault tactics, developed in WWII by Germany, would have made a big difference.
I wouldn't call thousands of men crossing " no mans land " under machine gun fire and artillery shelling afraid to fight !
Before the advent of the British tank ,how else could you have fought the war ? Most commanders were loathed to break orders from the rear when they should of used more intuition as the battle unfolded.
When the British introduced tanks , they had soldiers walking in front untill some officers used their brains and had them use the tanks as cover .
Saying that ,a lot of command were from the "boar war " and used to cavalry charges, they were from a time of different warfare !
The Germans called the Brittish troops fighting them "lions lead by donkeys " Thats not what they would call an army afraid to fight !
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by phil3000If they refused to go into "no man's land" they would be shot for treason or mutiny. Do you really think that all or most of the unemployed, demoralized people randomly conscripted (the bulk of the soldiers fighting in WW1) and given nothing but a small rifle were charging into battle like Rambo-style superwarriors?
"Most soldiers in ww1 were not trained and afraid to fight "
I wouldn't call thousands of men crossing " no mans land " under machine gun fire and artillery shelling afraid to fight !
Before the advent of the British tank ,how else could you have fought the war ? Most commanders were loathed to break orders from the rear when they should of used more ...[text shortened]... them "lions lead by donkeys " Thats not what they would call an army afraid to fight !
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm afraid you're wrong there, the majority of the British troops at the Somme were volunteers, not conscripted soldiers.
If they refused to go into "no man's land" they would be shot for treason or mutiny. Do you really think that all or most of the unemployed, demoralized people randomly conscripted (the bulk of the soldiers fighting in WW1) and given nothing but a small rifle were charging into battle like Rambo-style superwarriors?
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat where the false promises ?
"Volunteers" lured into the army with false promises and propaganda.
Britain had a pact with Belguim which it honoured , Britain went to war with Germany . Germany wanted an Empire , it was a country which aligned its different "lands" and became a power house ready and willing for a fight !
When Germany swept through Belguim and then in to France , It was clear to see Britain had to act . Propaganda ,no i would say !reality "
To be fair to you ,The men were let down AFTER THE WAR when promises fell by the way side !
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen was the first tank used in WWI?
No tanks in July 1916.
Do you think the Americans had an advantage in trench warfare because of the Civil War experience?
No. I don't think the Americans had an advantage. The troops were being told by the same generals what to do: "Run over there, old chap. Get Jerry and take his ditch."