Originally Posted by
langleybaston
With respect I did ask for, and have not received, an example to support:
Sent tens of thousands "over the top" both to find out where the enemy defences were strongest and in the hope that a few might get through
This next quote is inaccurate:
Generals of the time (especially Haig) were deeply wedded to the concept of the cavalry charge. Many (most) had been cavalry officers.
At declaration of war the ratios of British cavalry generals to those from other arms were as follows:
Field marshals 2/ 8; Generals 1/ 18; Lt generals 3/ 27; Major generals 8/ 114
Source: the Army List and Terraine's: The smoke and the fire
Cavalry Training 1912 emphasizes scouting, reconnaissance, dismounted musketry and exploitation as major functions of cavalry. The charge as such gets scant attention in the index or indeed the content.
For further reading, see also Corrigan’s Mud Blood and Poppycock.
As there is no aviation content in this exchange, may I suggest that, if it were to be continued, it could be by PM?
One might mention that perhaps the most enthusiastic supporter of the RFC was one Douglas Haig; he arguably ensured, although not deliberately, that Trenchard was the only obvious candidate to be CAS when the RAF was formed (and that Trenchard's nemesis, Sykes (and no fan of Haig's either), almost certainly invented or misrepresented the supposed line of Haig's that he hoped the people he was speaking with didn't think aeroplanes would be any use in future war). Haig told his gunners after Neuve Chapelle that he wouldn't 'tolerate early Victorian methods' when it came to ranging the guns and he didn't care if they thought the RFC was an upstart organisation attempting to correct their fire - if they weren't prepared to take fire corrections, Haig wasn't prepared to have them holding command positions in First Army.