Battle of the Somme

[Dr Jekyll]

According to Wikepedia, the Royal Flying Corps lost 576 aircrew during the battle of the Somme. Can that possibly be right? It's more than the RAF lost in the Battle of Britain.

[sled dog]

My Maternal Grandfather was in the trenches at the start ( he survived the whole war ) and the ground casualties that day were 20,000 dead, i believe. Put`s it all into perspective really.....

[Brewster Buffalo]

Well the battle lasted from July to mid-November so that the figure for that period I assume. MOD site says "The RFC has 27 squadrons with 421 aircraft and 4 Kite Balloon squadrons with 14 balloons assigned to support the British Army Corps. The RFC establishes air superiority over, and for some 30 miles behind, enemy lines."

27 Sqns - say 500 pilots + gunners etc etc...looks like heavy losses

[Kitbag]

Wiki is always a good starting point, but the 'fact' that has aroused Dr Jekylls interest is one of the few on that page which does not have a citation/reference. I think it should therefore be treated with some suspicion until proven otherwise.

[henry crun]

sled dog: The numbers from the official history are as follows.

Killed or died of wounds 19,240
Wounded 35,493
Missing 2,152
Prisoners 585

That is just for the first day !

[Blacksheep]

The first day figures are staggering, but the totals are truly horrific:

The Allied forces consisted of 750,000 men in 27 divisions against 16 German front-line divisions. The opening artillery bombardment on 1st July 1916 failed to destroy the German barbed-wire and concrete bunkers leaving the Germans in strong defensive positions on higher ground. The artillery bombardment had merely churned up the soil, making heavy going for the infantry advance. The BEF suffered 58,000 casualties (a third of them killed) on this, the first day of the Somme offensive.

By mid-November when the Somme offensive ended, the allies had advanced only 12 Kms in some parts of the front. During the intervening fourteen weeks the British suffered 420,000 casualties; the French nearly 200,000 and the Germans an estimated 500,000. More than a million men killed or severely wounded in just four months. (Note that without the benefit of antibiotics, which had not yet been discovered, the majority of severely wounded men died of infection.)

As an example of the carnage, one regiment reported taking their objective and asked for reinforcements. They were told to dig in and hold off any German counter-attack. One of the Company Sergeant Majors replied to say that all the officers and the RSM were dead, he was in command of the battalion and that he had only 180 men left (out of 1,000) but he would do his best.

[Brewster Buffalo]

By 1915/16 it must have become obvious that there would be not quick end to this war and that the warring nations would have to slug it out until one of them went under.

It has always puzzled me why the political leadership did not seek a peaceful solution then. Perhaps it had become a people's war and the leaders were too afraid of public opinion.

Think if that had happened maybe no Russian revolution and communism..maybe no Hitler either...

[Load Toad]

Because the Germans had no intention of surrendering any of the land they invaded and if they had been able to keep the land they had conquered (and all of the associated resources) they would have been the dominant European power. And no doubt continued to grow, overseas also thus further threatening the British Empire.
So they had to be kicked out.
Unfortunately in 15 / 16 the advantage in war was with the defender - offensive technologies and tactics had not yet been developed or learned and so it up to the allies to try to force the Germans back and the Germans were more or less content to indulge in a war of attrition.

[Blacksheep]

Think if that had happened maybe no Russian revolution and communism..maybe no Hitler either... Perhaps more to the point on this forum, the Great War forced a massive advance in aeronautical development (as did the 1939-1945 follow-on). Where would aviation be today without the Great War?

[Load Toad]

Nicely painted hot air balloons?

[Brewster Buffalo]

Because the Germans had no intention of surrendering any of the land they invaded

Any peace deal would would need all parties to see sense of course. The Germans failed in their initial offensive and were fighting on two fronts. Only an extreme optimist on their side could think they could still win the war. Wasn't there anybody anywhere trying to seek peace?

[Load Toad]

I suggest you go and read up on WW1 BB. It was not clear that the war could not be won. Both sides thought they could and tried various ways to do so, warring across the globe to find some way to settle the situation in their favour. This was a global war at time of vast change in politics and social issues and sitting down over a cup of tea to do some blue sky thinking and find a constructive way to move forward to mutually benefi.... you get the picture? It wasn't an option, it was far too complicated, far too much was at stake. For the allies German expansion and militarism had to be defeated. Germany had no wish to cease either and felt that the war could be won and if it wasn't then it would be the end for Germany. Remember the mind sets of the time were not like today and the importance of empire was far greater.

[Brewster Buffalo]

LT

Good points -

It was not clear that the war could not be wonI should have said it could be won but only at a great cost in lives. The victors were all shattered by the war and it marked the start of the decline of Great Britain as a World Power and the rise of America as a new one though that was to become more evident in WW2.

You're right that because of the stalemate on the Western Front the Gallipoli campaign began only to end in another stalemate.

Germany had no wish to cease...expansion and militarism...

But was that the view of every German by 1916?

Remember the mind sets of the time Agree. I think that people were far more trusting of authority and, unlike today, did not question their leaders' decisions.

It wasn't an option,But it should have at least been discussed though and, as I said earlier, I think it would have been difficult to get the public to agree though after the heavy losses maybe not.

regards

BB


On an aviation note the National Archives have put on line 99,000 RAF records for WW1.

More here

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/stories/385.htm?WT.lp=n-33642

[Mike7777777]

With the benefit of 90 years of hindsight, the land war in Europe 1914 -1918 was effectively a holding operation for both sides. The U-boat offensive could have won the war for Germany (1917 was bleak for the British), the RN blockade of German ports defeated the German civilian population, which is why the Wehrmacht could claim to be undefeated in WW1, and also why Guderian et al viewed the 1940 drive to the Channel as a continuation of unfinished business from 1914 -1918.

With the benefit of hindsight, pre-announced massed infantry attacks against prepared positions with a time delay between cessation of artillery bombardment and the order to advance was a nonsense, but the tactic was of its time.

[Load Toad]

I wouldn't agree that it was a holding operation by intent. Both sides tried to find ways to move forward or to 'win' through one means or another. The years of the war saw a great deal of technological and tactical progress and when Germany was eventually weakened on the home front and it's army exhausted the greater resources and more efficient allied forces finally were able to break through the stalemate and start routing the Germans - whose leaders even then were trying to get a temporary armistice so that they could regroup and fight on later.

With the benefit of hindsight, pre-announced massed infantry attacks against prepared positions with a time delay between cessation of artillery bombardment and the order to advance was a nonsense

Yes but they didn't just stay at that - the types of bombardment, the duration, the targeting, the understanding of meteorology, the effect of barrel wear, the types of fuses...those things improved throughout the war. Then there is the development of tanks, of depth of defense, of the airforces, of combined arms cooperation. It was a case of mud & blood mostly but it wasn't through lack of trying to find an alternate.

[Mike7777777]

I wouldn't agree that it was a holding operation by intent.
And neither would I, hence "with the benefit of hindsight". The concept of "One more push for victory" applied from 1914 to 1918. The Germans could have achieved this in Western Europe in 1914 had the primary objective been to reach the Channel.

For the land war, neither military side was victorious, hence Armistice and not victory/defeat. Which inexorably led to WW2.

[Chairborne 09.00hrs]

That's an interesting question there, Dr. J.

Might I suggest you join-up over here:

Great War Forum -> The war in the air (http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showforum=25)

and toss the question out for responses?

You might also care to acquire a copy of "Somme Success" by Peter Hart, which may address the matter.