QuoteReplyTopic: The Brusilov and Kerenski offensives Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 18:03
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by deadkenny
Originally posted by Tobodai
I can tell you the tactics used by the initial offensives by Brusilov were then copied by the Germnans to become the vaunted stormtrooper tactics, which Germany for some reason gets credit for
No, this is false. The Germans didn't 'copy' their inflitration tactics from the Russians, or anyone else for that matter...
You keep saying this without offering any evidence to support your theory. Care to elaborate?
BTW been away for a while, but I vaguely recall I was to respond to one of your posts, but can't remember where.
Interesting that when I asked you for sources for your claims your response was that the information was 'readily available in the public records'. Also interesting that you don't ask those claiming that the Germans 'copied' infilitration tactics from someone else (although who the someone else is varies from claim to claim) to support their claims.
Already in 1915 the Germans were 'experimenting' with platoon level 'combined arms' teams using 'infiltration' like tactics. The Germans expanded the use of these tactics during their Verdun offensive and Ludendorff supported the further use and development of the concept. All of the combatants, on the western front in particular, were trying to cope with the same problems and not surprizingly came up with similar solutions. However, there is no evidence that the Germans simply 'copied' the tactics of their opponents in 1917, and to the contrary there is plenty of evidence that they were working on their own development as far back as 1915. For example, the following is taken from "Historical Applications Of Maneuver Warfare In The 20th Century" by Major Peter E. Higgins, USMC
Originally posted by Major Higgins
In 1915 Captain Rohr was one of the first commanders of the Assault Detachment. His mission was to use his experience to develop new tactics and provide detachments to support offensives in the western front. What he had to work with included a machine gun platoon, a trench mortar platoon, a flamethrower platoon and some 76.2 mm field guns.24 ...
Rohr would meld these weapon systems together into one unit. For an assault to be effective, he wanted speed and violence of execution. He first worked on perfecting the following three elements:
(1) Replace the skirmish line with the surprise assault of squad size stormtroopers. (2) Use supporting arms (machineguns, mortars, artillery and flamethrowers) coordinated at the lowest level to suppress the enemy during attack. (3) The clearing of trenche by "rolling them up" with troops armed with hand grenades.
The stormtroopers' mission was to cross "no man's land" and take possession of the enemy's trench. The squads were trained to move as individual units, taking advantage of the cover and con- cealment that the terrain provided. This changed the role of the NCO from being behind his men and pushing them forward to being in front of them to lead them, and making decisions. Indirect artillery was used to both suppress enemy batteries and provide a box barrage on the objective to seal it off from the battlefield. The preparatory fire was to suppress and paralyze the enemy so that the stormtroopers could maneuver. It came to be realized that artillery tended to keep heads down rather than tear them off. Accuracy and timeliness of fires, as well as the ability of the infantry to exploit its effects, came to be seen as more important than the volume or duration of fire.
Stormtroopers were employed at Verdun in February 1916. They moved right up to the artillery barrage, risking the occassional casualty from short artillery rounds in order to be able to fully exploit the effects of the fire. Sometimes they could take possession of a trench within seconds of the barrage being lifted. This was when the French were caught in their dugouts. The second wave of the attack would contain infantry in skirmish lines who were to defend the captured trenches from counterattacks. The third wave of men would carry ammo, tools and material to improve the trench and build breastworks. The six machineguns assigned to the infantry battalion would also move forward with this wave.
Edited by deadkenny - 18-Mar-2008 at 18:04
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
I don't think storm trooper tactics was copied by Germans from Brusilov offensive. In fact. I'm more inclined to think that it was actually copied by Russian from Germans.
The innovation of Brusilov's offensive was in another area. The most innovative think was that Brusilov rejected long preparation artillery bombardment as was alway done before. Usually, during the earlier offensive operations the attackers bombarded one fixed area in the enemy defences for many hours and even days. This allowed the defenders to move the troops to the anticipated area of attack and to prepare adequately right in the point of planned attack. Instead, Brusilov didn't concentrate the artilery at one point but ordered a swift, shotr artillery preparation along the whole line of Austro-German defences. That brought much confusion to the Central powers command, since they couldn't predict where where will the actual attack take place. As a result, Austro-germans were unable to concentrate enought troops in the areas where the main Russian attacks were supposed to be. By using this innovative tactics Russian army was able to quickly overun several lines of heavy fortified defences, which was a stunning succes. I believe this perhaps was copied later by the Germans during their later offensive operations but not the concept of stormtroopers.
Interesting that when I asked you for sources for your claims your response was that the information was 'readily available in the public records'. Also interesting that you don't ask those claiming that the Germans 'copied' infilitration tactics from someone else (although who the someone else is varies from claim to claim) to support their claims.
Is it? I was just checking to see whether you'd read any of these "public records" I don't need to ask anyone else to "prove" the Germans copied; that's also in the public record, albeit hotly debated by "German supremacists" [by that I mean those that think the German Army was "perfect", not the less savoury definition of the word "supremacist"].
Andre Lafargue's training pamphlet was widely circulated along the Western front by August 1915, Rohr took over the Sturm Abteilung in September 1915 and radically overhauled and changed it's tactics until it was first used in anger in October at Verdun. Prior to Rohr, the Abteilung had been developed and used as slow moving "armoured" infantry. Such a radical change in emphasis "out of the blue" was either an epiphany by Rohr, or he'd read Lafargue's pamphlet.
oh well, so from what you are saying, you just assume they must have copied it because you don't believe the German Army could have been expert enough....?
Is it? I was just checking to see whether you'd read any of these "public records" I don't need to ask anyone else to "prove" the Germans copied; that's also in the public record, albeit hotly debated by "German supremacists" [by that I mean those that think the German Army was "perfect", not the less savoury definition of the word "supremacist"].
Andre Lafargue's training pamphlet was widely circulated along the Western front by August 1915, Rohr took over the Sturm Abteilung in September 1915 and radically overhauled and changed it's tactics until it was first used in anger in October at Verdun. Prior to Rohr, the Abteilung had been developed and used as slow moving "armoured" infantry. Such a radical change in emphasis "out of the blue" was either an epiphany by Rohr, or he'd read Lafargue's pamphlet.
Your attitude would seem to be no better than the Germany army 'fanboys', just biased in a different direction.
Once again you provide a number of inaccurate statements with no supporting quotes or cites. Laffargue's pamphlet wasn't published until early 1916, so it's difficult to imagine how it could have been 'widely circulated along the Western front by August 1915' as you claim (any source for this?). Once again you simply 'make up' facts to fit your theory. Your characterization of the Sturmabteilung prior to Rohr's assignment as commander is likewise inaccurate.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
oh well, so from what you are saying, you just assume they must have copied it because you don't believe the German Army could have been expert enough....?
No, not at all, the German army's expertise is not the question; it's just that German experiments were heading down the road of heavily armoured assault Pioneers, supported by integral light artillery, when there's a sudden change which coincidentally[?] coincides with Lafargues' publication?
It's not my assumption, historians like Griffiths, Strachan, etc have come to similar conclusions.
Your attitude would seem to be no better than the Germany army 'fanboys', just biased in a different direction.
That's probably a reasonable supposition; I freely admit to search for historical truth, through the myriad of propaganda and mythology that surrounds the German "war machine".
Originally posted by deadkenny
Once again you provide a number of inaccurate statements with no supporting quotes or cites. Laffargue's pamphlet wasn't published until early 1916, so it's difficult to imagine how it could have been 'widely circulated along the Western front by August 1915' as you claim (any source for this?). Once again you simply 'make up' facts to fit your theory. Your characterization of the Sturmabteilung prior to Rohr's assignment as commander is likewise inaccurate.
Fair enough, why don't you enlighten me with your vastly superior knowledge, instead of just blandly saying I'm wrong. I stand ready to be convinced!
Your attitude would seem to be no better than the Germany army 'fanboys', just biased in a different direction.
That's probably a reasonable supposition; I freely admit to search for historical truth, through the myriad of propaganda and mythology that surrounds the German "war machine".
You claim to be searching for the 'truth', however, it appears more like you are engaged in 'campaign' which is just as wrong as the 'fanboys' but in the opposite direction (i.e. emphasizing the 'negative' and rejecting the 'positive'). If one is truly interested in the truth, then one must be open to accept whatever that is, and not 'edit' findings to conveniently fit preconceived ideas or theories.
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by deadkenny
Once again you provide a number of inaccurate statements with no supporting quotes or cites. Laffargue's pamphlet wasn't published until early 1916, so it's difficult to imagine how it could have been 'widely circulated along the Western front by August 1915' as you claim (any source for this?). Once again you simply 'make up' facts to fit your theory. Your characterization of the Sturmabteilung prior to Rohr's assignment as commander is likewise inaccurate.
Fair enough, why don't you enlighten me with your vastly superior knowledge, instead of just blandly saying I'm wrong. I stand ready to be convinced!
This comes off as sarcastic, not sincere, to me. In any case, for whoever might be interested in the real facts (whether or not you are one of them) I will point out a couple things. First, in the context of this thread, the claim was that the Germans 'copied' what the Russians did during the Brusilov Offensive. The fact, that I have well established with a cite, is that the Germans were already developing and using such tactics through 1915 and at Verdun (on a larger scale ) in 1916, before the Brusilov Offensive. So that particular version of the theory that Germany 'copied' infiltration tactics is a non-starter. Similar versions of the 'copied' theory claim that it was the French or British (anyone care to make a claim for the Italians, or Serbs, or Turks....?) that the Germans 'copied' from. British claims can be similarly refuted based on the timing. So we are left with Laffargue's pamphlet. Captain Laffargue wrote his pamphlet based on his experience in a French attack in May 1915. It was not published and did not fall into German hands until 1916. So again the timing is off. The Germans established their first Sturmabteilung unit in March 1915. Although they did make use of shields and body armour, the reason was because they were attempting to do the same thing as was done earlier, which was get in close to their own artillery bombardment as well as exposing themselves to enemy fire by their rapid (not slow) advance. You try to make it sound as if they were acting like one man tanks and advancing slowly through the open, which is not true. The fact is, the big change that occurred when Rohr took over is that the unit up to that point had not been used 'properly' (i.e. to 'spearhead' attacks) because the higher ups didn't know what to make of it, or rejected 'innovation' out of hand. Rohr, based on his own experiences (not a French pamphlet), managed to further develop the tactics and use and coordination of the various weapons. This was not a 'sudden change of direction', no more so than might be expected with a new person in charge.
Anyone who is sincerely interested can reference "Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army 1914-1918" by Bruce Gundmundsson.
Edited by deadkenny - 19-Mar-2008 at 14:06
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Been away for the Easter break so couldnt get back to you
earlier.
Originally posted by deadkenny
This comes off as sarcastic, not sincere, to me. In any
case, for whoever might be interested in the real facts (whether or not you are
one of them) I will point out a couple things.
My,
arent we touchy; and leaping like a spring lamb to conclusions, as usual.
Originally posted by deadkenny
First, in the context of this thread, the claim was that the
Germans 'copied' what the Russians did during the Brusilov Offensive. The fact,
that I have well established with a cite, is that the Germans were already
developing and using such tactics through 1915 and at Verdun (on a larger scale
) in 1916, before the Brusilov Offensive. So that particular version of the
theory that Germany 'copied' infiltration tactics is a non-starter.
I agree; this was never my contention or had anything to do
with your subsequent post that I challenged. Lets move on.
Originally posted by deadkenny
Similar versions of the 'copied' theory claim that it was the
French or British- (anyone care to make a claim for the Italians, or Serbs, or
Turks....?) that the Germans 'copied' from. British claims can be similarly
refuted based on the timing. So we are left with Laffargue's pamphlet.
DeadKennys, like Gudmundssons account, completely ignores
British and French tactical innovations at Neuve Chapelle, (10th
March 1915) Festubert-Artois (May-June 1915) and Loos (Sept-Oct 1915) where,
for example, the 15th Scottish Div history states that following the
Creeping Barrage, The scene resembled nothing so much as a cross country race
with a full field. Men ran as if for a prize and continued to do so for some
four miles into the heart of the German defences. [J. Buchan, The Long Road
to Victory] and similarly, The French had already adopted the self-contained
Platoon as a unit. Tiny groups, taking every advantage of cover, swarmed
forward, intangible as will o the wisps, illusive as quicksilver. The German
artillery was baffled and their defences overrun by these handfuls of men who
were everywhere at once. In a few minutes they had disappeared over the
skyline. The attack had been successful. (Eye witness account of a typical
French attack on 1st July 1916 by Maj-Gen Sir Edward Spears cited in
White Heat: The New Warfare 1914-18 by J. Terraine, describing Allied
infiltration methods in use up to that point in the war.)
Originally posted by deadkenny
Captain Laffargue wrote his pamphlet based on his experience
in a French attack in May 1915. It was not published and did not fall
into German hands until 1916. So again the timing is off. The Germans
established their first Sturmabteilung unit in March 1915. Although
they did make use of shields and body armour, the reason was because they were
attempting to do the same thing as was done earlier, which was get in close to
their own artillery bombardment as well as exposing themselves to enemy fire by
their rapid (not slow) advance. You try to make it sound as if they were acting
like one man tanks and advancing slowly through the open, which is not
true.
Nonsense. A man carrying
30-60lb of armour, bulletproof shield and miscellaneous equipment tends not to
move as rapidly as you seem to think or want to believe. The first Sturmabteilung unit was designed more as assault
Pioneers to facilitate clearance of strongpoints and trenches during regular
attacks. They were not trained in any form of infiltration tactics at this
point in time, and you know it [or perhaps you dont?]. Allow me to quote from
your source, (Page 46-47 of Gudmundsson)
On March 2, 1915, the War Ministry ordered the Eighth Army
Corps to form an Assault Detachment (Sturmabteilung) from men provided
by pioneer units. In the course of the month of March, this unit, consisting of
a headquarters, two pioneer companies, and an overgrown battery of 20 of the
lightweight Krupp guns, was assembled at the artillery range at Wahn. The
officer chosen to command this unit, Major Calsow, was a pioneer.
The Assault Detachment spent the months of April and May,
1915, developing techniques for using the Krupp guns, which were soon
christened "assault cannon" (Sturmkannone), in combat. The men of the
cannon battery were trained in the care, manipulation, and firing of the cannon
themselves, while the men of the pioneer companies developed techniques for
ensuring that the cannon got across "no man's land" and the first
enemy trench in condition to take part in the fight. Besides brushing up on the
traditional pioneer skill of clearing barbed wire and other obstacles, they
practiced using portable steel shields to protect those clearing obstacles from
enemy fire.
This training, however, was never put to use. The first
combat mission of the Assault Detachment was the defence of a section of the
German trench line in France. The pioneers were used as line infantry while the
assault cannon were used like the very weapons that they had been procured to
combat -- as light field pieces positioned to the rear of the German front line
trench. The cost of this improper employment was high. In the month of June the
two pioneer companies had taken so many casualties from French artillery
bombardments that they had to be consolidated into one under strength company.
The assault cannon proved to be unsuited to employment near
the front line. Each time one fired, its pronounced muzzle flash made it easy
for the French to determine its exact position. Once located, the assault
cannon became the favorite targets of the French artillery.
Needless to say, such a weapon soon became quite unpopular
with the troops that had to serve in its vicinity.
In August of 1915 Major Calsow was relieved of the command
of the Assault Detachment despite his protest that the poor showing of his unit
had been due to the fact that it had not been employed in accordance with the
instructions of the War Ministry. In the eyes of Colonel Bauer, Major Calsow's
main failing was that he did not see the true potential of the Assault
Detachment. Calsow did not share Colonel Bauer's vision of the Assault Detachment
as a laboratory where new techniques could be tried out and a school where they
could be taught. Rather, he had been content to command a unit that provided
other units with detachments of assault cannon and pioneers.
Originally posted by deadkenny
Anyone who is sincerely interested can reference
"Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army 1914-1918"
by Bruce Gundmundsson.
And anyone who does will realise, amongst other things, that
theres no n in Gudmundsson.
A serious scholar like DeadKenny could also have mentioned the following works to get a
Teutophile view of German tactical achievement in the Great War;
The
Dynamics of Doctrine: The changes in German Tactical Doctrine during the First
World War by T T Lupfer
Doctrine and Dogma: German and British Infantry Tactics in
the First World War by M Samuels
If
Germany attacks by G C Wynne
And of
course, the classic:
The
Storm of Steel by E Jűnger, and Die Deutsche Strurmbataillone im Weltkrieg by
Helmuth Gruss
All
excellent examples of accounts of how the Germans did things that generally
ignore, or chose to overlook allied achievements. Gudmundssons highly informative
thesis is marred by the fact he generally omits the effects of parallel Allied
tactical developments which were often [but not always] far ahead of the
Germans themselves.
Clearly DeadKenny has reached the pinnacle of enlightenment
and I sit in awe at his pronouncements. The rest of us mere seekers after the
truth who labour in the fog of uncertainty and the mists of mythology will
soon discover that Gudmundsson
published his work in the late 80s, so would not have been aware of subsequent
research in the 90s which finally determined that there was a fatal mix up due
to a confusion between Laffargues Impressions and Reflexions and a competing
pamphlet called LEtude sur lAttaque written by a Commandant Lachevre, C.O.
of the 74th Infantry Regiment, and published by the French Army in
November 1915 and translated for the British in June 1916, (according to the OH
1917 vol.2) and quoted erroneously by Gudmundsson in his book as the work of
LaffargueOops.
It's not my assumption, historians like Griffiths, Strachan, etc have come to similar conclusions.
did they actually found solid evidence like orders or memoires or is it just what they 'concluded'?
I don't know. In reality all sides cherry picked ideas and "best practice" from each other and on balance of probability it was highly likely Rohr, et al experienced French or British methods and were inspired accordingly. They were hardly likely to admit to "cribbing from the enemy" were they.
Personal Ego? National pride? If you highlight the fact in your training manuals that you cribbed ideas from your enemies, isn't there an implication that they're better than you, or you are not as good as you think you are?
thats just jumping on conclusions, what makes you think so in the first place? why do people like to think Imperial Germany was a xenophobic isolationist country with too much national pride? this was so totally not the case, even the most nationalist soldiers often admitted the fighting courage and spirit of the enemy, there's no logical reason for me to assume they would have not mentioned foreign tactic manuals in their reports.
I agree with Temujin. In fact, recently I have come to the conclusion that Germany became the victim of the Entente's imperialism. She was the last country to want WWI. Unfortunately, most of the accounts we have about Germany in the context of WWI are biased and this also relates to the specialized military literature as well.
thats just jumping on conclusions, what makes you think so in the first place? why do people like to think Imperial Germany was a xenophobic isolationist country with too much national pride? this was so totally not the case, even the most nationalist soldiers often admitted the fighting courage and spirit of the enemy, there's no logical reason for me to assume they would have not mentioned foreign tactic manuals in their reports.
I was merely providing suppositions, not jumping anywhere.
Temujin, Im not sure what you expect me to say here, unless you want me to admit to non existent "anti-German sentiments". Have you read any tactical manuals that actually say a given method was borrowed from an enemy at the time? I havent. Tactical manuals are not history books and tend not to dwell on context. Their function is to detail and instruct, nothing more.
In any event one thing everyone agrees on is that Laffargues pamphlet [amongst others] was captured, translated and widely distributed throughout the German army. The debate revolves around the timing and its likely effect on Rohrs thinking.
To keep blandly stating, like D-K, with absolute certainty based on publications over a decade old that Rohr never copied French, or British for that matter, methods demonstrates a mind closed to contrary argument. History is never that clear cut. What was true 10 years ago may not be true 10 years from now. Currently the prevailing view is that Rohr copied. In the absence of facts to repudiate this view, Im happy to go along with that. If I find anything supporting a contrary view, Im equally happy to entertain the possibility he didnt.
....that Germany became the victim of the Entente's imperialism. She was the last country to want WWI. Unfortunately, most of the accounts we have about Germany in the context of WWI are biased and this also relates to the specialized military literature as well.
If by that you mean the average German, Id agree with you that a major European war was the last thing on his or her mind in 1914. Unfortunately the views of the average German had nothing to do with the policies and plans of Germanys government and General Staff. The war guilt clause wasnt put into Versaillesjust out of spite, but thats a subject already covered in another thread.
My,
arent we touchy; and leaping like a spring lamb to conclusions, as
usual.
Not as 'touchy'
as you, when I demonstrated the falseness of your claim of a 100
million German population of the Third Reich. Based on some of your
comments, it seems that I have in fact drawn the correct conclusions
regarding your attitude.
Originally posted by Challenger2
I agree; this was never my contention or had
anything to do with your subsequent post that I challenged. Lets
move on.
Before we 'move on', let's look back for a
moment on what you did in fact contend:
Originally posted by Challenger2
Andre Lafargue's training pamphlet was widely circulated along the
Western front by August 1915, Rohr took over the Sturm Abteilung in
September 1915 and radically overhauled and changed it's tactics
until it was first used in anger in October at Verdun. Prior to Rohr,
the Abteilung had been developed and used as slow moving "armoured"
infantry. Such a radical change in emphasis "out of the blue"
was either an epiphany by Rohr, or he'd read Lafargue's
pamphlet.
Where is the evidence that, as you claimed,
Laffargue's pamphlet was 'widely circulated' by August 1915 or that
Rohr had access to it and based any of his ideas on it?
Originally posted by Challenger2
DeadKennys, like Gudmundssons account, completely ignores
British and French tactical innovations at Neuve Chapelle, (10th
March 1915) Festubert-Artois (May-June 1915) and Loos (Sept-Oct 1915)
where, for example, the 15th Scottish Div history states
that following the Creeping Barrage, The scene resembled nothing
so much as a cross country race with a full field. Men ran as if for
a prize and continued to do so for some four miles into the heart
of the German defences. [J. Buchan, The Long Road to Victory]
and similarly, The French had already adopted the self-contained
Platoon as a unit. Tiny groups, taking every advantage of cover,
swarmed forward, intangible as will o the wisps, illusive as
quicksilver. The German artillery was baffled and their defences
overrun by these handfuls of men who were everywhere at once. In a
few minutes they had disappeared over the skyline. The attack had
been successful. (Eye witness account of a typical French attack
on 1st July 1916 by Maj-Gen Sir Edward Spears cited in
White Heat: The New Warfare 1914-18 by J. Terraine, describing Allied
infiltration methods in use up to that point in the war.)
So now you're giving 'credit' for 'running'
to the attack and 'taking cover' using local terrain to the British
and French? I suppose you've scoured German divisional histories and
determined that the Germans didn't 'run' or 'take cover' until after
they had seen the British and French do it, have you? In any case
this hardly establishes your claim that Laffargue's pamphlet was
widely circulated along the Western front by August 1915 or
that Rohr had access to it and based anything that he did on it.
Originally posted by Challenger2
Nonsense. A
man carrying 30-60lb of armour, bulletproof shield and miscellaneous
equipment tends not to move as rapidly as you seem to think or want
to believe.
Nor
were they as (relatively) slow as you seem to want to think or
believe. The standard pack early in the war was at least 60 lbs, so
an otherwise unburdened assault trooper with armour would have been
no more encumbered.
Originally posted by Challenger2
The first
Sturmabteilung unit was designed
more as assault Pioneers to facilitate clearance of
strongpoints and trenches during regular attacks. They were not
trained in any form of infiltration tactics at this point in
time, and you know it [or perhaps you dont?].
It was
the starting point. Obviously they didn't start off with the full
blown 'infiltration' tactics that would eventually be developed.
However, it was clearly a manifestation of the intention to develop
such. How many dedicated 'stormtrooper' units did the French and
British form and when did they form them?
Originally posted by Challenger2
Allow
me to quote from your source, (Page 46-47 of Gudmundsson)
On March 2, 1915, the War Ministry ordered the Eighth Army
Corps to form an Assault Detachment (Sturmabteilung) from men
provided by pioneer units. In the course of the month of March, this
unit, consisting of a headquarters, two pioneer companies, and an
overgrown battery of 20 of the lightweight Krupp guns, was assembled
at the artillery range at Wahn. The officer chosen to command this
unit, Major Calsow, was a pioneer.
The Assault Detachment spent the months of April and May, 1915,
developing techniques for using the Krupp guns, which were soon
christened "assault cannon" (Sturmkannone), in combat. The
men of the cannon battery were trained in the care, manipulation, and
firing of the cannon themselves, while the men of the pioneer
companies developed techniques for ensuring that the cannon got
across "no man's land" and the first enemy trench in
condition to take part in the fight. Besides brushing up on the
traditional pioneer skill of clearing barbed wire and other
obstacles, they practiced using portable steel shields to protect
those clearing obstacles from enemy fire.
This training, however, was never put to use. The first combat
mission of the Assault Detachment was the defence of a section of the
German trench line in France. The pioneers were used as line infantry
while the assault cannon were used like the very weapons that they
had been procured to combat -- as light field pieces positioned to
the rear of the German front line trench. The cost of this improper
employment was high. In the month of June the two pioneer companies
had taken so many casualties from French artillery bombardments that
they had to be consolidated into one under strength company.
The assault cannon proved to be unsuited to employment near the
front line. Each time one fired, its pronounced muzzle flash made it
easy for the French to determine its exact position. Once located,
the assault cannon became the favorite targets of the French
artillery.
Needless to say, such a weapon soon became quite unpopular with
the troops that had to serve in its vicinity.
In August of 1915 Major Calsow was relieved of the command of the
Assault Detachment despite his protest that the poor showing of his
unit had been due to the fact that it had not been employed in
accordance with the instructions of the War Ministry. In the eyes of
Colonel Bauer, Major Calsow's main failing was that he did not see
the true potential of the Assault Detachment. Calsow did not share
Colonel Bauer's vision of the Assault Detachment as a laboratory
where new techniques could be tried out and a school where they could
be taught. Rather, he had been content to command a unit that
provided other units with detachments of assault cannon and
pioneers.
None of
which contradicts what I've said.
Originally posted by Challenger2
And
anyone who does will realise, amongst other things, that theres no
n in Gudmundsson.
Really?
Are you sure about that? No 'n' in G-u-d-m-u-n-d-s-s-o-n?
Perhaps you should take a closer look.
Originally posted by Challenger2
A
serious scholar like DeadKenny could also have
mentioned the following works to get a Teutophile view of
German tactical achievement in the Great War;
Of
course you label any study of what Germany did as Teutophile,
so in your simplistic view there is only ignorance or 'pro-German'
bias. Meanwhile you're blind to your own 'anti-German' bias.
Originally posted by Challenger2
The
Dynamics of Doctrine: The changes in German Tactical Doctrine during
the First World War by T T Lupfer
Doctrine and Dogma: German and British Infantry Tactics in the
First World War by M Samuels
If Germany attacks by G C Wynne
And of course, the classic:
The Storm of Steel by E Jűnger, and
Die Deutsche Strurmbataillone im Weltkrieg by Helmuth Gruss
All excellent examples of accounts of how
the Germans did things that generally ignore, or chose to overlook
allied achievements.
Originally posted by Challenger2
Gudmundssons
highly informative thesis is marred by the fact he generally omits
the effects of parallel Allied tactical developments which were often
[but not always] far ahead of the Germans themselves.
The
Allies 'were often far ahead of the Germans'? Another totally
unsubstantiated claim. Care to back that up with something?
Originally posted by Challenger2
Clearly
DeadKenny has reached the pinnacle of enlightenment and I sit in awe
at his pronouncements.
Once
again, just more immature silliness from you. All it does is detract
further from your credibility, to the extent that your consistent
inability to connect together your claims with proper cites
supporting them leaves you with any to detract from. Remember this?
Originally posted by Challenger2
Andre Lafargue's training pamphlet was widely circulated along the
Western front by August 1915, Rohr took over the Sturm Abteilung in
September 1915 and radically overhauled and changed it's tactics
until it was first used in anger in October at Verdun. Prior to Rohr,
the Abteilung had been developed and used as slow moving "armoured"
infantry. Such a radical change in emphasis "out of the blue"
was either an epiphany by Rohr, or he'd read Lafargue's
pamphlet.
Does anything
you've posted here support this claim?
Originally posted by Challenger2
The rest of us
mere seekers after the truth who labour in the fog of
uncertainty and the mists of mythology will soon discover
that Gudmundsson published his work in the late
80s, so would not have been aware of subsequent research in the
90s which finally determined that there was a fatal mix up due to
a confusion between Laffargues Impressions and Reflexions
and a competing pamphlet called LEtude sur lAttaque
written by a Commandant Lachevre, C.O. of the 74th
Infantry Regiment, and published by the French Army in November 1915
and translated for the British in June 1916, (according to the OH
1917 vol.2) and quoted erroneously by Gudmundsson in his book as the
work of LaffargueOops.
Do you have any cites which support this claim? In fact it is
more likely that it is you who are confusing Lachevre's Notes sur
l'Attaque with Laffargue's L'Etude sur l'Attaque.
Edited by deadkenny - 27-Mar-2008 at 22:48
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Not as 'touchy'
as you, when I demonstrated the falseness of your claim of a 100
million German population of the Third Reich. Based on some of your
comments, it seems that I have in fact drawn the correct conclusions
regarding your attitude.
We back to this? You never demonstrated anything, and if you read my post you'd remember it was never my claim, but Dupuy's, I just thought it was a reasonable one.
Originally posted by deadkenny
Before we 'move on', let's look back for a
moment on what you did in fact contend:
Originally posted by Challenger2
Andre Lafargue's training pamphlet was widely circulated along the
Western front by August 1915, Rohr took over the Sturm Abteilung in
September 1915 and radically overhauled and changed it's tactics
until it was first used in anger in October at Verdun. Prior to Rohr,
the Abteilung had been developed and used as slow moving "armoured"
infantry. Such a radical change in emphasis "out of the blue"
was either an epiphany by Rohr, or he'd read Lafargue's
pamphlet.
Originally posted by deadkenny
Where is the evidence that, as you claimed,
Laffargue's pamphlet was 'widely circulated' by August 1915 or that
Rohr had access to it and based any of his ideas on it?
I've already cited my sources, you've just missed them in your desperate myopic urge to maintain what's left of your credibility. How sad.
Originally posted by Challenger2
DeadKennys, like Gudmundssons account, completely ignores
British and French tactical innovations at Neuve Chapelle, (10th
March 1915) Festubert-Artois (May-June 1915) and Loos (Sept-Oct 1915)
where, for example, the 15th Scottish Div history states
that following the Creeping Barrage, The scene resembled nothing
so much as a cross country race with a full field. Men ran as if for
a prize and continued to do so for some four miles into the heart
of the German defences. [J. Buchan, The Long Road to Victory]
and similarly, The French had already adopted the self-contained
Platoon as a unit. Tiny groups, taking every advantage of cover,
swarmed forward, intangible as will o the wisps, illusive as
quicksilver. The German artillery was baffled and their defences
overrun by these handfuls of men who were everywhere at once. In a
few minutes they had disappeared over the skyline. The attack had
been successful. (Eye witness account of a typical French attack
on 1st July 1916 by Maj-Gen Sir Edward Spears cited in
White Heat: The New Warfare 1914-18 by J. Terraine, describing Allied
infiltration methods in use up to that point in the war.)
Originally posted by deadkenny
So now you're giving 'credit' for 'running'
to the attack and 'taking cover' using local terrain to the British
and French? I suppose you've scoured German divisional histories and
determined that the Germans didn't 'run' or 'take cover' until after
they had seen the British and French do it, have you? In any case
this hardly establishes your claim that Laffargue's pamphlet was
widely circulated along the Western front by August 1915 or
that Rohr had access to it and based anything that he did on it.
I repeat, I've already cited my sources, you've just missed them in your
desperate myopic urge to maintain what's left of your credibility. How
sad.
Originally posted by deadkenny
Originally posted by Challenger2
Nonsense. A
man carrying 30-60lb of armour, bulletproof shield and miscellaneous
equipment tends not to move as rapidly as you seem to think or want
to believe.
Nor
were they as (relatively) slow as you seem to want to think or
believe. The standard pack early in the war was at least 60 lbs, so
an otherwise unburdened assault trooper with armour would have been
no more encumbered.
Do you want to review this? this is possibly the most stupid post you've made so far. You are making yourself a laughing stock, it's embarrassing. It's crystal clear you have never served in the military.
Originally posted by deadkenny
...How many dedicated 'stormtrooper' units did the French and
British form and when did they form them?
Another stupid comment. To quote Field marshall Slim, "Armies do not win wars by means of a few bodies of super soldiers but by the average quality of their standard units...Any well trained infantry battalion should be able to do what Commandos [substitute "Stormtroopers" here and you get the point] can do."
Originally posted by deadkenny
Really?
Are you sure about that? No 'n' in G-u-d-m-u-n-d-s-s-o-n?
Perhaps you should take a closer look.
Ha. Ha. You originally spelt the name Gundmundsson. But I agree that was a pointless jibe, given you've not read either your own or my posts carefully.
Originally posted by Challenger2
A
serious scholar like DeadKenny could also have
mentioned the following works to get a Teutophile view of
German tactical achievement in the Great War;
Originally posted by deadkenny
Of
course you label any study of what Germany did as Teutophile,
so in your simplistic view there is only ignorance or 'pro-German'
bias. Meanwhile you're blind to your own 'anti-German' bias.
Yeah, right, whatever. Is that all you got?
Originally posted by deadkenny
The
Allies 'were often far ahead of the Germans'? Another totally
unsubstantiated claim. Care to back that up with something?
If you knew anything about what your pontificating about, I might take you seriously. Judging by this and your Rommel defence, once again you prove your ignorance. I'm bored now.
Originally posted by deadkenny
Once
again, just more immature silliness from you. All it does is detract
further from your credibility, to the extent that your consistent
inability to connect together your claims with proper cites
supporting them leaves you with any to detract from. Remember this?
Originally posted by Challenger2
Andre Lafargue's training pamphlet was widely circulated along the
Western front by August 1915, Rohr took over the Sturm Abteilung in
September 1915 and radically overhauled and changed it's tactics
until it was first used in anger in October at Verdun. Prior to Rohr,
the Abteilung had been developed and used as slow moving "armoured"
infantry. Such a radical change in emphasis "out of the blue"
was either an epiphany by Rohr, or he'd read Lafargue's
pamphlet.
Does anything
you've posted here support this claim?
Originally posted by Challenger2
The rest of us
mere seekers after the truth who labour in the fog of
uncertainty and the mists of mythology will soon discover
that Gudmundsson published his work in the late
80s, so would not have been aware of subsequent research in the
90s which finally determined that there was a fatal mix up due to
a confusion between Laffargues Impressions and Reflexions
and a competing pamphlet called LEtude sur lAttaque
written by a Commandant Lachevre, C.O. of the 74th
Infantry Regiment, and published by the French Army in November 1915
and translated for the British in June 1916, (according to the OH
1917 vol.2) and quoted erroneously by Gudmundsson in his book as the
work of LaffargueOops.
[QUOTE=deadkenny] Do you have any cites which support this claim? In fact it is
more likely that it is you who are confusing Lachevre's Notes sur
l'Attaque with Laffargue's L'Etude sur l'Attaque.
Once again fishing for information you would already know had you bothered to do any real research on this subject. Bleat on to your heart's content. I've done with you now.
...In any event one thing everyone
agrees on is that Laffargues pamphlet [amongst others] was captured,
translated and widely distributed throughout the German army. The
debate revolves around the timing and its likely effect on Rohrs
thinking....
Originally posted by Challenger2
Andre
Lafargue's training pamphlet was widely circulated along the Western
front by August 1915, Rohr took over the Sturm Abteilung in September
1915 and radically overhauled and changed it's tactics until it was
first used in anger in October at Verdun. Prior to Rohr, the
Abteilung had been developed and used as slow moving "armoured"
infantry. Such a radical change in emphasis "out of the blue"
was either an epiphany by Rohr, or he'd read Lafargue's
pamphlet.
It
doesn't appear as though the timing was very 'debatable' in your view
when you posted that. So have you come up with anything that
supports your claim that Laffargue's pamphlet was 'widely circulated'
in the time frame you claimed it was? Do you have anything that
supports the claim that Laffargue's pamphlet itself was 'widely
distributed throughout the German army'?
Edited by deadkenny - 27-Mar-2008 at 23:55
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum