Battle of the Somme questions

This is a subject that's more in CV's ballpark.  I'm not that familiar with the Somme. Not enough to answer your questions specifically.

Massive artillery barrages accompanied every assault, often lasting for days and consuming millions of shells each time.

Reading even a brief history of the Somme will answer your questions quite readily.


60,000 casualties, 20,000 of which were deaths just on the 1st July 1916 (British casualties of the initial assault on the first day of the battle)

For example, the battle lasted from July 1st to Novemeber 18th of 1916.  Since this attack centered around control of Verdun, attack and counter-attack was the constant pattern to try and gain a little ground and then hold it, especially around the Fortress of  Douaumont, the largest of the Verdun fortresses.  This meant that the German army was on the offensive as much as the Allies were.

680,000 Germans lost their lives in the battle.
204,000 French died (more at Verdun)
420,000 British troops lost their lives.
A total of 1304000 men died fighting the battle of the Somme.


Edited by Mountain Man - 17-Nov-2014 at 15:22

Originally posted by Stefany I did read and it wasn't explained, hence I am asking. Wasn't that obvious to you?

Not really, because people usually know something about the subject before seeking clarification.  What is obvious is that you have no real comprehension of the sheer scale, ferocity or bloodiness of WWI in general or the Somme specifically.  I, OTH have toured the entire area, including the fortresses and the national battlefield cemeteries and have walked the trench lines.  If you are looking for simple answers, there are none.  It was a needless war fought over childish pride by idiots who wasted millions of strong, brave young men.  It broke the backs of national government such as Austro-Hungary and Russia, and let directly to the horrors of WWII.

As you mentioned, it was a long and bloody campaign rather than a single battle, and territory constantly changed hands as the two armies clawed at each other day after bloody day.

Much of this was triggered by the French decision to retake Verdun as a national symbol after allowing it to be easily captured in the first place.

The easiest answer is the one I already gave - the Germans were on the offensive and thus slaughtered just as often and as easily as the Allies as trenches and objectives changed hands over and over again.  The Ferench, for example, created an entire myth around the battle for Verdun, including the "miracle of La Voie Sacree" - The Sacred Way.

@Mountain Man, thank you for replying to my question, however you could have been even more helpful if you weren't berating people who know less than you on a given subject. I am sure you don't know as  much  PHP as I do, yet I am not bringing it up.

Originally posted by Stefany @Alani, one battle can't be waged from JULY to NOVEMBER. There has to be a number of battles. For example,  First Tannenberg and Second Tannenberg

Battles can quite often be categorised as early phase and main battle. The Somme and Tannenberg are good examples of well drawn out battles where these are so clearly defined. Hence the singular titles of The Battle of the Somme, and The Battle of Tannenbeg. Btw, Stefany, where are there rules which state conflicts as these must be products of many battles?

Originally posted by red clay The fact that your dealing with Trench Warfare, which is basically static in nature, could change the historical definition of it.

Not necessairly, because trench warfare was typified by constant attacks by one side and then the other, each side in tent on taking the enemy trenches, and then the enemy intent upon counter-attacking.

Also of note was the constant attrition due to artillery, and disease.

This is a breakdown of American deaths during WWI:

BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL US DEATHS (112.422)

Army in United States	32%	33,509
American Expeditionary Force	69%	76,699

Disease	51% (USA:30% , AEF:21%)	56,991
Battle	43%	4809
Others	6%	6522

historically there has either been a differentiation of 'the' battle that had significance in the minds of the participants..civil and military and the campaign...or not.

often times it was a result of the immediate significance of the one that later was reexamined as a part of the other. iow. event/s that occurred over a single or few days versus the culmination of the total events over a longer period of time in a localized, as noted, area..

historians, especially in the contextual era, were want to do this.

many examples of this abound...tho not necessarily enjoining the same name.

another example is the Battle of the Bulge versus the Ardennes Campaign.

The battle should actually be 'battles'.... 'as fought within' the larger frame of the 'campaign'.

Another would be the American Indian vs. US Govt. ''Red River Campaign'' of 1874... and the actions.... that in toto that entailed.

Which has often been confused with the 'same named' campaign during the ACW of 1864. Simply because both saw actions near or on the same river.
But not in the same location/s. Iow. often times it was a geophysical identification that might or might not have a synonymous application.

Hence the 'Somme'.

historians in the current context have gotten better. and most generally, further identify the scope and the specificity of the subject matter/event's in question. and in the case of the examples above, attempt to better define the battle/s from the campaign/s.


and finally because it is generally the military itself that id's a battle versus a 'campaign'. in which, potentially, many actions over 'x' time period...may have occurred. versus which 'one' if not all... might have had a significant impact during the latter.

from a scholastic perspective this then allows an ability to, in theory anyway, more easy study and later analysis of both.


certainly from the tactical... versus strategic-logistical-command and control-military art applications (ie. inclusive of all the former and the National-Civil motivations-agendas-needs.

consequently MM's post: "A battle has a single beginning and an end, while a campaign is a series of battles centered in the same region by the same forces culminating in either victory, defeat or stalemate.''

is indeed from a 'generalist' perspective correct. with the caveat that campaigns are further sub delinations of 'Wars".

Though to further complicate the issue 'one' battle as noted by Alani above... might indeed represent the 'entire' campaign fought during the 'war'.

lol.

it's not supposed to be difficult but sometimes is.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 21-Nov-2014 at 21:41