Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
Two more (illegal polls) both suggesting PP/VOX on the cusp of absolute majority in Spain. Either way looks as if PP for largest party by some distance. Not at all clear there is an alternative coalition that could reach 176 and function.
Almost every poll for the last 2 or 3 months has shown a majority for PP + VOX if I remember correctly.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
This whole argument is irrational anyway. It is quite possible (and indeed almost certainly the case) that the generals both died at the same rate as the other ranks, and expected to dress in mess kit and eat 7 course dinners with a carefully curated selection of wines and spirits every night until they did so, while the OR floundered in the mud.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
This whole argument is irrational anyway. It is quite possible (and indeed almost certainly the case) that the generals both died at the same rate as the other ranks, and expected to dress in mess kit and eat 7 course dinners with a carefully curated selection of wines and spirits every night until they did so, while the OR floundered in the mud.
That is not necessarily the case - in fact often they spent more time at the front than their men did. Remember the infantry spent only a fairly small proportion of their time in the front line and the rest in reserve or on furlough, as they had to be awake and alert all the time at the front. Off the top of my head, the only man known to have spent pretty much the whole of the Vimy campaign in either the forward or reserve trenches was Byng.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
I stand by my statement, by "Donkeys" meaning those generals who indeed did take that basic approach.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
40 German generals were killed in the Soviet Operation Bagration alone (1944)
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
And which proved the better strategic command decision?
(Genuine question, to what is no doubt highly technical issue.)
Germans were also helped by fact that in most of the Western Front, they were side that determined the actual location of the front-line, to their distinct advantage.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Score another one for the Down With Ents! movement.
Rishi Sunak's approval continues to face headwinds this week.
His net approval rating stays at -26% (same as two weeks ago), with a quarter (24%) approving and half (50%) continuing to express disapproval.
Keir Starmer's approval takes a sharp downturn, with a net rating of -14% - a stark contrast to last week's -4%. Approval stands at 26%, disapproval climbs to 39%.
This marks one of the Labour leader's toughest weeks for approval, since he took office.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
That's the lowest Tory poll rating with Opinium since the Truss nadir towards the end of October last year (when they reached 23%). It's an awful poll rating, albeit the 10% for Reform is somewhat unlikely.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
And which proved the better strategic command decision?
(Genuine question, to what is no doubt highly technical issue.)
Germans were also helped by fact that in most of the Western Front, they were side that determined the actual location of the front-line, to their distinct advantage.
Well, the Germans lost. Partly because although their trenches were formidable in defence when they were broken they proved something of a bugger to rebuild. Once the British were through the Hindenburg line, it was all up with them.
And the Germans still lost twice as many men as the British (including around 270,000 soldiers from the British Empire).
But - they prevented any breakthroughs for three years and might have done so for a while longer even with the arrival of the Americans but for their ill-advised advance in March 1918.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
Two more (illegal polls) both suggesting PP/VOX on the cusp of absolute majority in Spain. Either way looks as if PP for largest party by some distance. Not at all clear there is an alternative coalition that could reach 176 and function.
Almost every poll for the last 2 or 3 months has shown a majority for PP + VOX if I remember correctly.
All bar 1. However, the projected seats for the right coalition is between 170and 184 with 176 the magic number. There are a couple of potential extras fro.m 2 right wing parties. However, it looks almost impossible for any kind of left coalition if these polls are accurate. There could still be deadlock and possibly a re-run needed.
That's the lowest Tory poll rating with Opinium since the Truss nadir towards the end of October last year (when they reached 23%). It's an awful poll rating, albeit the 10% for Reform is somewhat unlikely.
I prefer 're-fuck.'
Describes the future programme and reminds us of Farage's past actions.
Rishi Sunak's approval continues to face headwinds this week.
His net approval rating stays at -26% (same as two weeks ago), with a quarter (24%) approving and half (50%) continuing to express disapproval.
Keir Starmer's approval takes a sharp downturn, with a net rating of -14% - a stark contrast to last week's -4%. Approval stands at 26%, disapproval climbs to 39%.
This marks one of the Labour leader's toughest weeks for approval, since he took office.
Starmer flip-flops on everything, Tory-leaning voters aren't convinced by him and he's seemingly determined to alienate his party's natural supporters. His numbers would be right down the toilet if the Government wasn't so widely loathed.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
Yes. More pertinent is that the Germans were happy to chose ground that suited them (height etc) at the expense of a few miles of territory, whereas the British and French could not. It made little military sense to squat in the Ypres salient, surrounded on three sides by the Germans, but to give up the salient meant giving up Ypres. The allies also had a sense that the trenches were not meant to be permanent, as they would drive the invaders out, whereas the Germans largely were content to occupy the front and try to defeat Russia.
Still dry and light enouvh fir cricket here. They could have had at least anotger hour. We take the geographical disadvantages of rain - why not take the geograpgical advantages of light?
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
In many places the Germans held the high ground. Which is very advantageous when digging deep holes in the ground. Think water table.
This is because the Germans retreated to such positions as part of the consolidation of the lines into the static trench warfare that we all know.
RefUK apparently set to receive one in ten of all votes cast at the next election. VI polling really is a load of toss.
A significant part of REfUK will go blue or not vote.
No it won't. When Reform voters have been asked which other party they would support in the absence of a Reform candidate, only a quarter backed the Conservatives, a sixth backed Labour and most of the rest said they wouldn't vote.
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Score another one for the Down With Ents! movement.
The water table dominated the reasons that trenches were really horrible.
Can report that Barbie was quite good in a knowing Lego-movie kind of way. Woke enough to annoy the Laurence Foxes, trad enough to rile the Corbynistas.
But I suspect mission impossible would have been better. Such is our household that my wife watched that earlier in the week and it was my turn for Barbie today.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
I stand by my statement, by "Donkeys" meaning those generals who indeed did take that basic approach.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
The horse libel came out of nowhere (as in, I don't think you had said it when you were accused of saying it) but it is nonsense. You treat a horse well so that it can do the work you want it to do, and ditto other ranks - however fat a fatcat general you are it makes no sense to arrange for your troops to starve and freeze, or indeed not to mind whether they do so. "An army marches on its stomach" and I am sure the point was understood before Boney.
RefUK apparently set to receive one in ten of all votes cast at the next election. VI polling really is a load of toss.
A significant part of REfUK will go blue or not vote.
No it won't. When Reform voters have been asked which other party they would support in the absence of a Reform candidate, only a quarter backed the Conservatives, a sixth backed Labour and most of the rest said they wouldn't vote.
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Yes, it will. The numbers you quote demonstrate that.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
"The next problem was how to bridge the gap between the supply dumps and the soldiers who needed the supplies - and the problems got more and more difficult the closer supplies were moved towards the front lines. This distance was too long to be bridged effectively with horse-drawn vehicles, because horses could not manage a daily round trip of this length.
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
The bloke out of Were You Still Up For Portillo? made a television series on just this subject, called Railways of the Great War. The DVD was released by Network who have gone bust, and it is not on iplayer but you could try Britbox. Or Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHpbNOhM2pI
RefUK apparently set to receive one in ten of all votes cast at the next election. VI polling really is a load of toss.
A significant part of REfUK will go blue or not vote.
No it won't. When Reform voters have been asked which other party they would support in the absence of a Reform candidate, only a quarter backed the Conservatives, a sixth backed Labour and most of the rest said they wouldn't vote.
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Don't put words into my mouth. And 25% is not insignificant. When dealing with likelihood to vote the use of phrases like 'it's not true' are meaningless. I'm content to wait and see what happnes when push comes to shove on election day.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Lots of bunkers here where I live - can see a naval range finding tower from where I’m sitting. Some have been restored for museum use and some are repurposed for bars and fun things in people’s’ gardens. It’s quite amazing when you look at them or walk around them. Bleak concrete and cold but if I was a German soldier in WW2 I would rather be here in a bit of damp than anywhere else in the world.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
In the CIs? I must go and explore some time.
Edit: did you see my post re the Graun report of the official inquiry into the Alderney Lager?
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
"The next problem was how to bridge the gap between the supply dumps and the soldiers who needed the supplies - and the problems got more and more difficult the closer supplies were moved towards the front lines. This distance was too long to be bridged effectively with horse-drawn vehicles, because horses could not manage a daily round trip of this length.
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
RefUK apparently set to receive one in ten of all votes cast at the next election. VI polling really is a load of toss.
A significant part of REfUK will go blue or not vote.
No it won't. When Reform voters have been asked which other party they would support in the absence of a Reform candidate, only a quarter backed the Conservatives, a sixth backed Labour and most of the rest said they wouldn't vote.
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Don't put words into my mouth. And 25% is not insignificant. When dealing with likelihood to vote the use of phrases like 'it's not true' are meaningless. I'm content to wait and see what happnes when push comes to shove on election day.
REFUK about 3.5% in 2 out of 3 by elections is a better indication (didn't stand in Uxbridge but would prob have deprived con of victory if they had done)
RefUK apparently set to receive one in ten of all votes cast at the next election. VI polling really is a load of toss.
A significant part of REfUK will go blue or not vote.
No it won't. When Reform voters have been asked which other party they would support in the absence of a Reform candidate, only a quarter backed the Conservatives, a sixth backed Labour and most of the rest said they wouldn't vote.
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Don't put words into my mouth. And 25% is not insignificant. When dealing with likelihood to vote the use of phrases like 'it's not true' are meaningless. I'm content to wait and see what happnes when push comes to shove on election day.
REFUK about 3.5% in 2 out of 3 by elections is a better indication (didn't stand in Uxbridge but would prob have deprived con of victory if they had done)
It's quite bizarre how Labour 's failure to take Uxbridge has riled the left. Highly amusing.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Lots of bunkers here where I live - can see a naval range finding tower from where I’m sitting. Some have been restored for museum use and some are repurposed for bars and fun things in people’s’ gardens. It’s quite amazing when you look at them or walk around them. Bleak concrete and cold but if I was a German soldier in WW2 I would rather be here in a bit of damp than anywhere else in the world.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
In the CIs? I must go and explore some time.
Edit: did you see my post re the Graun report of the official inquiry into the Alderney Lager?
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
I stand by my statement, by "Donkeys" meaning those generals who indeed did take that basic approach.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
The horse libel came out of nowhere (as in, I don't think you had said it when you were accused of saying it) but it is nonsense. You treat a horse well so that it can do the work you want it to do, and ditto other ranks - however fat a fatcat general you are it makes no sense to arrange for your troops to starve and freeze, or indeed not to mind whether they do so. "An army marches on its stomach" and I am sure the point was understood before Boney.
This is a lesson that the present-day Russian army has still not learned, so it has to be demonstrated that an army follows through on what seems obvious to us, rather than taking it for granted that they would have the basic sense to do so.
As a knitter, I know that Lord Kitchener was so concerned for the welfare of his troops that he devised the Kitchener graft for closing the toe of a knitted sock without a seam (because the seam would rub inside the boot, hurting the feet). This was distributed to volunteer knitters across the Empire who knitted socks for troops at the front. This graft is so useful that it is still used today - just earlier today I discovered a variation for performing this graft without a sewing needle.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
I stand by my statement, by "Donkeys" meaning those generals who indeed did take that basic approach.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
The horse libel came out of nowhere (as in, I don't think you had said it when you were accused of saying it) but it is nonsense. You treat a horse well so that it can do the work you want it to do, and ditto other ranks - however fat a fatcat general you are it makes no sense to arrange for your troops to starve and freeze, or indeed not to mind whether they do so. "An army marches on its stomach" and I am sure the point was understood before Boney.
This is a lesson that the present-day Russian army has still not learned, so it has to be demonstrated that an army follows through on what seems obvious to us, rather than taking it for granted that they would have the basic sense to do so.
As a knitter, I know that Lord Kitchener was so concerned for the welfare of his troops that he devised the Kitchener graft for closing the toe of a knitted sock without a seam (because the seam would rub inside the boot, hurting the feet). This was distributed to volunteer knitters across the Empire who knitted socks for troops at the front. This graft is so useful that it is still used today - just earlier today I discovered a variation for performing this graft without a sewing needle.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
"The next problem was how to bridge the gap between the supply dumps and the soldiers who needed the supplies - and the problems got more and more difficult the closer supplies were moved towards the front lines. This distance was too long to be bridged effectively with horse-drawn vehicles, because horses could not manage a daily round trip of this length.
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
But the Germans did try to up their motor transport as well - not entirely successfully, with a weird and wonderful collection of stuff, rather well shown by this book series
One incidentally interesting thing about that series is there is so little interest in the Great War in Germany that this German publisher doesn't bother with the primary German edition (so to speak) or even a bilingual one, in contrast to most of his other stuff.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Lots of bunkers here where I live - can see a naval range finding tower from where I’m sitting. Some have been restored for museum use and some are repurposed for bars and fun things in people’s’ gardens. It’s quite amazing when you look at them or walk around them. Bleak concrete and cold but if I was a German soldier in WW2 I would rather be here in a bit of damp than anywhere else in the world.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
In the CIs? I must go and explore some time.
Edit: did you see my post re the Graun report of the official inquiry into the Alderney Lager?
I wouldn't get too excited. Korev is rubbish.
This is a step on from that - with what results will be interesting.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
"The next problem was how to bridge the gap between the supply dumps and the soldiers who needed the supplies - and the problems got more and more difficult the closer supplies were moved towards the front lines. This distance was too long to be bridged effectively with horse-drawn vehicles, because horses could not manage a daily round trip of this length.
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
(The LT Museum at Covent Garden is (perhaps surprisingly) fascinating, as much because one can actually see and get onto the old buses etc. and get some sense of how theyt must have been, though not the smell of the mounds of horse manure on the streets before petrol engines came.)
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Lots of bunkers here where I live - can see a naval range finding tower from where I’m sitting. Some have been restored for museum use and some are repurposed for bars and fun things in people’s’ gardens. It’s quite amazing when you look at them or walk around them. Bleak concrete and cold but if I was a German soldier in WW2 I would rather be here in a bit of damp than anywhere else in the world.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
In the CIs? I must go and explore some time.
Edit: did you see my post re the Graun report of the official inquiry into the Alderney Lager?
Didn’t see your post but had read the article which I found a bit odd, almost written to suggest that there is some huge cover up which is worse than, you know, nazis actually carrying out the atrocities but that’s journalism these days.
The CIs are interesting if you like your military architectural history as in a small area you have a huge concentration of the range from medieval castles, Elizabethan reactions to increased artillery to 1700’s then napoleonic fortifications and German brutalist summer houses. The joy of being relatively strategically important since the split with Normandy.
RefUK apparently set to receive one in ten of all votes cast at the next election. VI polling really is a load of toss.
A significant part of REfUK will go blue or not vote.
No it won't. When Reform voters have been asked which other party they would support in the absence of a Reform candidate, only a quarter backed the Conservatives, a sixth backed Labour and most of the rest said they wouldn't vote.
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Don't put words into my mouth. And 25% is not insignificant. When dealing with likelihood to vote the use of phrases like 'it's not true' are meaningless. I'm content to wait and see what happnes when push comes to shove on election day.
REFUK about 3.5% in 2 out of 3 by elections is a better indication (didn't stand in Uxbridge but would prob have deprived con of victory if they had done)
It's quite bizarre how Labour 's failure to take Uxbridge has riled the left. Highly amusing.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Lots of bunkers here where I live - can see a naval range finding tower from where I’m sitting. Some have been restored for museum use and some are repurposed for bars and fun things in people’s’ gardens. It’s quite amazing when you look at them or walk around them. Bleak concrete and cold but if I was a German soldier in WW2 I would rather be here in a bit of damp than anywhere else in the world.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
In the CIs? I must go and explore some time.
Edit: did you see my post re the Graun report of the official inquiry into the Alderney Lager?
Didn’t see your post but had read the article which I found a bit odd, almost written to suggest that there is some huge cover up which is worse than, you know, nazis actually carrying out the atrocities but that’s journalism these days.
The CIs are interesting if you like your military architectural history as in a small area you have a huge concentration of the range from medieval castles, Elizabethan reactions to increased artillery to 1700’s then napoleonic fortifications and German brutalist summer houses. The joy of being relatively strategically important since the split with Normandy.
Definitely on the bucket list, then. I'm v. fond of anything like that from Roman stuff through Palmerston to modern twin 6pdr OQF.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
I stand by my statement, by "Donkeys" meaning those generals who indeed did take that basic approach.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
The horse libel came out of nowhere (as in, I don't think you had said it when you were accused of saying it) but it is nonsense. You treat a horse well so that it can do the work you want it to do, and ditto other ranks - however fat a fatcat general you are it makes no sense to arrange for your troops to starve and freeze, or indeed not to mind whether they do so. "An army marches on its stomach" and I am sure the point was understood before Boney.
This is a lesson that the present-day Russian army has still not learned, so it has to be demonstrated that an army follows through on what seems obvious to us, rather than taking it for granted that they would have the basic sense to do so.
As a knitter, I know that Lord Kitchener was so concerned for the welfare of his troops that he devised the Kitchener graft for closing the toe of a knitted sock without a seam (because the seam would rub inside the boot, hurting the feet). This was distributed to volunteer knitters across the Empire who knitted socks for troops at the front. This graft is so useful that it is still used today - just earlier today I discovered a variation for performing this graft without a sewing needle.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
I stand by my statement, by "Donkeys" meaning those generals who indeed did take that basic approach.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
The horse libel came out of nowhere (as in, I don't think you had said it when you were accused of saying it) but it is nonsense. You treat a horse well so that it can do the work you want it to do, and ditto other ranks - however fat a fatcat general you are it makes no sense to arrange for your troops to starve and freeze, or indeed not to mind whether they do so. "An army marches on its stomach" and I am sure the point was understood before Boney.
This is a lesson that the present-day Russian army has still not learned, so it has to be demonstrated that an army follows through on what seems obvious to us, rather than taking it for granted that they would have the basic sense to do so.
As a knitter, I know that Lord Kitchener was so concerned for the welfare of his troops that he devised the Kitchener graft for closing the toe of a knitted sock without a seam (because the seam would rub inside the boot, hurting the feet). This was distributed to volunteer knitters across the Empire who knitted socks for troops at the front. This graft is so useful that it is still used today - just earlier today I discovered a variation for performing this graft without a sewing needle.
in the tradition of Raglan and Cardigan.
And Lord Balaclava.
Wellington, Havelock ...
Did not know about Havelock, always thought of that as a kepi
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
This was covered quite well in Blackadder. The rank with the worst death rate was, as you say, the subalterns, often straight out of public school or one of the great universities (or Oxford) like Lieutenant George who in one episode names his friends who were killed. Generals like Melchett were behind the lines but would often come to the front in full dress uniform to help enemy snipers (in the Nelsonian tradition).
ETA iirc the life expectancy of a subaltern was six weeks.
Don't believe the polls. They were nonsense when the Tories polled 50pc and they are nonsense now.
We just had three very different by-elections which validated the current polls. They are real, albeit slightly more favourable to the Tories than reality...
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
You didn’t say that, you just made a crack about Donkeys in chateaus having more regard for horses than their troops. I countered that, as it’s utter rubbish. Do you believe any of the points I made are wrong?
I stand by my statement, by "Donkeys" meaning those generals who indeed did take that basic approach.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
The horse libel came out of nowhere (as in, I don't think you had said it when you were accused of saying it) but it is nonsense. You treat a horse well so that it can do the work you want it to do, and ditto other ranks - however fat a fatcat general you are it makes no sense to arrange for your troops to starve and freeze, or indeed not to mind whether they do so. "An army marches on its stomach" and I am sure the point was understood before Boney.
This is a lesson that the present-day Russian army has still not learned, so it has to be demonstrated that an army follows through on what seems obvious to us, rather than taking it for granted that they would have the basic sense to do so.
As a knitter, I know that Lord Kitchener was so concerned for the welfare of his troops that he devised the Kitchener graft for closing the toe of a knitted sock without a seam (because the seam would rub inside the boot, hurting the feet). This was distributed to volunteer knitters across the Empire who knitted socks for troops at the front. This graft is so useful that it is still used today - just earlier today I discovered a variation for performing this graft without a sewing needle.
in the tradition of Raglan and Cardigan.
And Lord Balaclava.
Wellington, Havelock ...
Let's not forget General Anorak and Lord Puffer-Jacket.
RefUK apparently set to receive one in ten of all votes cast at the next election. VI polling really is a load of toss.
A significant part of REfUK will go blue or not vote.
No it won't. When Reform voters have been asked which other party they would support in the absence of a Reform candidate, only a quarter backed the Conservatives, a sixth backed Labour and most of the rest said they wouldn't vote.
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Don't put words into my mouth. And 25% is not insignificant. When dealing with likelihood to vote the use of phrases like 'it's not true' are meaningless. I'm content to wait and see what happnes when push comes to shove on election day.
REFUK about 3.5% in 2 out of 3 by elections is a better indication (didn't stand in Uxbridge but would prob have deprived con of victory if they had done)
REFUK didn't stand in Uxbridge by Reclaim did and got 2.3% of the vote beating the Lib Dems into 5th.
They did have a moan yesterday (perhaps with some justification) that the tweeted results put out by Politics.UK ommited them from the results and showed the Lib Dems in 4th.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
"The next problem was how to bridge the gap between the supply dumps and the soldiers who needed the supplies - and the problems got more and more difficult the closer supplies were moved towards the front lines. This distance was too long to be bridged effectively with horse-drawn vehicles, because horses could not manage a daily round trip of this length.
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
This was covered quite well in Blackadder. The rank with the worst death rate was, as you say, the subalterns, often straight out of public school or one of the great universities (or Oxford) like Lieutenant George who in one episode names his friends who were killed. Generals like Melchett were behind the lines but would often come to the front in full dress uniform to help enemy snipers (in the Nelsonian tradition).
ETA iirc the life expectancy of a subaltern was six weeks.
In Vietnam, the life expectancy of a radio operator in battle was something ludicrous, like 30 seconds. Easily visible and an immediate target.
Have to say that looks an outlier for both the Conservative and Reform numbers.
The Green 6% is consistent with the average Green vote in the by-elections. The Green vote does not appear to be squeezeable and they did very well in the locals. The Green vote is an activist vote. I think that they will surprise on the upside - doesn't mean that they will get any MPs though.
Reform UK 10% is high - 6% is a typical in the polls. The by-elections they averaged half that - 3%. This suggests that the Reform vote is a protest vote, as opposed to an activist vote, and squeezeable. This may be the rationale behind the Conservative policy approach to try and gain back Reform minded voters.
Looking at the Opinium tables, 16% of Conservative 2019 voters selected Reform - almost as many as the 18% who are now voting Labour. These are the votes that the Conservatives are trying to get back.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
Whereas, for those who really have read about WW1, the Italian generals really did fit that mould….
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Lots of bunkers here where I live - can see a naval range finding tower from where I’m sitting. Some have been restored for museum use and some are repurposed for bars and fun things in people’s’ gardens. It’s quite amazing when you look at them or walk around them. Bleak concrete and cold but if I was a German soldier in WW2 I would rather be here in a bit of damp than anywhere else in the world.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
In the CIs? I must go and explore some time.
Edit: did you see my post re the Graun report of the official inquiry into the Alderney Lager?
Didn’t see your post but had read the article which I found a bit odd, almost written to suggest that there is some huge cover up which is worse than, you know, nazis actually carrying out the atrocities but that’s journalism these days.
The CIs are interesting if you like your military architectural history as in a small area you have a huge concentration of the range from medieval castles, Elizabethan reactions to increased artillery to 1700’s then napoleonic fortifications and German brutalist summer houses. The joy of being relatively strategically important since the split with Normandy.
Someone asked a Channel Islander "When did we invade you?"
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
Whereas, for those who really have read about WW1, the Italian generals really did fit that mould….
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
"The next problem was how to bridge the gap between the supply dumps and the soldiers who needed the supplies - and the problems got more and more difficult the closer supplies were moved towards the front lines. This distance was too long to be bridged effectively with horse-drawn vehicles, because horses could not manage a daily round trip of this length.
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
One of my great-grandfathers drove a London bus in France during the Great War. And to be fair, we now have Paris buses in London.
Paris buses?
More than a hundred London bus routes are operated by the Paris bus company, RATP. You can tell because their logo shows the Seine as a north-south squiggle. Thanks to privatisation, London buses are run by a nationalised French company. You couldn't make it up, except trains are the same.
Anyhow, after roughing it in my wooden cabin for roughly half an hour, I went and enjoyed a five course dinner with fine wines, which by remarkable good fortune was on offer not that many yards away, leaving the dog crossly alone with the view of the barren shore and a perpetually grey sky….
This year’s Radio Four Xmas Appeal should be ‘sun lamps for Norway’
Don't believe the polls. They were nonsense when the Tories polled 50pc and they are nonsense now.
We just had three very different by-elections which validated the current polls. They are real, albeit slightly more favourable to the Tories than reality...
I actually don't think the polling is that far wrong - but I would point out that historically by-election results have not been a great indicator of eventual GE results.
Major lost every single by-election from becoming PM to his 1992 win.
And Cameron only won 1 (Newark) of the 21 by-elections in the 2010-2015 Parliament
Have to say that looks an outlier for both the Conservative and Reform numbers.
The Green 6% is consistent with the average Green vote in the by-elections. The Green vote does not appear to be squeezeable and they did very well in the locals. The Green vote is an activist vote. I think that they will surprise on the upside - doesn't mean that they will get any MPs though.
Reform UK 10% is high - 6% is a typical in the polls. The by-elections they averaged half that - 3%. This suggests that the Reform vote is a protest vote, as opposed to an activist vote, and squeezeable. This may be the rationale behind the Conservative policy approach to try and gain back Reform minded voters.
Looking at the Opinium tables, 16% of Conservative 2019 voters selected Reform - almost as many as the 18% who are now voting Labour. These are the votes that the Conservatives are trying to get back.
I think the green vote is squeezable. It’s just a bit more resilient than the others because people really really want to make a green (or lefty corbynista) point in by-elections.
Come the actual GE I think green will be 2.5%. They will lose Brighton pavilion and the remaining national vote will go about 70% to Labour, 20% Lib Dem and 5% Tory. Green are the Plaid of England. Unlike plaid though they don’t have a regional stronghold, at Westminster level.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
Whereas, for those who really have read about WW1, the Italian generals really did fit that mould….
What a mistake-a to make-a!
Show me a ww1 Italian general and I'll show you a pizza shit.
Anyhow, after roughing it in my wooden cabin for roughly half an hour, I went and enjoyed a five course dinner with fine wines, which by remarkable good fortune was on offer not that many yards away, leaving the dog crossly alone with the view of the barren shore and a perpetually grey sky….
This year’s Radio Four Xmas Appeal should be ‘sun lamps for Norway’
Nature is cruel this summer. Half of Europe in unbearable heat, the other half in rain and grey cold skies. A tiny sliver along the channel, Biscay and Southern Baltic at reasonable summer temperatures.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
I don't think they have any choice.
This is from the Institute For Government.
"Once the boundary commissions have submitted their recommendations to the Speaker of the Commons, the government is not permitted to modify the commissions’ recommendations unless requested to do so by one of the commissions. The government will draft an Order in Council. This must then be presented to the Privy Council for approval by the monarch within four months of the draft proposals being received.12
The Order in Council means that parliament is not given a straightforward vote on the proposals. While it would technically be possible for parliament to block the list of Orders submitted to the Privy Council, this is unlikely."
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
Fair point it might not always be easy, but these things are not an exact science anyway. How many people really think about the precise boundaries, the history of a seat, the type of seat it is, and how it might all appeal best in the particular current circumstances? Not many. But as a collective people will get a sense of what works best in their seat at least some of the time.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
Looking briefly at the relevant Act it talks about how a draft Order in Council 'must' be submitted by the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office, and this must be no later than four months after the necessary reprots have been laid before parliament.
There is some wiggle room for exceptional circumstances, but those surely don't apply.
Anyhow, after roughing it in my wooden cabin for roughly half an hour, I went and enjoyed a five course dinner with fine wines, which by remarkable good fortune was on offer not that many yards away, leaving the dog crossly alone with the view of the barren shore and a perpetually grey sky….
This year’s Radio Four Xmas Appeal should be ‘sun lamps for Norway’
Nature is cruel this summer. Half of Europe in unbearable heat, the other half in rain and grey cold skies. A tiny sliver along the channel, Biscay and Southern Baltic at reasonable summer temperatures.
Scotland is great. Long, hot (but not unbearable) early Summer, now changeable. sunny spellls, plenty of rain (but often at night) - bliss.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
Looking briefly at the relevant Act it talks about how a draft Order in Council 'must' be submitted by the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office, and this must be no later than four months after the necessary reprots have been laid before parliament.
There is some wiggle room for exceptional circumstances, but those surely don't apply.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
Looking briefly at the relevant Act it talks about how a draft Order in Council 'must' be submitted by the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office, and this must be no later than four months after the necessary reprots have been laid before parliament.
There is some wiggle room for exceptional circumstances, but those surely don't apply.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
I don't think they have any choice.
This is from the Institute For Government.
"Once the boundary commissions have submitted their recommendations to the Speaker of the Commons, the government is not permitted to modify the commissions’ recommendations unless requested to do so by one of the commissions. The government will draft an Order in Council. This must then be presented to the Privy Council for approval by the monarch within four months of the draft proposals being received.12
The Order in Council means that parliament is not given a straightforward vote on the proposals. While it would technically be possible for parliament to block the list of Orders submitted to the Privy Council, this is unlikely."
This government have thrown the constitutional processes and procedures under the bus several times. They won't even blink if they need to do it again.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Would be interesting to see breakdown of stats by year?
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
It wasn't the living conditions per se. It was that the Germans used concrete and the British used wood.
Logistics were also a problem with the Germans having rail up to the trenches whilst the British had to carry it all in.
The French constructed rail lines in support of their front-lines; didn't British do similar?
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
"The next problem was how to bridge the gap between the supply dumps and the soldiers who needed the supplies - and the problems got more and more difficult the closer supplies were moved towards the front lines. This distance was too long to be bridged effectively with horse-drawn vehicles, because horses could not manage a daily round trip of this length.
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
One of my great-grandfathers drove a London bus in France during the Great War. And to be fair, we now have Paris buses in London.
Paris buses?
More than a hundred London bus routes are operated by the Paris bus company, RATP. You can tell because their logo shows the Seine as a north-south squiggle. Thanks to privatisation, London buses are run by a nationalised French company. You couldn't make it up, except trains are the same.
Anyhow, after roughing it in my wooden cabin for roughly half an hour, I went and enjoyed a five course dinner with fine wines, which by remarkable good fortune was on offer not that many yards away, leaving the dog crossly alone with the view of the barren shore and a perpetually grey sky….
This year’s Radio Four Xmas Appeal should be ‘sun lamps for Norway’
Nature is cruel this summer. Half of Europe in unbearable heat, the other half in rain and grey cold skies. A tiny sliver along the channel, Biscay and Southern Baltic at reasonable summer temperatures.
Scotland is great. Long, hot (but not unbearable) early Summer, now changeable. sunny spellls, plenty of rain (but often at night) - bliss.
I’ve had a Swiss colleague moaning about the Scottish weather at me the last couple of weeks because he’s there with in-laws, as if a. Scottish weather is the same as average UK weather, b. I being British am somehow responsible for the weather he is experiencing.
Really annoys me when people bang on about our climate as if it’s somehow a cultural failing we should be apologising for. The Americans are worst at this but the Swiss, Germans and Italians are at it too. (Not so much the French, too busy moaning about how their own country is going to the dogs and Macron is a fascist).
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
I don't think they have any choice.
This is from the Institute For Government.
"Once the boundary commissions have submitted their recommendations to the Speaker of the Commons, the government is not permitted to modify the commissions’ recommendations unless requested to do so by one of the commissions. The government will draft an Order in Council. This must then be presented to the Privy Council for approval by the monarch within four months of the draft proposals being received.12
The Order in Council means that parliament is not given a straightforward vote on the proposals. While it would technically be possible for parliament to block the list of Orders submitted to the Privy Council, this is unlikely."
This government have thrown the constitutional processes and procedures under the bus several times. They won't even blink if they need to do it again.
I think that to do so, they would need to get primary legislation through Parliament and I don't see them being able to do that in the timescale available
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
I don't think they have any choice.
This is from the Institute For Government.
"Once the boundary commissions have submitted their recommendations to the Speaker of the Commons, the government is not permitted to modify the commissions’ recommendations unless requested to do so by one of the commissions. The government will draft an Order in Council. This must then be presented to the Privy Council for approval by the monarch within four months of the draft proposals being received.12
The Order in Council means that parliament is not given a straightforward vote on the proposals. While it would technically be possible for parliament to block the list of Orders submitted to the Privy Council, this is unlikely."
This government have thrown the constitutional processes and procedures under the bus several times. They won't even blink if they need to do it again.
I don't think that's quite right - in previous times they did brazenly ignore that they should bring things to a vote, or changed the details, but they lacked the specific requirement now that Parliament gets no vote and that it 'must' be drafted for Council. They certainly could attempt to derail that, but that would require very quick legislative action it seems, rather than simply not approving the previous recommendations.
It's much harder to do than before, and they don't have much time to do it I think - one of the good decisions of the Boris government to tie parliament's hand on this.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
Looking briefly at the relevant Act it talks about how a draft Order in Council 'must' be submitted by the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office, and this must be no later than four months after the necessary reprots have been laid before parliament.
There is some wiggle room for exceptional circumstances, but those surely don't apply.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
I don't think they have any choice.
This is from the Institute For Government.
"Once the boundary commissions have submitted their recommendations to the Speaker of the Commons, the government is not permitted to modify the commissions’ recommendations unless requested to do so by one of the commissions. The government will draft an Order in Council. This must then be presented to the Privy Council for approval by the monarch within four months of the draft proposals being received.12
The Order in Council means that parliament is not given a straightforward vote on the proposals. While it would technically be possible for parliament to block the list of Orders submitted to the Privy Council, this is unlikely."
This government have thrown the constitutional processes and procedures under the bus several times. They won't even blink if they need to do it again.
I think that to do so, they would need to get primary legislation through Parliament and I don't see them being able to do that in the timescale available
Nor indeed in any timescale with the current Commons - they'd have too many rebels to pass the legislation.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
I don't think they have any choice.
This is from the Institute For Government.
"Once the boundary commissions have submitted their recommendations to the Speaker of the Commons, the government is not permitted to modify the commissions’ recommendations unless requested to do so by one of the commissions. The government will draft an Order in Council. This must then be presented to the Privy Council for approval by the monarch within four months of the draft proposals being received.12
The Order in Council means that parliament is not given a straightforward vote on the proposals. While it would technically be possible for parliament to block the list of Orders submitted to the Privy Council, this is unlikely."
This government have thrown the constitutional processes and procedures under the bus several times. They won't even blink if they need to do it again.
I don't think that's quite right - in previous times they did brazenly ignore that they should bring things to a vote, or changed the details, but they lacked the specific requirement now that Parliament gets no vote and that it 'must' be drafted for Council. They certainly could attempt to derail that, but that would require very quick legislative action it seems, rather than simply not approving the previous recommendations.
It's much harder to do than before, and they don't have much time to do it I think - one of the good decisions of the Boris government to tie parliament's hand on this.
They lied to the Queen. A one page bill to STOP THE STEAL could be railroaded through if needed.
As I said, it depends if the Tories decide the proposed new boundaries don't favour them.
Regarding the header, ...voters can work out their choices to themselves. Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
I don't think anyone barring MPs and spads know what the proposed new seats are and what they mean.
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
Looking briefly at the relevant Act it talks about how a draft Order in Council 'must' be submitted by the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office, and this must be no later than four months after the necessary reprots have been laid before parliament.
There is some wiggle room for exceptional circumstances, but those surely don't apply.
Comments
Of course what launched this tempest in teapot, was comparison between conditions of German soldiers in their frontlines, compared with British soldiers.
The WAS it appears significant differences? Which were NOT entirely helpful to British war effort?
Whether they were sipping champagne in a chateau, or tea in a cesspit, perhaps generals should have paid more heed to front-line living conditions.
And plenty of truth in points you've made - without warranting that they're alpha-to-omega of Truth.
(Genuine question, to what is no doubt highly technical issue.)
Germans were also helped by fact that in most of the Western Front, they were side that determined the actual location of the front-line, to their distinct advantage.
Labour stays ahead with a lead of 17 points.
Labour: 42% (-1)
Conservatives: 25% (-3)
Lib Dems: 11% (+2)
SNP: 3% (n/c)
Green: 6% (n/c)
Reform UK: 10% (+2)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (n/c)
Others: 2% (n/c)
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1682827881297113095
His net approval rating stays at -26% (same as two weeks ago), with a quarter (24%) approving and half (50%) continuing to express disapproval.
Keir Starmer's approval takes a sharp downturn, with a net rating of -14% - a stark contrast to last week's -4%. Approval stands at 26%, disapproval climbs to 39%.
This marks one of the Labour leader's toughest weeks for approval, since he took office.
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1682827888234471429
And the Germans still lost twice as many men as the British (including around 270,000 soldiers from the British Empire).
But - they prevented any breakthroughs for three years and might have done so for a while longer even with the arrival of the Americans but for their ill-advised advance in March 1918.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1998955
There was plenty about the British troops tiring simply because they didn't have the rail lines.
Describes the future programme and reminds us of Farage's past actions.
I've decided to pause the cashless thread to next weekend as I think too much excitement this weekend could make you all too giddy for your own good.
https://www.petittrainhautesomme.fr/all-you-need-to-know-about-us/
This is because the Germans retreated to such positions as part of the consolidation of the lines into the static trench warfare that we all know.
Dad - She won't let me put her down.
Passport worker - You're gonna need to figure something out if you want a passport picture.
Dad - I got an idea...
https://twitter.com/yairmenchel/status/1682169773763772417
If you and the rest of the Conservative inclined wish to comfort yourself with the notion Reform are going to ride to the rescue, fine. The problem is it's not true.
Concrete isn’t waterproof. Usually.
But I suspect mission impossible would have been better. Such is our household that my wife watched that earlier in the week and it was my turn for Barbie today.
Security guy: Sir, madam - we need to scan your iris's
UK peeps: Urm. Ok?
Security guy: All done!
UK peeps: ... Really?
Security guy: .... urm... Yup!
The French and Germans had a ready solution for the first part of this journey because they had recognised before the war that there would be an important role for 60cm gauge light railway systems. These were like model train sets with light, narrow gauge sections of railway line that could be easily laid on the ground and relocated when they were needed elsewhere. They quickly established networks that led from the main supply dumps to the artillery batteries and then further forward to smaller supply dumps and refilling points from which the front lines could be served.
The British, however, planned for a more mobile war and had decided to rely primarily on motor transport. Over 1,000 civilian lorries and over 300 buses were requisitioned at the outbreak of hostilities and were hurriedly moved across the Channel. The owners had been encouraged by a financial subsidy to purchase vehicles that met a War Department specification, a condition of which was that the vehicles could be requisitioned. These were only a temporary stopgap - although some vehicles such as London buses remained in service throughout the war - and thousands more vehicles were ordered from manufacturers in Britain and increasingly the USA. In the meantime, a heavy reliance had to be placed on far less efficient horse-drawn transport. The fodder for the horses alone took up more transportation capacity than food and ammunition for the men."
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/transport-and-supply-during-the-first-world-war
Edit: did you see my post re the Graun report of the official inquiry into the Alderney Lager?
As a knitter, I know that Lord Kitchener was so concerned for the welfare of his troops that he devised the Kitchener graft for closing the toe of a knitted sock without a seam (because the seam would rub inside the boot, hurting the feet). This was distributed to volunteer knitters across the Empire who knitted socks for troops at the front. This graft is so useful that it is still used today - just earlier today I discovered a variation for performing this graft without a sewing needle.
And Lord Balaclava.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Allied-Railways-Western-Front-Narrow-ebook/dp/B07NJ8FL5W
But the Germans did try to up their motor transport as well - not entirely successfully, with a weird and wonderful collection of stuff, rather well shown by this book series
https://www.tankograd.com/cms/website.php?id=/en/World-War-One.htm
One incidentally interesting thing about that series is there is so little interest in the Great War in Germany that this German publisher doesn't bother with the primary German edition (so to speak) or even a bilingual one, in contrast to most of his other stuff.
https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/blog/unveiling-restored-b-type-bus
(The LT Museum at Covent Garden is (perhaps surprisingly) fascinating, as much because one can actually see and get onto the old buses etc. and get some sense of how theyt must have been, though not the smell of the mounds of horse manure on the streets before petrol engines came.)
The CIs are interesting if you like your military architectural history as in a small area you have a huge concentration of the range from medieval castles, Elizabethan reactions to increased artillery to 1700’s then napoleonic fortifications and German brutalist summer houses. The joy of being relatively strategically important since the split with Normandy.
ETA iirc the life expectancy of a subaltern was six weeks.
They did have a moan yesterday (perhaps with some justification) that the tweeted results put out by Politics.UK ommited them from the results and showed the Lib Dems in 4th.
Reform UK 10% is high - 6% is a typical in the polls. The by-elections they averaged half that - 3%. This suggests that the Reform vote is a protest vote, as opposed to an activist vote, and squeezeable. This may be the rationale behind the Conservative policy approach to try and gain back Reform minded voters.
https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/VI-2023-07-19-Observer-Tables-FINAL.xlsx
Looking at the Opinium tables, 16% of Conservative 2019 voters selected Reform - almost as many as the 18% who are now voting Labour. These are the votes that the Conservatives are trying to get back.
Can they though? Boundary changes will have an impact.
Is there a neutral, reliable source that will advise voters which party to vote for if they just want to unseat the incumbent?
"You didn't." came the reply. "We invaded you."
This year’s Radio Four Xmas Appeal should be ‘sun lamps for Norway’
Are they *definitely* coming into effect? If the new boundaries lose the Tories more seats I can see them scrapping it.
Major lost every single by-election from becoming PM to his 1992 win.
And Cameron only won 1 (Newark) of the 21 by-elections in the 2010-2015 Parliament
Come the actual GE I think green will be 2.5%. They will lose Brighton pavilion and the remaining national vote will go about 70% to Labour, 20% Lib Dem and 5% Tory. Green are the Plaid of England. Unlike plaid though they don’t have a regional stronghold, at Westminster level.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/21/apple-says-it-will-exit-the-uk-market-if-government-passes-update-to-investigatory-powers-act/
This is from the Institute For Government.
"Once the boundary commissions have submitted their recommendations to the Speaker of the Commons, the government is not permitted to modify the commissions’ recommendations unless requested to do so by one of the commissions. The government will draft an Order in Council. This must then be presented to the Privy Council for approval by the monarch within four months of the draft proposals being received.12
The Order in Council means that parliament is not given a straightforward vote on the proposals. While it would technically be possible for parliament to block the list of Orders submitted to the Privy Council, this is unlikely."
There is some wiggle room for exceptional circumstances, but those surely don't apply.
So I guess the Privy Council could refuse to approve it? But that sounds like a practical near impossibility.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/25/section/2
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/boundary-review-2023-which-seats-will-change/
Enjoy
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/routes.htm
Really annoys me when people bang on about our climate as if it’s somehow a cultural failing we should be apologising for. The Americans are worst at this but the Swiss, Germans and Italians are at it too. (Not so much the French, too busy moaning about how their own country is going to the dogs and Macron is a fascist).
It's much harder to do than before, and they don't have much time to do it I think - one of the good decisions of the Boris government to tie parliament's hand on this.
As I said, it depends if the Tories decide the proposed new boundaries don't favour them.