Now all roads lead to France and heavy is the tread
Of the living; but the dead returning lightly dance.
Edward Thomas, Roads

Saturday, April 6, 2019

The Royal Flying Corps Arrives in France


The B.E.2, the Most Plentiful of the RFC's Aircraft

In early August 1914 a rather eclectic collection of British aircraft left Dover, England, in four squadrons to aid the defense of France and Belgium along the front lines near Amiens, France. No. 2 and No. 4 Squadrons flew Blériot Experimental 2s (B.E.2s).

No. 3 Squadron flew a mixture of Blériots and Henri Farmans, while No. 5 Squadron had Henri Farmans, Avro, and B.E.8s, the latter nicknamed “Bloater” for its resemblance to the fish.

B.E.8

Two of the types, the B.E.2 and B.E.8 were products of the Royal Aircraft Factory at Farnborough, present-day site of the biennial international air show. Originally established as His Majesty’s Balloon Factory, it became the Royal Aircraft Factory in 1911 and attracted some of the best aviation pioneers in England, including Geoffrey de Havilland and Henry Folland.

The Royal Aircraft Factory created some useful aircraft early in the war and was responsible for what many consider to be the best RFC/RAF fighter of the period, the S.E.5a.

An Avro 504

Most of the aircraft sent to France in August 1914 were B.E.2s, a fragile looking biplane powered by a 70-hp Renault engine. Its sole original design requirement was to create “a stable aircraft,” and no one envisioned that it would enter combat. With a maximum speed of 70 mph, it could carry a load of 224 pounds of bombs. Its stall speed was just over 40 mph, providing a 30-mph envelope in which to maneuver. Despite this limited performance, the aircraft was continually improved and served until 1918. The B.E.8 was essentially a B.E.2 powered by an 80-hp Gnome rotary engine. It was built in much smaller numbers than the B.E.2 and, as a result, killed fewer British pilots than the B.E.2 did.

The Blériots of the Royal Flying Corps were essentially similar to the Channel-crossing type and had a top speed of 59 to 61 mph.

Only a few Avro 504s were available for the initial operation, despite their superior 82-mph top speed. An Avro 504 of No. 5 Squadron was shot down on 22 August 1914, the first British aircraft lost to enemy fire.

Farmans on Display

The Henri Farmans were a hopeless-appearing collection of wings and struts, powered by an 80-hp Gnome pusher engine providing a blistering 65-mph top speed.

This collection of RFC aircraft was impressive to the French, and the aircraft were soon dispersed to fields around Maubeuge, the French garrison town designated as the forward operating base of the British Expeditionary Force.

Source:  Air Force Magazine, July 2011

Friday, April 5, 2019

Remembering a Veteran: Lt. Charles Péguy, French 276th RI


Before the war, Charles Péguy (1873–1914) was a highly influential writer and editor. He was a socialist, nationalist, and converted Catholic and his work reflected all of these often conflicting viewpoints. A strong French patriot, he answered the call to arms in 1914 and was killed near the village of Villeroy in the opening of the Battle of the Marne. He is buried in a mass grave near the village and a monument to him stands close by.

One of his legacies is an series of memorable quotes that still resonate a century after his death. Like his later fellow socialist, George Orwell, he seems to have provided something for everyone no matter their political persuasion or philosophical temperament. Here is a selection of my favorites.

Villeroy Memorial

  • Freedom is a system based on courage.


  • He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers


  • It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.


  • Tyranny is always better organized than freedom.


  • Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.


  • We must always tell what we see. Above all, and this is more difficult, we must always see what we see.


  • The honest man must be a perpetual renegade.


  • It is better to have a war for justice than peace in injustice.


  • Homer is new this morning, and perhaps nothing is as old as today's newspaper.


  • It is the essence of genius to make use of the simplest ideas.

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Map Series #5: Verdun 1917

Despite several well-written books on the Battle of Verdun, most focus on the 1916 operations and gloss over the follow-up efforts by the French in 1917.  These efforts are especially of interest to those interested in the American fighting in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in the fall of 1918 because the French set the opening line for the Yanks in the following year.  This map is one of 150 from a postwar atlas prepared by the U.S. Army Command and Staff College titled The Military History of the World War.  The quality of the maps in the collection is quite varied, but this one, #70 from the set, is pretty clear about what transpired in the most noted of Petain's efforts to get the French Army rolling again after the calamitous spring 1917 events by initiating limited offensives. In any case, this is the best map I've ever seen covering the August 1917 fighting around Verdun.

Click on Image to Enlarge





Some Observations:

The legend is very helpful since it includes the lines for both 1916 and 1917. The use of American terminology is unique to this map and might cause some confusion while using it in conjunction with most books and articles on Verdun

Most beneficial for the future operation of Pershing's forces was the clearing of the line of hills on the west side of the Meuse, including 304, Mort Homme (Dead Man's), and Goose. On the right side of the attack of 26 September, the Doughboys would not have to assault  fortified high positions.

In contrast, the French were not able to get at the wooded areas on the heights of the east bank, such as Bois des Caures, which had been captured by the Germans in the opening of the February 1916 assault.  The U.S. 26th Division would still be fighting in this area at the time of the Armistice.

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Did Many U.S. Cities with German Names Changed During the War?


Over the years, I've heard of various cases of ridiculous changes to American vocabulary due to war hysteria during the Great War, e.g. sauerkraut to liberty cabbage. Thankfully, most of these were temporary. My impression, though, is that this did not happen a lot with the more serious matter of town or neighborhood names.  I needed some facts, however, to back this up. The most obvious test case for me seemed to be a name so common that you can still run into it in any part of the country: Germantown.  Back in  1917, I wondered, were there hundreds of Germantowns spread across the fruited plains, that surrendered the heritage of their, presumably, German settlers to the mood of the times?


A whole hour on the Internet led me to exactly two Germantowns that threw in the towel and gave in to the silliness during the war. One is a town in Texas, now named Schroeder. It's got a famous dance hall. If you keep reading you will find more interesting stuff on Schroeder below  The second is a place in California that rechristened itself Artois, after a part of France that the Germans held onto for the entire war until things started collapsing north and south of them in late 18.  (Yes, I know about Vimy Ridge.) All I've been able to ascertain about Artois, California, is that it's hard to find on a map and it's hard to find anything historically significant about it. Serves them right, IMHO.   

I invite readers to contribute any interesting name-change cases I might have missed during my in-depth research in the comments section below, but I just don't think it happened a lot.  Americans I'm proud to assert were apparently more sensible back then about their community than their vegetables.  Hooray!

To give my finding some authority here's what America's place name numero uno authority,  Professor George R. Stewart of the University of California, had to say on the matter:

There was plenty of hatred and hysteria [during the war], but the attitude seemed  to be: “It’s our name now!” Moreover, two hundred years of German immigration  had planted thousands of names; an unlettered American could not distinguish  German from Iroquoian, and might himself be of German origin. When  Germantown in Texas made the change [to Schroeder], the citizens honored a local  boy killed in France, not realizing or caring that Schroeder was a thoroughly German  name.

Update:  Our loyal and well-informed readers have begun adding to the list.  Please check-out the comments section below.  MH

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

The Generals' War, Operational Level Command on the Western Front in 1918


David T. Zabecki
Indiana University Press, 2018
Terrence J. Finnegan, Reviewer

Hindenburg and Ludendorff
I contacted Major General David Zabecki several years ago to talk about his stand-alone The German 1918 Offensives: A Case Study in The Operational Level of War (Strategy and History). My comment to him was "the book is so important that I keep a copy at my bedside." His response, "I don't even keep a copy at my bedside!" General Zabecki's summation of German operations provided a long-overdue and valued German view—not an Anglicized interpretation that held sway over a century of military history on the subject. Applying general officer understanding of what it took to command forces locked in positional war became a logical follow-on. The Generals' War serves that objective.

My bias with 1918 comes from understanding the impact of military thinking on an obscure and sadly forgotten military operation on the St. Mihiel region of the Woëvre. Knowing how German general and division-level commanders armed with four years of well-honed strategy and tactics applied against newly arriving American forces—especially involving the genesis of blitzkrieg and demonstration of information warfare—lends to the excitement of reading more about that last year of the Great War. Unfortunately, General Zabecki's scope of discussion was limited to the usual suspects of Western Front senior commanders such as Generalfeldmarshal von Hindenberg and Erster Oberquartiermeister General der Infanterie Ludendorff, Maréchal Foch, Maréchal Pétain, Field Marshal Haig, and General Pershing. The work expertly covers key aspects of each, especially with Table 4.1, "The Warlords of 1918."

Likewise, General Zabecki's focus on the Western Front plays to the prevailing knowledge shared by almost all military historians who cover the Great War. When you examine the war in its totality covering the other theaters, you acquire a better understanding beyond the initial battles of 1914 that made heroes of Hindenberg and Ludendorff and become aware of lower-echelon commanders such as General der Artillerie Max von Gallwitz, 5. Armee and Armeeabteilung C commander—General Pershing's nemesis for most of 1918.

Pétain, Haig, Foch, and Pershing

I wish General Zabecki's work had expanded to include snippets from some amazing accomplishments of military leadership on the Eastern Front including Generalfeldmarshal von Mackensen's four years of military operations, combined with a sneak peek into General der Infanterie von François—the most insubordinate commander of Prussian stock whose success at Tannenberg defined the bold measures that gave both Hindenburg and Ludendorff, as well as their chief of operations for 8. Armee, Oberstleutnant Max Hoffmann, their moment in the historical sun. Then the reader could have been swayed from digging deeper into the malaise of the Western Front and better understood the total ramifications of what the war did in shaping Great War command thinking. The war of maneuver witnessed a longer role on the Eastern Front — a role that defined modern warfare's evolution as it applied to the Second World War.

The depth of discussion contained in the text is essential for those who see themselves as armchair commanders of this era. General Zabecki's The Generals' War takes off from his depth of discussion presented in The German 1918 Offensives, particularly applying the German operation scheme of maneuver against the Allied commanders that had to counter the movement. The legacy for all commanders becomes "another stunning tactical success, it also was another operational failure." General Zabecki's book is full of great data—particularly summarizing failings and shortfalls of such icons as General Pershing.

Pershing and staff virtually ignored combat under way in the Wöevre by the 26th Division—holding more front line than any other division in the war. Headquarters Chaumont concern with the General Staff in Washington correctly addressed "sending divisions to France with too many untrained men." Such was the case at Seicheprey when a counterattack was called for and soldiers brought to the fight had never seen battle or, in some cases, fired a weapon. German success depended on artillery pummeling the enemy in annihilation as fast-moving blitzkrieg maneuvers gained ground throughout the battle sector. What challenged the Germans' combination of fast-moving forces skillfully employing overwhelming firepower from artillery and Minenwerfer was a "soldiers' battle" fought by National Guard soldiers holding their ground and fighting to the death.

A review of bibliographic sources in the work shows balance and depth by mirroring existing work on the subject. Sadly, not much new is seen from the surge of writings published during the centennial. His book is aided by the publisher's exemplary colorized maps that do a great job in untangling the front lines for the average reader.

As it concerns The Generals' War, "I keep a copy at my bedside."

Terrence J. Finnegan

Monday, April 1, 2019

From the U.S. Navy's WWI Collections — Photography

The U.S. Navy has done a terrific job of documenting its service during the Great War. In this series, we are giving examples from their collection of naval art, artifacts, and photography. Today we feature some interesting photographs from the Navy's collection. Much of the material of all three categories can be found at the online sites of two institutions: the National Museum of the U.S. Navy and the Naval History and Heritage Command.  Links to the two sites can be found at the bottom of this page.

Click on the Images to Enlarge

Sawyer the Sea Dog, Mascot of the U.S. Navy National Museum



The American Battle Fleet on the Eve of War



Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy; Rear Admiral Samuel McGowan, Paymaster General; and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy



American Battleship Division Nine Commander
Admiral Hugh Rodman and Staff



A 12-Inch Turret of USS Arkansas Fires a Salvo



Torpedo Damage to Destroyer USS Cassim (DD-43)



Thanksgiving Dinner at the U.S. Navy Station, Charleston, SC



USS Fanning Captures U-58



U.S. Naval Air Station, Brest, France



Doughboys Boarding USS Minnesotan for Return Home



Naval Parade, New York City, December 1918



Battleship Delaware Being Disarmed in Accordance with the
Washington Naval Treaty






Sources:

National Museum of the U.S. Navy
(LINK)

Naval History and Heritage Command
(LINK)

Sunday, March 31, 2019

Recommended: The Minnesota Military Museum's Traveling Trunk Program


The Minnesota Military Museum offers a Traveling Trunk Program to help bring history to life in schools, libraries, other museums, or youth groups.  Each trunk focuses on a specific war and contains an assortment of items—original or reproduction—that would have been commonly used by soldiers during that time in our nation’s history. The contents of these trunks are loaned to be used for research, exhibition, or as a hands-on educational resource that piques student interest in history by engaging them in object-based learning. These are available to use for the Civil War, First World War, Second World War, and Vietnam War.

Below are the two WWI trunks.  Learn more about the program HERE.

Each trunk contains representative examples of field gear and a uniform commonly worn by U.S. Doughboys in France during WWI. Unless noted, all items are original and not reproductions. Click on the images to enlarge.

Trunk 1



  • M-1917 U.S. steel helmet with reproduction liner/chinstrap
  • U.S. gas mask bag with foam filler (for shape), complete with all straps and fasteners
  • Service coat, U.S. enlisted, wool
  • Ration tin containing Fray Bentos Prepared Beef (bully beef reproduction)
  • Breeches, U.S. enlisted, wool
  • Leggings, spiral wrap, wool
  • Overseas cap, U.S. enlisted, wool
  • Cartridge belt (reproduction)
  • Overcoat, U.S. enlisted, wool
  • First Aid packet pouch (reproduction)
  • M-1910 canteen
  • M-1910 canteen cup
  • M-1910 canteen cover
  • M-1910 field pack
  • M-1910 pack “tail”
  • M-1910 shovel and cover (reproduction)

The trunk also includes posters, newspapers, and illustrations of uniforms of the WWI era, as well as a field pack layout.

Trunk 2



  • M-1917 U.S. enlisted coat. Engineer collar insignia. A nice sample of the typical coat worn by a Doughboy in France
  • Enlisted overseas cap with Engineer device on front
  • M-1917 Steel helmet as worn by U.S. soldiers in France
  • Gas mask bag. Bag only, no mask, but has foam filler to give it shape
  • M-1910 Canteen cover (reproduction)
  • M-1910 Cup, with canteen
  • M-1910 Cartridge belt (reproduction)
  • M-1910 Haversack field pack (reproduction)
  • M-1910 Entrenching tool cover (reproduction)
  • M-1910 Entrenching tool
  • M-1904 First-aid pouch (reproduction)
  • First-aid packet in metal tin (reproduction)
  • M-1910 mess kit
  • Knife-fork-spoon
  • “Fray Bentos” bully beef tin with edible contents
  • Condiment can
  • M-1916 Bacon tin
  • GERMAN ITEMS:
  • German enlisted man's field coat (reproduction)
  • M-1916 steel helmet (reproduction)
  • Belt buckle
  • 2 Ammunition pouches

Saturday, March 30, 2019

A Dozen Random Quotes from the Great War


French Troops Heading for the Front

On or about December 1910, human character changed. I am not saying that one went out, as one might into a garden, and there saw that a rose had flowered, or that a hen had laid an egg. The change was not sudden and definite like that. But a change there was, nevertheless; and, since one must be arbitrary, let us date it about the year 1910.
Virginia Woolf, 1924 Essay "Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown"

We left the schoolrooms, the school desks and benches, and the few short weeks of instruction had bonded us into one great body burning with enthusiasm. Having grown up in an age of security, we all had a nostalgia for the unusual great perils. The war thus seized hold of us like strong liquor. It was under a hail of flowers that we left, drunk on roses and blood. Without a doubt, the war offered us grandeur, strength and gravity. It seemed to us like a virile exploit: the joyous combats of infantrymen in the meadows where blood fell like dew on the flowers. 
Ernst Jünger, Storm of Steel

The Europeans, "torch bearers of civilization," are eating at each other, trampling down civilization, ruining Europe; and who will be the better? It is like an avalanche, growing ever more ravaging, as it falls sweeping away trees, woods, homesteads, farms. The catastrophe gets greater and greater. All know the avalanche will consume the valley but no force can stop it . . . European civilization has failed—it was rotten to the core. 
Future Nobel Laureate Fridtjof Nansen of Norway, 1916

(a) Combat power, with a rapid advance, becomes weaker and, on reaching the combat-power change-about point [where the balance shifts to favor the opponent], comes to a standstill.
(b) Confusion produced by the first impact of attack calms down with the passage of time, and the terror effect decreases with the passage of time. 
(c) The fighting spirit of the attacker is heightened by the intensity of power, being highest at the time of initial impact, and gradually weakens from enemy resistance. 
From an Imperial Japanese Army Critique of the Schlieffen Plan

When we tumbled in, I fell on top of some of the enemy, and one put his teeth in my cheek and held on. I was dragged close to him, but my arms were free, and I tried to get my thumbs into his eyes and push out his eyes, but found his throat instead, and squeezed his windpipe. I felt my cheek being released, and my enemy struggled no more. Immediately I grabbed my rifle and clubbed him with the butt. 
R.M. Luther, RFA, 20th Division, Memoir, The Poppies Are Blood Red

The Price of Glory

    Then in the lull of midnight, gentle arms
      Lifted him slowly down the slopes of death,
        Lest he should hear again the mad alarms.
          Of battle, dying moans, and painful breath
From "A Soldier's Grave" by Francis Ledwidge

A. E. F.
There will be a rusty gun on the wall, sweetheart,
The rifle grooves curling with flakes of rust.
A spider will make a silver string nest in the darkest, warmest corner of it.
The trigger and the range-finder, they too will be rusty.
And so hands will polish the gun, and it will hang on the wall.
Forefingers and thumbs will point absently and casually toward it.
It will be spoken among half-forgotten, wished-to-be-forgotten things.
They will tell the spider: Go on, you're doing good work. 
 Carl Sandburg, Smoke and Steel

A mixture of contradictories which never were—perhaps could never have been—harmonized. 
John Buchan on T.E. Lawrence

We have discovered that the scheme of 'outlawing war' has made war more like an outlaw without making it less frequent and that to banish the knight does not alleviate the suffering of the peasant.
C. S. Lewis, 3rd Battalion, Somerset Light Infantry

Our troops are more or less finished.
Quartermaster General Erich von Ludendorff, After the Amiens Offensive of 8 August 1918


Paris Victory Parade, 14 July 1919

At the Paris Victory Parade: 14 July 1919
Bitterness! Disgust! I have recognized the crowd. . . It is the brutish elemental crowd which does not change, which slavishly acclaims Caesar or Boulanger, which yells at the vanquished, which chooses indifferently its heroes among boxers, gladiators and captains. 
Marcel Cachin, Editor, L'Humanité

The War Summarized
It is enough, if not too much, to say that there was a great and dreadful war in Europe, and that nightmare and chaos and the abomination of desolation held sway for four horrid years. . . Men and Women acted blindly, according to their kind. . . They went to the war, they stayed home. . . they got rich, they got poor, they died, were maimed, medaled, frost-bitten, tortured, imprisoned, bored, embittered, enthusiastic, cheerful, hopeless, patient, or matter-of-fact, according to circumstances and temperament. 
Rose Macaulay, Told by an Idiot, 1923



Wednesday, March 27, 2019

A Memorable Anti-Wilson Political Ad from the 1916 Presidential Election


I recently ran across this ad from the fateful presidential election of 1916 in which the Hughes camp catches the president and the Democrats out of school. Believe me, if Charles Evans Hughes had won that election, we would be living in a different world—although I'm not sure it would be a better one—today.

Click to Enlarge Image



Tuesday, March 26, 2019

The Forgotten Front: The Eastern Theater of World War I, 1914-1915


Gerard P. Gross, ed.
University Press of Kentucky, 2018
Michael P. Kihntopf, Reviewer

Russian Troops on the Eastern Front

The Forgotten Front was originally published under the title Vergessene Front—der Osten 1914,1915 in 2006. This English translation is part of a series about notable military campaigns and exceptional leaders and theorists by the Association of the United States Army with series editor Joseph Craig. The purpose behind the original work was to stimulate interest in the study of World War One's Russo-German Front. The translation's intention was to add another aspect to the study of international military theory and practice. The book contains 20 articles/essays by German and other academics, of which both Hew Strachen and Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius are prominent, arranged in three parts.

Part One's essays revolve around the reasons why there is a lack of works in German literature about the East, while there is a never-ending supply about the Western Front. Part Two attempts to look at the individual's experience in the East both from the German and Russian standpoint, while the final part concentrates on how the East is remembered in literature immediately after the war on through to the Internet of 2004.

None of the essays depend on the others to continue a line of thought other than the purpose of the part in which they have been categorized, so the reader can pick and choose which article might hold information of interest. Part Two's articles attracted me the most and my curiosity was rewarded with some new insights although none of the articles contained first-person accounts other than in paraphrasing. Prominent in one essay was a critique of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's 1914, while in another work myths about the conditions of the Russian soldier of 1914 and 1915 were exposed. I was surprised to find Ivan described as well fed, well equipped, and well clothed, sometimes better than his German counterpart, but I was not surprised to hear of the incompetence of the Russian leadership and supply trains.

Parts One and Three really have a lot to do with one another in that they talk about creating the image of an enemy in the Russian. Part one establishes that there was little animosity between German and Russian before the war. The government, amply aided by the media, created the savage of the East through stereotypes and innuendos. The Slav became someone who would destroy the civilized Germanic culture even though Germans enjoyed and admired Russian composers and writers. It wasn't an easy task to get the populace to buy into the image, but it succeeded through spectacular posters and atrocity stories. Part Three capitalizes on this mind-set by showing how the Nazis dramatized the manipulation and created the Untermenschen ("less than humans" Nazi designation) and launched the War of Annihilation in the east from 1939 to 1943.

From a study of social interactions, this book explores many new aspects of the Eastern Front and is well worth reading. Its essays clearly show the impact that the Forgotten East had on the history thereafter. However, much to my displeasure there was no consolidated bibliography. I had to rely on essay end notes for sources.

Michael P. Kihntopf

Monday, March 25, 2019

From the U.S. Navy's WWI Collections — Artifacts



The U.S. Navy has done a terrific job of documenting its service during the Great War. In this series, we will be giving examples from their collection of naval art, artifacts, and photography.  Today we feature some artifacts from the Navy's collection. Much of the material of all three categories can be found at the online sites of two institutions: the National Museum of the U.S. Navy and the Naval History and Heritage Command.  Links to the two sites can be found at the bottom of this page.

Click on the Images to Enlarge


Flag Flown by USS Olympia at the Battle of Manila Bay




USS Olympia Transported America's Unknown Soldier
Home from France




Four-Stack Destroyer, USS Sampson




Medal Mocking President Wilson's Efforts
at the Paris Peace Conference




Model of USS Corsair,Yacht Owned by J.P. Morgan, Jr., 
 Chartered as a Wartime Patrol Boat




Y-Gun Depth Charge Projector




Model Battleship USS Arizona, Commissioned 1914




German Naval Commemorative Streamers




The Ships of Germany's High Seas Fleet




Ship's Bell of Cruiser USS San Diego, Sunk by a Mine off of
Long Island, the Largest USN Warship Lost in the Great War




German Medal Celebrating the Sinking of RMS Lusitania




3-Pounder Mark 15 Slide Gun




Sources:

National Museum of the U.S. Navy
(LINK)

Naval History and Heritage Command
(LINK)

Saturday, March 23, 2019

WWI Photography: A Valuable Historical Resource



Italian Armored Cars at Gorizia

By Stephen Badsey
Originally Published in the British Library Website, 29 Jan 2014

Photography in the First World War was made possible by earlier developments in chemistry and in the manufacture of glass lenses, established as a practical process from the 1850s onwards. The first commercially successful mass produced cameras, for which the user took the photographs and then sent the film to a developer to be processed, appeared in the 1880s. Photography was a growing popular hobby by 1914, chiefly among the middle classes. Some mass-circulation newspapers printed photographs as part of their news coverage, for which they employed professional photographers. Many soldiers going off to the war had a photograph taken of themselves in uniform, often a studio portrait taken by a professional; many also carried a photograph of a loved one with them. But most people were still rather formal and camera conscious, and smiling for the camera was not usual.

German Officer and Noted Author Walter Flex
KIA, Eastern Front, 1917

There were obvious security risks for any country that photographs taken in a war zone could give information to the enemy. A small number of amateur photographers, usually officers, took their cameras with them to war, using them to make a private record. Stories circulated that any soldier owning a camera or taking a photograph in the front lines would be court-martialed and shot. Although this was quite untrue, the possession or use of a camera by a fighting soldier in the early part of the war depended on the tolerance of his superiors. On the Western Front, press photographers were excluded by all sides early in the war, although some found a way round this. 

An Indian Veterinary Hospital on the Western Front 

The Canadian professional photographer Charles Hilton De Witt Girdwood managed to reach an agreement with the British government’s India Office to film and photograph Indian troops on the Western Front in 1915. From 1916 onward, official restrictions on taking private photographs were increasingly enforced, and a few soldiers were court-martialed for owning cameras in a war zone. Photography also had many military applications, and most armies and navies had specialist units dealing with reconnaissance or topographical photographs, some of which were released to the public and the newspapers. On the Western Front, from early 1916 the British, French and German armies all employed official photographers subject to military control, to take photographs for release to the newspapers and for other propaganda purposes including photographic exhibitions, and to provide a historical record of the war. Away from the Western Front a more relaxed attitude often prevailed, with commercial or press photographers reaching agreements similar to Girdwood’s with the military authorities of various countries. On the Home Fronts, where photography was much easier than in a war zone, newspapers and government propaganda organizations made photographic records of the civilian contribution to the war.

Indian Troops Manning a Newly Built Firing Trench

Literally millions of photographs have survived from the First World War, ranging from those used for official propaganda purposes to those preserved in private albums, forming a considerable historical record. The camera could not lie, in the sense that it would record what was in front of it; but all photographs were the product of a selection process, starting with what the cameraman thought was appropriate and technically possible.Photographers practiced self-censorship, mostly on grounds of culture and propriety, but also security and belief in a cause. A photograph could also be highly misleading if its caption gave a false provenance or location, so that it seemed to show something that it did not: a training exercise could be misrepresented as a real battle. Captions for photographs published during the war were also censored. But photographs also automatically recorded social history: how people dressed, what they wore, what their buildings and streets looked like. Often, a photograph provides the critical evidence for a moment that has otherwise been missed from the history of the war. Taken together, the photographic record tells a very important part of the war’s story.

British and Italian Officers Consulting During the
Second Battle of the Marne

Stephen Badsey is Professor of Conflict Studies at Wolverhampton University, where he specializes in wartime propaganda, military-media issues, and military ideas and doctrines.

Friday, March 22, 2019

"The Kingdom of the Guns"—French Artillery at Verdun


Early in the Battle of Verdun: A French Howitzer Firing

From: The Royal Australian Artillery Historical Company

On 21 January, French Général de Corps d’Armée Paul Chrétien arrived to take command of XXX Corps, part of the garrison of the Région Fortifiée de Verdun or RFV (Fortified Region of Verdun). He was appalled by the state of the defences on the 65 kilometre front: artillery batteries were not dug in, telephone wires not buried, and barbed wire obstacles were flimsy to non-existent. 

Surprisingly, the forts that ostensibly were the principal defences of the entire zone were not under his command: perhaps just as well for his state of mind as they were undermanned with poor quality reservists and had been stripped of many of their guns. Chrétien took little comfort from, and did not share, the views of his Commander-in-Chief, General Joffre, that the Verdun region was a strategic backwater, unlikely to be the target of a major German attack as it was of little strategic value to the Germans.

On 21 February 1916, General Chrétien was proved right to be worried. A German artillery barrage of unprecedented volume and intensity began at 0715 and continued until 1600 hrs, heralding the attack by three German Corps against the single understrength French XXX Corps, along the twelve kilometre northern and eastern part of the front: two Corps attacking two understrength French Divisions, the 51st and the 72nd. The Germans had amassed over nine hundred heavy guns and over six hundred field guns for the attack.

Given they were attacking a known fortified position, the Germans had included a number of ‘super heavy’ guns, designed from the start to eliminate fortresses: seventeen 305mm and thirteen 420mm howitzers and three 380 mm guns for long range counter-battery and interdiction work. (French intelligence failed to notice their arrival in the area!) Ammunition supply would not be an issue as the Germans had stockpiled over two and a half million shells and planned to expend half of that in the first nine hours of the barrage. The French were outgunned almost four to one and the problem was to be exacerbated when the German’s over-ran some of the immobile French heavy guns in the initial advances.

There is much heated debate between historians about (the German Commander) Erich von Falkenhayn’s intended strategy at Verdun but many believe he planned a largely attritional battle in which the numerically and technically superior German artillery was to keep killing French infantrymen until the French Army was broken.  If so, then Verdun was one of the few battles designed specifically around the killing power of artillery: arguably the antecedent of the air power theorists of today.  Compelling evidence for this is the failure of the German artillery and air force to interdict the single supply line into Verdun. It would have been easily achieved, would have rendered further defence impossible yet it was not done. Either German planners were incompetent or the idea was to allow the French to continue funnelling troops into the killing zone

Mid-Battle: Larger Pieces Arrive on the Verdun Battlefield

Initially, the German attack was devastating. The rate of fire was so great it added a new word to the military lexicon: Trommelfeuer (drum fire) where the sounds of individual guns and separate exploding shells were lost in one overwhelming noise. Leading the assault were assault pioneers, armed with flamethrowers in addition to their usual weapons. Supporting the theory that the objective was the French Army rather than territorial gain, the attack didn’t involve all available troops: many of the line infantry units remained in their own defenses. However, the French defenders in the forward trenches were often simply obliterated by the ferocity of the artillery and the Germans had little trouble capturing their original objectives.

Unfortunately for them, however, that familiar problem for artillery of both sides in this war —poor and unreliable communications—meant rigid attack timetables had to be followed, leaving little room for initiative and exploitation. The French, faced with impending disaster, quickly adapted new techniques. Instead of occupying predictable defensive lines, their infantry spread out to occupy shell holes or folds in the ground, making them more difficult to kill or neutralize by artillery alone. The defense gradually thickened and, while France paid a huge price for it, after six months on the defensive, they began to drive the enemy back. Eventually, in October, the symbol of Verdun, Fort Douaumont, was recaptured and by December the enemy were back to their February start line.

Although both sides made the usual extravagant claims of success, the battle could best be described as a draw. Initial German success could not be maintained and German tactical mistakes provided sufficient breathing room for the French Army to completely rethink its tactical doctrine, especially on defense and counter-attack, and to develop a new organizational structure more suited to the type of warfare it faced. While the story of Verdun resonates with stories of French infantry heroism and indeed of German gallantry, it was not just the modern-day Poilu who eventually defeated the attack. A rejuvenated French artillery, utilizing new techniques, old and new technology weapons in innovative ways and buoyed by the promises of new, modern weapons, also played a part.

The French started the battle at a huge disadvantage in artillery. Some of this was due to decisions early in the war but the more significant reasons had their origins prewar. As is well known, the prewar period was one where the tactics of élan and attaque à outrance predominated in all armies but was adopted with almost religious fervor by the French Army (and indeed the French government). For the artillery, this meant a heavy focus on mobile field artillery—guns that could keep up with a rapidly changing battlespace. The technical limitations of the day, both in steel quality and transport systems, meant that for larger-calibre guns to function, they had to be very heavy which then meant they were simply too heavy for horse or oxen to move quickly or efficiently. The heaviest guns that could be moved tactically were limited to about 150mm or smaller. As all sides anticipated a war of maneuver, large-calibre guns lagged in both production and development, the notable exception being the German specialized heavy howitzers intended to overcome  French and Belgian forts—and even the Germans believed that once they had achieved that purpose, they would be relegated to a static defensive role. The Germans discovered, however, that in the changed nature of warfare when the trench system prevented mobility, these large-calibre weapons provided effective means of overcoming an entrenched enemy. Although aware that the Germans had, before the war, developed 105 and 150mm field pieces,  practically everyone in France was surprised by the tactical versatility of these larger, more capable artillery pieces.

Two other factors combined to ensure that, when war broke out, France was much less well prepared to deploy and employ larger-calibre artillery than the Germans. In 1897, in a major technical advance, the French Army introduced a radically new field gun—the famous Mademoiselle soixante-quinze or 75mm fast-firing field gun. Light, and equipped with an advanced recoil system, the 75 seemed to fit every artillery role the strategists and tacticians could think of for artillery in a field army. Consequently, there was little appetite within the Army or within French government to invest in larger-calibre guns. Even when German developments with their larger-calibre field guns suggested the 75 might need larger-calibre support, squabbling over designs and suppliers between the Army technical branches, Army headquarters, the government and the various industry groups offering solutions meant the French went to war with only 544 guns heavier than the 75, and the most modern of these was a 155mm howitzer designed and built in 1904! Practically all the heavier pieces were relegated to fortress duties.

Late Battle: Railroad-Mounted Guns Give the
French Firepower Dominance

Nor was the 75 as perfect as the French believed. Limited elevation and light shell weight proved to be severe handicaps, especially after trench warfare replaced manoeuvre. Instead of immediately looking to develop larger calibres as a solution for the 75’s shortcomings, the French invested an inordinate amount of scientific and engineering effort early in the war into improving the 75’s shells to correct its problems. This was perhaps understandable, given there were over 4000 75s in service in 1914 and the number rapidly escalated, reaching 21,000 by the end of the war. These improvements did help, but after two years of war, the French were forced to acknowledge the limitations of a light gun and institute a crash program to develop and produce heavier calibres of guns. Their enthusiastic adoption of mortars of differing calibres also augmented the venerable 75. Somewhat unexpectedly, the 75 did prove very versatile, being quickly adapted as an effective anti-aircraft gun and ending the war as France’s premier platform for delivering gas: where explosive weight was arguably less of an issue than volume of fire.

By the time the war came to Verdun, another problem arose for its defenders. Joffre, who was later criticised for this move, had recognized that fortresses were "death traps" in the face of modern artillery. Having observed the fate of fortresses in both Belgium and on the eastern front, he abandoned fixed fortifications as the core of his defense strategy, preferring trenches and barbed wire. Nor did he consider heavy-calibre guns tied up in fortresses a useful employment of these weapons, so removed most of them to support his field armies (54 artillery batteries and 128,000 rounds of ammunition were removed from Verdun alone after August 1915.) Given that the Germans had, in 1914, achieved artillery domination in the field, this was both reasonable and probably essential to avoid defeat. It did, however, severely reduce the defensive value of the Verdun fortresses. The whole point of a fortress was to provide the artillery with superior protection from infantry attack while positioning the guns to dominate the surrounding areas. Even the much-maligned Maginot Line in World War Two did dreadful execution among German troops trying to capture sections of it. Without guns, even old-fashioned slow-firing ones, Verdun had little hope of resisting a determined German attack. But many of the guns, especially the better ones, had been removed in late 1914. 

In addition to the valor of the infantry, Verdun was saved for the French by the complete reappraisal of their artillery tactics and a complete about-face on the priority afforded the development and production of heavy guns. Early in the German offensive, in March, Joffre ordered the immediate production of 960 medium and 440 heavy guns! French General Henri Philippe Pétain, who had opposed the prevailing prewar French cult of the offensive and argued for heavy artillery to the point of ruining his career,  was appointed commander of the RFV on 26 February. Having an infantryman with a deep appreciation of how to employ artillery in command dramatically improved the French position, and Pétain quickly instituted several critical modifications of organization and doctrine. Divisions received additional medium howitzers, while the 155s and larger guns, together with the heavy mortars, were grouped at corps and army level to ensure fire dominance at critical points. The number of artillery regiments was increased from 115 to 247, even though France was running out of military-aged males. 

Recognizing the importance of aerial observation, Pétain directed French military aviation to obtain air control over the battlefield so that artillery spotters, in aircraft and balloons, could operate unimpeded. The French assembled what became the world’s first dedicated fighter squadrons, continually improved their aircraft, and achieved Pétain’s objectives by May. French gunnery accuracy improved dramatically as the battle proceeded. Contrary to Joffre’s view, Pétain used the existing fort system as the basis for a defense line. The remaining fortress artillery was heavily reinforced, and they became the support for local tactical attacks. He so recognized the need for heavy artillery that on 6 March, he asked GQG (French General Headquarters) to stop sending large infantry formation reinforcements—that clogged up the roads—and concentrate on sending heavy artillery instead.

His major achievement was, however, to re-establish the infantry’s confidence in their artillery. Pétain took close personal interest, every day, in what the artillery was doing. He ensured it had both sufficient ammunition and sufficient incentive to fire both offensive and defensive barrages. He personally reviewed the actions and effects of batteries and made his staff focus on the tactical employment of the guns, especially coordination between infantry and artillery in counter-attacks. Those staff he found wanting or who failed to demonstrate the expected degree of enthusiasm for the new techniques were quickly and ruthlessly removed. Recognizing also the serious effect of German artillery on the French infantry morale, Pétain focused closely on counter-battery work and on the tracking and locating of all German artillery. His attention to the artillery also carried though to its logistics support and he ensured that the flow of shells and spares was never interrupted. By the time he left in June, over 2000 tons of ammunition a day was being delivered to the fortress zone

The Germans, through another tactical mistake, also provided Pétain with an early opportunity to use his artillery effectively in the offensive. By failing to clear the west bank of the Meuse and its existing batteries of emplaced obsolete 155mm guns, Pétain was able to use these to fire into the flanks of the advancing infantry and, arguably more importantly, interdict German logistics assets, including forward dumps and bridgeheads. The German VII Korps suffered very heavy casualties from these guns during an attempt in March to clear the east bank of the Meuse. The Germans recognized the threat and launched a series of attacks to clear the west bank but this brought them into range of massed French guns from reserve forces such as the French Third Army (farther to the west) and they paid a heavy price for limited gains. This also saw the Germans reacting to French initiatives for the first time since the battle had begun.

100 Years Later: The Results of the Great Artillery Battle
Can Still Be Seen

In June, Pétain was promoted and General Robert Nivelle took command of the Verdun defense. However, by then Pétain’s re-invigoration and reorganization of the French artillery was well entrenched. Although Nivelle faced several more massive German attacks, his experienced and confident gunners largely broke them up or were able to provide effective support to retake lost ground. Even the first mass use by the Germans of phosgene gas failed to win the battle, largely because French artillery was able to break up the exploiting infantry formations. The Battle of Verdun was the longest single battle of the First World War, lasting from 21 February to 18 December 1916. It was one of the first in which Allied artillery made the greatest contribution to the outcome. It is a battle worthy of study for all gunners.


Source:  Presented by permission of the Royal Australian Artillery Historical Company. This was a seminar paper originally presented and published as part of the "Firepower: Lessons from the Great War" Seminar Series (including a link to the Series page: