Evaluating the Early Performance of the AEF

U.S. Officer Observing Artillery Fire at Cantigny
(1st Division Operation)

By Mark E. Grotelueschen

When General Ludendorff launched Operation Michael in mid-March 1918, only four full American divisions were in the front lines of the Western Front, and of those four only one  was completely trained and in full command of its own sector. Americans were occupying just 27 of the Western Front’s roughly 750 kilometers of trenches. By the end of June, AEF divisions  were occupying more than 95 kilometers of frontage, a  clear indication of America’s growing contribution to the Allied war effort. 

By the beginning of July, after brutal fighting at Cantigny, Château-Thierry, Belleau Wood, and Vaux, the bloodied American units had proved that even though they were inexperienced, they were willing to fight hard and learn fast. . . In May and June, more than 460,000 American troops arrived in France, assuring both the Allies and the Germans  that the American presence would grow dramatically in the coming months. More important, in specific locations along the increasingly active Western Front in the spring of 1918—at Cantigny, Château-Thierry, Lucy-le-Bocage, Belleau Wood, and  Vaux—a growing number of American units demonstrated that they were willing and able to fight with the grit and determination  necessary to achieve an Allied victory.  

Marne River at Château-Thierry Where the
German Offensive Was Halted
(3rd Division Operation)

[These] bloodied American units had proved that even though they were inexperienced, they were willing to fight hard and learn fast. Those characteristics, in conjunction with the flood of American reinforcements arriving in France by the thousands each day, suggested that the tide was beginning to turn against the Central Powers. The Americans were not only in the war; they were joining the fight.

The American divisions employed in these early operations—the 1st, 2d, and 3d—showed all the signs of inexperienced units in their first engagements. The Allies that fought with them, the Germans that fought against them, and even the American officers  and men within the divisions and at AEF GHQ all were aware of this fact. Yet these three divisions, and those that came after them, were fighting in extraordinarily difficult tactical, operational, and strategic situations. All but one went into combat without having completed a full training program. At times, they arrived on a battlefield and went into action without sufficient maps or enough time to examine the terrain and establish liaison with the units alongside them. In light of these challenges, it is not surprising that these untried officers and men made mistakes and suffered more casualties than hindsight suggests they should have. 

Section of Belleau Wood Captured by Marines
(2nd Division Operation)

Yet for all their inexperience, they occasionally demonstrated sufficient skill to competently plan and execute attacks against a more capable and experienced foe, and showed the tenacity and courage to fight their battles through to victory even in the face of the initial problems, mistakes, and terrible losses that were almost unavoidable characteristics of any Great War battle. The Americans displayed these strengths and weaknesses in  May and June 1918, when these AEF divisions helped stop and then turn back a desperate German Army. These same divisions, as well as a number of others, would show them again in mid-July during the true turning point of the war—the Second Battle of the Marne.

Selection from Into the Fight, April-June 2018, U.S. Army Center of Military History

News About the National World War One Museum's 2024 Symposium: War and Morality, 15–16 November 2024

The Museum's Annual Symposium this year can be experienced ONLINE, but attendance in-person at the museum is also possible

The 2024 Digital Summit—The Topic: 

As the defining event of the 20th century, how does World War I inform our understanding of “just” war? When President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into WWI to “make the world safe for democracy,” it marked an end of American isolationism and initiated an era of global democratization. Despite the efforts of multinational coalitions like the Triple Entente and League of Nations, crises have persisted throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, revealing the strategic and ethical complexities that define modern conflict and its impact on our global society.

Questions Such As These Will Be Addressed:

• What is a “just” war?

• What are the ethics of war (e.g. The Hague, Geneva Conventions)?

• Who is the most reliable judge of a war’s morality?

• Is it important to judge the morality of World War I?

• What standards has WWI set for contemporary war ethics?

• How have international norms changed? Is war a driver of international laws on armed conflict?

• What justifies a pre-emptive strike? What are the moral and ethical implications?

After the First Gas Attacks, the Germans Were
Depicted as "Stinky Beasts," but That Soon Changed

The 2024 Digital Summit—The Presenters

Speakers include WWI authors and historians as well as military and civilian experts and practitioners in military law and civil-military relations. A full list with biographical sketches can be found  HERE.

The 2024 Digital Summit—Registration

In-person registration includes access to all digital sessions (via large screen with group seating), the museum's galleries, one additional in-person conversation with museum staff, lunch and light refreshments. Opens: Friday, 15 November 2024 8:00 a.m.

Online registration includes digital access to all sessions.

If you are an educator and wish to pursue professional development credit, the museum is also offering a post-summit workshop with seven hours of credit.

Register Online HERE

The Preparedness Movement Set the Stage
for American Involvement

Sponsors:  National WWI Museum and Memorial • Western Front Association • Modern War Institute at West Point • International Society for First World War Studies • WW1 Historical Association • International Relations Council

Veterans Day 2024: Our Correspondent's Report from the National World War One Memorial

Courtland at the "Return" Section of A Soldier's Journey

From Correspondent Courtland Jindra

For roughly ten years I had closely followed the developments of the National World War I Memorial in our nation’s capital and it’d been my hope to be able to attend the final dedication. Unfortunately, it ended up falling too close to my wife's and my actual vacation time to justify taking two trips so close together, but we still made a point to visit Washington as part of our autumn extravaganza to see the finished project.

Melissa and I first visited the site of the memorial in 2017, when then Pershing Park was still pretty rundown and ignored.  Nonetheless I enjoyed the information panels about the war that were already there as well and the monument to Black Jack.  I came away with hope for what the site would eventually be. 

At the Water Feature & Peace Fountain (Not Shown)

At that point Joseph Weishar and Sabin Howard had already been selected as the designer and sculptor (I must admit that an old co-worker and I entered into the competition as a lark—I like to think for total amateurs we had some good ideas), but they were mired in bureaucratic minutiae—that would continue for a couple more years. Obviously both had their plans scaled back, but the hope was their project would give the Doughboys the respect they deserve. 

I am happy to report that they succeeded. Even though it’ll never match the National Museum and Memorial complex in Kansas City, the new park in Washington, DC, is just lovely.  The old AEF information wall and Pershing elements have been spruced up and look almost brand new. The various quotes that are littered throughout are noticeable, but don’t call attention to themselves. The belvedere feature provides context beyond the battles US forces participated in, and I liked the inclusion of the various battles that ring its perimeter.

At the Belvedere

The main feature of course is Sabin Howard’s exquisite centerpiece sculpture that he titled A Soldier’s Journey and it is simply breathtaking in person. My first desire was to view it from afar to really take it all in, but soon I was strolling alongside of it admiring the craftsmanship of the various figures.  It really grabs your attention no matter how you look at it.  I had been admittedly afraid that it might be an ignored park—the first time I saw the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial, it made me sad that no one really stopped there other than my wife and I (and we were there for about an hour). I am happy to report that this is not the case at the WWI Memorial. People were drawn to Howard’s sculpture as if by gravity.  Visitors just stared in appreciation, contemplation, or both. It actually perturbed my wife after awhile because she was waiting for people to clear out so she could get some pictures of the whole wall with no one in the frame. We’d be there about an hour before she was able to get her “master shots.”

Daily Bugler in WWI Uniform

Melissa and I timed it so we could see "Taps" performed at 5 p.m., and again I was pleased because there was quite a crowd on hand. A couple of school groups sat respectfully by the belvedere as various others were spread out around the park (we were standing in front of the sculpture). The bugler played it solemnly and without a miss. We then decided to leave, but wanted to come back after nighttime descended upon Washington, so a couple of hours later we were back. There were still people milling about, but not as many so my wife got her photos much faster this time.  

Nighttime View of a Battle Veteran

Melissa would later tell me that other than the Lincoln Memorial, the new National WWI Memorial might be her favorite in all of Washington. It’s tough for me to say because I appreciate many of the monuments that grace our nation’s capital, but it is without question a masterpiece that demands to be visited. I hope everyone who stops by is inspired to watch a documentary or pick up a book on World War I and our nation’s contribution.  

Thanks to Courtland for a great report.  MH

"O Valiant Hearts"—The Remembrance Day Hymn

British Regimental Memorial, Newcastle

James Patton

The iconic hymn sung each year on Remembrance Day (11 November), particularly at Church of England (C of E) services in the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth, is "O Valiant Hearts."

O valiant hearts who to your glory came

Through dust of conflict and through battle flame;

Tranquil you lie, your knightly virtue proved,

Your memory hallowed in the land you loved.

Proudly you gathered, rank on rank, to war

As who had heard God’s message from afar;

All you had hoped for, all you had, you gave,

To save mankind—yourselves you scorned to save.

Splendid you passed, the great surrender made;

Into the light that nevermore shall fade;

Deep your contentment in that blest abode,

Who wait the last clear trumpet call of God.

The words are by Sir John Stanhope Arkwright (1872–1954), published in 1919 in his work entitled The Supreme Sacrifice and Other Poems in Time of War. Arkwright was a younger son of a landed family in Herefordshire. Although while at Oxford he won the Newdigate Prize for English Poetry in 1895, he was primarily a politician and bureaucrat who only dabbled in poetry.

The music was composed by the Rev. Dr. Charles Harris, MA, DD (1865–1936) who was the Vicar of St. James the Great Parish, Colwall, which is about 20 miles from Arkwright’s family home at Hampton Court Castle, Bodenham (different from Henry VIII’s Hampton Court Palace, outside of London). Although Rev. Harris was a prolific author, this is his only known musical work. 

Arkwright’s text is occasionally performed to music of Edward J. Hopkins (1818–1901), which was written ca. 1869 for John Ellerton’s (1826–1893) C of E hymn titled "Saviour, Again to Thy Dear Name" as well as at least four other hymn tunes, including the well-known "Abide with Me" by William H. Monk (1823–1889).

It is believed that Rev. Harris was moved to set his music to Arkwright’s text to create a memorial to his son.  Lt. Charles Noël Harris (1898–1917), 125th Napier’s Rifles, was killed in action in Mesopotamia during the Samarrah Offensive in 1917. Young Charles had left Hereford Cathedral School to be commissioned in the Indian Army in July 1915. Of his death, his parents were told: “Your son was killed at Salabulah on 21st April. At the time he was hit he was engaged as Acting Adjutant and was carrying a message to the front line from the Commanding Officer. He was hit in the stomach and death was almost instantaneous. I wrote to you before, but the letter must have been lost. He was a promising young officer and his death is much regretted.”

Samarrah was captured on 23 April. Charles Harris’s grave was subsequently lost. He is commemorated on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s Basra Memorial in Iraq, which in 1998 was relocated by the Iraqis from the Basra waterfront to a desert site in Al-Zubair District, near a key road junction that was the site of battles in 1991 and 2003, the latter skirmish involving the 1st battalion The Black Watch.  In addition to a lot of detail repairs needed at the memorial, the CWGC has to add about 30,000 names of Indian ORs and Followers that hadn’t been catalogued as of 1929. This will be a major task, as there are currently 40,635 names on the memorial.

Commission Staff at the Relocated Basra Memorial

Sources include the Western Front Association (UK) and the Hereford Cathedral School

Weapons of War: World War One and the Evolution of the Assault Rifle

U.S. M-16, Introduced 1964

By Michael Shurkin

The assault rifle is a class of weapon that emerged in the middle of the last century to meet the needs of combat soldiers on the modern battlefield, where the level of violence had reached such heights that an entirely new way of fighting had emerged, one for which the existing weapons were a poor match. The name “assault rifle” is believed to have been coined by Adolf Hitler. Toward the end of World War II, the story goes, Hitler hailed his army's new wonder weapon by insisting that it be called not by the technical name given it by its developers, the Machinenpistole (the German name for a sub-machine gun), but rather something that made for better propaganda copy. A Sturmgewehr he called the new gun: a “storm” or “assault” weapon.

At the beginning of the 19th century, soldiers in Europe fought battles exposed in full view of the enemy. Often they moved, stood, or charged in lines or in close formations, in coordination with cavalry and artillery, mostly in the open. They could do this and have a reasonable chance of surviving in part because guns were relatively inaccurate, had short ranges, and could only be fired slowly.

In response, weapons developers in Europe and America focused on making guns more accurate up to greater distances. First they found ways to make rifled weapons easier to load from the front. Next they found efficient ways to load guns from the rear—the breach—rather than ramming bullets down the muzzle of the gun. Breach-loading guns can be loaded faster, and the technology made it possible to develop a magazine that held multiple bullets at the ready. These types of battle rifles culminated with the guns carried by the vast majority of foot soldiers in the First and Second World Wars, weapons like the American Springfield 1903 and M-1 Garand, or the German Karabiner 98K: long and heavy guns that fired large bullets from large cartridges and had barrels that were 24 inches long. The long barrels and big ammunition meant that these types of guns could shoot accurately at tremendous distances. Both also packed considerable punch: their bullets left the barrel at roughly 2,800 feet per second.

Kalashnikov AK-47, Introduced 1974

By the late 19th century, these new guns, combined with machine guns, which were introduced in the 1880s, and significantly better artillery generated a storm of steel so lethal that soldiers had to protect themselves behind cover or in trenches. As a result, soldiers all but disappeared from sight on the battlefield. Tactics changed to hugging the terrain and firing a lot of bullets at an area in the attempt to stop the enemy from firing back, so that other soldiers could move to a better position. Or, there were quick and bloody skirmishes at close range. There was little for soldiers to see, and often they could not expose themselves to take an aimed shot.

Soldiers wanted a weapon that could fire on automatic other than machine guns, which still fired big-rifle ammunition and demanded something big and heavy to absorb the recoil. 

In this context, big rifles were overpowered and cumbersome. They also didn't fire fast or long enough. One solution that became popular during the First World War was the sub-machine gun, which is a machine gun that fires pistol ammunition rather than rifle ammunition. This smaller, weaker ammo made it possible to have a smaller, lighter gun, but the tradeoff was that they had poor range and offered little “penetrating power.” Many armies treated big rifles and sub-machine guns as complementary weapons, and squads carried both into battle. [The author doesn't address the July 1918 distribution of the Browning Automatic Rifle to the troops of the AEF.  Possibly it doesn't meet his idea of an "assault rifle."]

A better solution was an “intermediate” round that was neither too big nor too little. Generally speaking, the less powerful the ammunition, the lighter and smaller the gun, and the easier to fire it accurately even when firing automatically. Smaller ammunition means one could pack more into a magazine and carry more into combat too. The ammunition could not, however, be as weak as pistol ammunition. It had to be big enough and powerful enough to be sufficiently accurate and lethal at useful distances.

StG 44,  Adopted by the Wehrmacht, 1944

The ammunition the Germans developed for what would become the first mass-produced assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr (StG) 44, was the same caliber as the standard German rifle ammunition (7.98 mm) but with a case that was considerably shorter: 33 mm versus 57 mm. This meant that while the bullet was the same size, it was propelled by a smaller amount of gunpowder. The gun kicked less and was easier to control, even when set to automatic, and fired at a rate of 600 bullets per minute. The 98K it was intended to replace was not even semi-automatic. The StG 44 was not lighter than the 98k, but it had a barrel that, at 16.5 inches, was about half a foot shorter. It also had a 30-round magazine, compared to the 98K's five-round magazine. Of course, the StG 44 packed less punch than the 98K and was not as accurate at extreme distances, but the Germans understood that the StG 44 was deadly enough. Fortunately for the Allies, the Germans did not issue many StG 44s until late in 1944, at which point having a better gun wasn't enough to turn the tide of the war.

Source: RAND Commentary, 30 June 2016

A Russian Grand Duke's View of the War and the Coming Revolution

Grand Duke Aleksandr Mikhailovich of Russia (1866, Tbilisi, Georgia–1933 Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France)

By Assistant Editor Kimball Worcester

The son of a brother of the Tsar Liberator, Aleksandr II of Russia, Grand Duke Aleksandr Mikhailovich and his five brothers were collectively nicknamed the “Mikhailovichi” (sons of Mikhail). His grandfather was Tsar Nikolas I, his great-great-grandmother Empress Catherine the Great. The grand duke was born and grew up in Tbilisi, Georgia, where his father, Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolayevich, was the governor general of the province. This upbringing in the southern mountainous borderland away from the Imperial palaces in the north may have inspired the often contrary ideas of the grand duke in his later years; he appears to have been uncowed by convention. 

Click on Image to Enlarge

Partial Family Tree

Grand Duke Aleksandr Mikhailovich began his military career in the Imperial Russian Navy. By the time of the Great War, the grand duke had become enamored of aviation and was a fervent proponent of its military development in the Russian Empire. He was a founder of the Sevastopol Aviation Officer School and was chief of the Imperial Russian Air Service during the Great War. His promotion of the new military arm in Russia was an acknowledgement of its value for 20th-century warfare. The grand duke and his family, including his mother-in-law, the Dowager Empress Maria Fëdorovna (mother of Tsar Nikolas II) were evacuated from Crimea in 1919 by HMS Marlborough. 

This excerpt from his first memoir, Once a Grand Duke, is from the first edition, 1932. The grand duke died the following year.

Grand Duke Aleksandr Mikhailovich (L),  Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich(top),
Tsarevich Nikolas Aleksandrovich (future Tsar Nikolas II) (R), and Prince George of Greece (bottom), (1880s). Romanov cousins; Prince George's mother was Grand Duchess Olga Konstantinovna.

 

Grand Duke Aleksandr (L) Inspecting a Russian Airfield

The Grand Duke in Exile in France

1914: Who Was First to Mobilize?

Students of the Great War sometimes hear that in 1914 mobilizing a nation's armed forces was the equivalent to declaring war. The trains, it was said, couldn't be turned back once they were rolling. While this is an exaggeration of the 1914 conditions in the literal sense, the serial triggering of ultimatums together with the difficulty of reversing the process of moving troops to the front probably overwhelmed the various governments. So—who did mobilize first? Who tilted that first domino over?

Serbian Officers and Soldiers on Parade

The answer is that it was Serbia on 25 July 1914, the same day it replied to the onerous Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Most likely, they figured whatever answer they made was bound to be deemed as inadequate, so they ought to get ready for what was coming. Austria-Hungary responded with their own mobilization the next day, and the race to Armageddon was on.

Year by Year—The Casualties Grew for the British Army on the Western Front

Click on Images to Enlarge

Stretcher Party, 1917

The Unprecedented Nature of the Great War

Battle casualties in conflicts prior to the Great War, although relatively high as a percentage of the participants, were usually quite low in numbers compared with what was to occur in the almost incessant fighting on the Western Front. Here there was a daily average of 5,000 deaths with a total casualty count on all fronts in excess of 11 million. Even the cataclysmic Battle of Waterloo in 1815 only produced 15,000 British casualties, whilst the first day of the Battle of the Somme, on 1 July 1916, alone produced 60,000 British casualties, of which 20,000 were killed. Another 360,000 British casualties were to follow as the Somme battle raged on until heavy snowfalls in November 1916 reduced the fighting to the level of local skirmishing. (The preciseness of some of the casualty figures often quoted for the various battles of the Great War belies the state of chaos and delay under which they were usually compiled and the admittedly limited clerical resources usually available to properly collate them. Here figures are rounded to more realistic approximations).

Moreover, in the earlier wars, the period that a soldier expected to be under fire, and in mortal peril, was much less. It is said that even the most famous and highly decorated British soldiers of the past had only spent a total of 24 hours, or so, actually under fire in their entire careers. During the Great War, such a period of exposure to intense warfare could be experienced by a British soldier in a single tour of duty "in the line."

Dr. David Payne

The Raw Numbers

Sources: First World War Centenary (Graph); "British Medical Casualties on the Western Front in the Great War," Stand To!, Aug-Sep, 2008.

With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918

By David Stevenson 

 Belknap Press; First Edition, 2011

Reviewed by Len Shurtleff

Order This Work HERE

Though With Our Backs to the Wall is a book about how and why the Entente powers and America defeated Germany and its allies in World War One, author David Stevenson builds his case carefully by analyzing the Western Front deadlock of 1914–1917 along with the military and non-military factors that resulted in victory. Though he focuses on the Western Front where the outcome was eventually decided, he does not neglect subsidiary fronts in Poland and the Baltic, Italy, the Balkans, and the Middle East, as well as the home fronts of the various belligerents. 

In summary, Stevenson sees the Western Front armistice of 11 November 1918 coming as a result of  Ludendorff's loss of nerve in the face of Bulgarian collapse and Foch's converging offensives. By then,  the German Army was clearly running out of men even faster then the Entente, whose human  reserves were stretched to the limit. The Allies were blessed with much more surefooted leadership than the battered German and Austro-Hungarian Empires. By the summer of 1918 the economic and  political circumstances in all the Allied countries, including Italy, were far stronger than between  Germany and its allies. The Entente democracies proved far more resilient than the autocratic  societies of the Central Powers. Austria-Hungary was starving and beset with national separatism. Bulgaria was starving, its army barefoot as winter approached. In Ottoman Turkey, domestic conditions were chaotic and supplies for its armies catastrophic. The victors had clearly reaped the  benefits of a revolution in war production led by France and Britain, shared in by Italy, and financed  by American loans and raw materials. Their management of the war effort was superior in almost  every aspect in that the Allies built a superstructure of national and intergovernmental institutions  that while not perfect far outstripped anything Germany and her co-belligerents achieved. Most  important among many tactical and strategic innovations was the appointment of an effective and  talented generalissimo, Ferdinand Foch. 

At the same time, Ludendorff was crippling the  German Army through a series of desperate spring 1918 offensives designed to end the war before American troops arrived in force. These, while  tactically brilliant, were strategically pointless. Ludendorff succeeded only in killing his final reserves of infantry and extending his lines to indefensible lengths as the German home front disintegrated into political chaos. Reinvigorated by their successful defense and reinforced by fresh drafts  from England and America, the Allies  counterattacked and drove the fatally weakened Germans back to their own frontiers. In every aspect  from domestic politics to production, through sea  power, road, and rail logistics to command  intelligence, equipment, and frontline strength, the  victors in 1918 had the edge, and this gave them  victory. This author also wrote the notable work Armaments and the Coming of War, 1904-1914. 

Proust at War

Proust the Soldier

In 1889, a regiment in Orléans inducted an enlistee who was possibly the unhealthiest specimen in the history of the French Army. Afflicted with asthma, coughing spells, sleep disorders, and neurologic or psychiatric maladies that are still speculated about six score years later. Marcel Proust, future author of the seven-volume In Search of Lost Time (formerly translated as Remembrance of Things Past), nonetheless found his service time fascinating. Despite being refused the privilege of re-enlisting after a year's service, he thought about military matters the rest of his life. Certain insights, like this selection, appear in sections of his masterwork, much of which was written during the Great War.

The soldier is convinced that a certain indefinitely extendable time period is accorded him before he is killed. . . .That is the amulet which preserves individuals — and sometimes populations — not from danger, but from the fear of danger, in reality from the belief in danger, which in some cases allows them to brave it without being brave.

In a private letter written by Proust in the early days of the war he clearly foresaw what is in store for the combatants:

In the terrible days we are going through, you have other things to do besides writing letters and bothering with my petty interests, which I assure you seem wholly unimportant when I think that millions of men are going to be massacred in a War of the Worlds comparable with that of Wells,  because the Emperor of Austria thinks it advantageous to have an outlet onto the Black Sea. . .  I have just seen off my brother who was leaving for Verdun at midnight. Alas he insisted on being posted to the actual border. . . I still hope, non-believer though I am, that some supreme miracle will prevent, at the last second, the launch of the omni-murdering machine. . . With all my heart and very sadly yours,  Marcel Proust.

As critic Joel Rich wrote, "Marcel Proust's life was led, one might say, between two martial 'bookends'." One of these bookends was the Franco-Prussian War during which he was born, and which probably influenced his decision to enlist. When his second military bookmark, the Great War, first appeared in 1914, the army remembered their former soldier. He was regularly summoned to Les Invalides for medical examinations to judge his fitness to serve. Of course, over a quarter century, his symptoms had only worsened and he failed every examination. This allowed him both to continue writing and to observe Paris at war. A scathing account of his city worked its way into the seventh volume of Lost Time. As another literary commentator remarked about this section: "There is a stark, embarrassing contrast between life in Paris and life at the front. . . .women wear jewelry made of artillery shells, a somewhat morbid means of showing their patriotism. . . .the absence of young men resulted in a new social dynamic."

Marcel Proust died of bronchial pneumonia in 1922 shortly after the publication of his novel's seventh volume.

Sources: St. Mihiel Trip-Wire, July 2013; Letter from Marcel Proust to Lionel Hauser, 2 August 1914

Battle of Heligoland Bight

Where: Heligoland Bight, a bay which forms the southern part of the German Bight, itself a bay of the North Sea, located at the mouth of the Elbe river and the German naval base at Wilhelmshaven.

When: 28 August 1914

Royal Navy Units Participating: Harwich Force, supported by the 1st Light Cruiser Squadron and 1st Battle Cruiser Squadron.

Opposing Forces: Light cruisers and destroyers of the German coastal patrol.

Memorable As: An early "punch in the nose" to Germany's navy, whose losses included three light cruisers, a destroyer, and a torpedo boat, that constrained German naval aggressiveness and strategic thinking.

The Story: The battle was fought in a confusion of fog and haze on 28 August 1914, when a British attack led by Commodore Reginald Tyrwhitt was mounted on German coastal patrols—using the force of destroyers and submarines based at Harwich. The raid was covered by heavier forces, including Vice Admiral David Beatty's powerful "Cruiser Force A," the 1st Battle Cruiser Squadron and the 1st Light Cruiser Squadron, but the operation was marred by poor staff work. Beatty was only sent out at the last minute, and the main attackers did not even know he was coming.

Battle Cruiser HMS Lion Opens Fire

When action was joined, Tyrwhitt suffered gun problems with his new flagship, the light cruiser Arethusa, which was hit by a shell from a German cruiser. More German cruisers appeared to drive off the British destroyers. The day was saved by Beatty, reinforced by two more battle cruisers to make five in all.

The battle was a clear British victory. Germany had lost the three light cruisers SMS Mainz, Cöln, and Ariadne and the destroyer V-187 sunk; light cruiser Frauenlob had been severely damaged. The light cruisers SMS Strassburg and Stettin had also been damaged. German casualties were 1,242 with 712 men killed, including Rear Admiral Maass, and 336 prisoners of war. The Royal Navy had lost no ships and 35 men killed, with 40 wounded. Arethusa and two damaged British destroyers had to be towed home, however. The British made much of their victory, but within the Admiralty there was frustration. A better-planned operation could have done so much better.

Kaiser Wilhelm was aghast at the German losses and placed restrictions on exposing the fleet to action that, in turn, infuriated Admiral Tirpitz and began their mutual alienation.

Source: www.bbc.co.uk.

Recommended: Messy Nessy On Mata Hari's Missing Head

One of our favorite bloggers, Messy Nessy, who specializes in "Chic Curiosities" has published some fascinating research on the Great War's most remembered spy, Mata Hari.  Nessy's article opens, thus:

Her Severed Head Was Kept in a Paris Museum

Then It Disappeared!

The essay proceeds:

There are many reasons to tell the story of Mata Hari—an extravagant icon of femininity, famous burlesque performer, World War I spy, and “collector” of high-standing lovers – her life reads like a harlequin novel. Arguably one of the most curious (and morbid) anecdotes of her life occurred after her death (by execution, no less). As if her missing severed head wasn’t enough to lead with, it has also come to light that the rest of her body, which was entrusted to the Museum of Anatomy in Paris, also disappeared from the archives. So what happened to Mata Hari?

She was born as Margaretha Geertruida Zelle in 1876 in a town called Leeuwarden in the Dutch province of Friesland. The daughter of a successful hat merchant, Margaretha lived a very comfortable life until her father’s business went bankrupt and he left his family in the lurch. Two years later, her mother passed away, and Margraretha and her siblings then went to live with an uncle and aunt.

Margaretha’s uncle envisioned a very decent life for the 14-year-old and sent her off to the Dutch city of Leiden, to be trained as a kindergarten teacher. The young Margaretha had other things on her mind. She began flirting with the school principal—and was ultimately caught topless on his lap. Her career as a kindergarten teacher was nipped in the bud there and then, and she was sent away (again) to live with another uncle in The Hague.

At the age of 18, Margaretha came across an advertisement by a Dutch Colonial Army captain who was looking for a “girl of sweet character with the intention of marriage.” She responded to the ad, sending along a very enticing picture of herself. Despite a 21-year age difference, she married Army Captain Rudolf MacLeod on 17 July 1895. . .

The Jolly Couple

Read on HERE to enjoy M.N. editor Inge Oosterhoff's account of Margaretha's dud of a marriage, the couple's travels to Java, their inevitable divorce, her imaginative self-recreation as Mata Hari  (Eye of the Dawn) and international celebrity, her firing squad, and the postmortem detaching of her head, its preservation, and mysterious disappearance.

Credits: Article discovered by my better-half, Donna.  Thanks, Dear.

What Was the Amiens Gun?

"Bruno" in German Hands

The Amiens Gun was a railway artillery piece captured in the opening of the Battle of Amiens at Harbonnières, east of Villers-Bretonneux, on 8 August 1918 by the Victorian-based 31st Battalion of the Australian Army. It is considered one of the largest war prizes ever captured and placed on permanent display. The Amiens gun barrel weighs 45 tons (40,824 kilograms) and has a calibre measurement of 28 cm (11.15 inches). Fabricated in 1904 by Friedrick Krupp, it was originally a German naval gun until it was modified to be used as a railway gun during the World War. Nicknamed Bruno, the gun was originally fitted to SMS Hessen, the third of five Braunschweig-class battleships of the German Imperial Navy, in 1902. Five rounds were put through the barrel during the Battle of Jutland, the war’s largest naval engagement. Hessen was disarmed in 1916 to make way for more modern ships. 

Two years later, the repurposed gun, now rail-mounted, bombarded allied positions during the three-hour Battle of Amiens. The capture of the Amiens Gun by Australian and British soldiers was a significant achievement. Earlier in the summer of 1918, it had been used by the Germans to fire on the city of Amiens, about 25 km away, while highly camouflaged. Attempts had been made by the Allies to locate and destroy this powerful weapon, but to no avail. During the 8 August opening advance, the train was bombed by a British Sopwith Camel, causing the German soldiers on board to evacuate. Although RAF aircraft and British cavalry were the first to engage the gun, it was then quickly claimed by the advancing Australian infantry.

In Australian Hands

_________________

Salvaging the Amiens Gun

We had been sent with a quantity of Amanol to blow up the large gun … however Les Strahan one of our sappers in the party had been a driver in the Western Australian railways, and he found there was still a head of steam, he asked for a fair go, instead of blowing the gun up he got the engine going, we were told then to try to get it back if possible into a cutting so it could be camouflaged.

Corporal John Palmer, 8th Field Company

__________________

Final Resting Place: The Australian War Memorial

The Amiens Gun was later exhibited in Paris before it was sent to England for transport to Australia as a war trophy. Its home for 16 years was in Canberra, at Kingston railway station.  In 1942 the weapon was dismantled, the carriage was moved to Port Wakefield, South Australia, and it was used to test fire naval barrels for WWII. It was seen as too expensive to bring back to Canberra, so the carriage was cut up in the 1960s. The gun was meant to be put back together after its wartime disassembly, but all the parts were. melted for scrap except the barrel. The barrel, sporting authentic camouflage, has been on display at the Australian War Memorial since the 1960s.

Sources: Australian War Memorial; Australian Defence