1918 - the year of offensives

The casualty numbers I listed were for the whole war. The Category- Other of 63000 would be the deaths from sickness. The book definitely gave the full account of the offensive with all the French involvement. As I remember, the AEF did the majority of the blood spilling because they were fresh and the American generals were anxious to prove their mettle.

Correct, nevertheless, the french still managed to suffer 70000 or so casualties. Even on the defensive units would take heavy casualties were the norm.

Foch finally sends reinforcements - The second battle of Kemmel 25 April 1918

Whilst the Australians were enjoying their success on the Somme at Villers-Bretonneux, the French on Mont Kemmel were about to go through hell in Flanders.

Finally realizing the danger posed by the German assaults on the british, Foch finally released elments of the french army to assist the hard pressed British. They were alsmost immedialtey engaged in another critical battle for the heights of Mont Kemmel. Termed the 2nd battle of Kemmel I have yet agin had to rely on third party sources for a description of this battle.

"At 02:30 hours on 25 April 1918 over 250 batteries of German guns opened up on Allied artillery positions with a mixture of gas and high explosive. For the next two hours they concentrated solely on destroying gun emplacements.

After a short pause, at 05:00 hours the German barrage was switched to the French front line.

French soldiers who had survived the horrors of Verdun described it as the worst they had ever encountered.

Opposite a single French Division were amassed three and a half German Divisions. An hour of such a furious bombardment was considered sufficient by the Germans and at 06:00 hours they launched their infantry to the attack.

By 07:10 hours Kemmel Hill was theirs and by 10:30 hours it was all over.

Even the German airforce had joined in with 96 aircraft dropping 700 bombs and machine gunning the French positions as the Leib Regiment of the élite Alpine Corps (In fact a Division) stormed forward.

The fact that the French Ossuary on the hill contains the remains of more than 5000 unidentifiable soldiers, mostly, from fighting in this area in April says more about the fury of the bombardment than mere words.

The advancing Germans pushed on over the hill and down towards the Scherpenberg and Loker (Locre). Here they halted waiting on their artillery to be brought forward.

Having taken Mont Kemmel the Germans had a superb view into the Allies' hinterland

Two battalions of the French 99th RI together with the remnants of those who had escaped from Mont Kemmel held the line assisted by units from their dismounted 3rd Cavalry Division.

On the southern flank of the 28th Division the 154th had been forced to give way towards Loker but their line was basically holding, as was that of the British on the northern flank.

A gap however developed between the struggling 99th RI and the 9th Bn KOYLI and 6th Bn KOSB who were immediately alongside them. To this end the 147th British Brigade was brought up from Poperinge to plug the gap.

Pressure from the Germans continued and by midday Vierstraat had fallen, but by now the attackers were also tired.

That evening the British 25th Division arrived at Reningelst and were placed under French command to attempt with the French 39th Division to seize back Kemmel."

Georgette fails to break through

Both Foch and Haig wanted an immediate counter attack against Mont Kemmel.

The plan put together was for the French to take Mont Kemmel and the British Kemmel village. Throughout the night it poured with rain and by dawn this had turned into a thick mist.

The available artillery was so meagre that the Germans failed to recognise the preliminary bombardment for what it was. At the junction of the two Divisions the British 74th Brigade managed to make some headway, but by the finish of the day the only gain that had been made was to strengthen the French line and fill in the gaps. The exhaustion of the Germans, however, was beginning to show through and further attacks against the remaining hills in the locality were all withstood and repulsed. By the evening of the 28th though, it was apparent from the number of deserters and resulting information that another assault was about to be launched in the area of Kemmel.

Counter bombardments were commenced but nevertheless the German attack manifested itself just before 06:00 hours after a gas and shell bombardment. Despite being met by devastating fire from the French the German Alpine Corps pushed through the French lines towards Scherpenberg. Initial worries that yet another breakthrough was about to occur were found to be alarmist as the French 39th and 154th Divisions supported the weakening line and started to push the Alpine Corps backwards. Loker fell for a short time but a vigorous counter attack by French Dragoons pushed the enemy back out of the village. To the north the British in the area of Voormezele were forced to relinquish the area mainly because of the weight of the artillery bombardment.

German losses were too great to be able to continue with such abandon and when the Alpine Corps was ordered to advance again at 17:00 hours it found that it was so reduced in numbers that it was unable to comply. The second great German offensive had come to a halt and Ludendorff was forced to call off Operation Georgette. His attention would now turn towards the south and this time against the French.

Mont Kemmel would in fact remain in German hands until the end of August when the American 27th Division and British 34th Divisions would finally drive them back from the area.

Thanks Michael, its hard for me to really grasp the sheer ferocity losses involved.
I think WW1 will always have that shock factor that is unlikely to lessen with the passing of years.

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month is a special day here.
Least we forget eh

John

Yes, well said. The war had a number of discernible phases despite the unremitting carnage. by 1918, both sides had developed methods to break the deadlock on the western front that really form the basis of modern warfare. German infiltration tactics and use of artillery remain the valid basis of nearly all modern tactics for Infantry on the attack. The tank and armoured fighting vehicles generally are an integral part of warfare to this day. The (largely) french triangular TOE remains the most efficient TOE for land formations. Aircraft, sumarines, aircraft carriers, magnetic mines, destroyers, submachine guns, semi automatic rifles, and a whole bevy of new technologies that profoundly and utterly changed the face of warfare came into widespread usage. I happen to think that 1918 was a period where the greatest rate of change in warfare and technology occurred, either before or since (with the possible exception of 1945, and the introduction of atomic weapons).

Its an irony not lost on me that humanity's periods of greatest innovation seem to follow its periods of greatest suffering and loss

parsifal said:

Yes, well said. The war had a number of discernible phases despite the unremitting carnage. by 1918, both sides had developed methods to break the deadlock on the western front that really form the basis of modern warfare. German infiltration tactics and use of artillery remain the valid basis of nearly all modern tactics for Infantry on the attack.

Click to expand...

I might be mistaken or maybe reading nationalistic books but most of those small unit tactics were pioneered at Vimy.

I dont know, will look into this point a little further. books i have read say it was the germans, using tactics developed by Von Hutier and first used near riga in 1917, and then on the italian front that led to the change in tactics. These tactics revolved around advances by Infantry in smal groups, under as much cover as could be provided, incorporating return of fire techniques such as automatic weapons like subnmachine guns as much as possible. Flamethrowers and mortars were another feature of these tactics. The advancing Infantry was instructed to take gound by probing for weak points in the line rather than frontally assaulting the strongest positions on the line.

Defensively instead of building a continuous line, it was found best to crete a number of strongpoints connected by a series of interlocking, but relatively lightly held trenchlines

Artillery bombardments up to 1917 were long running affairs, but von hutier developed the idea of short, high intensity barrages, designed to achieve the maximum of dislocation, but in a short space of time, to deny an enemy opportunity to react and bolster defences.

Ive always been led to believe that it was the germans that pioneered this new technique, however i also believe that the allies took the basic german concept and improved on it by adding tanks and massed mobile artillery to the mix (germans had used mobile artillery to exploit breakthroughs, but not in a massed fashion).

As I said your claim is wrth having a look at....

well, PB has provided me some information that certainly backs up his position, and makes me rethink some of the "basic truths" that I have always assumed were correct. Perhaps the development of modern tactis was not solely or exclusively a German innovation after all, as this article seems to support. (Article found by PB)

The Development of Infantry Doctrine in the Canadian Expeditionary Force: 1914-1918

Those wishing to consider the german contribution, might think about articles like the following:

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Oskar_von_Hutier

This topic has forced me to the library ,I think the reason for the sucess if the CEF (Canadian Expiditionary Force) was the unique make up of the division which was larger then the British 21000 as opposed to 15000 for the Brits , allowing a pointy end of 12000 as opposed to 8000, as for engineers the Brits had 637 Field engineers and a pioneer battalion of 900 whereas the Canadians fielded 3000 engineers and a separate pontoon bridging unit and another 65 specialties . The most eye opening thing was in automatic weapons with the CEF had . one auto weapon for every 13 men and the Brits had one for every 61 men. The Anzacs and the CEF were without doubt the best the Allies could field
The last line is not a nationalistic rant but fact proven by numbers

I agree, though there has always been some friendly rivalry between the Anzacs and the Canucks as to who was actually the best. For me, it matters not....both were incredibly brave groups of men

One note for the non-anzac readers. Anzac is not totally Australian....it includes new Zealanders, who fought with extraordinary distinction as well

parsifal said:

I agree, though there has always been some friendly rivalry between the Anzacs and the Canucks as to who was actually the best. For me, it matters not....both were incredibly brave groups of men

One note for the non-anzac readers. Anzac is not totally Australian....it includes new Zealanders, who fought with extraordinary distinction as well

Click to expand...

just discovered the Kiwis were not part of the Aussies in last hundred days but am trying to figure out stength of Aussies, the best I can see is 4 divisions and if so were they set up on British lines as in strength

I think they were organized as standard Divisions, however, as a corps, they more or less had either 2 or 4 armoured regiments more or less permanently attached as well as significant non-divisional assets. The Australian contingent of the Corps was about 5900 or so, but monashes command in terms of combat strength was about 50% bigger than that.

At Hamel for example, the division committed to the battle was supported by a full british armoured regiment, 45 vehicles, and for the first time had significant maintenence units attached. The tanks and the Infantry trained together for weeks before the battle....something unheard of until that time. There were special mobile (I think motorised) Light Artillery units, attached to the Infantry Brigades follwing thgem for rapid unlimbering so as to hel hold the ground once taken....not sure about the pioneers in the Anzac Corps, but the fighting at Villers Bretonneux would suggest that considerable assault assets were attached to the Australian formations. At Hamel, 4th Australian had about 250 guns supporting it, whereas the normal amount per Div was about a quater of that (including Corps assets and the like. Getting off the discussion point, the French and Americans put a lot of effort into railway guns, which I dont think the Brits did


The biggest problem for the Australians by 1918 was manpower. The country only had a population of 5 million or so, By wars end 367000 men were in the army and of that number 67% had been injured and were unfit for combat. War weariness was setting in and the numbers of volunteers joining were hard pressed to fill the gaps. Australia never introduced any draft for its armed forces in WWI. It was the major political issue of the time, as a referendum on the issue was lost (Australian Government was prohibited by law until after Korea from sending chokos....consripts...."chocolate soldiers" because they melt in any sort of heat) outside the bordersd of Australia, though there was some fancy footwork in the Pacific in WWII.

With regard to the New Zealanders in the Anzac Corps, that substantially true, but not quite. Moreover, not all Australian formations were attached to the newly formed Anzac Corps in 1917.

When the Austrlians transferred their infantry to the Western Front in 1916, thay had actually formed a second corps. Australians and New Zealanders thus formed I II Anzac Corps. There were at first four Australian and 1 NZ Infantry Divs attached, but a fifth Australian Div was formed in 1916. In addition XIII Light Horse regiment gave three squadrons whilst 4th Light Horse hgave two squadrons of Cavalry. The New Zealnders gave their Otago mounted rifles to this special attachment. These assets were used to form the II Cav regiment which was a permanent attachment to the II Anzac. There was another regimentformed by similar stripping out of mounted assets in Egypt. The two Anzac Corps went to France with the equivalent of two Cavalry Regiments attached.

It had been intended that these assets would remain Corps assets, however in practice they were more or less continuously directly attached to the divisional structure.

In 1917 there was a reorganization, as you say. II Anzac Corps was renamed XII British Corps and the New Zealanders, who up to that point been attached to I Anzac Corps, were sent to the XII. The 4th Aus Div, which had been attached to II Anzac Corps were transferred to I Anzac to replace the New Zealanders. The two Cav regiments which had always been a mix of Brit, NZ and Australian formations remained attached to their respective Corps, so there is every possibility New Zealanders were still fighting in the reorganized ANZAC Corps of 1917-18 ANZAC Corps fought for most of its existence with 5 Divcs attached, plus numerous non-divisional attachments that were more or less permanent

SomE interesting things I'm learning are the differences in the tactics employed by the Aussies and Canadians , the Canadians were "masters" of using artillery and the Aussies were the "masters" of working with armour. Armour played its biggest role in the Battle of Amiens .
The Aussies would take German OP's and not give them back as was the custom at the time this was very frustrating for the Germans.The Canadians would use set piece attacks they would take a trench and hold it using artillery that had been pre positioned forward along with fact they were very heavy on automatic weapons . The Germans would counterattck and would be attacking a very heaviliy defended trench backed by artillery aided by what was comsidered the best counter battery fire. The Canadian artillery was very adept at changing directions to the point where a segement of trench would be taken and the artillery would shift directions 90 degrees and and bombard the trench not yet taken taking into account the contours of the trench .
An interesting fact being that 2 countries with a combined population of 13 million encountered and defeated between them 86 German divisions or 40% of the German Army

".... 2 countries with a combined population of 13 million encountered and defeated between them 86 German divisions or 40% of the German Army"

Thanks for those insights, BP.

The "100 Days" was a Commonwealth effort - not to diminish the role of others, but the Commonwealth troops who had been at war since 1914 and had seen much that was stupid, brutal and pointless finally had the chance to open it up in 1918, and boy did they ever role up the carpet.

MM

I found this stat which impressed me
Canadian
Troops engaged 105000
Duration of operations 100 days
Distance Advanced 86 miles
Divisions engaged 68
german divisions defeated 47
Casualties per division Defeated 975
Rounds fired per day by artillery piece 42
Total casualties 45830
Prisoners 31,537
guns captured Heavy and Field 623
machine guns 2482
trench mortars 338


The numbers for the Aussies are not as complete
Australians captured 29144 prisoners 338guns and defeated 39 divisions



The AEF
Troops engaged 650000
duration of operations 47 days
Distance advanced 34 miles
German Divisions defeated 46
Avg number of casualties per division defeated 2170
Total casualties 100000
Rounds fired per day by artillery piece 23

Today is Rememberance Day....the 11 hour of the 11 day of 11 month that marked the end of hostilities for a war, that had proven to be more costly than all the wars of the past three hundred years combined.

Sobering thoughts. We should take a moment to remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Lest we forget

Thank you, Parsifal.

Proud Canadian

MM

Indeed. Thanks.

One of the more astonishing facts about the Great War is that the influenza pandemic killed more people between 1917 and 1919 than all those who died during WW1 by a long shot. The estimated figure is more than 40 million world wide; some say higher.

parsifal said:

Today is Rememberance Day....the 11 hour of the 11 day of 11 month that marked the end of hostilities for a war, that had proven to be more costly than all the wars of the past three hundred years combined.

Sobering thoughts. We should take a moment to remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Lest we forget

Click to expand...

WW1 the war that changed society forever.
Naivety and trust were destroyed in mud of Flanders.

John

".... Naivety and trust were destroyed in mud of Flanders."

"... the influenza pandemic killed more people between 1917 and 1919 than all those who died during WW1 by a long shot."

Interesting contrast. Nature operates on a scale and with an efficiency still unreached by man. WW1 really was the end of a long history of war between Christian nations .... since then it has been war between democracy and various 'isms'.

MM