1918 - the year of offensives

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Operation Michael - The First of the Spring Offensives

Whilst out of chronological order it is perhaps appropriate to assess the success and failure of the German Spring offensives in 1918.

As a precursor, German war aims by 1918 were not outright victory....the best that Ludendorf rlaistically hoped for was to achieve a commanding position from which a respectable negotiated settlement could be reached. Germany was fast approaching exhaustion in the field, and starvation at home. There was enormous unrest and war weariness setting in on the home front. The matter needed to be resolved quickly, or Germany faced certain defeat.

Following the collapse of Russia, General Ludendorff was able to transfer west a large number German formations from the Eastern Front. Germany had developed new tactics involving the new rapid bombardment and infiltration tactics that had led to success at riga and other locations, particlularly those attacks carried out by one General von Hutier. These tactics were really the birth of modern warfare tactics, and deserve some detailed examination, but for now we will recount the historical progress of the offensive.

Aware that growing numbers of American troops would soon negate the numerical advantage Germany had gained, Ludendorff began planning a series of offensives to bring the war on the Western Front to a swift conclusion. Dubbed the Kaiserschlacht (Kaiser's Battle), the 1918 Spring Offensives were to consist of four major assaults code-named Michael, Georgette, Gneisenau, and Blücher-Yorck.

The first and largest of these offensives, Operation Michael, was intended to strike the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) along the Somme with the goal of cutting it off from the French to the south. The assault plan called for the 17th, 2nd, 18th, and 7th Armies to break through the BEF's lines then wheel northwest to drive toward the English Channel. Leading the attack would be Hutiers stormtrooper units whose orders called for them to drive deep into British positions, bypassing strong points, with the goal disrupting communications and reinforcements.

Facing the German onslaught were General Julian Byng's 3rd Army in the north and General Hubert Gough's 5th Army in the south. In both cases, the British suffered from possessing incomplete trench lines as a result of an advance after the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line the previous year. In the days prior to the assault, numerous German prisoners alerted the British about an impending attack. While some preparations were made, the BEF was unready for an offensive of the size and scope unleashed by Ludendorff. At 4:35 AM on March 21, German guns opened fire along a 40-mile front.

Pummeling the British lines, the barrage caused 7,500 casualties. Advancing, the German assault centered on St. Quentin and the stormtroopers began penetrating the broken British trenches between 6:00 AM and 9:40 AM. Attacking from just north of Arras south to the Oise River, German troops achieved success across the front with the largest advances coming at St. Quentin and in the south. At the northern edge of the battle, Byng's men fought tenaciously to defend the Flesquieres salient which had been won in the bloody Battle of Cambrai.

Conducting a fighting retreat, Gough's men were driven from their defensive zones along the front during the opening days of the battle. As the 5th Army fell back, the commander of the BEF, Field Marshal Douglas Haig, became concerned that a gap could open between Byng and Gough's armies. To prevent this, Haig ordered Byng to keep his men in contact with 5th Army even if it meant falling back farther than ordinarily necessary. On March 23rd, believing that a major breakthrough was in the offing, Ludendorff directed 17th Army to turn northwest and attack towards Arras with the goal of rolling up the British line.

The 2nd Army was instructed to push west towards Amiens, while the 18th Army on its right was to push southwest. Though they had been falling back, Gough's men inflicted heavy casualties and both sides began to tire after three days of fighting. The German assault had come just to the north of the junction between the British and French lines. As his lines were pushed west, Haig became concerned that a gap could open between the Allies. Requesting French reinforcements to prevent this, Haig was denied by General Philippe Pétain who was concerned about protecting Paris.

Telegraphing the War Office after Pétain's refusal, Haig was able to force an Allied conference on March 26 at Doullens. Attended by high-level leaders on both sides, the conference led to General Ferdinand Foch being appointed overall Allied commander and the dispatch of French troops to aid in holding the line south of Amiens. At last, after three long years of heavy fighting, the Allies had a logical, unified command structure.

As the Allies were meeting, Ludendorff issued highly ambitious new objectives to his commanders including the capture of Amiens and Compiègne. On the night of March 26/27, the town of Albert was lost to the Germans though 5th Army continued to contest each yard of ground.

Realizing that his offensive had departed from its original goals in favor of exploiting local successes, Ludendorff attempted to put it back on track on March 28 and ordered 29 of his freshest divisions to assault against Byng's 3rd Army. This attack, dubbed Operation Mars, met with little success and was beaten back. That same day, Gough was sacked in favor of General Sir Henry Rawlinson, despite his able handling of 5th Army's retreat.

On March 30, Ludendorff ordered the last major assaults of the offensive with General Oskar von Hutier's 18th Army attacking the French along the south edge of the newly created salient and General Georg von der Marwitz's 2nd Army pushing toward Amiens. By April 4, the fighting was centered in Villers-Bretonneux on the outskirts of Amiens. Lost to the Germans during the day, it was retaken by Rawlinson's men in a daring night attack. Ludendorff attempted to renew the attack the following day, but failed as Allied troops had effectively sealed the breaches caused by the offensive.

In defending against Operation Michael, Allied forces suffered 177,739 casualties, while the attacking Germans endured around 239,000. While the loss of manpower and equipment for the Allies was replaceable as American military and industrial power was brought to bear, the Germans were unable to replace the number lost. Though Michael succeeded in pushing the British back forty miles in some places, it failed in its strategic objectives. This was largely due to the German troops being unable to significantly dislodge Byng's 3rd Army in the north where the British enjoyed stronger defenses and the advantage of terrain. As a result, the German penetration, while deep, was directed away from their ultimate objectives.

Not to be deterred, Ludendorff renewed his Spring Offensive on April 9 with the launching of Operation Georgette in Flanders.........
 
Why? I really never got that feeling from any other European countries, and don't see why they would.

Didn't you?
Perhaps German newspapers were suitably selective in their editorials.
While were pleased to see the end of the Soviet threat the prospect of a reunited Germany getting inflated ideas about where you fit into the scheme of things is not one that made us happy.
John
 
Didn't you?
Perhaps German newspapers were suitably selective in their editorials.
While were pleased to see the end of the Soviet threat the prospect of a reunited Germany getting inflated ideas about where you fit into the scheme of things is not one that made us happy.
John

I was in France at the time but working for a German company. The French as I remember were very positive not about German unification but at the demise of Soviet control in the East of Europe. The Germans (all from the west) seemed resigned to paying for unification which is still a drain on the economy. As I remember, British politicians were more concerned with a Soviet backlash if things moved too far too fast, but then I could just read the Telegraph and listen to the BBC.
 
I was in France at the time but working for a German company. The French as I remember were very positive not about German unification but at the demise of Soviet control in the East of Europe. The Germans (all from the west) seemed resigned to paying for unification which is still a drain on the economy. As I remember, British politicians were more concerned with a Soviet backlash if things moved too far too fast, but then I could just read the Telegraph and listen to the BBC.

Cold War Museum

MN,
We were all pleased to see the Soviet threat end. Who wouldn't be? Certainly the Poles etc have made the most of their new opportunities and good for them. I admire their energy.
I know your views but, please read this short article. German drive for reunification and the resulting economic recession.
This time they didn't have anyone to blame but, history teaches us that these circumstances usually lead to trouble...eventually.
I hope I am wrong to be suspicious. Time will tell if the Leopards spots are different eh
John
 
Didn't you?
Perhaps German newspapers were suitably selective in their editorials.
While were pleased to see the end of the Soviet threat the prospect of a reunited Germany getting inflated ideas about where you fit into the scheme of things is not one that made us happy.
John

No I did not, and I don't limit myself to just reading German papers. You forget that I am an American...

I do however think that it is only your way of thinking.

In your view, how do the Germans fit into things? Based off of the history of your posts, I honestly believe that you see the modern Germans as no different than the Nazis. Pretty sad if you ask me. I will leave it at that though, because it is way off topic of this thread.
 
Last edited:
guys

this is a thread about the offensives of 1918. I started it because in another thread we drifted off topic, and some claims were made to the effect that Germany was not defeated at the end of the war and had really been poorly treated by the treaty of Versailles.

I dont subscribe to that theory, but i determined that we should have an open forum to discuss this important issue. I am happy to wander a little or a lot off topic to discuss the causes of the war, because that, in a way determines whether what happened at wars end was justified or not. I was happy to discuss possible alternatives like the Serbian thingy that Dave raised. Yeah, Im one-eyed about a lot of these issues, and I will let you know exactly what I think, and if you have an opposing view expect to be interrogated by me. Nevertheless, I invite you to air your views, make your points. Thats why we are here for.

But talkinmg about modern Germany doesnt have a lot to do with 1918, so to avoid jeopardising the future of this thread, i would just ask we stay just a little on topic. Im not whinging, just asking.

I notice the original poster of that other thread has decided not to particiapte in this debate. probably a good thing since he doesnt like me much......


Go ahead and enjoy guys.
 
But talkinmg about modern Germany doesnt have a lot to do with 1918, so to avoid jeopardising the future of this thread, i would just ask we stay just a little on topic. Im not whinging, just asking.

And you are correct. Even as a moderator I must apologize here, I just can not let some things go unanswered. You should hear my wife's take on some of things she has read on this forum. No she is not a member of this forum, but I have asked her about her opinion on some things said. (She happens to be German who was born after the war, whose parents happen to have been born after the war, and is sick and tired of being force fed that she should feel shame or be blamed for what happened, when she was not alive nor where her parents. Or that Germany is no different than it was then, or "where they fit into the scheme of things".)

But as I said in the post above yours, and what you said in your post, it is not related to this topic. Lets try and keep this thread on topic, as it is an interesting subject.

So as I said, I do apologize...

(On a side note, parsifal, you know I think you are a very wise person and I have nothing but respect for you. I really would love to sit down and have a few drinks and talk history with you.)
 
Last edited:
Michael,
I got side tracked too. Sorry for the drift off topic.
As a final remark, there is still the same denial defensiveness shown ...the same as a certain Mr H capitalised on.
which leads me nicely back to 1918....
John
 
Theres no harm done, I love history and I love beer, so maybe some day when I travel to Europe Adler (and Readie), we can have a beer and talk this stuff to our hearets content

I would really love to hear peoples various viewpoints on this issue. not so much the macro political stuff, as the military bump and grind. For example, the air war in 1918. What was happening, who was winning.

I know for example that the first tank battle occurred on April 24 1918, just south of Villers Bretonneux. 4 German A7W tanks were engaged by 3 British Mk IV tanks, later joined by 7 Whippet tanks. One A7W tanks was destroyed, and the germans forced to withdraw back into the town. Few people know that was the first tank engagement in history.

Its a pity we dont have too many french memebers, I would like to hear their version of what happened at this time.

To me 1918 was one of those pivotal moments in history. it was the moment in time when finally the trench deadlocks were gradually solved, in different ways by either side. It was a moment of lost opportunities. The allies could have either adopted a moderate approach in their peace treaty with Germany, following Wilsons fourteen point plan, or they could have opted for an unconditional surrender approach. Either way would have been far better than the half nasty, half weak treaty that was finally adopted. I believe the har fought victory achieved by the allies in 1918 was wasted, and was a major factor in the next war
 
Theres no harm done, I love history and I love beer, so maybe some day when I travel to Europe Adler (and Readie), we can have a beer and talk this stuff to our hearets content


To me 1918 was one of those pivotal moments in history. it was the moment in time when finally the trench deadlocks were gradually solved, in different ways by either side. It was a moment of lost opportunities. The allies could have either adopted a moderate approach in their peace treaty with Germany, following Wilsons fourteen point plan, or they could have opted for an unconditional surrender approach. Either way would have been far better than the half nasty, half weak treaty that was finally adopted. I believe the har fought victory achieved by the allies in 1918 was wasted, and was a major factor in the next war

Michael,
A beer with you and Chris Alder would be great. I'm in Au in October 2013 so, maybe then too.
I agree with you wholeheartly about the waste of the 1918 victory.
Boy, did we pay the price though...
Cheers
John
 
Are you sure?

Germany produced only 21 A7V prototype tanks. Compared to hundreds of British and French tanks that were captured from 1916 onward and refurbished for German Army use. I find it difficult to believe one of the captured tanks employed by Germany didn't encounter their British or French counterparts prior to April 1918.
 
Are you sure?

Germany produced only 21 A7V prototype tanks. Compared to hundreds of British and French tanks that were captured from 1916 onward and refurbished for German Army use. I find it difficult to believe one of the captured tanks employed by Germany didn't encounter their British or French counterparts prior to April 1918.



short answer, yes.

this utube file gives their account of the battle, though is at odds with my published accounts which say that the German tank was abandonrd and lost.

You can find more substantial sources, such as Martin Evans book on the battles in 1918. Most accounts say that Operation Michael was supported by more than 200 tanks initially though I think most of these were captured versions.

I also think you will find that the first use of tanks by the germans was in this operation. They had essentially hoarded those that they captured up to that time. Not as sure about that however



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn4uRvgIEJY


this further file on the A7W includes an image of one of them blown over on its side, which tends to support Evans account of the battle


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hr8Jl_4eGw
 
Last edited:
Most popular histories of WWI contain so many errors that I don't trust them as "substantial sources". I want to see historical German Army documents (preferably translated into English) or first person accounts such as those Zuber quotes for his books on WWI.
 
Most popular histories of WWI contain so many errors that I don't trust them as "substantial sources". I want to see historical German Army documents (preferably translated into English) or first person accounts such as those Zuber quotes for his books on WWI.

Evans book contains an entry from Lt Mitchell, the commander of the British Tank involved and he states that it was the first time ("at last") that the RTC was able to engage enemy tanks.

His book incidentally, is not a "popular history". Its an authorised account sponsored by the AWM which happen to be considered the foremost institution on wwi issues that i am aware of.

The following link gives some details on the battle.

Australian Battlefields of World War 1 - France - 1918

Whilst the article posted is extremely limited in scope, it comes from an organization considered to be one of the worlds leading authorities on wwI (as stated above). You can take a step down and rely on your german sources if you like. AWMs reputation and database is particularly true of battles in which Australians particiapted, and Villers Bretonneux certainly qualifies for that

Lt Blitz, the German commander of the Tank involved ("Nixe") also gave interviews about the engagement after the war, though i dont have access to them.


Wiki has this to say :

The first tank against tank combat in history took place on the 24 April 1918 when three A7Vs (including chassis number 561, known as "Nixe") taking part in an attack with infantry incidentally met three Mark IVs (two female machine gun-armed tanks and one male with two 6-pounder guns) near Villers-Bretonneux. During the battle tanks on both sides were damaged. According to the lead tank commander, Second Lieutenant Frank Mitchell, the female Mk IVs fell back after being damaged by armour piercing bullets. They were unable to damage the A7Vs with their own machine guns. Mitchell then attacked the lead German tank, commanded by Second Lieutenant Wilhelm Biltz,[3] with the 6 pounders of his own tank and knocked it out. He hit it three times, and killed five of the crew when they bailed out. He then went on to rout some infantry with case shot. The two remaining A7Vs in turn withdrew. As Lieutenant Mitchell's tank withdrew from action, seven Whippet tanks also engaged the infantry. Four of these were knocked out in the battle, and it is unclear if any of them engaged the retreating German tanks. Lieutenant Mitchell's tank lost a track towards the end of the battle from a mortar shell and was abandoned. The damaged A7V was later recovered by German forces.


All 18 available A7Vs had been put into action that day with limited results; two toppled over into holes, some encountered engine or armament troubles. After a counterattack, three ended up in Allied hands. One was unusable and scrapped, one used for shell testing by the French, and the third captured by the Australians.

The A7V was not considered a success and other designs were planned by Germany, however the end of the war meant none of the other tanks in development, or planned ones, would be finished (such as the Oberschlesien, K-Wagen, LK I or LK II). The final use in World War I of A7Vs was in October 1918; a number were scrapped before the war ended in November.



This russian site also gives some account of the battle

WWI Tanks
 
Lt Mitchell, the commander of the British Tank involved and he states that it was the first time ("at last") that the RTC was able to engage enemy tanks.
French 5th Army employed 8 tank companies during their April 1917 offensive. If one of those Schneider tanks encountered a German tank during the battle would a British Lieutenant located 100 miles away know about it? I tend to doubt it.
118_small.jpg
 
French 5th Army employed 8 tank companies during their April 1917 offensive. If one of those Schneider tanks encountered a German tank during the battle would a British Lieutenant located 100 miles away know about it? I tend to doubt it.
View attachment 179118

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Interesting article. Primitive radio being used for communications. I'm not sure what the range of these sets would be though.
Cheers
John
 
Last edited:
There were no German tanks in the front line in April 1917. The first German Tank regiment was not formed until September 1917, but his formation had no operational tanks until December. The earliest known deployment of German tanks, whether they be captured or of domestic production was either late 1917, or more likley February 1918, and there are no known battle deployments until March 1918. Up to that time they were simply hoarding those tanks that they captured.

The Germans used their tanks to support the Schwerpunkt of their main assault in March 1918. However German tanks were not very successful at all, until April 1918, and the first successful employment of tanks by the germans army that is known and recorded, is on the 24th April....the very day of the battle at Villers Bretonneux.

The March offensives were initially aimed at the british forces, as Ludendorf was aiming to push a gap between the French and British Armies. French forces on the southern flank of the Amiens bulge were engaed, but only relatively lightly, and were not pushed back. Given that the Germans were targetting the british at that time, and February March was the first time they used tanks other than to haul them to the rear areas, it makes sense that the British members of the RTC would know if German tanks had been previously engaged or not.

We are not talking the middle ages here. There was a good exchange of knowledge in the british army, indeed between the allies generall , and the RTC was a relatively small element of tightly knit professionals that talked among themselves. Hard as you may find to believe it, the British army was a professional body of soldiers that would keenly distribute this sort of information, as it would have significant implications on the developing tactics and usage of their tanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back