1918 - the year of offensives

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

Indeed, the British army in 1918 was quite sophisticated compared to 1915.
The only issue was the lack of able bodied Brits to sign up....
Cheers
John
 
The British Army suffered a huge defeat at Cambrai during late 1917 despite employment of 476 tanks. This and earlier defeats of Entente tank forces gave the German Army a low opinion of tanks in general. That opinion didn't change until they began encountering Renault FT-17 tanks from 31 May, 1918 onward. Then the German tank program progressed with amazing speed.

June 23, 1918.
German Army orders production of 670 LK II tanks.

July 17, 1918.
Additional LK II tank orders.
.....A total of 2,000 by June 30th, 1919.
.....2,000 additional LK II tanks to be produced July to December 1919.

Oct 2nd, 1918. First LK II tank rolls off the assembly line. 3 1/2 months after the program was initiated!

Late Oct / early Nov 1918. Planning begins for improved LK III tank.

It's worth noting that Germany had no oil shortage after capturing Romania during 1916 and the Caucasus during 1918. If the war had lasted another year there would have been full scale tank battles during 1919!

LK II tank.
Walkaround of a surviving LK II Strv m/21 WW1 Tank
8.5 tons.
3 man crew.
14kph max speed.
Armor. 12 to 14mm on front, sides and rear. 8mm on top. 3mm on floor.
3.7cm cannon in rotating turret. 1/3rd of vehicles would be armed with a machinegun ILO the cannon.
 


'A huge defeat'? Au contraire.
First World War.com - Battles - The Battle of Cambrai, 1917
Cambrai showed what the British tanks could achieve. Look at the infantry losses. 50k German 45k British. 95 thousand men...the mind boggles even after all these years.
Cheers
John
 
My understanding is that the tanks did not do so well after the first day of battle. 180 were knocked out on the first day alone. The battle from my understanding was a stalemate in the end with both sides having gained no ground in the end (British advances were great in the beginning but in the end they lost those gains).

I will admit thought that my knowledge of the WW1 is pretty limited (which is one reason why I find any WW1 topic very very interesting and try to learn as much as possible). In fact the info I have above is from Wikipedia, which I normally do not use because it is not the most accurate source. I did use it here however so as to read up a bit on the battle. It can be a decent "first" source, but further reading from more reliable sources is required. So basically if that info is false, please don't crucify me...
 

Chris, you are basically right. The British tanks were unreliable and in their infancy. The Cambrai battle showed what the tank could do, Nothing more.
I visited that area in 2002 and saw the WW1 tank that a Frenchman had tracked down and dug up. It was complete on one side and had the front half on the other side missing from a direct hit.
Fascinating piece of history.
The sheer scale of loss of human life, as I said earlier, 95,000 men, is...what can I say? Very hard to really get your head around.
Cheers
John
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately I don't have official German casualty data for just November and December 1917. So I need to compare for Aug to Dec 1917.

Germany. Aug to Dec 1917. Opposite the British Front.
37,630 dead.
51,848 missing and prisoner.
147,658 wounded.
----------------------
237,136 total.

Britain. Aug to Dec 1917. Western Front.
(unfortunately they are not broken down by "Dead", "Missing" and "Wounded")
81,080 Aug 1917.
81,249. Sep 1917.
119,808. Oct 1917.
73,888. Nov 1917.
38,620. Dec 1917.
---------------------
394,645 total.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Oh I know. I visited Verdun back in July, and was speechless when thinking about the battle and the loss of life there. WW1 was a human meat grinder.
Click to expand...

My tour included the Somme valley. There is a sadness about the place which is unsurprising. I have read a lot about WW1 and listened to my Grandparents stories, watched TV programmes and I still don't really understand why that generation of men were destroyed and why society/ Governments/ Kings Queens (in all countries) allowed the slaughter to continue for 4 years.
 

A shocking indictment to 'civilised' man eh dave
 


Cambrai was hardly a defeat. It was at worst a stalemate, with 44000 British casualties compared to around 50000 German.

Britains Tank formations had performed brilliantly on the first day, but had suffered heavy breakdown rates after that. These were not losses in the sense that the Germans destroyed them, they were simply mechanically unreliable.

The attack phase had gone brilliantly achieving territorial advances that for the time were miraculous for the allies. It was the defensive stage that broke down and could be considered a defeat.

What damned the british defence was firstly and most importantly a lack of manpower. Cambrai followed hard on the heels of The Somme and Passchendaele, which had very nearly destroyed the British Army. Linked to this was a severe breakdown in command and control....the british had not expected such a massive breakthrough. the Germans had superior reserves behind their front lines and and used them to great effect.

The main failing foir the British Tanks had been reliability, and this was mostly due to inadequate maintenance and poor construction and design of the early Marks. Mark IVs were a big improvement, and mkVs even better still. At Villers Bretonneux, the following year, British tanks had performed quite reliably, and at Hamel and Amiens (the following July and August) British tanks acted quite reliably. British tank field formations by wars end were the most reliable of any of the major armies using tanks.

Both German and French tank formations suffered very poor reliability issues (considerably worse than the british), and this was both before and after the introduction of the FT-17. The first mass employment of French armour was on the aisne, where 128 were committed. Just 8 of that numbere remained operational long enough to actually get into battle.

The first major usage of tanks by the Germans was April 1918. About 100 tanks were committed to the offensive, however only about 50 actually got into battle. By April 24, the day of their first big committment, there were just 13 tanks left operational.

The Germans eventually formed 5 regiments of tanks, but by October, there was not a single operational tank left in the German army.


The LkII was a marked improvement over earlier German attempts at producing a tank, but there is nothing to suggest that they were even close to the british by wars end in terms of integrating their tank formations into the army. The British experience showed that it was absolutely necessary to provide proper maintenance facilities within the tank formations, whilst the experiences at Hamel and Amiens had demonstrated what could be done with properly integrated Infantry/armour/artillery teams. Which was precisely what Monash did, and it paid off very well. There were absolutely no indications that the germans were anywhere near that level of development in their tank formations

Further, Fuller had taken this concept of integrated all arms, properly supported tank formations even further. The British were prepring for 1919 by planning to form proper armoured divisions.

if fighting had continued into 1919, it would have seen properly organized, and better equipped British formations, with a wealth of experience to back them up, versus a fledgling, inexpereienced German tank Corps not properly supported and outnumbered. The German tank formations would have lasted a few days at best.

However, all this misses the main point. Tanks were an integral part of the Allied response to the static warfare deadlock. They had taken the german assault tactics and built on them. Allied methods were more careful and meticulous than the Gemans Stosstruppen tactics, with tanks integrated into the attack (and defence), so the territorial gains were more measured. however casualty rates were also far more favourable to the allies from Hamel onward. At Amiens, for example, the Germans had lost something like 70000 men, to the Allied losses of about 25000. During operation Michael, by comparison, german losses had run to a staggering 244000 compared to 177000 allied losses. Michael was a success, in terms of territorial gains, but it tore the heart out of the german army in terms of casualties. The Germans worked out how to break the deadlock, but they had not really solved the frightful cost needed in order to achieve that deadlock. by comparison, the British, during their 100 days counteroffensive, achieved a more modest territorial breakthrough, but tipped the losses heavily in their favour.


There would not have been full scale tank battles in 1919, just a lot of captured German tanks, and even greater defeats for the german army, as had been started in August, and continued right until the end of the war.
 
davebender said:
1946 Europe was worse off in every way from what they had been at the beginning of 1939.
Click to expand...

Hardly. They had rid themselves of a crimnal regime, that was deadly efficient, and just deadly. Half of Germany was free, , mostly from the militarism that had plagued the nation since 1870.

Eastern Europe had fallen under a dark shadow, but the remainder of Europe was free, and would develop accordingly. The period of militarim was over, though it took some time to sink in.

And most importantly the rule of law had been restored. No longer were millions being judged and executed on the basis of race or religion. The right to practice freedom of religion, freedom from prejudice, freedom from persecution discrimination had been restored. Mostly, Europe was free from the spectre of german overt aggression, which had taken 70 yearsa to achieve.

Saying that Europe in 1945 was worse off than in 1939, is a massive traversty, and denies the criminality of the nazis, even to the German people themselves.

Are you aware of what you are claiming here??????? Are you aware of what that makes you, without admitting it in as many words????? Think about what you are saying Dave.....
 
davebender said:
?
1939 was before the Jewish holocaust.
Click to expand...

I reiterate dave...

'Are you saying that Europe was in good shape during the worst economic depression in modern history while Nazi Germany was already murdering Jews and other persecuted individuals and groups, and all of Europe was unable to comprehend the need to stop Hitler before cause the World to go to war?'

(with thanks to my mate)

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
Unraveling the Myth of Sgt. Alvin York: The Other Sixteen
Replies
1
Views
437
Gnomey
Can anyone identify this plane from this June 1918 German footage?
Replies
5
Views
934
German WWII Archive
The Vintage Aviator Ltd Hangar
Replies
10
Views
2K
nuuumannn
Battle of Jutland....
Replies
0
Views
410
Lucky13
WWI In The Alps, How Bad Was It?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Capt. Vick
Menu
Log in
Register