Field Marshall Douglas Haig : the Butcher of the Somme

[Maestro]

When did they start implementing this?
I know the French further south in the Allied line used the method with some success but I thought the British never got over warning the Germans that

a. here comes a barrage, it should signal to you that we're on the offensive.
b. the barrage has now stopped, it should signal to you that we've got boots on the ground and they're coming towards your machine-gun positions in a nice, long, convenient line-abreast formation and at a speed where you shouldn't have too much trouble reloading.

The creeping barrage in the British Army was implemented (as far as I know) by Arthur Cury, commander of the Canadian Corps, during the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917. It was one of many requests made by Cury in order to accept the task.

1 - Enough guns (about 120 or 160) for the creeping barrage.
2 - Launch the attack when he (Cury) sees fit.
3 - Take all the time needed to pound the living sh*t out of the Germans in the days prior to the attack.



Haig had to accept those requests or assign the task to an other corps... He chose to accept them.

[Maestro]

...it would be interseting to see any troops cover the mile or more of no mans land that consisted of usually a muddy moonscape (some shell holes 15ft deep) carrying their kit at the run then be able to assault trenchs with bullet and bayonet.

That is an other thing I never understood... Why did they have to carry all of their stuff during an assault ? Keep your helmet, your weapons and your ammunitions and dump everything else. It should help you to move faster.

[Glider]

That is an other thing I never understood... Why did they have to carry all of their stuff during an assault ? Keep your helmet, your weapons and your ammunitions and dump everything else. It should help you to move faster.

That was one of the changes that was made during the war. The main packs were left behind.

[Maestro]

Ah... Thanks for the info.

[Negative Creep]

despiute the number of deaths laid at the feet of lord haig he is still regarded as somewhat of a hero figure here in the uk,

I can honestly say I've never heard anyone refer to him as a hero. He seems to be, rightly or wrongly, the personification of wasteful attrition tactics

[Bernhart]

just to correct your spelling maestro, it's Arthur Currie

[timshatz]

I can honestly say I've never heard anyone refer to him as a hero. He seems to be, rightly or wrongly, the personification of wasteful attrition tactics

I don't know if he was considered a hero as such, but he was considered competent. And a victor. That was until Lloyd George wrote his history of WW1 ("I tried to tell them it was no good but they wouldn't listen" type of stuff). LG's history of WW1, much like Winston Churchill's history of WW2, set the tone of the memory of that war (at least in England). Those that fought in it tended, at the end of it, to be supportive of the effort. It was for a good cause. That perspective has changed over the years to one which sees WW1 as nothing but a slaughter of innocents, Lions led by Donkeys, that sort of thing.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and far more complex.

[Glider]

I don't know if he was considered a hero as such, but he was considered competent. And a victor. That was until Lloyd George wrote his history of WW1 ("I tried to tell them it was no good but they wouldn't listen" type of stuff). LG's history of WW1, much like Winston Churchill's history of WW2, set the tone of the memory of that war (at least in England). Those that fought in it tended, at the end of it, to be supportive of the effort. It was for a good cause. That perspective has changed over the years to one which sees WW1 as nothing but a slaughter of innocents, Lions led by Donkeys, that sort of thing.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and far more complex.

I agree with this summary, if you want the personification of the term Butcher most would agree that this applied to Kitchener, not Haig.

[Maestro]

just to correct your spelling maestro, it's Arthur Currie

Uh... Thanks.

[Maestro]

I agree with this summary, if you want the personification of the term Butcher most would agree that this applied to Kitchener, not Haig.

Oh, and in how was Kitchener worst than Haig ? He wasn't even commanding the forces directly. Haig was doing most of the job.

[Glider]

Oh, and in how was Kitchener worst than Haig ? He wasn't even commanding the forces directly. Haig was doing most of the job.

You can start with the Boer War when he was responsible for the scortched earth policy against the Boers and the setting up of the original concentration camps. These had a death rate of 34%.

At the start of WW1 he was partly responsible for the decision to limit the number of machine guns in British units. Unfortunately for the troops, the British army high command could see no real use for the oil-cooled machine gun demonstrated to them; other officers even regarded the weapon as an improper form of warfare.
When war broke out in August 1914 the Germans had 12,000 at their disposal, a number which eventually ballooned to 100,000, whereas the British had a few hundred.

In the shell crisis of 1915 he was lucky to survive he uproar as he was responsible for munitions, but was popular with the public, hence he survived.

[Maestro]

You can start with the Boer War when he was responsible for the scortched earth policy against the Boers and the setting up of the original concentration camps. These had a death rate of 34%.

I was reffering to WWI, let's keep other conflicts aside.

At the start of WW1 he was partly responsible for the decision to limit the number of machine guns in British units. Unfortunately for the troops, the British army high command could see no real use for the oil-cooled machine gun demonstrated to them; other officers even regarded the weapon as an improper form of warfare.
When war broke out in August 1914 the Germans had 12,000 at their disposal, a number which eventually ballooned to 100,000, whereas the British had a few hundred.

Yeah... And who suggested it ? Haig ! He was seeing the machine gun as "a much overrated weapon that could be taken by pure grit and determination."

Plus it wasn't Kitchener's idea to send the troops walking slowly across the battlefield... It was Haig's idea.

Rapid rate of fire + slow moving target = slaughter !

It was also Haig's idea to proceed to an heavy shelling in the minutes prior to an assault, warning the ennemy of their arrival.

Now, add that to the equation above and you get a disaster !

In the shell crisis of 1915 he was lucky to survive he uproar as he was responsible for munitions, but was popular with the public, hence he survived.

You're right on this. I can't argue against that.

[Hop]

The creeping barrage was first used at the Somme in 1916. As an example, from 7th division, XV corps orders, 18 June:

During the advance of the infantry a barrage of artillery fire will be formed in front of the infantry according to the timings shown on the tracings issued to those concerned. The lines shown on the tracings indicate the nearest points on which the guns will fire up to the hour indicated. At the times shown heavy guns will lift their fire direct to the next barrage line. The divisional artillery will move their fire progressively at the rate of 50 yards a minute. Should the infantry arrive at any point before the time fixed for the barrage to lift, they will wait under the best cover available and be prepared to assault directly the lift takes place

It wasn't in use everywhere on the front, and in many places it proved ineffective, but the intent was certainly there. On the 16 July GHQ issued the following:

One of the outstanding artillery lessons of the recent fighting has been the great assistance afforded by a well-directed field artillery barrage maintained close in front of the advancing infantry. It is beyond dispute that on several occasions where the field artillery has made a considerable "lift," that is to say has outstopped the infantry advance, the enemy has been able to man his parapets with rifles and machine guns. It is therefore of first importance that in all cases infantry should be instructed to advance right under the field artillery barrage, which should not uncover the first objective until the infantry are close up to it (even within 50 or 60 yard)

despiute the number of deaths laid at the feet of lord haig he is still regarded as somewhat of a hero figure here in the uk

I haven't heard anyone refer to Haig as a hero, either. In fact he is roundly vilified in the UK, where the perception is the British generals were the worst in the war.

It's unfair imo. Mass casualty assaults were hardly unique to the British army. In fact, by the end of the war, the forces under Haig were the best in the world.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The whole idea of an artillery barrage before and attack was used by countless armies and not just an idea by Haig. It is still done in modern times as well.

[parsifal]

It was the germans who first cottoned on to how to use artillery in the modern sense. The allies tended to try and eliminate all opposition with their artillery, and would pound a position for weeks to try and eliminate the defences in that sector completely. Certainly the creeping barrage went some way to affording protection to the advancing Infantry, but this was only a part of the issue, and remained a relatively minor aspect to the application of artillery by the allies.

The Germans realized that a better method was to use artillery in a much more concentrated form, their barrages were using less guns, but on a smaller sector of the front. They also relaized that the best way to use artillery was with a rapid barrage lasting just a few minuts, to dislocate the defences, rather than overpower them. A barrage of short duration allowed maximum force to be applied at the decisive point and prevented the movement of reserves by the defnce. Concentrated barrages of small duration meant that the defence was often left dazed and dislocated.

I see Haig as representing a failure for a number reasons. He represented the very worst of British leadership for a number of reasons

1) His total disconnect to the relaities at the front. He did not know (whether by omission or disdain) what was happening to his men at the front, and did not make any attempt to improve morale by visits to the front.

2) His well known failure to embrace technology to find ways around the deadlock. The adoption of tanks was achieved despite Haig, not because of him.

3) His failure to develop methods and training regimes to break the deadlock. Whilst the Australians, the Canadians and some British units developed themselves into "shock" troop status, with the training, techniques and elan to push forward to break defensive positions, the majority of the allied armies remained mass conscipt armies, of relatively low levels of traiing. The idea of professional mass armies was an anathema to Haig, and he resisted this concept tenaciously. In contrast the Germans embraced it, and nearly won the war with it

Ultimately, the war was won by the Royal Navy rather than the British army. Haig failed to realize, fundamentally, that his great offensives were really not winnng anything, and were losing a great deal. I think a better option until proper offensive techniques were worked out, would be to stay on the defensive, rather than throw millions to their deaths, because Haig wanted to fight a war in cerrtain way