Welcome!
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Attrition
[edit]Although the dire efects of the Nivelle disaster were not at once apparent, Sir Douglas Haig realized that the character of a Flanders campaign would have to be modified. On the 1st May in a memorandum [to the War Cabinet].... "... even if a full measure of success is not gained, we shall be atacking the enemy on a front where he cannot refuse to fight, and where, therefore, ou purpose of wearing him down can be given effect to...." OH p. 21.
8 June to War Cabinet: As regards the so-called "Petain tactics", he said that they were, in fact, what he proposed. he had no intention of entering into a tremendous offensive involving heavy losses, but to proceed step-by-step, and not to push attacks without a reasonable chance of success. OH p. 102.
21 June As regards the first objective of the Flanders operation, he said it would be "the ridge extending from Stirling Castle (1,200 yards ESE of Hooge) by Passchendaele, Staden and Clercken to near Dixmude". He expected severe fighting, entailing a series of advances each of limited depth, and lasting for probably several weeks, before the enemy was driven from the whole of it ; but he believed that by that time the strength of the resistance would have been considerably reduced.... OH p.106.
Reply to WC telegram of 25 July "... even if my attacks do not gain ground, as I hope and expect, we ought still to persevere in attacking the Germans in France. only by this means can we win...." OH p. 106.
Uniacke's report of 25 Aug 1917
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox#Uniacke You might find this interesting on the question of the extent of the difference between Gough and Plumer's methods; further evidence I think that there was an evolution (on both sides) due to systematic attempts to analyse events and react to them. It was interesting to see that Counter-Battery was given less emphasis on grounds of necessity as well as effectiveness; another point to be considered re: II Corps and its tribulations in August. As you've rightly pointed out, original research is not for a Wiki article but perhaps some comment may be allowed in a historiographical section? Apropos, are interweb comments allowed under the rules of notability and trustworthiness?
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards
[edit]Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 224, December 2024
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)