Research Project on World War One

CONTENTS

1. Nature of Conflict
2. Impact of Technology
3. The significance of Tanks
4. The importance of the Battle of the Somme
5. Leadership
 Research Project

The Nature of conflict in World War One

World War One bears the perennial expression as ‘the war to end wars’*, or its kinder alternative:
the ‘Great war’*. In hindsight, it is clear that the former is far from accurate. The same can be said
for the latter. Indeed, World war one was a great war, but not the kind of great that defines light-
hearted sentiments or virtuous characters, rather a great that exceeds expectation, in this case an
indigestible greatness of horror and loss of life. Added to this was the dreadful nature of the conflict
that characterised the war. This encompassed the inhuman conditions of the trenches, the sour use
of chemical gases and the clumsy initiation of certain tactics from military superiors that led
thousands of men to their deaths.

Foremost, World War One is most notorious for its trench warfare; the rats, the lice, typically six feet
deep holes of doom peppered with broken corpses and the constant paranoia for incoming artillery
overhead. As told by the poet Wilfred Owen: ‘Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through
sludge…and towards our distant rest began to trudge.’* The word ‘sludge’ refers to the marsh battle
plains typical of those at the Battle of the Somme, grounds ruined by relentless artillery, making life,
or even imminent death, harder still for the soldiers. It was this that summarised the nature of
World War One; widespread duals of attrition that advertised little daring offensives; for the
machine gun made this senseless.

It is often said that the war’s progress was determined not by men but by machines: ‘Technology put
men in trenches and kept them there for 3 years’.* The Vickers machine gun, adopted by the British,
was common on the Western Front. Heavy and difficult to operate, it was not hugely efficient. It
took 6 men to operate and could not withstand sustained periods of use due to overheating
problems. If indeed it did overheat, water reserves had to be employed or air vents constructed as a
solution. Even so, weighing 20kg and being virtually immovable, the gun was primarily manipulated
as a defence weapon. Improvements on the machine gun (e.g. the Lewis gun) saw some action with
the infantry near the end of 1917, but the ‘Queen of the Battlefield’* remained stationary just above
the trenches to sabotage any opposition offences. Therefore, the main effect of the machine was a
trench deadlock that was evident across the Western Front that many any attack or push on the
enemy near impossible. When it was tried at the River Somme in 1916, it met with devastating
consequences.

On the other hand, the nature of conflict on the Eastern parallel was far less rigid. Trenches were the
central reason that had frozen battle in the fields near the Western Front. Little contraptions existed
in the East. In fact, the nature of conflict here was far more mobile, with either alliance deploying
daring pushes into the other’s territories in the hope of a breakthrough for example, the siege of
Przemysl and the Russian offensives that resulted in defeats at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes.
Impact of Technology

The war both at sea and in the air were both important tangents to the whole conflict. At sea, a
great concentration rested on the superior British navy against the German submarine warfare
which, in February 1917, became ‘unrestricted’*, and in turn provoked the United States into
involvement. The British were quick to capitalise on their superiority when they initiated a naval
blockade around Germany that prevented trade from entering and leaving. As a result, Germany was
economically crippled and starved of resources. This would be an eventual reason for their
surrender. Why the British navy was so commendable lay in their technology, i.e. their naval
inventions, the most important being their battleships. In most cases, these were made to carry
naval guns that could fire over 100,000 metres*. In others, for instance in the case of the Battle
cruiser, technology combined the belligerence of a battleship with the speed of a cruiser, resulting in
a whale of a vessel that boasted 15” guns with 21” torpedoes and a top speed of 36mph*.
Additionally, the navy employed depth charges and other anti-sub weapons to try and counter the
cunning manoeuvres of the German forces. The former was the most effective, yet did not come to
any fruition when the two forces locked horns at the Battle of Jutland 1916*. A case of chase and
retreat, an unsettled fracas left the British with deeper wounds than their German counterparts.

In the air, the war was far more balanced. From the air, strategies like bombing were adopted to
stage an economic war; crafts such as the Zeppelin being used to destroy buildings and homes alike.
This normally had to be completed during dark hours, as the Zeppelin was vulnerable to more
mobile fighter jets*. Incidentally, these fighter jets bore the bulk of battle in the air during the four
years. ‘Dogfights’ (battles between 2 or more fighter planes) were a frequent phenomenon, and
enticed the introduction of machine gun attachments in front of the cockpit, as well as later
additions including bullets that emerged from the gaps in the plane’s propellers. Even after this, the
Voison plane traded the machine gun for the cannon in the hope of causing more damage.* This
objective served for their grounded foes. A new addition to the arsenal, antiaircraft artillery*, was a
stationary lorry affixed with several guns that could shoot up to 3,000 yards*. They were clustered in
groups to increase their efficiency, and were the most powerful tool in the fight against aircraft*.

http://techcenter.davidson.k12.nc.us/Group9/tech.htm

Wireless telegraphy* was another key innovation as it allowed for an accurate artillery placement
and also served as a warning for inbound bombs or air bourn enemies. Other key inventions included
the barbaric debut of chlorine gas and the new bolt action rifle that was a regular in the infantry of
the Allies. The use of chlorine fathomed little success, for its effectiveness depended almost entirely
on the dynamics of the wind where it was used. The bolt action rifle, however, soon became an
intrinsic item of weaponry. It’s capable distance gave it the title of main weapon in the trenches
used by British soldiers.*
Impact of leadership

The most conspicuous effect that entailed from leadership was the response to Lord Heratio
Kitchener’s appeal for volunteers in August 1914, to which 1.5 million men obliged. Conscription had
not yet been introduced, so it was left to the scrawny, pointed finger of Kitchener and his infamous
phrase ‘Your country needs YOU’ to capture the signatures of young British men and no doubt their
lives.

Nevertheless, there were times when the effects of leadership were shortcoming. In general, Allied
strategy across Europe wore a very offence-orientated line. Indeed it was Joseph Joffre who coined
the phrase ‘attack is the best form of defence’, the French general regurgitating the consensual
sentiment that had come from his political superiors. Field Marshall Haig was on the same page, he
too prioritising an addiction for attack over caution and the real risk of losing men. Flashpoints like
the battles at Verdun and the Somme illustrate this. Germany, too, were by no means defensive. It
was they who had thrown impetus away with their early push into Northern France and Belgium,
thanks to the early successes of the Schlieffen Plan. Digging deep the Germans held their lines and
became permanently stationed in their trenches, ever-ready to seize an opportunity to make ground
but not so desperate as the Allies. 67,000 men died in the opening day of the Battle of the Somme*,
many of whom were mowed down by relentless German machine gunning. However, it was the
command of Haig that ordered them to ‘advance at a steady pace towards the front line’* in the
hope they might break the German defence. They were foolish tactics, and despite reporting good
news back to the Prime Minister Lloyd George, he was to be accountable for the deaths. This was a
repeated pattern at the battle of Verdun; a ferocious and blood-stained feud that lasted months and
was to eventually cause up to a million deaths. The carnage came as a result of two similar
philosophies, one from the French commander Joseph Joffre, the other from German Chief-in-staff
Erich von Falkenhayn, whose attempts to ‘bleed France white’ were repulsed by substantial French
endeavour to defend a town that held great sentimental value in relation to the Franco-Prussian
war.
The importance of the Battle of the Somme

On the 1 July 1916, on a bright and beautiful summer morning, fighting broke out between
predominantly British and German forces. It had started by British troops being sent through No
Man’s Land on the orders of Haig, only for them to be falling by the thousands under merciless
German machine gun fire. It was a brutal lesson taught. Even with an artillery barrage deployed
beforehand, the use of the machine gun made a daring and direct offensive to dangerous even to
contemplate. The Somme directly affected attitudes on a political and military scale. Domestically,
Prime Minister Asquith resigned in December 1916 after fierce criticism to be replaced by Lloyd
George. The whole country had a similar emotion of regret and sorrow. What was in 1914 a patriotic
adventure had now become a wasteful and costly expedition. It taught the military leaders that a
new tactic should be thought over, that the state of attrition frozen abreast the Western front may
be wise to preserve.

http://bioscopic.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ancre.jpg?w=425&h=309
Tanks

The introduction of tanks came in the Battle of the Somme, around September 1916. At first, these
tanks were near useless; of 45 tanks ordered in for the army, only 11 made in past German front
lines. It was in the character on early 20 th century tanks to be fault-ridden and below par.
Nevertheless, the mere presence of the machines caused a retreat in the German line which gained
at least little gains for the Allies. Yet the problem remained that the tanks were frustratingly
unreliable, and unless their functioning was guaranteed they would render ineffective. Despite this,
the introduction of the tank has signalled a new dawn on war weaponry.