The British never learned and their losses were awful.
Please explain then the British Success of defeating the Spring Offensives in the face of the best troops the Germans had (and at a time when they had numerical superiority due to the Russian Collapse) and the 100 days (a mostly British campaign) which resulted in the Germans throwing in the towel.
I would suggest to you that not only did they learn but that they "bettered the lesson"
And everyone's losses were awful
Germany had a very good continental army in 1914
France also had one in 1914 but by Verdun it was bled white forcing the British Commonwealth Army which was not ready and many of the new Divisions were green, to attack at the Somme in order to take the pressure off the French - which it succeeded in doing at horrific cost to both itself and Germany.
It took until 1917/18 for the British Empire to raise train and equip a continental force that could match the German Army - 3 years to match it and 4 to better it
I don't think it was low quality armies that stopped Germany from winning in 1914 - First by defeating the initial attack through Belgium and Northern France and then by winning the race for the sea took quite skillful opponents - if they were not then Germany would have won.
Once 1st Ypres was finished and the opposing armies dug in Germany could no longer win and due to the land occupied the Entente would not and could not seek terms from a position of territorial weakness.
Stalemate until as you say - The British finished building their army and the Americans started arriving.
The British Army was never a match for the German Army in World War 1 and it certainly didn't surpass it.
The British Army was never a match for the German Army in World War 1 and it certainly didn't surpass it.
Considering how they lost, I think we may have entirely different definitions of "done well."
Er... the Hundred Days?
That was, basically, a combined-arms offensive which rolled the Germans back successively across most of their gains from four years of offensives. It's hard to argue that the British during the Hundred Days were outmatched by the Germans at the same time!
Considering the number of opponents, and that they basically ended up propping the Austrians AND the Ottomans up, not to mention also helping hold off the Allies at Salonika, I think they did rather well.
That they lost is an irrelevance to the question of whether they did well or not.
Russia's collapse WAS to do with the Germans - it would never have come about if the Germans hadn't been able to advance OUT of Poland.
Mackensen was one of the outstanding commanders of the war, both in fighting on the East and in governing Romania
Cat!
Well, I remember reading a quote somewhere that Saloniki in WW1 was the worlds largest POW camp. It certainly was a malaria ridden pest hole for the troops holed up there.
Western front 100 days, one shouldn't forget that not only the entente had 2-1 odds, but also thousands of tanks and way more ground attack air craft, resources germany couldn't match nor build up anymore.
The British with regards to WWI are uncharacteristically dishonest.I think official Entente stats about total losses are accurate, but the smoke thrown up by the British official history post-war trying to justify their mistakes by inflating German losses has obscured factual history. The British lost about 420k, the from something over 200k and the Germans about ~480k at the Somme IIRC from their 10 day reports accumulated in the SB.
The British with regards to WWI are uncharacteristically dishonest.
I read that the Somme Lochnagar mines claimed 10k Germans killed. While the Germans claimed that many killed that month on the Western front. Or around that much.
I think the British lost significantly more at the Somme than the Germans did. The history just doesn't reflect the reality unfortunately. As the Germans, until the later half of 18 had a solid 2.5 or higher kill/casualty rate superiority to the western Entente.
Er... the Hundred Days?
That was, basically, a combined-arms offensive which rolled the Germans back successively across most of their gains from four years of offensives. It's hard to argue that the British during the Hundred Days were outmatched by the Germans at the same time!
Nice source....oh! hang on No sorry you forgot to provide it
An oversight Im sure
After the German army was completely exhausted and have broken morale from their offensive exhaustion, holding completely untenable bulges that were fortified. Frankly they should have never tried by that point to do so, but Ludendorff had lost touch with reality. As it was the German army, as it was disintegrating still managed to inflict over 1 million casualties on the Allies during the 100 days.
After the German army was completely exhausted and have broken morale from their offensive exhaustion, holding completely untenable bulges that were fortified.
Sure, let's. The German success was predicated on the British vulnerability thorough a serious of incredibly stupid decisions that let the Germans breakthrough and then beat themselves through a lack of strategic plan.No mate - you can't turn around and say that just because the British had concentrated their forces and the Germans where exhausted etc that the British were no good at this whole fighting thing - lets look at the fighting during the Spring Offensive before the American Started arriving shall we?
Germany did not have superiority of numbers compared to the British, French, Belgians, Italians, and Americans in France on the front line in 1918, the Germans were able to mass at a specific point where the British were weak and broke through. There also were no Stormtrooper units; they were 4 classes of divisions, the best being attack divisions which formed temporary assault formations to break through the trenches and were then dissolved and returned to their normal units in the division.The German army had the advantage then - superior numbers (the Reinforcements from the Russian Front), superior experience - they used their best soldiers in the Storm trooper units - the best units they had, and they attacked the British 5th Army which had just taken over that portion of the Front line from the French only to find it had no prepared defences in depth which the British used everywhere else on the front line. So effectively the weakest spot in the British front line.
They broke though, more than anyone had since 1914, but the Germans ran out of steam and wasted huge resources trying to extend that breakthrough on the northern flank instead of reinforcing success; the Germans beat themselves basically, much more so than the British or French beat them.All that advantage yet they failed to break through the British Army - pushed them back certainly - but at great cost and it gained them some crap real estate.
After several other offensives that culiminated in the 2nd Marne. The Germans were exhausted and beaten by the cumulative casualties they took in the process of their multiple offensives and US manpower arrived at the 2nd Marne to turn the tide overall and allow the British and French to concentrate enough manpower to go on the offensive, as the US troops, many of whom were not yet ready to fight, took over a large quiet sections of the trench lines to allow the rest of their allies to attack in August.Then when we get to the 2nd Marne and 100 days where the Entente beat the German army.
It was beaten before the 100 days started, the 100 days just pushed over the tottering German military.And yes like all other battles in the war casualties sustained during the 100 days were similar on both sides - only this time the battle was decisive and the Material and artillery losses of the German Army was crippling and while I suppose we have to congratulate the German leadership for realising that they had lost and throwing in the towel - this does not mean that the German army was not beaten in the field - it was.
And how exactly did they come to be exhausted and demoralized? You seem tyo imply this was some unfortuante accident of circumstance that had nothing to do with the Entente Could it be instead that they were exhasusted and demoralised because despite massive attacks with fresh troops against an enemy in the middle of reorganizing its defences they failed to breakthrough, were held and then thrown back in disarray, unable even to hold their original defensive line?