Are you new to this whole internet thing, old boy? People not using their full names and using positively un-American phrasing is an unfortunate byproduct of letting in all the teens and foreigners and hippies.
We have board hippies
Are you new to this whole internet thing, old boy? People not using their full names and using positively un-American phrasing is an unfortunate byproduct of letting in all the teens and foreigners and hippies.
Ah, that sounds promising! Yes, I've heard good things about the Crown Prince, as well. I think I'll pull back my original thoughts on employing three full divisions to two small divisions of two brigades apiece, or a single large division of four, reducing the logistical stress (thankee, Rast!) and giving 48 squadrons for operations. D'ye think we can have a nameless chap suggest the use of cavalry to overrun fleeing defenders and keep up the pressure on the enemy so that they can't fortify later defensive positions - and using (the speed of the enemy's retreat at) Caporetto as an argument?
Are you new to this whole internet thing, old boy? People not using their full names and using positively un-American phrasing is an unfortunate byproduct of letting in all the teens and foreigners and hippies.
You really are an irritating, charmless piece of work, aren't you?
I am from the country you seem to know so well, and so can assure you that, while uncommon, the speech patterns that MrP uses do most certainly still exist. Be that as it may, it really shouldn't matter what phrases or idioms he uses - his grammar and punctuation is good, he has said nothing offensive, and your whole diatribe leaves me wondering just why you think the way in which he chooses to phrase his posts is any of your business.
Thank you, you three.Are you honestly surprised that one would type one's thoughts in the same way that one would say them aloud? This doesn't seem to me to be such a dastardly act as you're making it out to be. Also, having met MrP I can attest to the fact that this is how he speaks.
This might be plausible. But, its my understanding that one of the primary factors here was Cadorna himself. A man whose military ability made Hitler in 1944 look quite sane and rational. Firstly, refusing to allow any retreat which simply allowed the Austrians and Germans the time to break apart the remaining Italian units piecemeal until eventually even Cadorna could see that further resistance was futile. Secondly, forcing an army with practically no reserves to fight a set piece battle, despite a rather large enemy breakthrough. All this combines imho to make a rather unique set of circumstances.
Could this happen on the western front? Well, Haig, Foch and Pershing were all pretty competent (despite some later appallingly bad press,i 'm mainly referring to Haig here). However, there were a couple of points where it was very close run thing (can't think of the particular engagements right now), perhaps the introduction of cavalry in some way might have tipped these engagements in the favour of the Germans. Thus allowing a wider break out into the Entente rear.
Rather than make a coherent argument on the topic, you contradict yourself...
Since you have no manners, I request that you fake some henceforth. Or just fuck off.
MrP,
Leaving my boorishness aside for the moment, I've presented the same argument in all three of my posts; that cavalry and horses will do nothing of consequence during the Kaiserschlacht. While the attack mentioned in Paddy Griffith's book took place on the Western Front, that front was a very different place with very different conditions in October of 1918 than it was in March through July of the same year.
If some staff officer convinces Ludendorff to add cavalry to his attack forces even after the Entente are forced from their initial positions, the cavalry's only real accomplishment will be more dead mounts and more troopers walking back to their lines.
I guess I'll just have to pretend then.
Bill
... and I reiterate that I don't see them as supermen who will win the war on their own, merely as a swift-moving force capable of exploiting success in open areas with greater alacrity than the infantry.
MrP.,
Those open areas in which they can exploit success with alacrity? They no longer exist on the Western Front after the first few months of war in 1914. Troop densities alone prevent it.
The battle mentioned in Griffith's book didn't involve a swift moving force. It involved a force that just happened to be cavalry. It could have two infantry brigades just as easily. The cavalry put in an attack on a force already in the process of withdrawing and a force whose morale had been shattered. They "captured" 500 men and all those machineguns but, as I pointed out, just as with Alvin York is more a case of the captured troops surrendering and bringing in their weapons. The numbers quoted aren't even that special compared to what was occurring along the entire front.
The only special about the attack was that cavalry brigades were involved. They'd finally got into the fight after years of sneering, but they went into the fight more as mounted infantry than anything else. Even the famous charges during Allenby's Palestinian Campaign, which I know you're sick to death of hearing about, were more along the lines of getting troops and MGs quickly to places where they could then dismount and fight from prepared positions as infantry.
An author whose name escapes me once described the German army of the period and the type of defensive stands it made during the withdrawal as resembling a fleeing man knocking over a chair as he passes in the hopes that his pursuer will trip and fall. That's the force those BEF brigades hit, anybody could have done a similar job and probably with fewer casualties too.
Bill