What if there was no Somme?

How would the outlook of WWI and the future have been if Gen Douglas Haig hadn't authorized the disasterous Somme Campaign that wiped out the best and brightest soldiers from the British Units? I think with those soldiers who were saved from a certain death, Britain could have continued their tank program unimpeded and launced a campaign in 1917 or even 1918 with tanks used as shields to screen Allied advances. Plus the staggering loses played a huge part in anti-war sentiments that had a dramatic effect in weak, vasilating PM's like Chamberlain giving Hitler Czerslovakia and the British fighting spirits in France in 1940 that broke rather easily.
 

Deleted member 1487

How would the outlook of WWI and the future have been if Gen Douglas Haig hadn't authorized the disasterous Somme Campaign that wiped out the best and brightest soldiers from the British Units? I think with those soldiers who were saved from a certain death, Britain could have continued their tank program unimpeded and launced a campaign in 1917 or even 1918 with tanks used as shields to screen Allied advances. Plus the staggering loses played a huge part in anti-war sentiments that had a dramatic effect in weak, vasilating PM's like Chamberlain giving Hitler Czerslovakia and the British fighting spirits in France in 1940 that broke rather easily.

In this incredibly unlikely scenario, Germany has a major breather and continues grinding out the French at Verdun. When the Germans were on the offensive they were inflicting significantly greater losses on the French, though not breaking the 2:1 ratio. When the French went on their offensive October, the Germans having given up by July-August due to the Somme fighting, they managed to even out the casualty ratio closer to 1.1:1 in the Germans' favor. Without the Somme the Germans don't have to ease off and give the French a break to go on the offensive themselves and can keep up the attrition, though it hurts them to a slightly lesser degree then the Entente. The French are the big losers, as they were already peaking manpower-wise, which means the losses really reduces their ability to fight. They might well be forced to quit in 1917-1918 due to heavier losses.

Historically it was the Somme that forced Falkenhayn to call off Verdun. Without the Somme Falkenhayn can keep grinding away at the French until he takes Souville, which would mean the French lose and their casualties would go up rapidly. The Russians would also have a hard time of it, because the Germans wouldn't be tied down along the Somme, so could better afford their transfers to help the Austro-Hungarians.

This means that about 500k of Germany's best soldiers still survive too. And the British don't learn the critical lessons about fighting a major campaign, including that their rail supply system is disasterously mismanaged. Eric Geddes doesn't come in and revolutionize supply for the BEF, which means that in 1917 and 1918 the British supply system collapses and Germany gets a major break.

As it is the French lose considerably in the balance, so whatever the British gain by waiting, France loses, which means the war might be over before the British even get into action.

The British might save some of their best soldiers and most fit men, but in doing so they don't learn how to fight and let the Germans beat the French. Also the alliance with the French and Russians takes a major beating and France might opt for a separate peace if Britain doesn't move before 1917.
 
Its a bit too late, seeing as how OP is banned and what not, I would like to note that although the first few days of the Somme were unmitigated disasters for the British (The French did quite well even then), the campaign overall wasn't too bad. The British learned a number of important lessons, developed new tactics and even gained some ground in the process, as well as killing many Germans as Wiking pointed out.
 
Wiking's pretty much covered it but the first time any soldiers are put into a major offensive they are going to suffer some horrific casualties, it's the cost of doing business, you don't really learn what works and what doesn't which officers are cowards or idiots etc. until you actually do it for real. So the British Army remains untested and suffers a similar experience further down the line, possibly in a more decisive campaign.
 
The Somme offensive is now being reassessed by many historians. Many now agree that it wasn't an unmitigated disaster and that it actually shortened the war. The German army was not the same after the Somme.

Also bear in mind that although the initial gains were small the offensive caused the Germans to withdraw to better positions and build the Hindenburg Line. The result is that when the Germans attacked in 1918 a lot of the ground they took was simply land they had abandoned after the Somme offensive.

Many of the problems on 1st July were caused by commanders on the ground not reacting quickly to the situation. Remember that the French took all their objectives on the first day too.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Somme offensive is now being reassessed by many historians. Many now agree that it wasn't an unmitigated disaster and that it actually shortened the war. The German army was not the same after the Somme.

Also bear in mind that although the initial gains were small the offensive caused the Germans to withdraw to better positions and build the Hindenburg Line. The result is that when the Germans attacked in 1918 a lot of the ground they took was simply land they had abandoned after the Somme offensive.

Many of the problems on 1st July were caused by commanders on the ground not reacting quickly to the situation. Remember that the French took all their objectives on the first day too.

I agree with most of what you wrote. Though the Germans got a favorable casualty ratio out of it, they suffered the worst proportionally.
The British usually get a much worse rap than they should, though most of the problems were specifically because of meddling by Haig, who didn't trust his new formations to use open order formations. As it was the veteran units had large successes on the first day, at least given the heavy defenses they were facing. It was the newer units that got in to trouble for a number of reasons that weren't really their fault.

Still the French, for all the praise they get, really don't deserve it at all. The Germans didn't think the French were going to participate in the offensive, so they stripped most of their artillery, reserves, and front line troops to reinforce the sector facing the British. The French took advantage of the situation and got off lightly. It wasn't their 'tactical virtuosity' learned at Verdun, but rather the Germans giving them an open invitation.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
First, generally speaking, you learn by doing. Without the mistakes on the Somme, the British army will simply make them on there next big operations. At it was not just Haig, there were problems with many of his flag officers down through the ranks.

Here is an example from a documentary i watch. On the first day of the attack, a corp size element was attacking a division size German element. Two divisions forward, one division back. The plan called for the reserved division back to support the attack on the right. As the battle progressed, the first division on the right was slaughter, and driven back to the trench, but the division on the left took heavy losses, but occupied the German lines. The reserve division commander went to the corp commander and asked permission to support the division on the left, reinforce it, then attack original target through the flank. He was denied because it was "too early to deviate from plan". The reserve division was destroyed, and the corp commander was relieved after the battle of the Somme as were many officers who were not good at their jobs. Meanwhile, the Germans were organizing a reinforced regiment to try to retake the lines lost by the attack on the left. One of the battalion commanders realized the organization process was taking to long, so he simply attack on his on. By the time the German corp commander had received word that the battalion had attack without orders from above, the battalion had retaken the German lines. At the end of the day, the Germans had their original lines, and had trade moderate losses for one division for heavy losses for a full British corp. It takes combat for the cream to rise to the top.

BTW, while tanks did have success in 1917, they were also used badly. For example, one unit was taken into a masonry village, where an know German gun battery was at. The tank unit was cut to peaces, so not attack in 1916, means that in addition to lesson that need to be learned for tanks, they make many of the same mistakes they made in OTL in 1916 with infantry. It is not clear the tank attack would have gone much better.

Also, consider that without the attack in Somme, the Germans would have had additional reserves to use elsewhere. Someone more familiar with Verdun and the German GHQ thinking would need to provide some likely details, but my guess is that the French take a lot more casualties in 1916 and the British a lot less. So yes, British morale is a lot higher, but French is a lot lower. The mutiny/strikes by French soldiers in 1917 is likely a lot worse. There are also diplomatic issues with the British not helping the French in the hour of great need.

And if the Germans send enough troops to blunt Brusilov in 1916, and the A-H has a lot fewer troops capture, then A-H is a lot stronger, and this has a lot of butterflies for 1917 in the east.
 
Top