- This topic has 4 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
This question has intrigued me for several years and Niall Ferguson treats it extensively in The Pity of War, but I have not heard a satisfactory explanation for why the Germans managed to kill something like three enemy soldiers for every KIA they suffered.The answer I have essentially come up with is that the Germans as a general rule just fought more effectively. Even taking into account that they were on the defensive in the west for most of the war they still fought better. They also had a positive kill ration when they were on the offensive such as the Michael Offensives and at Verdun. The Germans were just better fighters; they even managed to out kill the British at the opening of the war when it is easily argued that the BEF Tommie?s were the best marksmen of any army in the world at the time.I hate the simplistic answer but it is what I am left with. The Germans simply made more skillful use of terrain; more intelligently placed and used reserves, and had better timing when counter-attacking. They lost because of numbers and the blockade, they certainly were not outfought. That last analysis holds true for WWII as well. If Germany had been the size of Russia in 1914 or 1939 we would all be speaking German right now.Here is a selection of sites with statistics and I will provide some references for Ferguson when I get home tonight. I would really like to get a discussion going of tactical methods in WWI if anyone is interested. The constant politics of late are getting tiring.1914-1918 – Casualty FiguresSource List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century HemoclysmWorld War I: Troop Statistics Great War Casualties
I don't know enough about military tactics in WWI to answer the question. But I'll respond with a question.In some wars the defense has a advantage. In the Civil War, for example, due to the tactics and weapons in use, it was easier to defend a position than assault one. So the offense suffered more causalities. In WWI most of the time Germany was fighting a defensive war on the Western front. Is it the case in WWI, like the Civil War, that due to the tactics and weapons in use the defense suffers fewer casualties?
I saw something recently which I believe was on some WWI battle…where the British thought they sufficiently shelled or somehow pounded the German position, but for whatever reason (smoke and the difficulty of seeing the Germans in the trenches is what I am guessing) the British came out of their own trenches and advanced toward the German position. The Germans succeeded in mowing down 92% of the advancing British troops. From this it sounded like there was still some difficulty in adapting to tactics needed with newer warfare, especially reliable, fully automatic firearms.
Daniel,The defensive is always more effective as a rule. I cannot think of more than a few situations where the defensive was the weaker course of action. At that, every time I can think of where the defense was weaker is because the defenders made some stupid mistakes. Defense is almost always more powerful because the defender usually gets to choose their ground, does not have to expose themselves on the move, can more easily move reserves to where they are needed, and can choose the time and place for a counter-attack.Artillery was the great killer in WWI as it has always been since the advent of gunpowder weapons. That being said, in WWI the art of building defensive positions was mastered and especially by the Germans. The Germans often had huge, very deep dugouts that allowed their troops to shelter until the shelling had stopped and only suffer a few casualties. I saw a German dugout at Ypres a few years ago that as almost 100 feet deep and had electricity and running water and from which the troops could reach their battle positions in less than 2 minutes. The British expended almost 5 million shells during their preliminary bombardment at Paschendale (3rd Ypres) and gained only something like 500 yards on average after 3 months of fighting.
I read somewhere many years ago that a soldier on defense during both World Wars was worth the strength of six men attacking, perhaps more.
In general, yes the defense should increase the force ratio something like 3-1. In special circumstances this ration can be greater. But defense is not the only reason why the Germans had a more advantageous kill-ratio. They did it when they were on offense too except for certain battles such as the Slaughter of the Innocents at Ypres in September 1914. Even when the Germans lost they tended to kill more enemy than the # of dead they suffered. For examples of offensive actions when they killed more than they lost look at Verdun or any of the Michael offensives. For losses where the same held true look at the Somme, or Fall 1914 battles in Galicia and also the Brusilov offensives of 1916 on the Eastern Front.
