One hundred years ago, the Germans had a chance of turning
the Allied flank and forcing an armistice in France. They would then have
achieved victory in the west as well as the east. April 6th proved to be a watershed, and gradually the tide began to turn.
By March 31st, the Germans had advanced 52
kilometres across the well-defended territory of the Somme.
There was a pause and then on April 4th, they continued their
advance. They reached Villers-Bretonneux, 16 km from Amiens. Around there and Hangard, also within
reach of Amiens, there was fierce fighting, but
they could not quite make it to Amiens and cut the
Allied communications in Northern France.
Behind the Western Front ran locomotives such as this Baldwin 4-6-0T (British WD) and behind it a French 0-6-0. These preserved examples were pictured at Apedale, Staffs. |
The ‘break-through’ doctrine had not worked. When the Allies
were forced out of one position, they reformed further back. Worse still, fresh
troops appeared to counter-attack, threatening the flanks of the German
advance. The troops who were thrown back were British, fresh troops were
French. The British 5th Army was in retreat. The French should be
given credit for bringing in reinforcements. Pétain, quick to grasp the
situation, had sent in the First and Third French Armies.
By this stage in the War, there were thousands of kilometres
of 60cm trench railways serving the French, British and Germans. These railways were vital for communication.
During the retreat, as many wagons and locomotives as possible were salvaged;
track was lifted. Within days, they could be put back into business.
In practice this did not work for the British 5th
Army. Apart from an escape line running to the French sector, the network was
unfinished. There were almost no tracks leading to safety. Locomotives in their
hundreds and wagons in their thousands were destroyed to stop them falling into
German hands. As both railways systems ran on 60cm gauge, the material would
have been useful to the enemy.
Yet the Germans loosed fresh waves of assaults on the
Western Front. Up until April 1918, they had outmatched the Allies in many ways. Their
material on the whole was superior and their generals on the whole showed more
common sense. After April 6th, a watershed was past. Further
offensives were quite literally a bloody waste of time.
The magnificent French 155mm gun dwarfs its operators. It suffered from certain disadvantages. Photo from Illustration Magazine coourtesy MD Wright |
Our memories of World War 1 are clouded with hindsight. The
Allies won, so their generalship and equipment must have been better. Right?
Well, er, not always.
The very smallest calibre of Minenwerfer could be transported by four Pioniere. Photo from Illustration Magazine courtesy of MD Wright |
In May and June 1918, the Allies captured increasing
amounts of German equipment. This was
gleefully portrayed in the French, British and US media.
French light tank 1918. THere was no slogging through the mud for these soldiers. Photo from Illustration magazine courtesy MD Wright |
The official message was ‘Look how small and primitive
compared with ours!’ The French newspapers contrasted their char d’assaut/light tank with German
machine-guns and the minenwerfer. These were depicted being hauled by soldiers
while the tank, petrol- powered, ambles along a French country lane. French
artillery are shown, the 75mm and the 155mmm guns, magnificent beasts which
dwarf their operators.
The lesson which should be learned is perhaps different. Bad
things can come in small packages.
The German Minenwerfer/howitzer
may look like a humble machine. It could be transported without effort by the
gunners. The French and British soldiers who had experience of its fire-power
had learned a grudging respect. General Alan Beith, writing as Ian Hay,
described her with whimsical military humour as ‘Minnie’, and the trench from
which she was operated as ‘Unter den Linden’. Yet the military humour could not
disguise the fear. Of all the sounds in the trenches, hers was the most
dreaded.
Small calibre Minenwerferready to be fired. It was not designed for long range but it was effective. Photo from Illustration magazine Courtesy MD Wright |
The Minenwerfer had a short range and was operated, not by
the Artillery but by Pioniere working
in the German trenches, taking advantage of local knowledge. Worse was the fact
that it was fired upwards in a trajectory that brought the shell down on to the
heads of the enemy sheltering in their trenches. Worst of all was the explosive
charge. The 105mm version delivered 1kg of explosive, the 150 6kg. These were
in common use. The one pictured here is smaller, but the same applies. There were others with even more punch.
John Buchan also had experience of the Front and described
waiting for a powerful bombardment.
‘A man’s thoughts at a time like that seem to be double
powered and the memory seems sharp and clear. I don’t know what was in the
others’ minds, but I knew what was in my own. I watched every detail of the
landscape as little by little it appeared in the revealing daybreak’
Then came the first shot.
‘The earth seemed to split beside me and I was pitched
forward.’
This was just range-finding.
‘The charge must have been short. The next was better and
crashed on the parapet, carving a great hole. This time my arm hung limp, but I
felt no pain’ (Greenmantle, first published 1916)
The French 75mm in contrast was a huge gun. It was developed
for long and accurate range. The angle of fire was restricted, making it all
but impossible to drop explosives into enemy trenches. In spite of its
impressive size, the actual weight of explosive delivered was two thirds of a
kilogram, less than the standard Minenwerfer. The long barrel, so useful for
accurate firing over a range of a couple of kilometres, tended to get hot, so
the rate of fire had to be restricted.
The 75mm French gun was developed in response to the defeat of 1870-1. Photo from Illustration magazine courtesy of MD Wright |
The same comments apply to the 155mm gun, except that it was
even bigger.
Because of their great size, and the unwieldy gun barrels, they
were difficult to move into position on a battlefield. This was why Prosper
Péchot invented elaborate gun conveyances for his ground-breaking portable
railway system. The largest of his beautifully engineered bogies could take
weights of up to twelve tonnes and could be combined to carry a gun barrel up
to 48 tonnes in weight. If each axle could support 3.5 tonnes, then a
four-wheel bogie could safely carry five tonnes, a six-wheeler could be rated
at nine tonnes and eight wheels at twelve tonnes. Ten tonnes could be carried by two five tonne
bogies, and ingeniously engineered combinations could be employed for
progressively greater weights.
His system was a marvel. It was adopted by the French Army
in 1888, was copied by the Prussians soon after. The rest of the German States
copied the Prussians. I describe the process in ‘Colonel Péchot: Tracks To The
Trenches’
The Germans imitated the 60cm gauge, engine design and the
ten tonne bogie wagons. They did not
imitate the massive bogies designed to carry guns. They did not need to.
Their artillery staples could be manoeuvred in the field by a few men.
Plenty of Péchot designed bogie wagons survive to this day.
Thousands of examples of the German Brigadewagen were built. Most succumbed to wear and tear. So few have survived that it has been hard for
me to source a photo (see above).
One hundred years old Péchot wagon, fairly complete except for one brake wheel. Photo S. Wright |
Yet the two contrasting designs show that the German bogie
wagon was not worse than the French one. It did what was required. If it turned
out to suffer from built-in obsolescence, that was not all bad. The needs of the
military keep changing.
In the same way, the German howitzer proved that, for the
War that was being fought, small was, if not exactly beautiful, beautifully
effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment