Download Trench warfare exercise P - answers

How successful were the Allies and the Germans in using technology to break
the stalemate on the Western Front?
Both the Allies and the Germans introduced new technologies in order to break the deadlock on
the Western Front. None were successfully implemented until the final year of the war, when
tanks became they key to unlocking the stalemate.
The problem for both sides on the Western Front was that the weaponry of the time was very
favourable to defence rather than attack. Trenches were difficult to damage and easy to repair, and
offered a great deal of protection to soldiers on both sides. (See source A.) In fact, it took a direct
hit by a heavy artillery shell to destroy a trench – something which was hard to achieve. Another
difficulty was the lack of mobility of the attacking side. The principal means of achieving
mobility in battle up until at that time – the horse – was vulnerable to machine gun and artillery
attack. This meant that the attacking side was forced to move by foot when conducting operations,
while defenders could bring in reinforcements by train. Not surprisingly, virtually all attempts to
break the stalemate in 1915 resulted in defeat.
With this in mind, the German unveiled a new technology in the early part of that year: poison
gas. This was used as part of the artillery barrage, to drive soldiers out of their trenches, where
they could be slaughtered with conventional artillery and machine guns. The new weapon was
extremely effective, as witnessed at the Second Battle of Ypres, where it was first used. However,
the Germans failed to make proper use of their new weapon. Instead of waiting until it had been
perfected and mass produced, they experimented with it in smaller battles throughout 1915. In this
way, the Allies became aware of its dangers, and were able to issue protective masks to their
troops. By the end of the year, the Allies too had their own gas shells, negating any advantage the
Germans might have enjoyed.
The Allies attempted to break the stalemate through the use of technology in 1916. At the Battle
of the Somme, they planned to destroy the German defences by means of a seven day artillery
barrage, firing 1,500,000 shells into the enemy’s trenches. Unfortunately, the tactic failed
miserably, since the wrong type of shells were used in the attack. Ninety percent of the shells fired
were incapable of destroying the German wire or trenches. In addition, 30 percent of the shells
failed to explode, and many that did simply didn’t hit their targets.
The British introduced a far more decisive weapon into the war during the Somme campaign in
1916: the tank. The main use of tanks was to destroy the barbed wire protecting the enemy’s
trench lines (often “several hundred yards deep”), roll over the trenches themselves, and break the
morale of the enemy’s troops. (See Source B.) Unfortunately, the new machines were initially of
only limited value on the Western Front, since they tended to break down frequently. Another
problem was that the were initially dispersed across the battlefield, thereby reducing their
effectiveness.
By late 1917, however, newer model tanks had been introduced into the British Army which
were much more reliable. At the Battle of Cambrai, in November 1917, 476 tanks were used in
mass formation to punch a hole in the German lines; the British forces then pushed the enemy
back six kilometres, to the town of Cambrai. (See Source B.)
Unfortunately, the British soldiers at the centre of the attack were ordered to stay 150-200 yards
behind the tanks, instead of advancing in their lee, allowing the Germans to inflict heavy
casualties with machine guns and artillery. Within ten days of the attack being launched, the
Germans had regained all the territory they had lost during the initial attack. (See Source B.)
By the second half of 1918, the British finally perfected their use of tanks, artillery and aerial
supply, and the stalemate was broken. Technology therefore did eventually play a vital role in
ending the war.
Assess how useful Sources C and D would be for an historian studying the
large number of deaths and casualties among officers and infantry on the
Western Front. In your answer, consider the perspectives provided by the two
source, and the reliability of each.
Sources C and D are both reliable and useful for an historian studying the large number of
deaths and casualties among officers and infantry on the Western Front.
Five main factors explain the high casualties suffered by the opposing forces on the Western
Front during World War One: devastating new technologies; old-fashioned strategies and tactics;
the willingness of troops to fight, despite overwhelming odds; poor sanitary conditions in the
trenches; and inadequate medical capabilities and supplies.
The first three of these factors are illustrated graphically in Document C, General Haig’s
account of his visit to the front in March 1917. In this primary source, Haig describes he bravery
he witnessed on the part of the troops. Despite the devastating fire they would face from the
enemy’s “tremendous positions”, “splendid young officers…were able, time and time again, to
form up their commands in the darkness of night, and in spite of shell holes, wife and other
obstacles, lead them forward….” In Haig’s view, young soldiers and officers were willing to
make such sacrifices because of their commitment to the issue at stake – “the existence of
England as a free nation.” Given such devotion to their cause, it is not surprising that casualties
should have been so high during the attacks on the Western Front.
Although Haig may have had reasons to want to embellish or paper over his own involvement in
the disasters of 1916 and ’17 – given his own involvement as commander-in-chief of British
forces – there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of an account written for his eyes only, and not
the government or the general public. Even so, Haig himself admitted that he could only guess at
the motivations of the men under his command. In fact, it is likely that other factors also
motivated these men to fight – fear of defeat, loyalty to comrades in the trenches, or just hatred of
the enemy.
Document D is a secondary source – an extract from the memoirs of David Lloyd George, the
prime minister of England at the time of Haig’s visit to the front. It provides a useful illustration
of the second of the reasons for the high casualties on the Western Front: the unimaginative
strategies used by the generals, and their lack of first hand experience “of the actual fighting of a
battle under modern conditions.” In his account, Lloyd George stated that the generals’ “brains
were cluttered with useless lumber, packed in every niche and corner. Some of it was never
cleared out to the end of the war.” General Haig, in particular, “never even saw the ground on
which his greatest battles were fought, either before or during the fight.”
This is a damning indictment of the British Army’s supreme commander, written from the
perspective of someone with first had knowledge of the war. Of course, Lloyd George’s memoirs
must be viewed with some scepticism, since they were written fifteen years after the war ended,
by a man who had every reason to hide his own role in that conflict’s many debacles. (He was,
after all, responsible for the production of large numbers of faulty artillery shells used in the
Somme Campaign.) However, given what we know about the inadequacies of the British high
command at the time, Lloyd George’s account does seem to be a reliable source.