Talk:Battle of Loos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moved from article

I've moved the following §s from the article because some of it is definitely untrue (I have the battle orders as reproduced by Graves in front of me, and they include: "Wire-cutters, as many as possible"), and the rest looks similarly dodgy (surely the plan was that the Germans were indeed retreating or dead - it just didn't happen?). JackyR 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In another interesting turn of events during the battle of Loos, ten thousand inexperienced British troops were sent in a frontal charge against German positions.

The British commander lied to his own men, telling them that they were being sent to pursue routed German defenders.

Instead, the British marched directly into entrenched German machine guns, which mowed down 8000 of them. The British could not break through because their leaders had provided them with no wire cutters. There were no German casualties during this "Pickett's charge".

Add France?

I'm not a historian but doing some reading on this subject. It looks like France was also a combatant in this battle based on Voltaire's 'The Age of Louis XIV'. The French also fought on the German front led by marshal Luxembourg. Antonrojo 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that...should have checked the date :) The Battle of Loos I'm referring to occured in 1691. Antonrojo 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Change of UK to GB as state involved in conflict

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland existed from 1801 to 1927, and indeed there were Irish regiments present at Loos (Royal Munster Fusiliers), as well as many other battles (Royal Irish Rifles, etc), so I'm puzzled as to why you think Great Britain is a more accurate term than UK. Could you explain this, please? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

...and France?

Still correct as a matter of fact, the action of France should be included to put the battle in context. The Artois Loos offensive was conducted by both French and British troops and although Loos was unsuccessful, French offensives that Autumn at Champagne and Vimy Ridge were more productive despite lack of achieving long term gains

Map

Found a map by mistake so moved the photo to the body.Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

CE

Tidied layout, did sfn's and cited where needed.Keith-264 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Added a campaignbox to tie the three battles together.Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The map at the top right is the wrong battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.217.229 (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the right map but the wrong label; if you maximise the map you can see the date 25 Sept in the bottom left hand corner.Keith-264 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Names and dates

This Battle of the Hohenzollern Redoubt page has a date range (25 September – 15 October) that puts it in the Battle of Loos (25 September – 8 October) and appears to overlap with the Actions of the Hohenzollern Redoubt 13–19 October (as listed in the report of the nomeclature committee 1919) and may benefit from splitting when it's completed snce the narrative on that page refers to Loos rather than the later Actions (there's also another action: 2–18 March 1916).Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned in Despatches (MID)

A precedent of questionable desirability may be set here. While I appreciate the gallantry of the Indian officer who has been instanced, he cannot have been the only participant who was mentioned in Sir John French's despatches, and I doubt the detail about his other honours and regiments fits the context of the article. I suggest some editing. If some distinction was attachable to this, such as being first Indian Officer MID, that should be mentioned. If there were notable persons with Wikipedia articles who were MID in the action they could be listed but I suggest not to the same detail per personCloptonson (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is Anglo-centric to add material like this when German equivalents are absent. Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Cloptonson's point is that some evidence is needed of the Indian officer's notability, e.g. that his actions are mentioned in books on the Battle of Loos (in the same way that almost any book written about Verdun mentions that Captain Charles de Gaulle fought and was captured there, so the article would be at fault if it failed to mention him, even though his influence on the course of the battle was zero), and that the level of detail is perhaps excessive and that it should be condensed (or shoved into a footnote). If it is thought that information about German officers who fought bravely should be included, the onus is then to look up the relevant information and post it, not use the absence of information B as an excuse to object to information A being posted.Paulturtle (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cloptonson's point is obvious; my point is that like rules in lots of bureaucracies, Wiki policies overlap so that emphasis on one infringes another. Absence of B isn't a reason for excluding A but can create Anglo-centric bias which is a reason for exclusion among other things. Including Gaulle in the Verdun page because of his casual relationship with it begs the question of which other captains should go in if any. I don't add lists of VC winners for similar reasons - elitism, no information about Pour le Merite awards and the dubious practice of accepting institutional trinkets as evidence of notability. If other people put them in, I'll add citations but that's it.Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you forgotten your Ronald Dworkin? When rules clash there is only ever one right answer. I dare say VCs are sometimes, like all of life's rewards, awarded or not awarded unfairly, but they are nonetheless medals awarded for extreme bravery, irrespective of rank, a whole different league to a "mentioned in dispatches". To describe them as "elitist" or "institutional trinkets" seems a little churlish. As I said, if it bugs you the onus the onus is on you to look up German medal winners.

De Gaulle is mentioned in books because he was a man of extreme notability - the most notable French statesman of the twentieth century. For the rest of his life being one of ceux de Verdun was part of his political persona, the same as being a Somme veteran was for Harold Macmillan. That's not to say that other individuals can't be included if they are notable enough to rate a mention in the books.Paulturtle (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Who Dworkin? I wouldn't call it churlish, more a principled independence from institutional subservience.Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Result

Pls read: result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

I suggest that German victory or "See the 'Aftermath' section" are the only two which fit.Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The result

Hey guys, it's me, the annoying person who keeps changing the result. I have a few sources here that name the battle as a stalemate. Although the British broke the german lines on the first day, the Germans were able to plug the gaps in their lines. However, the Germans tried to take advantage of this defensive victory and tried to counter attack and break the British lines. The Germans were repulsed by the arrival of the Guards division. The British lost the first part of the battle and the Germans lost the second. Sources: Major and MRS Holt's Concise Illustrated Battlefield Guide to The Western Front-North, pages 139-145 An Illustrated History of the Second Year of the Great War:1915, pages 100-103 My apologies if I got a bit annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.149.48 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. The infobox advice only allows for criteria so the ambiguous result needs to be discussed in the analysis section not the infobox. There are lots of books on the subject. Often these refer to the aims of the attack rather than the results. Keith-264 (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

my great uncle edwin grazier fought in this battle he was many of crdley heath men that fought that dreadful day he was 300 of 1,600 that went their and servived then cought pneumonia and died my heart goes out to all those who fought and died thank you we will not forget you x 2A02:C7D:2CF0:1B00:203D:3DBC:4C00:1A3E (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dates

@DemocraticSocialism: @Democratic, The Battle of Loos is 25 September to 8 October, the subsidiary Action of Pietre is 25 September, Action of Bois Grenier is 25 September, Second Attack on Bellewaarde 25 to 26 September and the Action of the Hohenzollern Redoubt 13 to 19 October. see

• James, E. A. (1990) [1924]. A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France and Flanders 1914–1918 (London Stamp Exchange ed.). Aldershot: Gale & Polden. ISBN 978-0-948130-18-2.

which follows the rulings of the Battles Nomenclature Committee Report of 1921. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Units

This article doesn't mention the units that were involved in the battle.

Graves served with the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Welsh Regiment; he also reports that the Middlesex Regiment were on his right, and the Sutherland Highlanders on his left. I think he also refers to another Scottish regiment, don't recall which. He also mentions the participation of the Brigade of Guards. Graves was a subaltern - a junior officer. He didn't really know what was going on along the line, so that information is strictly partial.

I have no idea what German units were involved.

I propose to add material based on Graves' account of the battle in Goodbye To All That; for example, his regiment was marched back to Bethune the day before the battle, to dump their cloaks, greatcoats and heavy equipment; then marched 20 miles back to the front overnight, prior to the start of the attack the following morning. Consequently they were knackered. I think he says the Jocks were similarly treated, and similarly exhausted.

He says that the gas engineers reported to HQ that there was no wind, and that the gas would simply stay where it was released; HQ (John French) ordered the release of gas anyway, and that the advance should go ahead; so the British regiments had to advance through their own gas. He doesn't say what gas was used; I suppose it was chlorine, although I believe the British mainly used a mixture of chlorine and phosgene during WW1.

Given that this battle was the one that finished French as the British CiC, and was one of the greatest military disasters for the BEF, I reckon this article could do with a lot of filling-out. I'm no historian; I'm half-way through Goodbye To All That (a book I'm ashamed not to have opened in my youth, 50 years ago). The miscalculations and oversights of the British staff need to be highlighted.

The shortage of shells was (according to Graves) because a German bomber had hit a British arms dump.

He says the attack was a supplementary attack. The men were told that they would be reinforced, but there was no intention to reinforce them. 60,000 British soldiers (and 30,000 Germans) died to create a distraction. The use of New Army regiments with no experience of trench warfare to assault enemy trenches seems a particularly cynical waste of lives.

The article says this was the first time the British used tunnel-mines; it doesn't mention that German tunnelers were also used.

The battle took place around a canal; I can't see it on the map (which is awful anyway). Behind the German lines there was a railway - I can't see that either.

I'll re-read the chapters I've just read, and see what I can do. But anything I add will be based on this single first-hand source - I think Goodbye To All That would have to be considered a primary source, as it is a first-hand account, so not up to WP standards. Let me know if you think GTAT is unsuitable; then I won't waste my time.

Incidentally, I'm very impressed by GTAT so far; Graves' account of this battle is given with an upper lip so stiff you could use it as a chisel. No hystrionics, it seems an utterly sober and unemotional account. The events described are quite disturbing enough on their own, without emotional embellishments from the author.

MrDemeanour (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

An anecdotal account is a useful source for anecdote but not the foundation of the narrative. All the European armies ran out of ammunition by the end of 1914, the gas discharge had quite a serious effect according to German sources. It is unwise to lean too heavily on one source. Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've now also read "Donkeys" by Alan Clarke, which covers specifically the 1915 period of the war. He confirms that the shortage of shells and big guns was endemic in the British sector, due to Kitchener's obsession with opening second fronts in the Dardanelles and Italy (i.e. the required guns and shells were aboard ship to the Med). The shortage was evidently not confined to the Loos sector, nor was it caused by a single German bombing mission against a single arms dump (thanks, @Keith-264).

He also observes that a German battalion was generally equipped with four machine-gun crews; John French's view was that two teams was quite sufficient. Considering the very high proportion of British troops that were cut down by machine-gun fire, French appears to have been pretty out-of-touch.

Clarke says that the gas discharge caused some panic among the German defenders, but no casualties. IIRC, there were no reported German casualties at all.

I understand that "Donkeys" is considered unreliable historically, and biased against the British High Command; is that correct? Much of it seems to be based on the memoirs of people like Haig and French themselves. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarke was rather haughtily dismissed by reviewers at the time; Courage Without Glory. The British Army on the Western Front 1915 (Wolverhampton Military Studies) by Spencer Jones (2015) or Most Unfavourable Ground: The Battle of Loos, 1915 by Niall Cherry (2008) might be better sources, incorporating the fairly large amount of research done since the 1960s. The Smoke and the Fire: Myths and Anti-myths of War, 1861–1945 (1980) by John Terraine is also a good corrective to the lions and donkeys theme. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Benny Profeign: The claim that the British gas discharge harmed only the British is a myth, which should have been buried years ago. German sources describe the gas rolling over the German front line in places. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Keith. If my claim is unclear, I will update to indicate that the Germans indeed suffer in some areas. I didn't think that my writing claimed the gas harmed only the British, rather that there was more British casualties than German ones. Regards Benny Profeign (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Benny Profeign: Morning Benny, I altered a few bits and changed your cites to sfn. It's always a pleasure to see someone take an interest in Great War articles. Toodle pip! Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264:Cheers! Any other articles you think need some updating? Need to get my copy of Doughty so that I can refresh myself on second battle of Champagne.

Quite a few French offensives in 1915 and 1917; since I got a full-time job my editing has been cut drastically so I don't know when I'll get round to it. I've looked in the Canadian translation of the German OH for 1915 today and it mentions several gas discharges reaching the German trenches. Much of the conventional story omits awkward sources like the Germans - good polemic, bad history. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld to Battle of Loos, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)