Jump to content

Talk:British Army during the First World War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBritish Army during the First World War has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
June 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 8, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Current status: Good article
[edit]

1. There needs to be an order of battle somewhere. I've clicked multiple links to multiple pages and this is scattered and disorganized. 2. There should be a list of links for pages that are related at the bottom, including the individual British armies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.168.76 (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Africa Campaign (World War I)

[edit]

The West Africa Campaign (World War I) has been left out of this article as the only British involvement I can find was by the Royal West African Frontier Force which according to the article included 217 British officers, non-commissioned officers and specialists. If anyone has and further details on British Army participation feel free to add --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South-West Africa Campaign

[edit]

The South-West Africa Campaign has also been left out as per the sources I can find this was carried out by units of the South African Army.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim review

[edit]

Okay, I've read over the article a couple of times now and have the following comments. It is generally well done, but feel that there are a few improvements that could be made, which would bring it up to a GA in my opinion. I've fixed some of the minor things, but there are a few points I haven't fixed and require some attention:

General:

  • Capitalisation: please check for instances of irregular capitalisation. I've fixed some, but may have missed others. There was also some I wasn't sure about (should regular army, be capitalised?) I believe that the rule is if it is a proper noun it should be capitalised, if not, it shouldn't. E.g. 'the 1st Division' or 'the first division to deploy was the 1st Divison'. Done
  • Distances and values: need to be consistent throughout. Some places you use miles, others kilometres. I suggest adding a convert tag to them to provide both.  Done
  • Wikilinking dates: I think concensus is currently against doing this. I think there was one in Gas helmet section  Done
  • Overlink: some examples of overlink. I removed most, but might have missed some. Done

Specific:

  • Organisation section:
    • please check the number of cavalry regiments. At one point you say 31, at another you say 33. Done
    • probably need to clarify the difference between the three different Reserve forces (was it obligation, paid or unpaid, active or inactive, etc.?)  Done
    • the composition of the division in 1918 needs to be looked at. The wording makes it unclear whether the machine gun battalion was divisional support or brigade support. Thus was it one MG battalion per division, or one per brigade?  Done
  • Doctrine: the article probably needs to discuss doctrine in a bit more detail. Currently it briefly mentions it in the Conscription section, I'd suggest creating a separate section and discussing the difficulties that existed in 1) formulating consistent doctrine due to Corps rivalries in the British Army 2) the difficulties in formulating doctrine and planning with the French 3) possibly also how doctrine and tactics developed over the course of the war (e.g. with the change from open warfare to trench warfare, etc.), and the evolution of new equipment, etc.
  • Conscription: could this section be expanded to discuss how the policy came to be implemented, was it accepted by the army, and the wider public?  Done
  • Equipment:
    • Lewis gun: could you elaborate why it was more popular than the Vickers (i.e. I think it was because it was more suited to fire and movement as it was more mobile, as opposed to the Vickers which was heavier and larger, etc. and therefore more suited to static fire support?)  Done
    • Stokes mortar: possibly mention what it was used for, e.g. organic indirect fire support, and the advantage that gave (e.g. not needing to wait for artillery to readjust which can take a while)  Done
    • Tanks: probably need to expand this section, you only mention the Mark I, but surely there were other versions. Also try to add a citation for the comment about it being a British invention. I think that the French sometimes claim it as one of theirs, too.  Done
  • Signals/communications: could you add a section discussing the evolution of field communications during the war. My understanding is that the start of the war, commanders largely relied on runners and field telephones, but that by the end wireless comms had been developed, which to an extent aided the combined arms offensives launched later in the war;
  • Campaigns:
    • Gallipoli: perhaps clarify the point about the peninsula being captured in 1918 without a shot fired. What campaign did this occur in, as I don't think it is mentioned later; Taken out it was occupied after the armistice so it was misleading  Done
    • Sinai and Palestine: you refer to Australian and New Zealand light cavalry, I don't believe this is correct. They would have been light horse I think, which is technically different, but to the lay person probably really the same. Probably best to fix, lest some purist takes issue with it. Done

Overall, not a bad article at all. It is coming along nicely and I feel that it could easily make it to a GA. I suggest putting it up for peer review once you've made the above changes as I'm not really a subject matter expert. I hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments/suggestions (not comprehensive)

[edit]
  • Lede is completely uncited, so should be carefully checked to ensure each statement is elsewhere in the text. I'd suggest hidden comments to say where.  Done removed what I could not readily source
  • Commanders:
    • When did French's term start? Why was he replaced?  Done
    • "conduct during the war" or "conduct of the war""?  Done
  • Organisantion:
    • consider "any conflict" or "any external conflict"?  Done changed wording
    • link first use of Guards, infantry, cavalry regiment, division, brigade, battalion, how big are these units?  Done all linked the size of each unit is found via the link don't think we need it in the text
    • relate 3s6d/week to the modern equivalent  Done
  • Recruitment and conscription
    • not just men, women (esp nurses), boys (some of 14) volunteered  Done Good catch on the woman in ww1 , I have not commented on boys volunteering as officially they never did volunteers had to be 18
  • Doctrine
    • the quotation "In every respect the Expeditionary Force in 1914 was incomparably the best trained, best organized, and best equipped British Army which ever went forth to war." is attributed in Beckett & Simpson p.38 to J.E. Edmonds' Military Operations, France and Belgium, 1914, Volume I, pp.10-11, HMSO London (1925) should be verified and properly attributed  Done
  • Artillery tactics
  • Communications
  • Life in the trenches
    • lice and rats didn't cause the diseases, they carried them.  Done
  • Gas helmet
Thanks for the comments --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing those. A few more:
  • omits any real discussion of the Imperial and Dominion contingents, either as distinct units within the army or as feeders of trained personnel into UK units. Yes as this is the British Army during WWI the dominions have their own series of articles Military history of Australia during World War I, Military history of Canada during the First World War and History of South Africa (1910–1948) etc. I have added a see also section which covers these units.
  • you might consider changing the free-form harvard referencing to use {{harvnb}} instead (this can generate clickable internal links from the footnotes to the source referenced (see World War I for example, though admittedly it uglifies the wikitext)
  • re the boys, during the intense recruiting campaigns it was standard practice for medical officers at recruiting stations to turn a blind eye. I`ve seen one 14 year old`s attestation paper annotated "appears to be of age" by the M.O. - oddly, they waited until November 1918 before they tried to drum him out for lying at the recruiting station. Today we call the use of child soldiers a war

crime.LeadSongDog come howl 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good link here [1] for the Channel 4 history site and I have read accounts that when they gave the wrong age were told to Walk around the block and come back when your older --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See if you can find a copy of: Richard Van Emden (2005). Boy Soldiers of the Great War. Headline. ISBN 075531302X.. I haven't, but it sounds promising. LeadSongDog come howl 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:British Army during World War I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Commanders

[edit]
  • You say French offered to resign over Curraugh but actually he did resign as CIGS. I'm not sure your wording makes this clear.
  • You say that "no serving British officer had controlled a force larger than a division on active operations" But Kitchener and Roberts were still on the active list.
  • Although your source says that "there were no established British procedures or any relevant experience commanders could use to guide them in their decision making", the Field Service Regulations does contain procedures, which were implemented in 1914.
  • "After the Second Boer war he was responsible for a number of reforms notably forcing an increase in dismounted training for the cavalry. This was met with hostility by French (as a cavalry man)". Now this is quite true but the debate about the proper role of cavalry was quite complicated. In many ways the British Army was ahead of the French and Germans in its emphasis on dismounted action with firearms rather than relying on edged weapons.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

[edit]

An excellent example of the "big push". BZ LeadSongDog come howl 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders

[edit]

This section may need some tweaks. The first line reads, "In 1914, no serving British officer of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) had controlled a force larger than a division on active operations." This misses the point that many of the senior British officers had commanded battalions, brigades and divisions in action in the Boer War, and therefore had experience of facing hostile rifle and artillery fire. The first line on the commanders of the German Army might read "In 1914, no serving German Officer had controlled a force larger than a company on active operations". (And this was Hindenburg, in 1871!) This is probably wrong; there may have been one or two who had led askari battalions in Tanganyika or German South West Africa, but my point is that the German Army depended on staff-driven theoretical doctrine while the British leaders each had their own experiences to fall back upon. HLGallon (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German Army was a lot larger than the British being a conscript army and had divisional and corps commanders already in place. I agree they did not have the operational expericance that the British had, The statement is correct, Field Marshalls Roberts and Kitchener had of course controled field forces but did not have active commands, Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation section

[edit]

In the above-named section, it says It consisted of 247,432 regular troops organised in four Guards regiments and 68 line infantry regiments, 31 cavalry regiments, artillery and other support arms.

I have been reading Sir John Alexander Hammerton's "A Popular History of the Great War" (6 volumes, published in 1933). Hammerton had done a 13-volume "Great War:The Standard History of the All-Europe Conflict" - the 1933 version embedded "the gist of post-war revelations and official documents", as he had recognised that the "Great War" would have needed to be largely re-written.

Anyway, from Volume 1 (page 78):

The strength of the various units of the regular army just before the outbreak of the Great War was:

Infantry 149,507
Cavalry 20,332
Artillery 47,894
Engineers 10,230
R.A.S.C. 6,463
R.A.M.C. 4,781
R.F.C. 1,005
Miscellaneous 13,328
253,540

- This is a 6,108 higher than the figure quoted in the article. I'm not sure which is the more accurate figure, though.

Also, he notes (page 79):

On September 15, 1914, the army strength was as follows:

Regulars 314,000
Army Reserve 80,000
New Army 500,000
Territorial Force 313,000
1,207,000

I'm not sure if these figures would be worthy of citing in the article.

Should they be considered such, the citations for the two quotes/tables are:

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Trenches and authenticity

[edit]

"The trenches varied in depth, but they were usually about four or five feet deep".
This extract from the 'Life in the trenches' section is rather contradicted by the 'trench sentry' picture a bit further down the page in the 'Life in the trenches' section.
If the sentry is about 5ft 10ins tall and there is at least 2 feet of space under his boots and another foot of trench above his head, you end-up with a trench substantially deeper than 'four or five feet deep'. I'm sure I have read elsewhere that trenches were dug to at least 7 feet and deepened at the earliest opportunity.

While I am on the subject of trenches, I have seen this picture many times and have always thought that the sentry can't see very much, (look at his eye-line); also, if he's meant to be looking out of the trench, how is it that his rifle and bayonet are above his head? Maybe he's on listening watch...or maybe the picture is not what it seemed to be?
RASAM (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The earth dug out of the trench was thrown up in front and behind (often packed into sandbags first) to form a parapet and a parados, so the height from the bottom of the trench to the top of the parapet would indeed have been more than 5', but the actual depth dug out was indeed about 5' - see eg An officer's manual of the Western Front 1914-1918 compiled by Stephen Bull, published 2008. This collects and reproduces British Army manuals from the period, with introductory and explanatory material by Dr Bull pp 24-25, originally from the Manual of Field Engineering illustrate the approved dimensions for trenches etc and indicate a depth of 4'6" - 5'. The parapet would have had occasional loopholes for observation - at varius period forms of periscope were also used to avoid exposure to snipers. David Underdown (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The 'Trench warfare' article, under the 'Trench construction' section, Para 1, states: "Fighting trenches were usually about 12 feet (3,7m) deep."
In both the 'Trench warfare' article and this one, a diagram from a 1914 military publication shows a soldier on a fire-step in a trench. Like the 'trench sentry' picture mentioned above, there is a lot of air between his boots and the bottom of the trench.
All the relevant pictures in the Trench warfare article, (apart from one showing Australians using a periscope rifle at Gallipoli), show the trenches were dug considerably deeper than the soldiers are tall. Incidentially, the Australian periscope rifle picture shows plenty of sandbags, but to be effective, i.e. bullet-proof, they would have to be laid two or even three bags thick.
RASAM (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closely at File:Trench construction diagram 1914.png you can see taht actually indicates 6' from the very bottom of the trench to the original ground level. Perhps on refelection this article should be amended to read a "minimum of four to five feet deep at the start of the war". I suspect that as the war progressed they were dug out more. David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrai 1917

[edit]

Was not a tank offensive. It was not planned as one, it was not one for its duration. Tanks did not achieve anything after the initial day. The battle was an experiment of infantry and artillery techniques. It was planned by an artillery officer, sanctioned by an infantry officer, and only at the end was it decided the RTC were going to thrown in. Basil Liddell Hart's writing on this supposes "tank offensive" is biased and untrustowrty. The British official history did not consider it a tank battle, and neither does Bryan Hammond, Cambrai 1917: The Myth of the First Tank Battle. Dapi89 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame Dapi89 is retired, as I'm curious as to who the infantry officer he refers to is. Byng and Haig were both cavalry officers. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline & Executions

[edit]

The Haig biog has a para on execution of deserters. I wrote that section about 6 months ago because said article was attracting comments of the "why doesn't the article mention that this bastard murdered 300 men with PTSD?" variety. As with many things to do with Britain's role in WW1, both narrative and analysis of popular memory, it's hard to disentangle the colourless and uncharismatic figure of DH from the war itself.

I'd like to move the section here, along with a bit more material from the Bond & Cave Essays on Haig, comparing British execution rates to those of other countries. Then people can add stuff about field punishment etc if they wish.

Then the Haig biog could just have a sentence saying he had final sign-off on death warrants but it's hard to say more than that as only the records for men who were executed were kept, followed by a link here. That frees up more space on the Haig biog for analysis of other things.

I know this is an emotive issue, so has anyone got any views on this, or serious objections if I add such a section?Paulturtle (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No as long as its sourced to reliable third party sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, will trim down the section in the Haig biog and link it here.Paulturtle (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Land Units of the First World War

[edit]

"British Land Units of the First World War" has been reinstated as it is independent of the content and includes non-army units, Please be careful not to delete pages by redirection, use links'

DonJay (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

contemptible little army - deliberate mistranslation? Contemptibly small army

[edit]

afaik, the Kaiser himself denied saying contemptible little army. Apparently, it was an adverb, not an adjective. He was talking about the size, not the ability. But it was read to the troops as contemptible little army to get their backs up (which it did.) Should this be added, if I can find decent refs? Ganpati23 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More
" A thorough investigation of the authenticity of this order, "issued by the Kaiser," was undertaken in 1925 with the assistance of a German General, who had the archives in Berlin carefully searched, and of a British General, Sir F. Maurice, who was able to throw a good deal of light on the subject.
While the Kaiser's proverbially foolish indiscretion might account for any preposterous utterance, it was known that he did not issue orders of his own volition; they were prepared for him by his Staff, which was certainly not so ignorant of its business as to tell the German Generals to concentrate their energies upon the extermination of an army when they could not tell them where that army was. Their ignorance of the whereabouts of the British Army was proved by a telegram sent by the German Chief of the Staff to Von Kluck on August 20th (the day after the issue of the supposed order): "Disembarkation of English at Boulogne must be reckoned with. The opinion here, however, is that large disembarkations have not yet taken place."
It was further discovered that German Headquarters were never at Aix la Chapelle. Headquarters moved from Berlin about August 15th. and went to Coblenz, later to Luxemburg, from whence they moved to Charleville on September 27th.
A careful search in the archives proved fruitless. No such order or anything like it could be discovered. Not content with this, however, the German General had inquiries made of the ex-Kaiser himself at Doorn. In, a marginal note the ex-Kaiser declared he had never used such an expression, adding: "On the contrary, I continually emphasized the high value of the British Army, and often, indeed, in peace-time gave warning against underestimating it."
General Sir F. Maurice had the German newspaper files searched for the alleged speech or order of the Kaiser, but without success. In an article exposing the fabrication (Daily News, November 6, 1925), he remarks that G.H.Q. hit on the idea of using routine orders to issue statements which it was believed would encourage and inspirit our men." Most of these took the form of casting ridicule on the German Army.... These efforts were seen to be absurd by the men in the trenches, and were soon dropped."
We may laugh now at this lie and some may be inclined to give some credit to the officer who concocted it, although he made a careless mistake about the whereabouts of the German G.H.Q. There can be no doubt as to its immense success, nevertheless there are many who will share the opinion of a gentleman who wrote to the Press (Nation and Athenaeum, August 8, 1925), who, having heard that doubt was cast on the authenticity of the well-known and almost hackneyed phrase, remarked on "its extreme seriousness to our national honour or to that of the British officer originally responsible," were it proved to be an invention. "
Source:Falsehood in War -Time, Propaganda Lies of the First World War, Arthur Ponsonby MP, (1928, George Allen and Unwin)
Ganpati23 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rifle fire 20–30 aimed rounds a minute

[edit]

?? Info I have found indicates 15 rpm was highest standard for ordinary British professional rifleman with Lee-Enfield at that time. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on British Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

Hi. I feel the introduction section needs citations. Right now there is one on the first couple of lines and that is it. Firestar47 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Army_during_the_First_World_War&oldid=1213283271"