Question time


WeedOut
#1
Im doing a history project on Vimy Ridge, in the battle of Vimy, I would like to ask if the technique used was called the creeping barrage. While I'm at it, I'll quiz you, what year and day did the Germans ask for an armistice in World War One?
 
Ron in Regina
#2
Sounds like you need the guidance of a History Teacher here....& there is one.
He might just tell you that you need to do your own homework though.....
 
Nuggler
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by WeedOut View Post

Im doing a history project on Vimy Ridge, in the battle of Vimy, I would like to ask if the technique used was called the creeping barrage. While I'm at it, I'll quiz you, what year and day did the Germans ask for an armistice in World War One?

Google "Creeping barrage at Vimy Ridge" and you will see that the allies did in fact use it. Heck, just copy and paste. There's your project, all done for you.


.................Oct. 5, l9l8.
 
Colpy
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by WeedOut View Post

Im doing a history project on Vimy Ridge, in the battle of Vimy, I would like to ask if the technique used was called the creeping barrage. While I'm at it, I'll quiz you, what year and day did the Germans ask for an armistice in World War One?

Yes, the creeping barrage was used to great effect, thanks to the expertise, planning, and especially the step by step timing laid out by Arthur Currie, the Canadian commander.

As an aside, one of Curries artillerymen was the future General McNaughton........

The Germans sued for peace in early October of 1918, the guns stopped at "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" or 11 AM on November 11, 1918.
 
Bar Sinister
#5
Actually "creeping" barrage is a misnomer since all artillery barrages crept. It was a simple enough idea consisting of lobbing shells onto the enemy trenches in order to force them to take cover and then having the attacking troops advance on the enemy. As the troops neared the line of deadly explosions the barrage would be moved a bit farther ahead to the secondary trenches while the troops stormed the first.

It took considerable coordination between the infantry and the artillery to ensure a successful use of the barrage and Canadian troops at Vimy practiced advancing while a supposed barrage was taking place in front of them. Such practice was critical as needless to say troops that advanced too quickly had their own shells landing on them or a barrage that lifted too soon gave the enemy time to recover. Vimy was the first use of the technique in a large scale attack and it proved a highly successful tactic. I am not sure what sources you are using in your report, but Pierre Burton's Vimy is a superb account of the battle. You can probably find it at your local library.
 
relic
#6
Sir douglas haig was an idiot and a war criminal,but he wasn't alone.The brits had a hard time dragging themselves into the twentieth century,militairly speaking.
 
Colpy
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

Sir douglas haig was an idiot and a war criminal,but he wasn't alone.The brits had a hard time dragging themselves into the twentieth century,militairly speaking.

Yeah.
Haig is famous for saying "The machine gun is ineffective against massed attack"

Uh-huh. A complete moron.

A theory he put into practice on July 1, 1916 at the Somme. He lost 50,000 men the first day. It went on for 3 months.

BTW he was promoted to Field Marshal for his efforts.

But to say the Brits were slow in dragging themselves into the 20th century in their tactics is somewhat unfair.........the machine gun prevented manoevre, and locked all sides into the slaughter of the trenches. Movement was only made possible by the use of the creeping barrage followed closely by infantry, a tactic used to such great effect at Vimy.............and the stalemate was only broken by the introduction of the tank.......first used by the British

BTW...how was Haig a war criminal??

I hate how people toss that around now........
 
Goober
+1
#8
Check out TOT - Time on Target - Devised by a Canadian General and was used to great effect by the artillery - Now remember - No calculators back then

Also why can't you do your own homework - and buzz off on the quiz crap.

We are not in school -
 
JLM
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by WeedOut View Post

Im doing a history project on Vimy Ridge, in the battle of Vimy, I would like to ask if the technique used was called the creeping barrage. While I'm at it, I'll quiz you, what year and day did the Germans ask for an armistice in World War One?

Are you asking us to do your homework for you? The Armistice- the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918.
 
lone wolf
#10
Maybe the teacher's a member....
 
relic
#11
I mean the brits were slow learners,if one frontal attack doesn't work,lets try three or five more,depending on how much cannon fodder we have on hand,they were doing the same stupid shtuff in the next war,think Dieppe.
I think haig is{or should be listed as} a war criminal along with stalin and churchill.Haig was stupid and the other two didn't play fair.
 
Goober
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

I mean the brits were slow learners,if one frontal attack doesn't work,lets try three or five more,depending on how much cannon fodder we have on hand,they were doing the same stupid shtuff in the next war,think Dieppe.
I think haig is{or should be listed as} a war criminal along with stalin and churchill.Haig was stupid and the other two didn't play fair.


They say you could literally walk from the Med to the Baltic and be in trench's the whole way - little hard with mountains but think on how intricate the trench system was -mind boggling.
Think 1776 - Ameircan Revolution - thye had those lovely bright red tunics for easy targets -

WW1 was fough using the tactics from the US Civil War - Many do not realize that - Look at the Prussian Frech War of 1772 - or so 1770 - not sure.

-
 
TenPenny
#13
I've read my great-uncle's diary from WW1, he lasted about 6 or 8 months in 1916 before he was killed. It's fairly blase but ugly when you read the 'quiet night, except for the constant shelling' comments.
 
relic
#14
Don't forget the Boar{?} war lets just line up and shoot at each other 'till tea time.
 
EagleSmack
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

They say you could literally walk from the Med to the Baltic and be in trench's the whole way - little hard with mountains but think on how intricate the trench system was -mind boggling.
Think 1776 - Ameircan Revolution - thye had those lovely bright red tunics for easy targets -

WW1 was fough using the tactics from the US Civil War - Many do not realize that - Look at the Prussian Frech War of 1772 - or so 1770 - not sure.

-


That's true. Trench warfare came about at the end of the Civil War when the Yanks (Nothern type) in blue were once again slaughtered in a frontal assault at Cold Harbor. Gen Grant decided that a seige is what will finally bring the Rebels to heel. He was right. The long seige dranied the Army of Nothern Virginia of supplies and sickness settled into the immobile trenches.

Back to WWI. Has anyone seen diagrams of the Western front? It was amazing how far the trench lines extended from the coast to the Alps. Was I right there? Was the allied right flank resting on the border of Switzerland or Italy? It seemed like the only thing you could do was a frontal assault and with armor in it's infancy what more could be done?
 
Nuggler
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

Don't forget the Boar{?} war lets just line up and shoot at each other 'till tea time.

Not quite. The Brits tried it, but the Boers used hit and run and ambush.

The whole thing was quite boering.
 
Goober
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

That's true. Trench warfare came about at the end of the Civil War when the Yanks (Nothern type) in blue were once again slaughtered in a frontal assault at Cold Harbor. Gen Grant decided that a seige is what will finally bring the Rebels to heel. He was right. The long seige dranied the Army of Nothern Virginia of supplies and sickness settled into the immobile trenches.

Back to WWI. Has anyone seen diagrams of the Western front? It was amazing how far the trench lines extended from the coast to the Alps. Was I right there? Was the allied right flank resting on the border of Switzerland or Italy? It seemed like the only thing you could do was a frontal assault and with armor in it's infancy what more could be done?

Also look at the mass movement of troops and equipment by rail - The use of Commandos shall we say behind enemy lines and last - the Gatling Gun - A war fought 50 years later with the same tactics. This is why the NAZI's were able to rout and kick ass in 39 -40- They had new tactics - fast moving armor - massive air bombing and air attacks from the Stuka- The French in partcilular were well prepared for the last War.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

Not quite. The Brits tried it, but the Boers used hit and run and ambush.

The whole thing was quite boering.

Nuggler -Correct and that is why the Brits started concentration camps - thousands died from starvation and disease.
 
Colpy
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

I mean the brits were slow learners,if one frontal attack doesn't work,lets try three or five more,depending on how much cannon fodder we have on hand,they were doing the same stupid shtuff in the next war,think Dieppe.
I think haig is{or should be listed as} a war criminal along with stalin and churchill.Haig was stupid and the other two didn't play fair.

Stalin was responsible for more death than any other man in history....except Mao.....

But Churchill???? You are stepping on toes there!

Please explain yourself........
 
relic
#19
well one thing would be sacrificing inocent americans to try to draw the states into the war.get some steel toed boots
 
Colpy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

well one thing would be sacrificing inocent americans to try to draw the states into the war.get some steel toed boots

ALWAYS wear steel toed boots, that's why getting my toes stepped on doesn't hurt me.

Care to be more specific over the "sacrificing innocent Americans" accusation?

Some references would be nice.
 
relic
#21
How about the Lusitania ? Churchill denied the captain warning that may of saved nearly twelve hundred lives.But nobody on the winning side is ever looked at too closely. The admiralty even said there were three torpedoes to cover up the fact there were munitions on board.
 
Colpy
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

How about the Lusitania ? Churchill denied the captain warning that may of saved nearly twelve hundred lives.But nobody on the winning side is ever looked at too closely. The admiralty even said there were three torpedoes to cover up the fact there were munitions on board.

Well, I googled this....

The Lusitania

I was well aware that the Lusitania was carrying arms, and that the portrait of her as a ship full of innocent bystanders was not the entire truth.

I also was aware that the Germans posted warnings.......so it was hardly necessary for Churchill to do so........especially to the captain.

I do think that expecting Churchill to divert a number of (largely ineffective) warships to defend one "maybe" target is completely unrealistic, and more than a little in the realm of 20-20 hindsight.

I was unaware that Churchill produced such lies afterward.....one should not be surprized "The first casualty of war is truth"....from the horse's mouth.

I'm trying to nail you down on this because I dislike immensely the casual use of the term "war crime" only slightly less than I am disgusted by the overuse of the term "genocide".

Nothing discussed above remotely approaches a "war crime". Except perhaps the blockade of Germany during (and after) the war.......there you might score a very minor point.........
 
EagleSmack
#23
The Lusitania was one reason. Another main reason was the letter from Germany to Mexico promising Mexico the return of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California if Mexico attacks the US and upon Germany's victory in Europe. Not only did Germany not deny the letter but they stood by it. It was another grand excuse to get involved.
 
Bar Sinister
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

How about the Lusitania ? Churchill denied the captain warning that may of saved nearly twelve hundred lives.But nobody on the winning side is ever looked at too closely. The admiralty even said there were three torpedoes to cover up the fact there were munitions on board.

This is a story about Churchill that has been booting about for years. There is no documented evidence for it. The best that can be said for it is that Churchill used the incident to help draw the USA into the war on the Allied side.