The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post - July-Dec 1917

bristol scout · 18 July 2009, 10:33 AM

Well----let me see now,

Whilst not accepting your thoughts on my estimating abilities--and feeling very strongly that you yourself underestimate my breadth of historical Knowledge and perspective-------i never once used the word--nor did i imply it, nor did i ever allude to your 'definitive'.

I merely used words (hence thoughts) like "ought not to be dismissed" !

On Verdun, well as late as October (24th.) a 'massive French blow, using170,000 men, 711 guns and 150 aircraft retook fort Douaumont---that must have been ---something!

Then again--now December (15th.) in three days of bitter fighting, on a six mile front, the French took 11,000 prisoners, 115 guns and hundereds of machine guns and mortars----sounds pretty 'hot' ---and this is December---Verdun 'officially' ended on December 18th. How was it that the German air services were able to concentrate on the Somme---a bit more French aggression--mirroring what was happening on the ground, could not have hurt the British hard pressed, with not that many aircraft that were 'not out-performed' ?

As for notions that the men knew better than the Generals--well that is one of the 'futility' myths that are so prevalent still---for some obscure reason! I have heard it in many guises--the private--or worse still, the corporal bellyaching about how the war (any war) is being run--and how, if 'they' would only consult him--it would all be sorted out, in victory of course, in double quick time! Or (in a later war that you mention) how a junior officer like Douglas Bader could 'intrique' against his superiors with his notions on how to fight the Battle of Britain. I have heard it in Industry---who, working in that, or similar environments has'nt heard the shop floor worker recounting to anyone who will listen, how he knows better than the management how to do things? Any argument based on 'the men were right and the officers wrong' 'squandering the lives of their men does not go very far indeed in my book!

As for 'holding the line but not attacking' which i know of of course---well, what did that mean--leave the Germans in possession of most of your country until.....what? Until the Americans come in sufficient numbers to save us--which is exactly what the British are already bleeding trying to do...? I don't have much respect for an attitude that amounts to 'youv'e raped my wife and are living in half my house---but if you don't attempt to rape her again anytime soon, or try to take the little bit of my house left to me, i won't try to push you out!!!!!

And one might be forgiven for imagining that as it was France that had an occupying enemy on it's ground, and notwithstanding the fact that of course France shouldered the main burden from 1914 to16 (a point i never get tired of mentioning here) France nevertheless knew fine well that Britains tiny peace time army could involve itself only in smaller actions until the 'new' armies were up and running--and Britain and it's Dominions thereafter gave that 'last full measure' right up to the end.

The Battle of Britain was fought in a way that was, in a very real sense, dictated by the simple fact that France surrendered and German bases suddenly, and almost overnight, superceded the French ones----indeed the very architects of that defensive victory were very quickly ousted for what was deemed a more 'offensive reaching out' doctrine---and we need look no further than Montgomery's victory in the western desert to realise that it was massively aided and abetted by fighter, fighter/bomber and light bombers selfless heroism in attacking Rommels lines, and communications.

Indeed a straight, and short journey back to those trench strafers of the R.F.C./R.A.F.

Dave.

18 July 2009, 10:33 AM	#126 (permalink)
bristol scout Shot Down Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 3,612	Well----let me see now, Whilst not accepting your thoughts on my estimating abilities--and feeling very strongly that you yourself underestimate my breadth of historical Knowledge and perspective-------i never once used the word--nor did i imply it, nor did i ever allude to your 'definitive'. I merely used words (hence thoughts) like "ought not to be dismissed" ! On Verdun, well as late as October (24th.) a 'massive French blow, using170,000 men, 711 guns and 150 aircraft retook fort Douaumont---that must have been ---something! Then again--now December (15th.) in three days of bitter fighting, on a six mile front, the French took 11,000 prisoners, 115 guns and hundereds of machine guns and mortars----sounds pretty 'hot' ---and this is December---Verdun 'officially' ended on December 18th. How was it that the German air services were able to concentrate on the Somme---a bit more French aggression--mirroring what was happening on the ground, could not have hurt the British hard pressed, with not that many aircraft that were 'not out-performed' ? As for notions that the men knew better than the Generals--well that is one of the 'futility' myths that are so prevalent still---for some obscure reason! I have heard it in many guises--the private--or worse still, the corporal bellyaching about how the war (any war) is being run--and how, if 'they' would only consult him--it would all be sorted out, in victory of course, in double quick time! Or (in a later war that you mention) how a junior officer like Douglas Bader could 'intrique' against his superiors with his notions on how to fight the Battle of Britain. I have heard it in Industry---who, working in that, or similar environments has'nt heard the shop floor worker recounting to anyone who will listen, how he knows better than the management how to do things? Any argument based on 'the men were right and the officers wrong' 'squandering the lives of their men does not go very far indeed in my book! As for 'holding the line but not attacking' which i know of of course---well, what did that mean--leave the Germans in possession of most of your country until.....what? Until the Americans come in sufficient numbers to save us--which is exactly what the British are already bleeding trying to do...? I don't have much respect for an attitude that amounts to 'youv'e raped my wife and are living in half my house---but if you don't attempt to rape her again anytime soon, or try to take the little bit of my house left to me, i won't try to push you out!!!!! And one might be forgiven for imagining that as it was France that had an occupying enemy on it's ground, and notwithstanding the fact that of course France shouldered the main burden from 1914 to16 (a point i never get tired of mentioning here) France nevertheless knew fine well that Britains tiny peace time army could involve itself only in smaller actions until the 'new' armies were up and running--and Britain and it's Dominions thereafter gave that 'last full measure' right up to the end. The Battle of Britain was fought in a way that was, in a very real sense, dictated by the simple fact that France surrendered and German bases suddenly, and almost overnight, superceded the French ones----indeed the very architects of that defensive victory were very quickly ousted for what was deemed a more 'offensive reaching out' doctrine---and we need look no further than Montgomery's victory in the western desert to realise that it was massively aided and abetted by fighter, fighter/bomber and light bombers selfless heroism in attacking Rommels lines, and communications. Indeed a straight, and short journey back to those trench strafers of the R.F.C./R.A.F. Dave. Last edited by bristol scout; 18 July 2009 at 11:06 AM.