"Going over the top" Topic

In Mud Blood and Poppycock, Corrigan explains that on the first day of the Somme the attacking troops would have left the trenches at zero hour under the cover of the barrage and got to within 100 yards of the first German trench then attacked when the barrrage lifted.

I'm questioning if this was the case, was it widespread practice for attacks anyway or is it debatable?

The popular but somehow incomplete or incomprehensive image is that the shelling ends, then they leave the (relative) safety of the trench to be immediately slain by MGs and shells.

No debate and no question. The 'creeping barrage' is and was a standard military tactic. Barrages would lift 100 yards every 1-2-3 minutes depending upon plan.

It was the case that the few casualties caused to friendly advancing troops was far, far less than allowing the enemy to man their weapons (and parapets).

The image you have is largely drawn from actuality in some cases where artillery and infantry co-ordination were deficient – artillery lifting early or troops ordered to attack at wrong time etc.

Cheers
Mark

Mark is right. A creeping barrage is very effective, as long as it is properly planned and executed. And there is the key: execution. If the infantry and artillery have their watches set just a minute or 2 different, it will probably fail.

The creeping barrage was something fairly new and not fully developed yet. Some troops weren't (sufficiently) trained to use it. Not to forget that the techniques for laying guns and preplotting fall were hardly developed.

Also, the German bunkers were much deeper underground than everyone thought, so that the barrage was far less effective than expected.

I must admit my understanding was that the creeping barrage was developed after July 1st.

The first day of the battle of the Somme saw the first large-scale creeping barrage, closely followed by the infantry and intended to keep pace with them.

As always, take with a grain of salt: link

Problem on the first day at the Somme was it moved faster than the infantry and it didn't become the standard tactic till September, however.

1st July used a lifting barrage, somewhat different to a creeper. Some assaulting units had made their way very close indeed to the German front line before it lifted, others hadn't. The bombardment was also much more effective in some areas than others, in terms of both the destruction of the physical defences and suppressing/destroying the defenders.

wrt leaving trenches, the defenders sometimes did this as well under heavy shell fire. Safer to be in a crater position 20 yards back than under fire in the trench, then reoccupy it when the fire lifts.

In the continuation of the battle, both sides developed more effective offensive and defensive techniques. The Germans had only really sorted out decent SOS barrages a couple of months before the battle started.

I wasn't overly impressed with Corrigan, of the revisionists, Gary Sheffield is a little less… histrionic. Just wading through Jack Sheldons 'The German Army on the Somme', which is absolutely fascinating for a view from the other side of the hill.

I read that one of the problems with the first day of the Somme offensive was the men were told to walk not run. They were carrying so much kit that I think it would be impossible to run anyway. Command and control at the time dictated a walk across no man's land to maintain unit cohesion. If you look at the Canadian attack at Vimy ridge much later, their use of the creeping barrage was used to the maximim effect.

Thinking about my question a bit more, a typical image is that from the film Gallipoli, you send over your fist wave, they all get machine gunned in the first few yards, then send your second wave to suffer the same fate.

Ie, that anywhere in no mans land is a killing zone, from snipers, mgs, shelling etc.

But in reality capturing the first trench is the easy bit.
As you also also often read of Monty's set piece battles in Normandy for example, theres a lot of 'initial success' but then it gets a whole lot tougher and starts to fall apart, no breakthrough achieved.

Capturing the second and thrid trench lines becoming increasing difficult as youre now out of sync with the barrage, you have counter attacks, further from your support/resupply/command etc.

Just trying to get a different understanding of trench warfare behind the oft portrayed duct shoot.

If you completely mess up and start advancing after the barrage has lifted into uncut wire with the defensive SOS barrage landing all over you and the concreted defensive MG posts intact and unblinded, then it is indeed going to be a bit like the scene in Gallipoli (although irl you will find lots of people hiding in shell holes waiting for nightfall or running away and getting shot in the back as they run). When the regimental war diary says 'the attack was easily repulsed', that is what it means.

But yes, capturing the very first trench (in what is usually a triple trench system, replicated two or three times deeper into the position) is often the easy bit, particularly in defensive schemes which essentially abandon the front line apart from outposts. It all tended to go to pot as the position was penetrated, comms fell apart, casualties and confusion mounted and counterattacks came rolling in. Even in the disasters of 1.7.16, 36th Div made it all the way into the Schwaben Redoubt in the second position, only to be thrown out again by counterattacks (which also suffered brutally).

'Trench Warfare' is often portrayed in popular culture as a duck shoot, because it fits in with whole 1960s 'Oh What a Lovely War' thing and it is the only way the vast casualties are explicable in the English speaking world. It ignores more complex factors like troop density relative to front engaged, and the relatively scientific approach of many attacks. They still resulted in high casualties for eveyone involved, because high intensity combat is dangerous and very bloody, as the Allies re-discovered in Normandy. None of this was a surprise to the Russians in either WW1 or WW2.

Reading about Neuve Chapelle 1915 a lot of my questions were answered. Bascially after careful planning and 35 minutes of shelling initial success was great with few casualties. So the initial going over the top wasnt too bad.

Then communication, largely by runner, broke down taking 4 hours for orders to get through. New targets were of unknown range, messages took too long to get through, particularly of the 'stop shelling weve taken their trenches' kind.

Casualties grew as troops didnt have further orders, and advances or withdrawals had to be dictated from above. Communications with the unit next to you had to go right back up through the chain of command and back down to your neighbour.

French blamed the failure on a lack of shells, leading to the whole shell scandal and also the belief that if 1/2 hours shelling has this result then increasing the amount of shelling increase the effect by the same proportion.