Joep123 | 18 Aug 2014 7:47 p.m. PST |
Hi everyone; I've started painting Baccus 6mm BEF to use with Great War Spearhead rules and would like to find some books that covers the first year of the war. I remember seeing some recommendations in another post, but can't find it again. What would you recommend? Thanks; Joe |
Prince Alberts Revenge | 18 Aug 2014 8:11 p.m. PST |
Not the BEF or the Western front but I really enjoyed Showalter's book on Tannenberg: link It explains the forces involved to push Europe to war (France and Germany and the potential of Russia) and explains the battles in a way which was easy for me to conceptualize. I also recently purchased O'Neil's book on the Schlieffen plan, looks pretty good from skimming it but I have yet to read it: link |
mghFond | 18 Aug 2014 8:21 p.m. PST |
Showalter's book is a great read for the early Eastern front Russians against Germans, yes! Im currently reading Collision of Empires by Prit Buttar which covers whole Eastern front in 1914. |
Inari7 | 18 Aug 2014 9:33 p.m. PST |
The Guns of August covers the first month. |
RittervonBek | 18 Aug 2014 10:50 p.m. PST |
Adrian Gilbert – The real story of the British Army in 1914. |
Martin Rapier | 19 Aug 2014 2:20 a.m. PST |
If you mainly want BEF battles, then the two relevant Ospreys (Mons and First Ypres) are actually pretty good. |
infman | 19 Aug 2014 2:50 a.m. PST |
I've just read 'Catastrophe' by Max Hastings which gives a good overview of the first year of the war on all of the fronts. |
Eleve de Vauban | 19 Aug 2014 9:38 a.m. PST |
For non-BEF centred books, recently I read "Breaking the Fortress Line 1914" by Clayton Donnell, on the fighting for the forts in Eastern Belgium and France during August to early October. A very interesting book. |
Big Red | 19 Aug 2014 11:08 a.m. PST |
The Campaign of the Marne by Sewell Tyng. |
Cyclops | 19 Aug 2014 11:37 a.m. PST |
1914-The Old Contemptibles by Robin Neillands. BEF-centric though. link £1.99 GBP on Kindle. |
huevans011 | 19 Aug 2014 3:40 p.m. PST |
Showalter's book is a great read for the early Eastern front Russians against Germans, yes!I'm currently reading Collision of Empires by Prit Buttar which covers whole Eastern front in 1914. Was thinking of picking the Buttar book up. What do you think of it? |
Joep123 | 19 Aug 2014 6:45 p.m. PST |
Thanks everyone; Great feedback. I will be picking up many of these choices. What I'm looking for is a book that covers the battles and tactics in 1914, of all involved, mainly Western Front, but also interested in the east too. Thanks Joe |
Ponder | 20 Aug 2014 5:34 a.m. PST |
Good morning, My two cents. Terence Zuber's books (on Mons & Ardennes) typically portray and analyze tactical actions. He has two new books on fighting in Lorraine, and on the siege of Liege coming out this fall. Most histories are "little maps and big arrows" showing movements of corps in the west, and armies in the east. Zuber has an in your face writing style, that many find off-putting. At the same time, his arguments while stimulating discussion are not being refuted. For tactical primer on WW1, I recommend George Marshall's "Infantry in Battle." It is available free online. Showalter's book is almost always mentioned in regard to the East. While well written and easy to read, he never covers the Russians in any detail. I have an annotated bibliography in "The Death of Glory – France 1914" and "Great War East 1914." Both are scenario books for "Command Decision Test of Battle." The East book will be out within the next month. Both available thru Test of Battle games website. Ponder on, JAS
|
Joep123 | 20 Aug 2014 7:13 p.m. PST |
Thanks JAS; I appreciate the info. Joe |
monk2002uk | 21 Aug 2014 3:24 a.m. PST |
Many aspects of Zuber's works on Mons and Ardennes have been and are being refuted. The 'in your face' writing style masks some important problems in selective filtering and presentation of the evidence. I will follow-up with some details but the recent publication by Bucholz, Robinson and Robinson (THE GREAT WAR DAWNING Germany and its Army at the Start of World War I) sets out to redress many of the assumptions made by Zuber. This is not to say that you shouldn't get the books on Mons and the Ardennes. But they are by no means the definitive accounts, even from the German perspective. Sheldon's works are much more balanced. Jack's book on the German Army at Ypres 1914 is a must. Joe, his book on the German Army in 1915 covers off key battles like Neuve Chapelle and Loos from a German perspective too. There are several Battlefield Europe books on the various battles involving the BEF in the first months of the war. Some of the earlier books, such as the one covering Mons, do not have a balanced view of the German fighting. Jack has been heavily involved with later books, such as the revision of Le Cateau. I haven't had a chance to review the latest books in the series, covering the retreat and the Battle of the Aisne. Robert |
mghFond | 21 Aug 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
Huevans011, I enjoyed the book, he covers the battles well enough in that he explains a lot about how the various armies maneuvered and flanked each other or at least tried to go for the flank. Also you get a sense of how much blundering there was going on as commanders tried to keep a handle on the vast battlefields. Plus there isn't a lot in English out there for AustroHungarian battles and campaigns and he does cover those. I'm glad I got the book. |
Joep123 | 21 Aug 2014 8:13 p.m. PST |
Hi Robert; I just checked out the selection of books on Amazon by Jack Sheldon….I'll be picking up the two you recommended. I already have coming in to me, the two Osprey books that Martin also recommended. I hope this extensive list that everyone has laid out here in this thread was a help to others besides me. Good Gaming; Joe |
rsutton | 21 Aug 2014 11:50 p.m. PST |
Robert Good points about Zuber. However I think they are worth reading because they do help to break the old BEF 'mad minute' paradigm, German infantry advancing in columns, being cut down like wheat in the fields etc. R |
monk2002uk | 22 Aug 2014 4:01 a.m. PST |
I agree, Robin. Jack Sheldon was onto the issue before Zuber though. And Jack makes it much clearer, however, that the BEFs musketry had a major impact on the ability for German units to advance Robert |
mghFond | 23 Aug 2014 1:12 p.m. PST |
I was surfing amazon to check on a few of those titles and saw one of the Zuber ones was at $399 USD ! What the ???? I don't own a kindle. I ordered the Tyne one on the Marne pretty cheap though. I'm always more interested in the French part in WW1 than the British actually. |
huevans011 | 23 Aug 2014 4:44 p.m. PST |
Just finished reading Geoffrey Wawro's "A Mad Catastrophe" about the Austrian military failures in 1914. It's unkind – to say the least – to the Austrian commanders. Without reading another in depth study about the topics, I cannot comment on the issue of bias. And after all, the Austrians were unsuccessful in all of their campaigns. So they must have been doing a lot wrong. The book's thesis is that obstructionism by the Hungarian parliament kept the KuK army woefully underfunded in the years leading up to WW1 and this impacted training, doctrine and the level of equipment issued. Thus, the army faced its foes with less than the expected amount of artillery and little practical training. Coupled with poor command at all levels, this precipitated a series of disastrous failures on both fronts. This in turn exacerbated the nationalities problem, as Czechs, Poles and Romanians lost interest in the war. Not much detailed tactical or battle specific analysis. More a catalogue of unrelenting woe, as set out in narrations from memoirs. Still, I learned quite a bit – if only never to buy and field a KuK wargames army for the period! I would be interested in any other opinions on the book. |
Ponder | 25 Aug 2014 7:48 a.m. PST |
Howdy, Both the Austrians and Russian armies for 1914 have similar shortcomings. The Russians do seem to have better commanders. Both of their logistics efforts were seriously deficient. In the end, more Russians than Austrians, and this steamroller effect was the Russian's pre-war plan. In effect, "We don't need to update doctrine or provide heavy artillery, we have more men." A plan with serious poltical shortcomings, as they found. Ponder on, JAS
|
monk2002uk | 25 Aug 2014 9:48 a.m. PST |
What follows is an analysis of Zuber's description of the Battle of Hamipré-Longlier. The account appears early on in 'The Battle of the Frontiers: Ardennes 1914'. Zuber uses the account to set the tone for the rest of the book. Zuber focuses on one of the German regiments, the 88th Infantry Regiment that was part of German 21st Infantry Division. It should be noted that 21st ID comprised four infantry regiments altogether. The choice of IR88 is not unreasonable as there is a very good regimental history. Zuber begins by saying that IR88 had completed it days' march by 11 am and was occupying quarters when the sounds of battle rang out. He goes on to describe how IR88 made contact with a French unit, the 88th Régiment d'infanterie (87RI). A firefight broke out between the two regiments, resulting in heavy French casualties and their flight from the field of battle. Zuber provides the French perspective from the written report of Corporal Albert Courouble, who survived the battle. Zuber summarises: "The same scenario would be repeated throughout the Battle of the Frontiers. The German infantry was more mobile that the French by virtue of the simple fact that the Germans carried wire cutters and pick-axes to cut down the farmers' heavy barbed wire fences and the French didn't. The German battalion and company commanders used the terrain far better than the French. The German commanders moved by bounds, using fire and movement and the French didn't. The Germans fixed the French in front and turned the French right flank [in the case of the French 87RI in this battle], gained fire superiority, pushed the French out of their position and delivered a punishing pursuit by fire. Longlier was a scenario straight out of the German regiment tactical test. IR88 passed their test; the French 87 RI failed." My first problem with the account arose when I checked the French 87RI war diary. There was no mention of the regiment being anywhere near Hamipré or Longlier. Very odd, so I double-checked in case I had misread the regimental number. No. Reading back revealed that ONE battalion of the regiment (1st Battalion, Courouble's 'wonderful battalion') was detached to Abboneau's newly formed cavalry corps that was tasked with reconnoitring the Ardennes. 1/87RI was marching on a parallel line, east of the French 9th Dragoon Cavalry Brigade. Elements of this brigade made early contact with the lead units of the German 21st Division. 1/87RI was tasked with occupying the town of Hamipré. At the same time, the French cyclist infantry, mentioned by Zuber, were pushed forward to occupy Longlier to the NE of 1/87RI. The cyclists came under attack and were pushed back. Not realising that the German 21st Division was following so closely behind its cavalry patrols, the French 9th Cavalry Division's GOC (général de L'Espée) ordered the French infantry battalion to manoeuvre NE to bring pressure onto the force that was attacking the cyclists. Apart from Rogge's regimental history of the German IR88, there is an account left by Feldwebel C as well. He noted that, far from the regiment's march being over for the day: "About 1 p.m. a patrol coming from Longlier notified us that we could advance without danger since that locality was not occupied by the enemy. After having some soup, prepared by the field kitchens, we resumed our march. All of a sudden, on our right, we heard an unwanted noise, altogether new to us. We knew right away what it was : a shell. [While the lead German infantry regiment had been enjoying lunch, général de L'Espée had moved his artillery batteries onto the high ground overlooking the valley.] Several dropped quite close to us. Major Schmidt immediately gave the following order: "The 5th, 6th and 7th Companies will advance in skirmish line, taking shelter behind the hill which lies before them. The 8th Company will stay behind in reserve." All the officers, sword in hand, marched in front of their men, as in a review. The French and Belgians aimed very well and, sad to say, were aided by our own 27th Artillery who fired at us. After being reinforced by the 87th Infantry, Colonel Puder ordered the attack." There are several important things to note from this account, which was published shortly after the war. The German infantry regiment was unprepared, with no knowledge that the French were so close and were manoeuvring to engage them. When ordered forward, the advance began like a review. Shell fire was unknown to the men prior to coming under fire from the French cavalry batteries. There was a blue-on-blue incident involving the German artillery. Finally, and this is most important, IR88 was reinforced by IR87 in the attack. What is not clear from this is that the 21st Division's other brigade, comprising two Hessian regiments, was advancing on IR88's left flank, i.e. directly towards the hapless French infantry battalion. 1/87RI ended up being assaulted by no less than EIGHT German battalions. Zuber quotes Courouble description of his capture: "The battle began at 1330. By 1500 it was over." Courouble's involvement in the battle was indeed over by, presumably, 1500 hours but that is not the same as saying that the French battalion's resistance was over. As Zuber goes on to note: "Corporal Muthig of 8/88 reported that his company conducted fire and movement for three hours…" Despite being heavily outnumbered, the French battalion put up a fierce resistance. The German 21st Division was completely held up and made no further advance that day. 1/87RI was not completely overrun, despite the loss of its commander and three of the company commanders. Approximately a company of men made it back but they and their colleagues had brought precious time for the French 9th Cavalry Division to withdraw in the face of the German 21st Infantry Division and its fellow division advancing to the south. If Zuber's account is taken at face value then it appears as if a German infantry regiment defeated a French infantry regiment in short order. Indeed a recently published wargames scenario for Longlier has the following introduction: "The French 9th Cavalry Division (9DC) was conducting reconnaissance in advance of the 4th Army. The 87th Infantry Regiment (87RI), south of Longlier near Hamipre, was attached to the 9DC." This is a not unreasonable assumption at all, based on reading Zuber. The truth, however, was very different. Far from being textbook 'tactical test', the French infantry BATTALION put up significant resistance against more than one German infantry regiment. The Germans made a number of tactical errors, starting with the cavalry recon elements being far too close to the infantry advance guard. As a result, the Germans were taken by surprise. They reacted slowly and took several hours to overcome the defence of the French infantry battalion, which was heavily outnumbered. The French battalion was not surrounded. Although only about 25% of its number got away, the stubborn defence enabled the French cavalry to withdrawn from the advancing infantry corps. Robin, as I have mentioned before I have no problem with Zuber's translations of the material from IR88's regimental history. Zuber has missed out an awful lot of other information though. The presentation is lop-sided, giving rise to at best doubtful conclusions. Either Zuber was not aware of the wider context (which is sloppy to say the least) or he deliberately left information out that did not support his arguments. I hope you get the gist of the problem – I am not planning to tackle the numerous other examples in this forum. Suffice to say that Zuber's books have to be read with a great deal of scepticism IMHO. Robert |
Ponder | 25 Aug 2014 11:59 a.m. PST |
Thank you Robert for a very specific criticism. FYI, I passed it on to Zuber. I will be curious what he will say in response. If he gives permission I will pass on his comments, if any. Although to be fair, it sounds exactly like the criticisms directed at the British Histories for the last hundred years – failing to take show the enemy side, or making up things about the enemy side. … and as the author of the miniatures scenario in questions, sounds like I did more to confuse the issue than Zuber. I can confess to wondering about the lack of mention of the other battalions. Despite the heroic resistance of the French, the day did not go well for the French battalion. Where does the reference to the presence of Belgian troops come from? In contemplating my scenario, was it fun to play? I've played it half a dozen times, and yes, the French can win my version. BTW, any discussion of the French reporting on this action. How did the Army Command fail to take the presence of large German forces into account the next day? A day which went very badly for the French as they were unprepared for the presence of significant German forces. Ponder on, JAS |
monk2002uk | 25 Aug 2014 1:24 p.m. PST |
Jessee, thank you for passing on the information. I look forward to Zuber's response. The post was not about the broader reconnaissance or other failures of the French forces in the Battle of the Frontiers. And you did not confuse the issue at all. As I mentioned above, the assumption that the French were fielding a regiment was 'not unreasonable… at all, based on reading Zuber'. The issue is not about reconciling distortions in historical fact or addressing the issues of 'making things up on the enemy side'. Such discrepancies are normal and are to be expected. FWIIW, this is about providing balanced reporting of what information exists. If it is not possible to provide a balance (which is perfectly ok because there is only so much time and effort one can put into researching and writing a book) then it is about making this very clear and explicit. Readers can then leave the book thinking 'that was interesting but more work is needed' rather than 'this is the definitive account'. The difficulty is that most readers are not fluent in French and German, do not have access to the primary sources, and are completely beholden to the author. Robert |
Sidney Roundwood | 26 Aug 2014 5:26 a.m. PST |
I just wanted to say to all posting on this thread – bravo! Really interesting and illuminating thoughts and replies. Robert – that's an exemplary analysis. Thank you so much for sharing this (and so many other fine insights here on TMP). And a great reply from Jesse. Well balanced throughout on this very intriguing conundrum of the very first days of the Great War on one of the fronts where information is harder to find in English. Thank you all. |
Ponder | 26 Aug 2014 8:49 a.m. PST |
Robert, Your hotmail email address does not seem to be working. Can you let me know a current one? Mine jescarbo at yahoodotcom. Kind regards, JAS
|
Ponder | 27 Aug 2014 5:52 a.m. PST |
Howdy, Heard back from Zuber, but he has not explicitly provided permission to share, so I am not. I did provide his comments to Robert, who apparently still disagrees. I asked Robert to communicate his concerns directly to Zuber. We'll see. I have found Zuber to be very fair minded about these things. I have taken several concerns to him previously. Meanwhile back to miniatures gaming. A recent playing of the Longlier scenario (from the test of battle online forum): Good looking table & troops. ooh-shiny-complex.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/meeting-at-longlier-cdtob-aar-part-1.html Ponder on, JAS
|
Ponder | 27 Aug 2014 7:39 a.m. PST |
Howdy, Without further adieu, copied in it's entirely, my response from Zuber:
Jessee,Use this version: I can't agree. He makes unwarranted assumptions mixed with dubious tactical judgement First, the assumption that IR 87 was also engaged with I/ 87 RI. Did he consult the IR 87 history? If he did, I'd love to know where he got it – I couldn't. The IR 88 history says that IR 87 engaged dismounted French cavalry (p. 66). IR 87 does not show up on the IR 88 sketch map of the fight. The Germans were not "taken by surprise". The cavalry patrol did exactly what it was supposed to do – found the enemy and allowed the main body to deploy before making contact. The Germans did not expect to be engaged that day, but that had no influence on the tactical conduct of the battle, which was textbook example of a successful combined-arms fight, incorporating cavalry reconnaissance, effective MG and artillery fire support to gain fire superiority, close with the enemy by bounds, assault and destroy him in place. This is the same litany I learned and practiced for 20 years, so my critic is not an Infantry officer. Fire and movement in an "empty battlefield" was and still is a laborious process, as all of the German training manuals and gunnery exercises made clear, and was confirmed by the first-person accounts in the IR 88 history. Presumably my critic thought the Germans should have just got up and charged. A Cavalry Division needs to sacrifice an infantry battalion in order to break contact with Infantry? That's absurd. Where did he learn this? Courouble states that he was a member of 2/ RI 87, and that "his beautiful battalion" (I/ 87 RI) was engaged. I also said that 12/88 was engaged with I/ 87 RI and 2/ 87 RI. I should have been more specific. "Infantry battalion in movement to contact" is a classic, indeed fundamental, textbook Major Training Area training test. I/ 87 RI was destroyed because it pushed forward until until it was decisively engaged (pinned down) by superior forces, could not break contact, lost fire superiority and was destroyed in place. This would happen to the French repeatedly during the Battle of the Frontiers. 75% casualties and losing four of the five commanding officers counts as complete destruction of a unit, due on the one hand to bad tactics, as Courouble's account makes clear, and to good German tactics on the other hand. I/ 87 RI accomplished nothing, and would have been combat-ineffective for months, if not forever. I should also point out that any kind of information from the French side is extremely difficult to come by. I have spent weeks at the French archive in Vincennes, and the French war diaries are extremely poor. French regimental histories, if they exist at all, are short pamphlets. The occasional French accounts, like Grasset and Charbonneau, have to be used with great caution. I used every French and German source I could find, and elsewhere Belgian and German, and British and German. The Germans didn't advance further that day because they had already marched as far as they had been ordered to go, and not because of French resistance. I see no comment by a "Feldwebel C" in the IR 88 history. Source? There are seven first-person accounts in the IR 88 history, including a three-page contribution by the commander of 12/88, which do not mention friendly artillery fire, or Belgians for that matter. The IR 88 history does not mention FAR 27 at all. My critic bases most of his case, aside from his poor tactical judgement, on the testimony of "Feldwebel C", who contradicts the regimental history and the other eyewitness accounts. Even if he existed, who do you believe, them or some random sergeant? I'd just love to know what his other criticisms are. I hope for his sake they are better founded than these. Terry I've asked Robert to communicate his concerns to Zuber directly, as well as any post here.
Ponder on, JAS |
Ponder | 27 Aug 2014 8:08 a.m. PST |
Howdy, Seems to me Zuber is quoting and referencing primary sources. Where Robert is apparently referencing secondary compilations. This is my speculation from looking at the series of messages in this thread. I look forward to Robert's reply. Ponder on, JAS
|
Ascent | 27 Aug 2014 1:36 p.m. PST |
I have seen similar comments about Zubers work elsewhere. If you look on the Great War forum you'll find them. He has at least started a discussion which was required but has probably overstated his case with selective examples. |
monk2002uk | 27 Aug 2014 2:46 p.m. PST |
Apologies but work precluded an immediate reply. I own an original copy of IR87's history, and IR88 as well. All of my comments were prepared from primary sources. This includes several French sources as well. I shall put together a further response, incorporating information from all of these sources and taking into account the comments made by Zuber. It will take a few days I'm afraid. On a more general note, it is not unusual to find discrepancies within and between regimental histories and other primary sources. This is one of the reasons why I suggested that interpretations of such sources should be more cautious. Robert |
monk2002uk | 28 Aug 2014 4:07 a.m. PST |
Part of this discussion revolves around the size of the French infantry detachment. Zuber noted: 'Courouble states that he was a member of 2/ RI 87, and that "his beautiful battalion" (I/ 87 RI) was engaged'. The display font makes it somewhat difficult to interpret this information because the capital i of I/ 87 RI appears to be the number one. To be clear, Courouble was a member of the 2nd Company of the 87th Infantry Regiment. The 2nd Company was part of the 1st Battalion, which was the only battalion from the 87th Infantry Regiment that fought at Longlier. The regimental history confirms this. It states that 'Le Bataillon CUSSAC (1er)' was detached to the French 9th Cavalry Division (CUSSAC was the battalion commander's name; he was killed in the action). The 87th Infantry Regiment's war diary also confirms this. The order was received by the regiment at 1130 hours on 16th August. First Battalion was sent immediately afterwards. The regimental war diary continues to note I/87's detachment to 9th Cavalry Division on each subsequent day, as well as describes details of what the remaining two battalions were doing. Assuming for a moment that only one German regiment was involved (IR88, leaving out IR87 and IR80 [Füsilier] for now), it would be interesting to speculate how the Longlier scenario would play out with only a French infantry battalion. The scenario itself is not invalidated but the historical force inequality is thrown starkly into focus when compared with two essentially equal formations engaging each other. It is now possible to revisit the second part of Zuber's original conclusion: "IR88 passed their test; the French 87 RI failed." I respectfully suggest this should now be interpreted as "IR88 passed their test; the First Battalion of the French 87 RI failed." In the course of the next few days/weeks, the first part 'IR88 passed their test' will be revisited. I want to return the definition of 'failed' as well, based on more accounts than just Courouble from the French perspective. Robert |
Ponder | 28 Aug 2014 5:16 a.m. PST |
Howdy, Outstanding! I, for one, look forward to your replies. I will be offline over the holiday weekend. Ponder on, JAS |
Vimy Ridge | 28 Aug 2014 4:56 p.m. PST |
I just want to say, based on your last information Robert, I find it hard to accept a failure on the part of 1 battalion fighting a regiment being a failure? If we take it all in as you described in your last response. They were not (I assume from the above information) in dug in/prepared positions, and if following Mr Zubers thoughts, the Germans were not surprised but alerted accordingly by their cavalry pickets? Correct me if I miss read. But sounds to me that the French fought in a tough spot, and while not heroic in terms of destroying 3 enemy battalions (the nominal strength of a German regiment) they certainly allowed their parent unit (9 cav div?) to disengage. That is if I have read all correctly. I would have to call that a draw. Fight 3 to 1 in an open fight should always go to the superior force when the opponents are like armed. Obviously I am over simplifying that last statement, however, I believe the essence holds true. Fight odd of three to one will seldom go well for the out numbered opponent. Very interesting reading on both sides so far and I look forward to further information. By the way JAS had a look at your blog – nice work on the table and figs! Shawn |
tuscaloosa | 28 Aug 2014 6:48 p.m. PST |
This is how historical debate ought to be: each side presents their position and the reader can come to his own conclusions. Thanks to everyone involved for engaging in an objective manner. |
monk2002uk | 29 Aug 2014 3:12 a.m. PST |
Shawn, the geography of the terrain is very complex. I am going to set up a replica of the area, using the same approach as the Battle of the Marne replay. My Irregular Miniature French cavalry divisions are nearly completed so they can take a ride across the Belgian countryside, with their infantry colleagues. Robert |
Vimy Ridge | 29 Aug 2014 3:23 a.m. PST |
By the way draw was not what I meant in the sense of the French getting the better of it, just that it seems that they fought as they were expected to, as did the Germans, there were no surprises in the out come so to speak and thus it should be a passing grade on both accounts from where I sit. Operational picture aside :) tactically seems pretty well how I would expect it to go. Robert that sounds like a great plan! Shawn |
monk2002uk | 29 Aug 2014 5:02 a.m. PST |
With respect to the effect on the French infantry battalion, Zuber noted above: "I/ 87 RI accomplished nothing, and would have been combat-ineffective for months, if not forever." I will review the 'accomplishments' in a future post. For now, just to note that 87 RI's war diary reports that I/87 was functional again by mid-September 1914. This is the first note in the diary of I/87 being assigned a specific mission. There isn't any clear mention before that. Robert |
Ponder | 29 Aug 2014 7:30 a.m. PST |
Howdy, If in combat again, so quickly, I would suspect it was a wholly new unit – with the same name. Ponder on, JAS |
Ponder | 29 Aug 2014 7:36 a.m. PST |
Howdy, Sorry, not my blog. I did not mean to mislead. I posted the reference from the test of battle online forum. I thought it was a visually appealing game, and very pertinent to the ongoing discussion. By the way JAS had a look at your blog – nice work on the table and figs! Ponder on, JAS
|
monk2002uk | 29 Aug 2014 10:33 a.m. PST |
The 87 RI war diary notes that the 1st Battalion was still attached to the cavalry on 26th August. The battalion was then re-united with the regiment on 1st September. At no point was the battalion disbanded and reformed. There was more than a cadre of men left. Approximately 2/5 of the original battalion were present when it was returned to the regiment. The battalion resumed active operations with the regiment on 1st September. 87 RI then received 800 reinforcements on 7th September, most of whom were assigned to the 1st Battalion as you would expect. Robert |
monk2002uk | 04 Sep 2014 9:09 a.m. PST |
Just a quick update. I am continuing to prepare the translations of French and German primary sources. Progress is slow because of the Marne battle preparations. Hopefully the pace will pick up again on this work after this weekend. Robert |
Ponder | 17 Sep 2014 10:36 a.m. PST |
|
monk2002uk | 30 Sep 2014 8:08 a.m. PST |
The translation work is nearing completion. I have been using a French version of Corporal Courouble's letter that he wrote after being captured. He was part of the French battalion mentioned in Zuber's account. I hadn't spotted previously that the letter was published in the German 88th Infantry Regiment's history. I suspect that the French version may have been translated from this source and am following this up. Robert |
monk2002uk | 08 Jan 2015 4:26 p.m. PST |
Robin kindly posted the first translation on his Great Adventure website. It is here: link The translation covers most of the relevant section in German Infantry Regiment (IR) 88's history. There are several points of interest but one thing I would draw attention to relates to Feldwebel C's account of an artillery blue-on-blue episode during IR 88's attack (see post 25 Aug 2014 8:48 a.m. PST above). Zuber replied with the comment: 'There are seven first-person accounts in the IR 88 history, including a three-page contribution by the commander of 12/88, which do not mention friendly artillery fire, or Belgians for that matter. The IR 88 history does not mention FAR 27 at all. My critic bases most of his case, aside from his poor tactical judgement, on the testimony of "Feldwebel C", who contradicts the regimental history and the other eyewitness accounts. Even if he existed, who do you believe, them or some random sergeant?' In fact there is mention of the incident in IR 88's history but not in the 'seven first-person accounts': "When 88th IR's companies captured the high ground south of Longlier, they came under French artillery and machine gun fire. Unfortunately they were also momentarily hit by their own artillery in some places on the conquered heights." Robert |
monk2002uk | 08 Jan 2015 11:15 p.m. PST |
Feldwebel C's account was published as 'The Diary of a German Soldier' in 1919. Robert |
Ponder | 09 Jan 2015 7:21 a.m. PST |
|
monk2002uk | 09 Jan 2015 8:56 a.m. PST |
No, I am not planning to buy the Lorraine book. Robert |
Khaki08 | 10 Jan 2015 4:24 p.m. PST |
Given that Joep123 said that he was painting BEF, I recommend Peter Hart's new 'Fire and Movement' on the BEF in 1914. He is suitably sceptical of the Mons Myths, but equally is not a Germanophile nutbag. A top read. |