Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> On the Great War in general -> The Battle of the Woëvre
Post Info TOPIC: The Battle of the Woëvre
James H


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
The Battle of the Woëvre
Permalink   

Have just come across a brief mention of this in Mme Estienne Mondet's book. It's only the second time I've ever seen it mentioned in print. The other is in John Mosier's rather troublesome book The Myth of the Great War.

Mosier devotes a great deal of analysis to it, describing it as the battle of which "few have heard." Ran from April 5th-18th, 1915. 64,000 casualties for minimal gain. JM says it was, in terms gains/casualties, amongst the costliest battles of the War and a near-mortal blow to the French Army, just about finishing off what remained of the initial intake.

Anyone knowt any more?

 

 



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Rectalgia


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
Date:
Permalink   

Must be in the name. Try Les Eparges and "Point X" perhaps? Only thing I can see in the chronologies for that region anyway.

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://chtimiste.com/batailles1418/combats/1915eparges.htm

__________________
Facimus et Frangimus
James H


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
Permalink   

That's certainly the area. I'm startled to see it described in some accounts as the 1st Battle of the Woëvre.

This seems to be a comprehensive account: It does sort of blend in with other offensives to an extent.

Acc to Mosier, the French sustained huge losses gaining useless footholds on ground overlooked by German artillery and that the Germans could afford to lose. The gains were then announced as tremendous victories. In due course the Germans retook the ground. Then the French retook it, again at huge cost. This was then declared another victory. And so it went on.

Mind you that's very much in keeping with what JM says about most Allied offensives. By the the time you've finished the book you have to check to make sure Germany lost.

Much obliged, Rect.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Rectalgia


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
Date:
Permalink   

Interesting: "If Woëvre operations have not yielded the expected results, they have exerted a favourable influence on the overall situation, in disturbing the opponent and making him suffer serious losses. On the other hand, this offensive has confirmed the absolute necessity of methodical preparation and powerful attacks." The "fog of war" as a failure in planning? But "No battle plan survives first contact," they say. "I nibble them," was General Joffre's way (permeating the whole French approach at the time) and neatly avoided wasted time in all that planning business. Easy for us in our armchairs to say, I suppose. As an Australian, I see the Battle for Hamel (4 July 1918) as the antithesis, albeit on a minor scale - meticulously planned for months and executed with overwhelming force in hours. Everyone had learned by then.

__________________
Facimus et Frangimus
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> On the Great War in general -> The Battle of the Woëvre
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard