Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Landships II -> Landships WW1 Forum -> On the Great War in general -> Don't Believe Everything You Read . . .
Post Info TOPIC: Don't Believe Everything You Read . . .
JamesH


Major

Status: Offline
Posts: 102
Date:
Don't Believe Everything You Read . . .
Permalink Closed

I’ve just been reading The First World War by John Keegan, and, unfortunately, a great deal of what he says in his few mentions of Tanks is wrong. In some cases it’s not enough to describe them as inaccuracies; there are some absolute howlers.


 


The Somme and Cambrai are described in simplified terms but fairly accurately, but it’s all downhill after that.


 


Describing the French offensive of April 16th, 1917, he says:


 


Tanks might have broken the wire but none of the 128 little two-man Renault tanks, the first to be used by the French in battle, reached the German front line, almost all bogging in the churned-up approaches.


 


This is completely garbled. He’s confused the Renault with the Schneider and is over a year out. He seems to be saying that these were operating with Mangin’s Sixth Army, but I think the Schneiders were with Fifth, and it was St. Chamonds that made their debut with Sixth in May.


 


On 24 April (1918), south of Ypres, the Germans succeeded in mounting one of their rare tank attacks of the war, but it was checked by the appearance of British tanks . . . . and repulsed.


 


Strictly speaking, Villers-Bretonneux is south of Ypres, but about 100 miles south. Where has he got this from?


 


I’m not sure about this one; describing Amiens, he says the Allies assembled a total of 600 Tanks, 530 British and 70 French. I’ll have to check, but I've never heard of French Tanks being at Amiens. Maybe it’s just that British accounts don’t mention the fact, but I can't find any mention of French vehicles being involved. I've seen figures from 435 up to 604 quoted, but I think the usual figure given for British Tanks at Amiens is 460, and a disturbing coincidence is that the difference between that and 530 is 70, as is the difference between 530 and 600. Have some been counted twice or three times? Further confusion is caused by some accounts giving the British figure as 460 including 140 supply and special-purpose, and others as 460 plus the 140, which unhelpfully adds up again to 600. I can’t work out what’s happened here. Can anyone throw any light on it?


 


On the A7V:  . . . manned by a crew of twelve . . . industrial delays limited output to a few dozen, so that the German tank force chiefly depended on 170 tanks captured from the French and British.    Where do you start with that one?


 


Pity such a highly regarded work is so rubbish in this respect.


 


Mind you, in Mud, Blood, and Poppy**** Gordon Corrigan states ambiguously that the Germans produced a Tank of their own in Spring 1917 (which they did, but only a prototype) and declares with complete authority that the total number produced was twelve.


 


I find it all rather dispiriting.


 


P.S. Some very attentive software won't let me send the title of Gordon Corrigan's book in full, obviously considering it to be a rude word. It's Pop-pyc-ock.



-- Edited by JamesH at 21:44, 2006-07-13

-- Edited by JamesH at 02:20, 2006-07-14

__________________
Centurion


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

JamesH wrote:

  I’m not sure about this one; describing Amiens, he says the Allies assembled a total of 600 Tanks, 530 British and 70 French. I’ll have to check, but I've never heard of French Tanks being at Amiens. Maybe it’s just that British accounts don’t mention the fact, but I can't find any mention of French vehicles being involved. I've seen figures from 435 up to 604 quoted, but I think the usual figure given for British Tanks at Amiens is 460, and a disturbing coincidence is that the difference between that and 530 is 70, as is the difference between 460 and 530. Have some been counted twice or three times? Further confusion is caused by some accounts giving the British figure as 460 including 140 supply and special-purpose, and others as 460 plus the 140, which unhelpfully adds up again to 600. I can’t work out what’s happened here. Can anyone throw any light on it?  

The figure I have from several sources is 450 fighting tanks and 112 supply and other (562 in total). I'm not sure where the French tanks come from. The British total may include a few Renault FT17 command and liason tanks (British forces did use some).
I fear the problem is that some very learned and respected historians become 'cannonised' so that EVERYTHING they say is treated as the absolute and unarguable truth. Unfortunately most heros have feet of clay but how often when one raises a point does one hear an argument that goes much like "well (st) xxxx says that this is right so you're wrong"? And by inference "how dare you question the utterances of the saintly xxxxx worm"


I'm afraid that I tend to follow the path of the Cynics (in the classical sense) following the example of Diogenes who was not afraid to question the judgement of Alexander the Great. I sometimes think that Missouri has the right motto (show me). Don't automatically accept every pronoucement in any history but question where necessary (it can prove very irritating at times but sometimes new facts and truths emerge - this is how we learn)


Ok rant over, but its amazing how many 'authoritive' sources have got it wrong re tanks. It would be invidious to cite particular individuals but I have read things like:
" The Mk 1 tank used Holt tracks", " Very few Mk V*s were used", "the Mk V* was built as a supply tank*", "tanks had very little influence over the course of the war", etc etc. One just has to grit one's teeth.



__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions
Mark Hansen


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Date:
Permalink Closed

And not just the main text but the photo captions. See the Retrospective corrections posts for faults in books and websites. Some would, no doubt, be due to typographical errors but others are just plain wrong.

__________________
Rhomboid


Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 433
Date:
Permalink Closed

Regarding Keegan's numbers for tanks at Amiens, I wonder if he has included the tanks which supported the French First Army's attack at Montdidier, about ten miles south of the Amiens battlefield, on Aug.9, 1918? The sources which I have read suggest that about 90 tanks were used there. The attachment is a drawing from the Musee de l'Armee by George Scott, depicting an incident in the battle in which an armoured car surprised some German infantry.

Attachments
Montdidier.jpg (68.5 kb)
__________________
mad zeppelin


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 656
Date:
Permalink Closed

There were 90 French tanks at Amiens in the French sector that operated quite succesfully against the Germans. The French overrun the German first positions with infantry - and then released their tanks which in their advance smashed through the German rear positions and the advancing counter attack parties as well. These tanks are usually totally left out in British description of the attack, but in the German records they are well to find because they made some impression. (The numbers of the battalion escapes me at the momant, but I've posted them in an AXIS HISTORY thread some months ago.)


Ironically, it were probably these tanks that provided the only early warning for the Germans. There was a recce report from observation plane identifying approx. 100 tanks on the march a day before the attack started. 


 



__________________
MZ
Centurion


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

The Germans also spotted some of the British supply tanks. These had arrived a day early to allow time for them to be loaded with supplies (they couldn't be transported by rail loaded) and were not ony spotted but shelled an number being destroyed.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions
mad zeppelin


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 656
Date:
Permalink Closed

Not sure whether the German really spotted those supply tanks. If so, they surely forgot to report them, because German lore is void as to these vehicles. Either it was totally by chance, or they got wind that "something" was going on over there, and decided to send some shells just in case...

__________________
MZ
Centurion


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink Closed

Well apparently the first one hit burned merrily with a nuice big column of smoke and quite a barrage came over and took out the rest. pressumably someone noticed something. However later German documents are quite strident about the need to report any possible tank sightings 'at once!' so perhaps spotting and telling everybody else weren't the same thing.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions
mad zeppelin


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 656
Date:
Permalink Closed

They had been caught napping again at Amiens (just like at Cambrai). That's why, - a tank or tanks would be an indicator for an attack coming soon. When tanks were seen/heard in the vicinity, the enemy was up to something.

__________________
MZ
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 -> Don't Believe Everything You Read . . .
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard