Originally posted by FMF
Your insistence on seeing only the little picture would perhaps explain why 2,000 or 3,000 could be killed, but not how or why 22,000 soldiers were lost in a single day - and 350,000 killed in just 4 months. And they were British soldiers by the way. There were other Allies' nationalities on the battlefield too.
I can't speak with great authority on this issue. But what I watched did place a great deal of blame on the commanders, and techniques used in battle. They actually ran mock machine gun tests with paint balls, and simulated the charge out of the trenches. The british had full field packs, which only slowed them, and they didn't come out, in staggered fashions.
One commander who did well, refused to send his men, waited until dark, and they ran like crazy. his group suffered slight causualties. ( need me to find his name ?)
In the mock test 2 of 10 made the run, only to get tangled in barb wire. The second run, without field packs, they fared much better, with 7 of 10 geting to that fence.
These were not our modern macine guns. so i suppose if you could run, and zig-zag, you would have some kind of chance. God, what a thought hey?
But this brings us back to our seemingly weeks old arguement. was the officer who refused to send his men, until their odds were better, a bad commander? Do you want people who follow from fear, our respect? The best way to earn their respect, is to keep them alive. Winning helps.
I think the french were drawn into a battle further north? I'm trying to do this from recollection, so show some patience here.
germans had the high ground, but the british had tunneled under them, and set off a huge charge,,right?
All in all, it was a sad day for all and a lesson learned.
Of course all I have written, could be the distorted facts of an American TV show. But I don't think so.