So I was reading recently about something completely different, namely the famous storming of the Gate Pa, almost exactly 50 years before WW1. And the thing that struck me was: wait, this is exactly an example of why the assumptions at the Somme were wrong, and why the first day of the Somme was a complete massacre of the French and British troops.
What Gate Pa had shown is exatly that you can't assume you've killed all defenders even if you pour more explosives per square metre than was the case at the Somme. I mean, sure, the brits only have one 7" gun there (in addition to many smaller guns and mortars), but it had to pound less trench length than similar sized guns would have between them at the Somme.
But more importantly it showed that:
- zig-zag trenches can contain the blast even when a shell lands right into the trench
- even crudely dug bunkers in marshy ground could in fact withstand a savage bombardment, and keep their occupants largely intact during such bombardment
Yet Haig's assumptions at the Somme were exactly the polar opposite anyway.
So I return to my previous question: why didn't they learn?
What Gate Pa had shown is exatly that you can't assume you've killed all defenders even if you pour more explosives per square metre than was the case at the Somme. I mean, sure, the brits only have one 7" gun there (in addition to many smaller guns and mortars), but it had to pound less trench length than similar sized guns would have between them at the Somme.
But more importantly it showed that:
- zig-zag trenches can contain the blast even when a shell lands right into the trench
- even crudely dug bunkers in marshy ground could in fact withstand a savage bombardment, and keep their occupants largely intact during such bombardment
Yet Haig's assumptions at the Somme were exactly the polar opposite anyway.
So I return to my previous question: why didn't they learn?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2JbkRA2
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire