Alas Haig was a product of the class system at that time, so he didn't give a pair of flying blue gibbons about those men in the trenches. There was an interesting thing in the news yesterday about Irish soldiers who were shot for things. One was executed for letting his hat fall on the ground
I think that at the time many of the people in command were rich twits whose ancestors knew a bit and hence these inbred chinless wonders were automatically put in charge when frankly they couldn't run a bath!
Mind you there are still quite a few of them lurking in the British military (look at the Guards regiments)

Funny you should mention Blackadder, Hagar because at the beginning of one of the doco's (one concerning Haig and the decisions made regarding the hopeless attack strategies etc) they play a snippet from one of the episodes (all of which I've seen).

The scene in the Colonels office (way, way behind the lines) to whence Capt. Blackadder has been summoned.

Colonel: "Ahh, Blackadder. Field Marshall Haig has come up with a cunning plan for the upcoming offensive".

BA: "I see, Sir. Tellme, would this 'cunning plan', by chance, involve getting out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy?"

Colonels Aid: "Good God, Capt. Blackadder. How could you possibly know that. It's 'top secret'!"

BA: "Because, you worm of a man, it's the same plan we used last time, and the time before that, and the seventeen times before that. I think the Germans are beginning to cotton onto it!"

If it wasn't so true and tragic, it would be funny.

I also heard much mention, in several docos, about the Officers in the Army invariably being the 'dumber' son in an aristocratic family, who, to avoid embarrasment to the family by way of failure in some profession, was sent into the Army (where I presume it was considered impossible for an Officer to fail).

Most of the opinions from the 'experts' (and mine to, due to the little reading I have done about WWI), is that they were simply trying to fight a 19th century war, during the 'Industrial Revolution', which had made that style of warfare obsolete (not to mention quite dangerous for the troops).

The shame is that it took 4 years for them to realise what they needed to do and how to use the 'new fangled' gadgets (i.e quick firing accurate artillery, planes and tanks together in a concerted effort covering the advance. Once they did this, it all came together. Finally!

I think your all being a bit unfair on Haig and the generals in the First World War. You must remember that Haig would have learnt his trade when all the British army did was beat up African tribes. For the best part of a century the only slightly modern army we fought against were the Boers. This means that the generals have no experience what so ever in fighting an army that was armed with just the same weapons as the British. Now because no two "modern" armies had ever fought each other no one had developed battlefield tactics to use. So the Generals simply had to fall back on the tactics they knew which were unfortunately closer to Napolionic tactics than modern.

You've got to see the problem here. The Generals learnt the art of war in a time when they were lucky if their weapon was a breech loader. Suddenly the armys of the world find themselves with a weapon that can fire 500 rounds per minute. Therefore you cannot solely blame the Haig for what happened in the Great War. After all, up intill 1918 the Germans used exactly the same tactics as we did because they didn't know how to fight a modern army either.

Now you've got to realise that it's a good thing the First World war did happen. But imagine if we'd gone into the Second world war without that experience. Imagine fighting the second world war with First world war tactics. It would have made the Somme look like playground.

Quote:

I can see what you're getting at Woody but maybe you could have worded it better. It's quite possible that there would have been no WWII if WWI hadn't happened. The terrible carnage of the "War to End ALL Wars" might as well not have taken place as the main protaganists were at it again just over 20 years later.

Quote:

This is in fact exactly what did happen, both to the RAF up to & during the BoB & the tank regiments of the BEF. They were still using outdated pre-WWI concepts. WWI might never have taken place for all that had been learned in the way of tactics. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in all the British services.

Quote:

It doesn't apply to tanks but you're overlooking the fact that exactly the same  fighter tactics the Luftwaffe used from the outset of WWII had already been developed in WWI. The RAF was more concerned with keeping formation which might look pretty but was no use at all in combat. This would cost them dear until individual squadron commanders decided to ignore regulations & follow the Luftwaffe's example.

Quote:

You're missing my point. By 1918 similar tactics were being used by fighter pilots on both sides. These had evolved over 4 years of bitter conflict. Only one side remembered this in 1939. The other one had to learn all over again.

I'm sure there are many similar examples. I remember reading about new members of British tank regiments being issued with jodphurs & riding boots & being trained to ride horses instead of handling the new tanks. Many tank units were ex-cavalry & their commanders found it difficult replacing their beloved horses & outdated cavalry traditions with machines.

Quote:

I not only read it but was told by my late father-in-law who joined the Royal Horse Artillery in 1940.