Military History the First World War? Page Sai Mehta, Middle School

Sai Mehta, Middle School

The Spring Offensive was the main reason why the Germans lost the First World War was because Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points were rejected by the Germans. When America joined the war in April 1917, Woodrow Wilson was neutral, as no Americans had been killed by the Allies or the Germans. This meant that he was not bothered about who won at this stage, so would not have minded a draw. The 14 points were created to have a draw: all borders would be returned to how they were in 1914, so all the German-invaded countries such as Poland, the Baltics, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Russia, who went out of the war in 1917. One of the statements mentioned here were that every country deserves independence. This would have helped countries such as Poland, who had been part of the Soviet Empire previously, and had now been invaded by Germany, so the 14 points allowed Poland to gain liberty from other countries which did not have the right to own it. The Germans knew that if they agreed to the 14 points then they would have not had the countries which they gained for there empire in the war. This meant that they had to decline the offer.

This decline to the 14 points aggravated the Americans, so they entered the war on the Allies’ side. The Germans knew that if the Americans joined the war, then they would lose, as the Americans had more money and power, but could also replace men with ease, with a population of 103 million in in 1917. However, it would have been known that the Americans had to prepare for the war and would have to wait until Summer 1918 to properly fight, so if the Germans invaded Paris before then they would have won. However, they had to use everything they had, as they needed a lot of power to break the Front. This meant that it turned into an all or nothing situation, which resulted in the Germans losing the war. The main reason why the Germans lost the First World War was because they rejected the 14 points which lead to the Spring Offensive.

It could be said that the Spring Offensive was the main reason why the Germans lost the First World war was because they used up all their resources. The Germans used all their troops for the Spring Offensive, with every 17- to 40-year olds from the Western and Eastern Fronts (this was normal, as the age for the army is usually from 18 to 36 years old, because that is when men are at their fittest. However, some 14- and 15-year olds managed to fool the admissions system and fight in the war, but some died immediately) and with the navy. This was because they had nobody left.

This was not the only problem though. The trade for food and artillery was not possible, with the British navy blocking all imports from overseas countries. This meant that the Germans has 1200 calorie diets (mainly on root vegetables, as they provided the most energy for the soldiers) and started to starve. With artillery being made from metal, and Germany not having many mineral resources, they could only use Sweden for iron, which limited their usage of it. It was clear that the Germans did not have enough to win the war. Evidence of this is that when they reached the Western Front, they saw a great deal of sophisticated food such as chocolate. With their diet consisting mainly of root vegetables, simple food, and with the Allies having sophistication, they knew they had lost. The main reason the Germans lost the First World War was because they could not use any resources as they were used up or blocked, so they did not have enough for the Spring Offensive, losing them the war.

The Spring Offensive was not the main reason why the Germans lost World War I since the Allies would have won anyway. With the Schlieffen Plan failing to succeed, the war became about attrition, and the side which won would be the side which had more resources than the other. Unfortunately for the Germans, the Allies had more resources than them. For example, the British Empire had countries such as Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and India as reserve countries, giving them an empire size of 390 million, 25% of the world’s population at the time. Unlike Britain the Germans did not have an empire of such a size (the reason why the Germans started the First World War was to increase the German Empire and rule the world like Britain did).

With the advantage of the sizes of the British and French empires, the Allies could constantly replace soldiers, which the Germans could not. The advantage of replacing soldiers is that the soldiers could have shorter shifts and the size of the army could remain constant. Another example of a difference in resources is the Battle of the Somme. It could be argued that the Battle of the Somme was a victory for the Germans, but it is was a victory for the British. Although they lost 650,000 to 400,000, the British could easily replace the 650,000 casualties, but the Germans lost a lot of their army which they could not replace. This was what occurred in other battles as well, showing how many resources the Allies had compared to how few

resources the Germans had. Trench warfare was about attrition and who had more resources, but the Allies had more access to resources, therefore winning the war.

A more important reason why the Germans lost the First World War than the Spring Offensive was because the Allies had bite and hold tactics. In the Battle of the Somme, Haig got a lot of things wrong, such as not concentrating his artillery on a certain area but using his artillery across the 18 miles of trench, only 8 of which were broken through. By 1918, Haig had better tactics, which would work in a war of movement. This included surprise lightning bombardment attacks and, at the same time as using explosives, gassing the Germans to make them wear a gas mask, reducing their quality of vision. The tanks were used to cut the barbed wire, to allow troops go over the top. Aircraft attacked from above with machine guns and dropped bombs. These tactics were used repetitively, across different parts of the Western Front, so that they won. Now, the attacking side had an advantage (before 1918, the defending side had the advantage), and did not get as many casualties as the defending side. The Allies’ overwhelming power over the Germans were used to win the war.

Overall, the Spring Offensive was a big reason why the Germans lost the First World War, but the vast differences in resources between the two sides was more conclusive than the Spring Offensive. This meant that it was not the main reason why the Germans lost the First World War.

Suren Ramanakumar, Middle School

In this essay, I will be comparing the trenches for the British soldiers and the trenches for the German soldiers. Being a soldier is a difficult job, it is one not for the light-hearted. However, during WW1, fighting on the front line was very hard. One reason why fighting in WW1 was harder was the terrible conditions in which the soldiers had to fight in. Both sides were uncomfortable with where they were fighting but the British suffered a lot due to the way they built their trenches. In this essay, I will explore how life in the trenches was really like and whether this could have had an impact on how they fought.

The main reason why the British didn’t take the time to build their trenches well was because they thought that these trenches would only be temporary. The British didn’t think that it would be a stalemate and that they would have to be in the trenches for a few years. The Germans on the other hand thought that they would have to be in the trenches for a long time and accepted stalemate. The German trenches went very far down. The bunkers where the soldiers rested were almost down to 40 feet. The trenches weren’t just meant to be for fighting, it was also the place where the soldiers rested, slept and ate. The quality of the trenches negatively affected each three of these factors which could have in turn affected their fighting there were also a huge range of diseases that were spread through the trenches that affected the soldiers. Let us look into each one of them and find out how they may or may not have affected their ability to fight.

One of the problems that the soldiers encountered was high water levels. Since the trenches were dugout, water would go into it and would stay for some time. Due to this, soldiers walked around in water that was higher than their knees which after some time resulted in them having trench-foot. Soldiers who were affected by this disease would be unable to fight because they couldn’t walk. This disease would definitely affect how they fought. In the British trenches, there was no safe place to put food to make it out of reach for rats. When animals saw some of the soldiers’ rations, they would eat a lot of it meaning that their would be little/none for the soldiers to eat. This would make soldiers weaker than they already were and made fighting more difficult. This would make British soldiers surrender quicker than their German counterparts. Problems with animals didn’t just end there. Lice were also in abundance in the trenches. The lice caused lots of irritation in the already unpleasant trenches making the whole

experience worse. Soldiers didn’t have the facility to shower often so they would be stuck with the lice they had for some time. The trenches were an ideal place for lice. Lice would often spread from person to person because they were all so close together in the trenches so if one soldier got it, it wouldn’t be long before other soldiers would get it too. Soldiers minds would be diverted from thinking about fighting and instead, ways to get of lice. Some of the methods that they tried caused harm for their body instead of good.

Since, the British didn’t build their trenches with a lot of care, they didn’t dig too far down. This meant that the place where the soldiers rested and slept, (the bunkers) were quite high up and close to the battlefield. Due to this, soldiers would always be able to hear the constant sounds of shells being fired from the opposition. A long-time exposure to this noise would result in the soldiers suffering from shell shock, a mental problem. This made the soldiers very traumatised and unable to fight. Some of these soldiers would be sent off to army medical centres to be looked after. This weakened the British army because many soldiers were sent to medical centres to be cared for. Those who were not sent but were still suffering from shell shock died not long after.

The Germans accepted that the trenches would be needed for some time and stalemate wouldn’t be just for a few weeks. Due to this, they built their trenches with care and consideration and something that would last for some time as well as something that would be hygienic. They built their trenches far deeper into the ground so they wouldn’t be affected by shell shock which meant they were more mentally stable to cope with the battle. Shell shock was a mental problem that occurred to soldiers that were constantly near the front line.

The Germans also made their trenches better with metal doors and several different compartments which prevented the ability of rats spreading everywhere. They also had high shelves which prevented rats and other small animals eating it which was a huge problem that the British faced. This meant that the German soldiers could eat all of the rations that they received and not share it with rats. The German trenches were not as muddy and as the British and hygiene in the German trenches were better. It was built as something that could last for some time without damage which made them much better. They didn’t attract rats and cats as much as the British trenches and they were general quite clean. The Germans also had rooms to sleep in which were very low down into the ground which was a huge luxury compared to what the British had. The British had holes in the ground which they had to sleep in which meant that the Germans were able to get better quality rest than the British so they would be stronger the next day. This also reduced the risk of water getting to the soldiers which was a problem that the British faces. The Germans didn’t suffer from trench foot either because water didn’t stay and flood the trenches which reduced the risk of disease for the soldiers. This also meant that their bodies didn’t rot which was another British Problem. Soldiers that had trench foot wouldn’t be able to walk let alone fight. This made it easier for the Germans as fewer British people would be against them.

In conclusion, I believe that the condition of the British trenches severely affected their ability to fight in this war. The trenches lowered the quality of their fighting and the number available to fight. The Germans on the other hand, had much better trenches which would have increased their ability to fight.

William Mace, Middle School

Gunpowder, an explosive chemical compound, can be used to discharge projectiles offensively, as well as being used to create explosions. The substance of gunpowder was first reported in 9th Century China; however, it was not until around 1380 that its use was first recorded in naval battle, and it was not until the late medieval period that it came into common use on warships. Gunpowder’s use in naval warfare is most easily recognisable in the cannon, but handheld guns and barrels of explosives were also used during sea battles.

In this essay I will explain why I believe gunpowder drastically changed naval warfare, with reference to major naval campaigns and battles as evidence. The changes which gunpowder brought about are: first, a transition from close-range to longer range battles; second, changes in ship design and third, the composition of naval fleets and tactics adopted. I will also show evidence of how naval attacks were more efficient and effective after gunpowder was introduced.

Before the invention of gunpowder and its adoption in naval warfare, there were three commonly used methods of attack, the most frequent of which was boarding the enemy’s ship. Boarding involved the use of soldiers to capture enemy ships primarily by hand to hand combat, which in some respects made it an extension of traditional land-based warfare. Boarders were often equipped with swords, daggers, and spears, whilst archers or crossbowmen would provide covering fire for the troops. Some ships were specifically configured to make boarding another ship easier. An example of this is the Roman corvus, where a platform on the prow of the ship could be swung around and could hold up to 120 soldiers. It was used to great effect in the Battle of Mylae in 260 BC. Roman corvuses were used to facilitate boarding of the Carthaginian ships, enabling the highly trained Roman soldiers to overwhelm the enemy. An additional advantage of boarding was that it did not destroy the enemy ship, or its contents or equipment, which left them available for the victor to use. Later battles introduced the pouring of stones onto enemy ships to try to sink them, as was seen in the Battle of Salamis, a GrecoPersian battle that took place in 480 BC. However, boarding was a risky tactic because boarding necessarily had to be done from close proximity. It could often take time for the attacking ship

to pull away if the initial attack failed and a counterattack could be launched with disastrous consequences. Many naval battles were decided by the success or failure of the boarding parties.

A second frequently used method of attack before the use of gunpowder was ramming. Ramming involved the attacking ship colliding with the enemy ship in the hope of causing damage. Collisions would cause shockwaves to be sent throughout the enemy ship, damaging weaker sections, and often causing the ship to sink or capsize. The Battle of Salamis, which is credited as preventing the eradication of Ancient Greek civilisation, is also an example of the effectiveness of ramming. Even though the Greek navy was inferior numerically, its sturdier ships were able to withstand ramming, and rams on the bows of the Greek ships sunk many Persian vessels, ending the attempted Persian invasion. However, there is a fundamental flaw in the strategy of ramming. Shocks are sent through both ships, and normally both ships sustain damage. There have been many instances of ships sinking themselves by trying to ram a stronger ship. Ramming is only a viable option if the attacking ship is sturdier than the target; otherwise, there is a significant risk of the attacking ship itself being sunk.

Additionally, the use of fire was common in pre-gunpowder naval battles. As all ships were built of wood and had sails made of cloth at the time, both of which are flammable, fire could effectively be used to destroy opposing ships. A famous example of this is “Greek fire”, which was used by the Byzantine Empire from the 7th Century onwards. Although its exact composition is unknown today, it was likely that a petroleum-based mixture was lit, and propelled by mechanics, allowing a flaming liquid to be sprayed over enemy ships. There was, however, danger to the attacker’s ships if the flames misfired and its use was not without risk. As a last resort, an attacker could set one of its own ships on fire and set it on a collision course with an enemy fleet. This was, however, typically only used as a last resort, because it came at the cost of the fire ship.

Perhaps the most prominent weapon in naval warfare following the invention of gunpowder is the cannon. A cannon uses gunpowder to propel a heavy, metal ball into an enemy ship. In doing so, punctures may be created in the ship’s hull, which can lead to flooding and sinking. In addition, damage could be caused to the ship’s masts and sails, effectively neutralising it. Cannonballs also had the potential to kill and maim crew members. The cannon was used particularly efficiently at the Battle of Gravelines on 8th August 1588. Gravelines was the culmination of the failed Spanish Armada campaign against England. The Spanish continued to adhere to the traditional tactic of boarding enemy ships and so would only fire their cannons once and then get ready to mount boarding attacks. However, rather than also adopting boarding based tactics, Sir Francis Drake engaged with the enemy at a distance using repeated salvos of cannon fire, destroying many enemy ships, resulting in a decisive victory.

The invention of gunpowder also paved the way for the invention of the gun, a weapon much more effective than the longbow or crossbow. Snipers could be concealed in masts to kill people on the upper decks on enemy ships, and riflemen often created defensive posts to prevent boarding, whilst pistols were given to boarding parties. Perhaps the most notable example of the use of the sniper in naval warfare is at the Battle of Trafalgar on 21st October 1805. Admiral Horatio Nelson, the commander of the British fleet, and probably the best known British naval commander in history, was killed by a French sniper from a vantage point in the masts of the French ship Redoutable. Notwithstanding the loss of their commander, the British fleet prevailed in the Battle.

It can therefore be seen from the naval battles I have referred to that there was a transition from extremely close-range naval warfare in the pre-gunpowder age to longer-range naval warfare after the adoption of gunpowder. Earlier tactics such as ramming and boarding required close proximity, whereas cannons and guns can be used effectively from a great distance, although these distances were perhaps, at most, hundreds of metres, rather than the kilometres over which modern naval guns can fire. It can also be seen from the naval battles mentioned that post-gunpowder tactics were more effective than pre-gunpowder tactics as they greatly reduced the risk of unintended damage to the attacker’s ship. Whilst boarding had a high chance of failure and counterattack, flamethrowers had a dangerous risk of misfire, and ramming often caused collateral damage to the attacking ship, cannons and guns could both be used from a distance, with little risk of damage to the attacking ship from their use.

Another change that can be seen following the invention of gunpowder is in the design of warships. Once cannons became commonplace, ships were constructed with much thicker hulls to withstand cannonballs. This, combined with the extra weight of the cannons and the large numbers of men required to operate these extremely heavy weapons, meant that warships had to become much larger. In many respects it became a competition to have the largest ship, with the most cannons, to be able to outgun your opponent. In addition, the upper decks of warships became more protected to shield sailors and soldiers on the top decks from riflemen and snipers.

Finally, changes may be observed in the composition of fleets and the tactics adopted in battle. Before gunpowder’s use, most naval fleets were composed of a large number of smaller, manoeuvrable ships. Following the invention of gunpowder, naval fleets were typically composed of larger ships, for the reasons explained above, but there were usually fewer of them in a fleet. Paintings of the Battle of Salamis show large numbers of ships and it is recorded that approximately 370 Greek ships and 800 Persian ships took part in the Battle. The depiction of HMS Victory in the painting The Death of Nelson by Benjamin West shows an exceptionally large ship, with many hundreds of crew members on board. At Trafalgar, there were only 27 British ships and 33 Franco-Spanish ships present. As ships’ cannons were mounted facing out from the sides of the ship, this dictated that tactics would involve being side on to the enemy in order to deliver the full effect of the ship’s fire power through “broadsides” (the co-ordinated firing of all the cannons on one side of a ship). This led to more organised naval battles with forces engaging in single parallel lines rather than in more random close-quarter skirmishes. Admiral Villeneuve, the commander of the French fleet at Trafalgar, had his ships in a single line, expecting a battle consistent with the tactics of that time and was surprised when Nelson split his fleet into three and approached perpendicular to the French line. This was a risky strategy, as it exposed the English fleet to French broadsides, but it proved successful.

I therefore believe that gunpowder changed naval warfare drastically. Earlier methods of attack relied on close proximity with the enemy. Boarding and ramming both required ships to be physically in contact, and ancient flamethrowers had only a short range. All these methods involved a high amount of risk, and possibly also luck, for the attacker. Ramming was not completely abandoned as a tactic, but it was usually confined to situations where the ramming ship had an overwhelming advantage – for example, there were situations in the two World Wars where large ships rammed submarines. Following the invention of gunpowder and its regular use in naval battles, most naval attacks were initiated from a longer range, using cannonballs and rifles. The invention of gunpowder also changed the design of warships, with larger and heavier ships required to accommodate the weight of heavy cannons and the men required to operate them. A change in the composition of naval fleets following the invention of gunpowder can also be observed. Ancient battles such as Salamis and Mylae saw larger

numbers of smaller vessels designed for ramming and boarding, whereas battles such as Trafalgar saw much smaller fleets but with large ships. These ships carried a hundred or more cannons which made naval warfare much more destructive. Anyone who has visited HMS Victory at Portsmouth, as I have done, will be amazed by the size of ship and its four decks of cannons. Tactics also had to adapt to ensure that that this firepower could be effectively deployed against the enemy, with straight attacking lines being adopted, in some ways reflecting land-based warfare.

Not only did the invention of gunpowder change naval warfare and fleets drastically, but it also paved the way for the modern naval warfare which makes use of heavy guns, torpedoes, and missiles. Whilst modern weapons use mechanical technologies, it was gunpowder that first helped the technologies of guns to emerge. The trend towards larger and more heavily armed ships has continued and modern weapons such as guided missiles mean that ships can attack from great distances. If it were not for gunpowder, the way in which naval warfare is conducted in the modern day may possibly still be like the tactics used in the ancient and medieval times.