Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Battle of Cambrai (1917)
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Aftermath== ===Analysis=== [[File:Battle of cambrai 1 - front lines.png|thumb|left|{{centre|Front lines before and after the battle}}]] The success of the first day was greeted in Britain by the ringing of church bells.{{sfnm|1a1=Miles|1y=1991|1p=278|2a1=Smithers|2y=2014|2p=198}} The massed use of tanks, despite being a further increase on previous deployments, was not new but the success of the attack and the resulting Allied press enthusiasm was unprecedented.{{sfnm|1a1=Littledale|1y=1918|1pp=836–848|2a1=Miles|2y=1991|2p=278}} The particular effectiveness of the tanks at Cambrai was the initial passage through barbed wire defences, which had been previously "supposed by the Germans to be impregnable".{{sfn|Sheldon|2009|pp=9–10}} The victory showed that even the most elaborate field fortifications could be overcome by a surprise attack, using a combination of new methods and equipment, reflecting a general increase in the British capacity to combine infantry, artillery, tanks and aircraft in attacks.{{sfn|Sheldon|2009|p=ix}} The German revival after the shock of the British advance improved German morale but the potential for similar attacks meant that the Germans had to divert resources to anti-tank defences and weapons, an extra demand that the Germans could ill afford to meet, {{quote|Wherever the ground offers suitable going for tanks, surprise attacks like this may be expected. That being the case, there can be no more mention, therefore, of quiet fronts.|[[Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria|Crown Prince Rupprecht]]{{sfn|Sheldon|2009|p=312}}}} The German counter-attack showed the effectiveness of artillery, trench mortars and evolving [[Stormtroopers (Imperial Germany)|storm troop]] tactics, adopted from methods introduced by Hutier and his artillery commander, Colonel [[Georg Bruchmüller]], against the Russians.{{sfnm|1a1=Miles|1y=1991|1p=16|2a1=Sheldon|2y=2009|2p=ix}}<!--such tactics evolved in all the armies and began in early 1915 at 2nd Artois--> From the German perspective, questions arose regarding battlefield [[logistics|supply]] beyond rail heads and the suitability of the [[MG 08]] [[machine gun]] for rapid movement.{{sfn|Sheldon|2009|p=xi}} By the end of the battle, the British retained some of the ground captured in the north and the Germans a smaller amount taken in the south. The British conducted several investigations, including a [[Public inquiry|Court of Enquiry]].{{sfn|Miles|1991|pp=297–298}}<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE. This hidden text (for now) needs much more detailed and cited support before it is added back to visible main space. | Several factors have contributed to the popular perception of the battle as a tank battle, "largely from" (not what sources say exactly, not Hammond, nor Liddell Hart, nor Fuller) writing by [[Basil Liddell Hart]] and J. F. C. Fuller; the latter erroneously claimed credit for the plan. Liddell Hart, whose position as Military Correspondent of the ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' and ''[[The Times]]'' newspapers {{nowrap|(1925–1939)}} gave him great public influence, was a critic of [[Douglas Haig]] and attempted to use the battle to indicate a "new" form of doctrine.--> ===Casualties=== According to the Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War, the British forces in France, in the period of the Battle of Cambrai suffered {{nowrap|75,681 casualties,}} {{nowrap|10,042 killed}} or died of wounds, {{nowrap|48,702 wounded}} and {{nowrap|16,987 missing}} or prisoners of war.{{sfn|Stat|1922|p=326}} Wilfrid Miles, the official historian, gave British losses in the Third Army, Tank Corps and the RFC from 20 November to 8 December {{nowrap|as 44,207,}} {{nowrap|40,000 of}} them in the main battle. On the first day, {{nowrap|179 tanks}} were lost, {{nowrap|65 being}} knocked out, {{nowrap|71 suffering}} mechanical defects and {{nowrap|43 by}} other causes. the British took {{nowrap|11,105 prisoners,}} {{nowrap|98 field}} guns and howitzers and {{nowrap|forty heavy}} guns and howitzers, {{nowrap|456 machine-guns}} and {{nowrap|74 trench}} mortars. The British recorded casualties on the basis of a daily head count and during the war the Germans counted the number of patients in hospital every ten days, which omitted lightly wounded, expected to return to service in a few days, not evacuated from the corps area.{{sfn|Miles|1991|pp=90, 273–274}} After the war the Germans compiled the "''Sanitätsbericht''" (1934) the German Army Medical report of the World War 1914–1918, in which the Germans suffered {{nowrap|54,720 casualties}} at Cambrai, {{nowrap|8,817 killed}} and died of wounds, {{nowrap|22,931 wounded}} and {{nowrap|22,972 missing}} and prisoners of war.{{sfn|Sanitätsbericht|1934|p=55}}
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Battle of Cambrai (1917)
(section)
Add topic