Dr. Mark DePue - Trench Warfare During WWI 

The Battle for Hamel, July 4, 1918, in France was a good example of a combined arms battle that was very well planned, with good preparation, and close working with the different arms. This was a combined arms operation commanded by Australian General Sir John Monash and included Australian and US infantry supported by British tanks. This was a limited attack to capture the town of Hamel. This was to ensure the allies had artillery support for German counter-attacks and counter artillery action. The plan was to have all objectives taken in 90 minutes but they were only taken in 93 minutes. Large numbers of Germans were captured. Monash earned his knighthood as a member of the bath. He was also decorated by the French prime minister. This operation included aircraft dropping ammunition for the first time. Aircraft were used to cover the noise of the approach of tanks. Tanks also carried more vital supplies. This was a clear demonstration of a combined arms battle that could overcome trenches and capture objectives with the cooperation of the different arms. This was the first Australian, US and British operation. In August a much larger combined arms offensive with Canadian and Australian infantry achieved very significant results that started the collapse of German forces.

Great speaker, both in his analysis and his speaking skills.

Very interesting lecture on weapons. Used from one era war to another. All that energy devoted to killing.

Exzellent Report.

Very informative!

Such a wonderful speaker

One quick observation, the discrepancy with the unlikeliness of the French Rifle firing ~30-35 rounds per minute with the “fumbling of the magazines,” to the ability of the 75mm French Artillery to fire 30 rounds per minute without pause; I think we can say that your disclaimer about being an artillery officer was accurate lol. Thank you Dr. DePue, i’m only about 1/3 through, but this is very informative and enjoyable.

I thought this was supposed to be about trench warfare, this is just a brief summary of ww1 in general

It wasn’t just English men it was Welsh, Scottish and Irish men too alongside Commonwealth Troops from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa….. Rolling Barrages weren’t really effectively used until later on in the war. They TRIED it at the Somme and it was largely a complete disaster, as the troops barely survived ‘no man’s land’ let alone continued forward to any trenches beyond the initial ones. There WAS SOME SUCCESS in certain areas but due to the SLAUGHTER at most locations the British army was forced to retreat back to their prior positions as they were the only ones who’d actually taken German trenches so couldn’t hope to hold them without support. The Somme is STILL a huge part of the British consciousness. It was complete unadulterated slaughter on an unprecedented scale never before seen in the British Army. This was something different. On the morning of July 1, 1916 over 100,000 British troops went ‘over the top’ and charged the enemy lines, in what would become the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army. By the end of the day, the British troops secured approximately eight square kilometers of ground, along a front that stretched 24km (averaging just 0.33km from the initial line of attack), at a cost of over 57,000 casualties , including over 19,000 fatalities. The battle ended on November 18th 1916, with well over one million casualties and 300,000 fatalities. Although casualties were high for all sides, the battle is most prominently remembered in Britain and the Commonwealth as an example of the ultimate sacrifice made by the men who served throughout the First World War. The Somme casts a long shadow. As for the ‘Pals’ battalions, many were decimated and that meant the loss of 10’s of young men from the same small towns and villages across the UK, they were friends who’s families all knew each other and this made the loss of an entire Pals Battalion completely devastating for the entire community. All of the young men were gone and were never coming home….

This presentation needs to acknowledge "The First Day on the Somme" by Martin Middlebrook - it seems to have been taken in parts almost verbatim from that work.

The Boer War had some lessons that were not learned.Paths to Glory, 1958 movie has some scenes that seem to be realistic

I am unsure that the rate of fire was 1 round per minute for the flintlock musket. (@ about 13:47 ) I think the difference wasn’t rate of fire but that the effective range went from 40 yards to 200 or 300 yards with the same approximately 3 rounds per minute rate of fire. The invention of the Minnie Ball made the difference.

It was french colonials who faced gas attack on the western front first but the germans had tested it before this on the Russians

A flamethrower is a terrifying weapon from the operating end too. Espescially those early german ones

Should have added 'at the start of the war', During the war both sides got more guns per battalion.

Listening to him bungle the description and capabilities of the Lebel and the Bertier was painful.

I've got a question which I don't know if it's legitimate but still, why didn't the British having the superior navy tried an amphibious operation to outflank the germans? was ut too difficult for the time or nobody thought about it?

The Germans often used their machine guns on fixed sights forcing the enemy to advance through their fire. This was particularly effective on the Somme.

"Why it was so traumatic for Europe, for England, for France, for Germany in particular..." - no mention of Russia...again... unbelievable how it just continues!

7.92 Mauser is absolutely not used by militaries today lol. And also, while I realize he's giving an overview, he should at least mention that one of the big reasons the maxim was so popular was that its internals were easily exchanged for different calibers so while the Germans used 7.92x57mm, Russian maxims used 7.62x54R (which is still in use), British maxims used .303 British (7.7x56R), etc.

My decades old question I asked in high school has still not been answered in a sufficient manner; how were the trenches constructed on a modern battlefield? Weren’t they shooting back and forth, under constant artillery fire? How could they just waltz up to each other in an open field and carry on a construction project?

Taking time to aim is also taking time to be a target.

One of the best books I've read on WW1 was "I will Hold". Highly recommend for anyone who is interested in the US Marines in France.

Winchester 1897, you know it's bad when the Germans complain about your weapon.

It seems that artillery, and even heavy naval bombardment, is never quite as effective as planned. The Confederate artillery (147 guns) preceding Pickett's charge at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 is one example. Heavy naval bombardment of Iwo Jima in 1945 is another.

To be honest, this is mainly a review of various weaponry. Nes pas?

Which trenches where the Yanks in during 1918

Christ, NOT shotguns, shotguns were almost useless in the Trenches. Nothing wrong with the actual weapon, problem was the AMMO. In those days shotgun shells were NOT made of plastic, they were made of PAPER. That meant if you have a pump action with say 5 rounds in the magazine, that was likely ALL the reliable ammunition you had available. 5 rounds. The rest had been damaged to some degree or another as you crossed the shattered hell of No Mans Land, either bent out of shape or damaged physically (because specialist bandoliers were not issued), or, this is North West Europe you are talking about. It rains. A lot, paper ammo in a soldiers pockets in the rain gets wet. There is literally a reason no one else but the AEF used shotguns in the Trenches, because Britain, France and Germany *had* experimented with them and found them wanting due to the ammunition problems. Reading my Great Grandfathers dairies (Royal Welch Fusiliers 1915 - 1919 when he was demobilised) he did mention certain troops were issued with sporting shotguns by Company officers in 1915 and part of 1916, but they were NOT used to kill men, they were used to kill German Carrier Pigeons. Even the AEF worked out very quickly that shotguns were all but useless except in a very few niche situations because of the ammunition issues. While the US was experimenting in brass shelled shotgun ammunition this was only in the Experimental phase in late 1918 and never actually reached the front. It was not really until after WWII that shotgun shells were produced that could be relied on in combat conditions, and even then it was found that the shotgun still only had niche roles. Which is why the only time you see shotguns used in modern forces is as an attachment to the main combat rifle, usually used in CQB to effect ingress into a building. The Trench Sweeper as they called those old shotguns of WWI is a complete and utter myth, in that role the weapon was a complete failure, you were better off giving your shotgunner a bag of bombs (grenades) or giving him a Chauchat. As for the rifles, rifles in those days were NOT reloaded by changing the magazines, hell, many rifles of the time had undetachable internal magazines, or with those that were detachable (such as the British SMLE) were often literally chained to the rifle. The only time you removed your magazine was to clean it. Rifles were reloaded using charger clips, usually 5 rounds in a stripper clip that you placed into a slot in the breech while the bolt was open and thumbed down into the magazine. The stripper clip would then be discarded. It was found with 5 and 10 round magazines that using stripper clips to reload was faster and more efficient than actually changing (and possibly damaging) the magazine. The only weapons in WWI that required magazine changes were the Light Machineguns (Lewis gun) or Automatic rifles (Chauchat and BAR, though the BAR was late to the party), and the few early SMG's that made their way into troops hands in the last months of the war (such as the MP-18). This carried through even into WWII, where precisely NO combat rifles were reloaded by switching magazines, this includes the US M1 Garand, which was reloaded using an 8 round end block clip, and not by changing the magazines. Again, magazine changes were limited to rapid firing weapons, such as SMG's and many Light Machineguns (British Bren for example). Finally the British SMLE was not 5 - 10 round magazine, it was a 10 round magazine. Where the 5 - 10 round comes from is that it was customery to only load 5 rounds into the 10 round magazine, and only top off to the full 10 rounds if the situation suggested you might need rapid fire. Another point of confusion may be the Pattern 14, which DID have a 5 round magazine, but was NOT a Lee Enfield, it was actually heavily based on the Mauser action (rather than the Enfield, Lee being the Magazine designation) and in British use was only used as a sniper weapon or in rear areas. The Americans used a varient of this rifle in 30.06 that became known as the Enfield 1917, and went on to arm 70% of the AEF as Springfield armouries simply could not build enough 1903's to arm the number of soldiers the US was raising. TL:DR, Shotguns were worse than useless in WWI, Slamfiring them down trenches is a myth, and riflemen did not change magazines, they charged them using stripper clips.... EDIT: Apologies, TWO combat rifle were reloaded by magazine changes, the STG 44, and FG 42. The latter was rare, a Paratrooper weapon, the former was the first true Assault Rifle. Even the German and Russian semi autos though were stripper clip loaded.

when it comes down to it.. it's hand to hand with clubs and knives and axes. never enough ammo for your fancy guns....

A first rate talk. One criticism, like many Yanks you said English when you meant British. Remember that Scotland and Ireland were represented and, as I live in Wales, the Welsh. The 38th (Welsh) Division took Mametz Wood and the Dragon Memorial, funds for which were raised by the South Wales Branch of the Western Front Association is the second most visited memorial on the battlefield. Perhaps to give a slightly more balanced view you might have included the following: Captain von Hentig of the General Staff of the Guard Reserve Division said: “The Somme was the muddy grave of the German field army, and of the faith in the infallibility of the German leadership, dug by British industry and its shells. ..The German Supreme Command, which entered the war with enormous superiority, was defeated by the superior techniques of its opponents. It had fallen behind in the application of destructive forces, and was compelled to throw division after division without protection against them into the cauldron of the battle of annihilation.” In 1917 Field Marshall Hindenburg said that “We must save the men from a second Somme battle” when he was arguing that Germany must start unrestricted U-boat warfare - which probably caused Germany’s final defeat." I would argue that the Somme was a British victory albeit a horribly expensive one. Another comment, no army really worked out how to attack in WW1, certainly no one achieved a breakthrough. Even in 1918 stormtroop tactics didn't work against well prepared and manned defences. Gavin Davies

A fine lecture but seems a little curious to me having an American describing what was going on before the Doughboys arrived for their learning experiences. Whatever the case, these brave men deserve our lasting respect and thanks. Lectures like this help ensure that this is the case.

A little superficial, TBH..... Just to take one particular example, the whole matter of Verdun and the supposed "Ausblutung" theory.... I don't think it's at all clear that this was the strategy in Verdun, or whether this was the justification in hindsight....he maybe hints at something like this, but then goes on to reaffirm the theory of attrition warfare as if it was gospel...

32:18

😮😮😮 1:36:09 1:36:09 1:36:09

Wasn't this the war in which was know by Lions led by Donkeys?

"Schliefenplan" ie in german is like the ee in the english words, "feet and bee". The way he says it in german it would mean they wanted to decorate something with a bow of to sand somethhing down... Also the first gas attack as far as i remember reading was tried by the french, but it failed. (teargas) And while the title of the video is "trench warfare during WW1" i am missing any mention of the italian front. 11 Battles of the isonzo with immense casualties but almost no territorial gains, and the extreme terrain they had to endure was even deadlier than on the western front.

What is up with the censorship? Afraid we might be upset by some bad words when talking about mass killing?

Germany didn't have more machine guns per unit - this is a common error. Both the British and German armies had 2 machine guns per battalion (obviously as the Germans had a much bigger army they had more guns) but probably the Germans used theirs more effectively.

My dad was both a WW1 and Vietnam veteran. He used knives.

This the first war in which we killed each other rather than disease do to vaccines. Oh and "War is cruel you cannot refine" William Tecumseh Sherman

I am a Forgotten Weapons fan. There is NO WAY the Lebel could fire 38 rounds a minute.

Why do many of these "professional" WWI Historians mispronounce names they should know? Prononounced like schleeeefen, NOT SchlY-fin. UGH. (I've lived in Germany for several years, so don't give me some piss poor excuse) When I did my student teaching with a History teacher who had been teaching for 30+ years, I had to use all my tact to tell him the words he was mispronouncing: Thames River, Versailles, Marseillaise...etc. I hear mispronunciations in audiobooks all the time also.

How can someone call himself an historian when he cannot even properly pronounce the names of the people who drove the events about which he is supposedly an authority. It is Alfred von Schl-EE-fen. An undergrad should know that.

A strong presentation but INCREDIBLY weakened by the constant referral to the British as “the Brits”. British lecturers do not refer to us “the Yanks” in a single presentation. Shame!

Interesting lecture… I see the comments section full of the self-appointed, nit picking, armchair experts picking tiny holes in odd facts. Get a life !