American artillery used T.O.T (Time on Target) where entire artillery batteries bracketed a section of trench used by the Germans and all artillery landed at the same time to obliterate any enemy in that sector, it was effective and deadly .
Dear Mister Snow, Well done indeed. I really enjoy your show. You make learning details about an already interesting subject even more exciting. My compliments on how you make the viewer feel transported back to the trenches by explaining it all in modern terms. By the way, I am very impressed that that tank still runs 100 years later (true history in motion). Cheers.
This video is more entertainment than information. Both sides made more or less the same technological progress during the war, so what really swung it at the end was likely the entrance into the war of America with its vast ressources of factories and men. Germany was actually pretty close to winning at a point, and finally the allieds never actually pushed into Germany itself, which led to a feeling among many germans, that they did not lose the war, and that the peace treaty was unfair. In some ways you can even say, that WWII was a completion of the unfinished business from WWI.
I think armor started before the war in the Boer War although it was largely accidental. They used tractors to move artillery and other things, but they also put armored plates on them and in a war gaming booklet I saw a picture of British soldiers riding a tractor into battle shooting at the Boers. With that in mind there really isn't that far of a stretch for someone to come up with fitting weapons like machineguns - easily mounted on a tractor - and riding them into battle. Incidentally H.G. Wells wrote a book called "Land Ironclads" once and this influenced the idea of the modern tank.
+schizoidboy Second Boer War, yes they did have armoured land trains, using traction engines and boiler plate. It was used as mobile blockhouse. Largely dismissed in tactical application, certain officers took note amongst them was Swinton - one of the officers behind the invention of the tank.
SirJamesStark He's a smart guy. You have to keep in mind that this program was targeting the lowest common denominator. It was to get attention and bring WWI history to the masses for the anniversary.
Fun fact the Lewis gun was replaced by the Hotchkiss machine gun very quickly because when the Lewis gun was fired it sucked the air out of the tank and poised the crew 👍🏼
Yes, because the first massed produced, widely distributed to troops submachine gun in World War 2 was the MP18, which entered service in the German Army in, well, 1918. Definitely not the British. But in the grand scheme of things, the submachine gun was not as important as a combined arms breach of tanks, artillery, air force and infantry working in coordination. Seriously, if the enemy can already pick you off at 500-600m with rifles and static machinegun fire, you having a submachine gun with shorter range walking across no-man's land is not going to help. Not only that, the "walking Fire" concept was envisioned not with submachine gun, but light portable machine guns. The BAR, a full-sized caliber automatic rifle was designed to fulfill that role. The predecessor of the BAR in US service was the French Chauchat light machine gun, a horribly unreliable weapon.
The Chauchat is unfairly maligned tbh. The .30-06 version that the Americans bought was terrible, however the French 8mm Lebel version was a reliable and dependable light machine gun. Watch Forgotten Weapons' video on the weapon. The caliber conversion was just hastily and poorly done.
Violet_Shift Yeah I agree. The 8mm version was probably fine. What I really meant was in the context of US service. The Chauchat was really revolutionary for WWI. If you are really interested in "forgotten weapons" of WWI, then there's the Pedersen device. It's a device that convert the standard bolt-action M1903 Springfield rifle into a semi-automatic, magazine-fed (40-45 rounds cap.) rifle, firing a pistol round (.30-18 Auto or 7.65×20mm Longue) in about 15 seconds. The intention were after crossing no-man's land, the troops can convert their rifles into a semi that's suited for close range. Fewer than 100 devices were ever made; many of it destroyed after the war. It's a really revolutionary device: 2 different guns for 1 rifle: an M1 Carbine and a Springfield in one rifle. Then the end of WWII comes and a decision was made to adopt a semi-auto rifle (the Garand). The original intention was to usea new medium-sized cartridge, the .276 Pedersen. However, due to the surplus of .30-06, the Garand was chambered with the .30-06 (probably too powerful for its role, and the closer range nature of WWII). Interestingly, the .276 Garand is quite close to the attempts at replacing the current 5.56 or 7.62 NATO (6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC)
Nice WWI tank, Think I saw the exact same one in war horse... This was extremely simplified and over looks so much. Come on BBC you could have done so much with this.
they can;t. WW1 tanks nowadays are so weak that no one dare to put them into the road and running fear of them burnt down or explode. So they had to use the replica ones.
Even though tanks were crucial, it was also important how they were used. It wasn't until some time later, that they were used to protect columns of advancing troops. Before they were just used by themselves with little to no effect. The one general who can be called the father of modern warfare, is the Australian General John Monash, who applied a combined arms approach to warfare on the western front. It was him who used tanks to pulls loads of supply lines and to also protect advancing infantryman. It was also him who used airplanes to conduct supply drops to troops etc. Just have a read about him on Wikipedia --> John Monash
Because they ARE propagandas. They say "the British soldiers", "the British heroes", "the British sacred horsecocks", etc., and not a single positive sentence appear about Germany or other Central Power nations. Bullshit. Although the Antante "won" that war, they have lost many million lives, too, because of the (guess what) advanced German military equipments. Britain had nothing, France had even less usable weapons to fire with. But during the war, they slowly advanced in technology and a brilliant idea, the tanks, and the fortunet death of all the good German aces earned them success. Luckiness and one good idea earnes the winning of the war: how strange, isn't it? So, again: not a single good sentence leaves the British, French, American, etc. mouthes about the Central Powers in any of these "documentary" creations
Petidani0330 you are German? I see your point but you have I realise that majority of WW1 documentarys are made by the allied countries. It agree it's biased but what can you expect
+Harambe B-P I'm from Hungary. I'm from a country which lost 2/3 of its territories after WWI, so I'm not that happy about England and France, you know. And yes, there is a quote about it: "The victors write the history", so I can understand why most of the documentaries and war movies are so biased.
I think they got the tactics wrong. In World War I tanks were designed to be moving supporting artillery and they were much more expensive and rare than common soldiers. Soldiers supposed to fight in front of the tanks instead of behind them.
thing is, some of the tanks would stop, not damaged, not out of fuel, its because the drivers past out due to the open air (i mean it as no wall being there) engine. Yeah. its true.
They were almost unreliable, but still was a great progress! They were too heavy for their engines but still could break through enemy lines and get an advantage over the enemy!
It's a replica that they borrowed from the Bovington tank museum, the museum does have a original WW1 tank that works however it cannot be run due to its unreliability and how hard it is to repair, so they use the replica on events.
A survivor the thing is they never start the replica unless it's an event because it actually requires the gear men to change gears and to turn the tank which can be a pain so they just leave it on display most of the time.
You said in 1918 they worked out how to get over the trench. but the first tank use was in 1916 during battlle of the somme/related battles. What am i missing here?
Technician Greneway I think what was invented in 1918 was the idea of Combined Arms - as in, using all the different bits of your armed forces at the same time in ways that work together. It's cool to design a plane or a tank. The real challenge is knowing how to use all your inventions most effectively so they make an impact in battle.
Im a former combatant on Operation Modular. This operation ended the cold war in Africa, with the Cuban and Soviets returning to their respective capitals to rethink their outdated The South African government of the day also rethought its policies. Ive yet to hear Dan Snow comment on this pivital Operation! Common Dan keep up with history!
They did have radio. However they were usually limited in range, so were mostly used by spotter aircraft to relay real time info on the enemy. The wired communications were far more reliable for long distance. It was possible to use radio for longer distances, but this took a large radio set....think 1912 and the Titanic. Before hitting the iceberg, they were sending telegrams to land based receiving stations, and while sinking, they were able to call for help.
Why does this not mention the efforts of the German stormtroopers? They were the real end of trench warfare, the only reason the Allies could do the stuff they were showing in this video was because of the British naval blockade cutting off supplies from entering Germany.
Not really. The German spring offensives depended on a massive disparity of numbers and a huge weight of artillery. On the 21st March 1918, the Germans attacked with 74 divisions against 14 British divisions, following a 5 hour bombardment in which 3,500,000 shells were fired. That's 190 shells a second. for. five. hours. All the German "stormtrooper tactics" did was get their best men killed for some strategically worthless and indefensible ground. They were unable to make any headway at all when they tried to attack strongly defended, strategically significant areas like Arras and Amiens.
swunt10 Even if they did, Which you probably are right!!!!! Stormtrooper tactic??......... more like mass human meat target to the defenders. in other words, mass infantry barrage attack.... stormtrooper style? thats all it was ..... just another "mass infantry attack"!
The 1918 offensives officially failed after initial successes and Germany started losing ground rapidly. They simply did not have the manpower to replace their losses.
Germany used huge amount of resources for those few pushes while US soldiers where shipping out to Europe. This tactic was more effective but Germany had pretty much lost the war already at that point
2 years later after the comment but nonetheless. It was actually developed by the British during the 2nd boer war and heavily utilised throughout ww1. By 1916 it was the standard method of artillery barrage.
Rushed into production so it had issues with breaking down? No it had issues with breaking down because it was built by the British, ask any tank collector who has any British tank, hell I drive the British version of the American m113 APC, non of the gauges worked, no lights, and the crew coms was very staticy half the time, the other half they just didn't work at all
The BBC could do with looking up Le Hamel on July 4 1918. That was were General John Monash was largely responsible for practically coordinating the elements of infantry, tanks, aeroplanes and artillery together. The Germans, with vastly improved equipment took this demonstration during 1918 to the next logical extension - Blitzkrieg. The irony was John Monash was Jewish...
Misleading. Tanks had some effect, they did some damage to the wire, but were 90% psychological - with friend and foe. Crossing the no mans land and the wire wasn't the big issue. Defeating enemy arty (counter battery), defeating counter attacks and getting support to the forward troops positions were the big issues. Goods carrying tanks were an important part of that equation. It was better planning setting achievable objectives with achievable timings, it was better selection of objective, better reconnaissance by leadership, better rehearsals, it was better security achieving tactical surprise, it was improved arty tactics but it was primarily better integration of all arms in a coordinated and organised assault. All brought to fruition by practical front line officers and not by the upper class 'born to rule' Haig, Hunter-weston, Haking, and some many other upper class duds, General and staff officers.
+Graeme SYDNEY Yeah, from everything I have learnt, the worst decisions in WW1 were made by the people at the very top rather than the people actually standing in the trenches. They generally had a much better idea of what they actually needed to do but it didn't always get heeded.
Before the tanks the british used smoke to get out of the trenches with a lower chance of death and it will give enough time to cross the barbed wire and run to the other trench
Not sure why some people are so critical on here. Its not meant to be an Oxford Masters course on WWI but an easy and simple way to get a basic idea of what the problems were in such a treacherous and inglorious conflict. Shame not more of this subject is not taught in schools. One hopes that kids will want to go on and read more. Dan does a fine job. keep it up.
Not really. The British and French attacked in August 1918 with some American help in one or two sectors. It was not until September and October that Pershing launched his major attack. Up til then for one year he had kept most American troops out of the firing line and in training.
Andy Wilderness he means this particular tank. Before that they had the small, two man tanks. One worked the controls for the treads, the other worked the guns. You see them in BF1 actually, but there single person tanks.
Such a strange species. Send the most resilient, strong, virile, obedient sector of your population to be thinned out by another large tribe doing the same. Breed and repeat... Stranger and stranger.
when I was at a WW1 weapons museum in Verdun,france there was this 2.5 meter high shell with about 50 cm of diameter, where was this fired from and by who?
