Nimrod103 wrote: SteMiS wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:WW1 in a nutshell:
WW1 was won with artillery, of which at the start of the war we were woefully short, and short of shells as well. It took years to build up our superiority, during which time we had to support an unstable and unprepared ally (France) who were suffering mutiny because of their high casualty rates. Hence having to launch actions such as the Somme offensive, to keep the alliance together, when our preference would have been not to launch it.
Didn't any of you watch 100 Days to Victory!?https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bpvyb1
The War was won by the Canadians and Australians....
Reviewed here:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/10/ ... -war-film/
2 stars out of 5 shows what the reviewer thought of the historical accuracy of that programme.
A travesty - but what can you expect o the BBC?
But an interesting programme nonetheless.
It's somewhat off topic but it illustrates the general myth making that has grown up about WW1. Here's 10 big myths set out by the BBC..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836
Despite what most people seem to believe (lions led by donkeys), you were much more likely to be killed as an officer than as an ordinary soldier and generals suffered death, wounding or capture like everyone else. What isn't mentioned is that contrary to the general idea that US involvement comprised the big boys arriving to win the war, their army comprised little more than a quarter of the size of combined French and British (more correctly British empire) forces, were pretty green and it was the French who really suffered the highest allied casualty rate (>4% of the population, compared to ~2% for the UK and 0.1% for the US).
I'm reminded of the amusing parody "If WW1 was a bar fight" - http://themetapicture.com/if-wwi-was-a-bar-fight/America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching by Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a bar stool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself...