Shop now Shop now Shop now Up to 70% off Fashion Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Amazon Fire TV Amazon Pantry Food & Drink Beauty Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars10
4.1 out of 5 stars
5 star
4
4 star
3
3 star
3
2 star
0
1 star
0
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 24 November 2014
This is less a single book than a collection of essays giving an account of the various levels of command and control on the western front, from GHQ through to Brigade, with an essay about artillery appended as something of an afterthought.

Before we get on to the content, the book is relatively poorly edited and proof-read and contains several typos and non-sequiturs that trip up the reader already struggling with the somewhat turgid subject matter.

Niall Barr opens with an excellent account of the transition from open warfare to the trenches. This is the best and most expansive chapter of the book and its worth buying it for this alone.

Dan Todman takes up the second chapter describing the evolution of GHQ throughout the war. This chapter is extremely turgid and claustrophobic and much like Tim Travers writings (upon whom Todman relies heavily) its inward looking and tends to rely on a he-said-she-said form of historiography that seems to ignore the actual outcomes of what actually *happened*.

Gary Sheffield describes and assesses Hubert Gough and Fifth Army on the Somme. This is quite a good analysis of Gough in that battle but does little to elucidate the overall experience of Army command.

Andy Simpson's description of Corps command is somewhat unremarkable and leaves the reader little the wiser about what the role of Corps command was.

John Lee's description of Division command is again more expansive and satisfactory but again focusses on only a single battle at a defined stage in the war.

Peter Simkins deals well with the experience of the Brigade commander, for whom he elicits considerable sympathy. This is one of the better chapters in the book.

Chris McCarthy deals with the operational level of command of the infantry, and begins to touch the surface of what most readers will be interested in, but there is not enough room in this forum for him to properly cut loose.

Finally Sander Marble accounts for the artillery by delivering a potted biography of one artillery officer. Given that this was an artillery war and that command, control, and coordination of artillery with other arms was absolutely crucial to battlefield success, this chapter is simply not good enough by a long shot.

While this book does include many tasty scraps of material, there is no overall theme. The book simply doesn't *scan* as each of the chapters is a self-contained essay that fails to segue with its neighbours.

There is perhaps the nucleus of a very good book here, but a concise yet comprehensive analysis of command and control on the western front, it fails to deliver the good.
0Comment2 of 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 17 January 2013
An excellent multi author book edited by a writer who must now be regarded as the best writer about the Western Front. The book looks at how the command structures worked at various times and at various levels and how and why changes took place. It is difficult to single out any one contributor, they are all first class. I very strongly recommend this book.
0Comment10 of 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 27 November 2015
This is a valuable subject that is much ignored. People’s opinions of the leadership of the BEF seem to be more guided by emotional invective, itself derived from death rates, than any kind of sensible analysis of what was actually going on.

This is, at times, a very densely written book with lots of long examples of actual battles to show how information flows, or doesn’t, and why. For reasons that are difficult to explain and justify, it is intuitively obvious to me that this is a more academic book than a ‘general reader’ type book, which is disappointing because the idea of Haig as an incompetent who should have been tried for war crimes (I kid you not, some people really do think like that) does need smacking on the head.

As this book shows, different types of decisions were made a different levels, and the power is devolved towards the front as the war goes on, so if one is seeking to blame a British commander for the death of one’s ancestor, then one will need to look very carefully (and even consider the Germans perhaps ?) at who was making which decision when in the battle and when in the war.

As such, I have photocopied the pages of interest to me from the local library copy, but I’m not sure that I need to actually buy it. If your library has a copy, please get it out and read it, it is worth swotting up on this sort of thing, but I’m leaving home bookcase space for other books.

For those seeking more detail, the rest of the review consists of ‘snapshots’ of each chapter.

Chapter 1, “Command and Control in the British Army on the Western Front”, Sheffield and Todman

A brief chapter, that passes for an Introduction. Sheffield and Todman briefly review the way WW1 has been analysed over the years, before giving brief synopses of the following chapters. They note 4 problems affecting command :-
1) the scale of the war,
2) the totality of the war, ie the substantial inclusion of civilians at home, the need for industry to mass produce weapons, etc,
3) the geography of the battlefield,
4) technological changes and their applications during the war.
They finish by noting that the myths of incompetence have become so ingrained, it is difficult for some to believe that BEF commanders were not actively seeking to massacre their own troops.

Chapter 2, “Command in the Transition from Mobile to static Warfare, August 1914 to March 1915”, Barr

This is a densely written chapter, supported by maps, that defies a concise statement of contents at the time of writing. Suffice it to say, the actual experiences of commanders of the field, losing track of the battle under intense bombardment, are more realistic depictions of how command fails in battle than the ramblings of anti-establishment pacifists writing from ivory towers many years after. One has to wait for technological improvements that only come at the end of the war, eg the radio tank, for safe and secure communications to relay accurate information fast enough.

Chapter 3, “The Grand Lamasery Revisited: GHQ on the Western Front, 1914 - 1918”, Todman

Another long and dense chapter, with diagrams. The diagrams illustrate the sheer scale of the problem: how many different departments and levels of management (squeak) ? Todman proposes a four stage history: 1) administrative improvisation and operational inadequacy, 2) limited re-structuring and ad hoc changes, storing up trouble for later, 3) the Somme forces major changes in re-supply logistics and training methods, 4) the remaining faults in operations and intelligence gathering caused by behaviour within GHQ are addressed.

Todman also proposes the following analysis: GHQ suffers from the scale of the war and remains inward-looking because of the sheer scale of the information coming in the orders going out, this necessity to keep on top of the situation ironically prevents the rapid changes that would allow a more efficient system. This is made worse by the various branches not talking to each other. As such, the very necessity of keeping the senior staff away from the front, so they don’t get shot, increases the communication difficulties.

Chapter 4, “An Army Commander on the Somme: Hubert Gough”, Sheffield

In essence Gough was very good at mobile warfare, and was therefore not suited to the neo-siege situation he found himself in. To counter that, the ordinary troops were not well-trained enough (not enough time) to cope with his sophisticated multi-objective, one might call it ‘attack in depth’, plans to try and break the deadlock. Gough fails to understand the way artillery supports troops.

Chapter 5, “British Corps Command on the Western Front, 1914 - 1918”, Simpson

Typical analyses concentrate on Army or Division level decisions and actions, whereas Simpson’s original research shows the greatest concentration of power was at corps level. The corps was a new administrative level at the start of the war. By the Somme it has grown to cover new artillery formations, machine guns, has to cope with logistics, co-ordinate with the RFC, etc. The Somme experience results in pamphlet SS135 which details de-centralised command and new styles of attack. As such, the Army passes to Corps the outline plan, Corps delegates to Division, who get on with it, reporting back to Corps what is needed.

P102, for example, raises the valid point that rapid expansion led to staff shortages, going from two corps to thirteen. I personally note that all those officers need to be identified, trained, allocated, gain the confidence of their subordinates, gain battle experience (which means failing and learning from failure), and do all that without being killed. The already existing experienced leadership died in the initial German assaults.

Chapter 6, “Command and Control in Battle: British Divisions on the Menin Road Ridge, 20th Sept 1917”, Lee

Neatly continuing from the above, Lee shows how by the latter part of the war, the fate of a battle was in the Divisional Commanders’ hands, and the chapter shows how standard operating techniques could be both good and bad, and conversely how innovation can be both successful and disastrous. One is damned if one does, and damned if one doesn’t.

P120, for example, tells us about the standardisation of lessons learned from experience, and the efforts to distribute this learning through standardised training. Personally, I find trenchant critics of WW1 leadership generally fail to understand that humans are not telepathic, don’t learn lessons after one teaching session, and that tactics need to be shown to repeatedly fail before they are abandoned (ie, they might work next time). If you’ve never seen a tank before, how do you know what to do with it ?

Chapter 7, “ ‘Building Blocks’: Aspects of Command and Control at Brigade level in the BEF’s Offensive Operations, 1916 - 1918”, Simkins

The brigade could be seen as the ‘building block’ because it was most often the largest unit to be moved about. This is a very long and detailed chapter that takes the reader through the evolution and development of brigade organisation, ie the BEF did not use the same futile, tommy-killing tactics for four years and then all of a sudden the Germans retreat and give up.

P165, for example, shows us that loss rates for the successful battles are comparable to the unsuccessful ones. Once the battle actually moves, roads become clogged, telephones can’t be used and the wireless isn’t brilliant so runners are still necessary, the constant moving means people, orders and material get lost, left behind, or blown up. I ask, is this incompetence, or just normal ?

Chapter 8, “Queen of the Battlefield: the Development of Command, Organisation and Tactics in the British Infantry Battalion during the Great War”, McCarthy

The ‘queen of the battlefield’ is the PBI (poor bloody infantry). McCarthy uses unit histories, which he considers to be much ignored, to show how battalions developed and again gives the lie to charges of incompetence, a fetish for cavalry, and an inability to develop new strategies and
tactics, eg p191 where the Welsh Guards are now sufficiently well trained, and the officers sufficiently experienced, that the battlefield situation can be discerned very quickly and orders given verbally and carried out successfully very quickly.

P176-7, for example, gives us a brief history of grenade development and the evolution of tactics. Again, as mentioned above, it is not obvious how best to use these, people need to be trained, have combat experience, and still live to do it all again, better, next time.

Chapter 9, “Command of Artillery: the case of Herbert Uniacke”, Marble

Herbert Uniacke was one of the few artillerymen to leave any papers at all, let alone such a substantial body. Uniacke rose through the ranks based upon ability rather than connections. During the war he took advantage of power gaps to innovate and was willing to allow the RFC to inform the artillery of targets and success (not all artillery commanders appreciated “the toys in the sky”. He also worked closely with the infantry, using their local knowledge to assess targets and paying attention to their orders to minimise ‘friendly fire’. He was also instrumental in the creation of a central artillery school. This brief chapter shows how command were not all ‘donkeys’ and how tactics do change, when a lumberingly bureaucratic and in-fighting top command will allow it. The point is also made that tactics need to be repeated to see if success or failures are repeating rather than one-offs.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 17 June 2013
This book is great. I would have given it 5 stars but I always think a 5 comes from the authors' mum. If you're into command or C2 systems (or whatever acronym is popular these days) this book is ideal. It's just a shame it's taken a century to hit the shops. The authors ought to be checking out the bulbous HQs that we have in Afghanistan, which suffer the same problems as the BEF but with the added weight of computers and back seat drivers.
0Comment6 of 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 11 December 2014
Right out of university, I became a professional book store manager. I would shelves books like this in my "Business Management" section. Corporate leaders loved books like this...problem solving under harsh conditions.
0Comment1 of 1 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 November 2015
A good series of pretty much independent reviews of the varyiong levels of C2 on the Western Front; a useful start for in depth study or just to put the picture in your head
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 September 2014
The essays in this collection contain much interesting detail about the tactics of the British army on the Western Front. What they indicate is that imaginative improvisation and flexibility were present at the lower levels of the B.E.F. from the very beginning of the war and that what is misleadingly called the ‘learning curve’ denotes the slowness with which the higher command allowed this improvisation and flexibility to flourish. Sanders Marble notes the higher command’s preference for strategy over tactics (pp. 197-98) and, as Peter Simkins says, brigade commanders were ‘convenient scapegoats’ for the failings of generals (p. 153). Neill Barr shows why British Staff officers had such a poor reputation: most of the qualified ones were killed in the first year of the war due to the higher command’s habit of selecting obvious locations for headquarters, thereby attracting German shellfire (pp. 27-8). Dan Todman notes that GHQ left London in 1914 without its code-books (p. 44). Gary Sheffield shows that (temporary) Lieutenant-General Gough’s attack of 2 July 1916 on the Schwaben Redoubt was ‘a complete shambles’ (pp. 78-80) and provides a damning indictment of the inhabitants and workings of Fifth Army headquarters (pp. 84-7). It is amusing that, in spite of the evidence the volume itself provides, the editors’ Introduction is a rehearsal of simplistic revisionist notions: the general public was brainwashed into thinking British generals were stupid butchers by the writings of Churchill, Lloyd George and Liddell Hart and the process has continued through the evil influence of Oh! What a Lovely War and Blackadder Goes Forth, but now dedicated specialists are working to give a more nuanced picture, etc., etc.
0Comment1 of 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 23 January 2015
One of Prof Sheffield's earlier books and one I would still highly recommend.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 31 May 2015
Fantastic brilliant, good product
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 August 2014
Academically sound, up to date, objective, thorough. An easy read - a series of essays rather than papers. Adds considerable depth to one's understanding so ideally suited to an MA or BA student or keen amateur historian.
0Comment0 of 1 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)
  -  
Detection with Cyberfeed. Learn more here!