Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now

Customer reviews

3.8 out of 5 stars
3.8 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

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

on 26 May 2013
This book represents an excellent piece of research on a contentious area. It is very well written.

Too bad about the comic book quality typesetting and printing, which makes Tim Travers' hard work very, very hard to read.

I have seen clearer print on NCR paper at Italian railway stations in the eighties.
22 Comments| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 October 2010
This book looks at command and technology in the BEF in 1917 to 1918. The author cites a vast amount of original source material and appears to have conducted a thoroughly detailed and carefully considered study. Although there is little obvious sign of pre-existing bias, he concludes that towards the end of the war Haig and the BEF GHQ had lost control of the war to their army commanders, such as Rawlinson, who showed a greater understanding of how to proceed effectively.

The book concludes with a quote from General Ironside, the future CIGS, that many of the senior commanders had been promoted beyond their abilities.
0Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 11 August 2015
Took a while to get into but ultimately an interesting read and conclusions it is not difficult to agree with. If you have read "command on the western front" about Rawlinson you may not agree with the conclusions that he was quite so innovative as Travers would have you believe, you may think it is likely that it wasn't an Army commanders final 100 days but a Corps or even divisional commanders war. But I am definitely no expert.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 April 2016
Excellent detail throughout this book to back up convincing arguments, although with emphasis on the British and commonwealth efforts. Would be useful to have made a comparison with how the German army had changed but you can see that Generals such as Rawlinson and a few others had just got to grips with logistics, technology and movement to take advantage of the German collapse in the summer of 1918.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 August 2009
I'm surprised that the armchair Douglas Haig revisionists haven't tried to take on Tim Travers in this excellent, but short, overview of British army command and strategy in World War 1. Although not enough space is expended on AEF involvement which clinched the final victory against the Hun, we are given a true evaluation of the paralysis within the BEF command structure, in particularly, Haig and the GHQ. That they retained only symbolic leadership after 1918, is reviewed by the author here with excellent research on the traditional technology and attrition, which ended the war. The BEF command structure was the old top-down style that paralyzed free discussion and led to faulty decisions.

It's unfortunate that devotees of Haig represent the last 100 days of the war as a final triumph and vindication. But, unlike U.S. Civil War General Stonewall Jackson's maxim of never looking back when campaigning, the same cannot be said for Douglas Haig. Haig was extremely lucky to have not been sacked as Commander-in-Chief of British forces. He could not leave his rigid view of warfare and adapt to evolving changes on the battlefield.

Travers feels that in the final analysis, it was Haig's wearing-out strategy that finally wore out the Germans. Perhaps, but with great assistance of the AEF.
11 Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 April 2013
£68 for a kindle edition when you can get the paperback delivered from Amazon for £5.99 - shurely shome mishtake !!!! ????
11 Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)