Was the Battle of the Somme Necessary?

[Disraeli's Ghost]

Over the past few decades, revisionist pieces have defended British leadership in WW1, often starting with its performance in the Battle of the Somme.

I'm not a military historian, but from what I can tell no one denies it would have been better to train green British troops further before undertaking an offensive. But, there are two general arguments as to why the Somme had to be launched when and where it was:
1) Without it the French Army would have collapsed, or they would have at least lost the Battle of Verdun
2) The British Army ultimately came out of the Somme better off than the Germans

So my question is, was the Somme really necessary? Could the French have survived Verdun without it? Could the British Army realistically have delayed the offensive any longer?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Aside from taking pressure off the French at Verdun the British Somme offensive was politically essential. Had Britain despite now having a large army comparably trained to continental conscript armies sat back and let the French bleed white the alliance would have been fatally damaged. It would look like the British were fully prepared to fight the war to the last French and Russian soldier and those countries governments would feel fully justified in seeking a separate peace that left Britain hanging in the breeze.

 

[naraic]

Peg Leg Pom covered the political need to have a British offensive.

To be honest the French were being bled white at Verdun. Something had to happen to distract the German forces to make the French able to survive at Verdun.

Perhaps greater success during the Russian Brusilov offensive could draw forces east. With the British victory at Jutland historically the German Army reinforced Northern Germany with small forces and additional coastal artillery. If it was a bigger British victory at Jutland perhaps we would see larger forces diverted from the front to defend the North Coast.

Either of those could protect the French from being bled completly white at Verdun but the political need for a British offensive remains.

Perhaps a crushing victory at Jutland would see the British riding high in terms of prestige which could allow a 2-3 week delay for further training being acceptable.

 

[Garrison]

Over the past few decades, revisionist pieces have defended British leadership in WW1, often starting with its performance in the Battle of the Somme.

I'm not a military historian, but from what I can tell no one denies it would have been better to train green British troops further before undertaking an offensive. But, there are two general arguments as to why the Somme had to be launched when and where it was:
1) Without it the French Army would have collapsed, or they would have at least lost the Battle of Verdun
2) The British Army ultimately came out of the Somme better off than the Germans

So my question is, was the Somme really necessary? Could the French have survived Verdun without it? Could the British Army realistically have delayed the offensive any longer?

Basically yes it was necessary. The pressure had to be taken off the French and the British had already been committed to fighting on the Somme despite the objections of the Generals for political reasons before the Germans attacked Verdun. The British army of 1916 was about as green as it gets and no one in the officer corps had commanded anything much larger than a division, and that only in colonial wars. When the only option is a frontal assault on a well entrenched enemy with an army still trying to work out tactics and lacking the proper artillery support its going to be bloody. The artillery support is especially important as on the first day those parts of the British attack which benefitted from the much heavier artillery support the French could provide were far more successful.

 

[ArtosStark]

An offensive was planned for 1916 anyway, as part of General allied strategy. Haig wanted it to be in Flanders, with generally similar objectives to the OTL offensive of the next year.

This is a better strategic move for Britain as if success is achieved the Channel ports and the constricted German supply lines into Flanders are theoretically threatened. Considering the state of the British army at the time, these are unlikely to be taken, but the long term objective is still better for the British.

The Somme was chosen instead since it could be supported by French forces and was thought to be better able to draw reserves away from French offensives further east. In other words it was the better strategic option for the alliance as a whole, or was seen to be. In the event the bulk of French forces had to be drawn to Verdun (though those still there gave excellent service) and the offensive had to be maintained much longer than ideal to keep pressure off the French.

In other words, yes, it was necessary with the cards as they stood at the time. The benefits were small for the lives lost but they were probably the best available at the time, or nearly so.

 

[Catsmate]

As has been said the military justification is weak, other than to support their French allies but politically it was needed.

 

[naraic]

The Somme was chosen instead since it could be supported by French forces and was thought to be better able to draw reserves away from French offensives further east. In other words it was the better strategic option for the alliance as a whole, or was seen to be. In the event the bulk of French forces had to be drawn to Verdun (though those still there have excellent service) and the offensive had to be maintained much longer than ideal to keep pressure off the French.

There was an argument about the Belgian railway net that suggested that it was easier to supply Flanders without effecting Verdun.

Basically at the time the Belgian railway network had two main intersections with the German railway net.

The German city at Trier in southern Belgium had direct routes through southern Belgium that intersected with the French railway network just north of the Somme. Trier was also the main railway junction supporting German forces at Verdun.

While German trains could enter the Belgian railway network further north near Achen the direct strait lines from there was to Flanders and the channel coast. While German trains could enter the Belgian network and travel through towards the Somme it wasn't as simple a route. There was hopes that the German forces would struggle logistically to support armies at the Somme and Verdun as both would pass through Trier and Trier's railway network would be overwhelmed.

In practical terms the Germans used the longer route with trains going through Achen on route to the Somme and through Trier en route to Verdun.

 

[marathag]

In other words, yes, it was necessary with the cards as they stood at the time. The benefits were small for the lives lost but they were probably the best available at the time, or nearly so.

Yes, should have been a battle, but tapered off sooner, when was obvious that the Haig was just getting men killed for little gain towards actually taking Bapaume

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Over the past few decades, revisionist pieces have defended British leadership in WW1, often starting with its performance in the Battle of the Somme.

I'm not a military historian, but from what I can tell no one denies it would have been better to train green British troops further before undertaking an offensive. But, there are two general arguments as to why the Somme had to be launched when and where it was:
1) Without it the French Army would have collapsed, or they would have at least lost the Battle of Verdun
2) The British Army ultimately came out of the Somme better off than the Germans

So my question is, was the Somme really necessary? Could the French have survived Verdun without it? Could the British Army realistically have delayed the offensive any longer?

I think the impact it had on the Germans beyond grotesque math of number of killed and wounded and ground gained and lost is vital

They had been somewhat 'impressed' (read dismayed) with the overwhelming material advantage that the British and French had displayed

Also the impact it had on the troops involved was beyond measure - they had never been subjected to such a bombardment and while our history is replete with dud shells and lack of proper HE, and very low losses of the pre July 1st 5 day Barrage caused not to mention the lack of a breakthrough, the impact it had on the defenders morale was very serious and the subsequent attritional struggle through to Nov was important to the final defeat of the German army

90 German divisions rotated through the Somme - on average each only lasting lasting 2-3 weeks before having to be relived in turn due to the heavy losses suffered - something like 6% a day

The Somme was only successfully defended by the German fanatically resisting and counterattacking any lost ground and this kept their infantry constantly under very heavy bombardment.

This did however result in the Germans learning from this battle and moving to a defence in Depth methodology (elastic Defence) which served them well in 1917

Did the battle have an impact on Verdun - almost certainly - the Somme was only initially defended by 7 Infantry Divisions - the Germans had already sent 13 Divisions East following the AH defeat at Lutsk - 5 of those Divisions had been stripped from the Western Front, Romania was about to join the allies and the Italians were preparing for another attempt at Isonzo river - the 6th time clearly being the charm.

The CP was already stretched

As I said about 90 German divisions would have to be rotated through the Somme in order to prevent a breakthrough and they suffered near or above half a million Casualties.

The reaction to it and the continued blockade and failure to defeat the RN at Jutland was to double down and become more ruthless.

USW and the entry of the USA was part of this.

 

[marktaha]

Aside from taking pressure off the French at Verdun the British Somme offensive was politically essential. Had Britain despite now having a large army comparably trained to continental conscript armies sat back and let the French bleed white the alliance would have been fatally damaged. It would look like the British were fully prepared to fight the war to the last French and Russian soldier and those countries governments would feel fully justified in seeking a separate peace that left Britain hanging in the breeze.

Then we who had less cause to fight would have presumably made peace too.

 

[marktaha]

An offensive was planned for 1916 anyway, as part of General allied strategy. Haig wanted it to be in Flanders, with generally similar objectives to the OTL offensive of the next year.

This is a better strategic move for Britain as if success is achieved the Channel ports and the constricted German supply lines into Flanders are theoretically threatened. Considering the state of the British army at the time, these are unlikely to be taken, but the long term objective is still better for the British.

The Somme was chosen instead since it could be supported by French forces and was thought to be better able to draw reserves away from French offensives further east. In other words it was the better strategic option for the alliance as a whole, or was seen to be. In the event the bulk of French forces had to be drawn to Verdun (though those still there have excellent service) and the offensive had to be maintained much longer than ideal to keep pressure off the French.

In other words, yes, it was necessary with the cards as they stood at the time. The benefits were small for the lives lost but they were probably the best available at the time, or nearly so.

We should simply have reinforced the French at Verdun and kept blockading and shelling otherwise.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Yes it was necessary but it wasn't necessary to fight it as it was fought historically.

 

[white crowe]

How much better could the soldiers have gotten anyway? Training sees serious reductions marginal gains and it takes combat experience to ultimately make greens troops less green.

You could have tried slowly rotating battalions and regiments in quiet sectors but the Entente didn't have that much time. The Germans would have been perfectly happy for the Allied armies to allow themselves to be picked off piecemeal.

 

[marathag]

How much better could the soldiers have gotten anyway? Training sees serious reductions marginal gains and it takes combat experience to ultimately make greens troops less green.

More mortars, and man portable backpack radios could have been done, all the technology was there. Not enough thought was put into once an advance had occurred after an attack.

Supplying them, and keeping in contact was not given enough attention

 

[ArtosStark]

Yes, should have been a battle, but tapered off sooner, when was obvious that the Haig was just getting men killed for little gain towards actually taking Bapaume

Probably, yes. Haig takes a lot of flak that he doesn’t deserve but one critique that I think is valid was his tendency toward unfounded optimism. That and he didn’t shepherd his resources carefully. Generals like Wellington were in positions where they knew that if they lost their army they would not get another one. Haig tended to push for a breakthrough, often beyond the point of diminishing returns. Advice from men like Charteris (who was equally optimistic) probably didn’t help. If Haig had had Willie Robertson as Chief of Staff and George MacDonogh as Intelligence officer things might have been different. Or not, depending on if they could have worked together.

 

[ArtosStark]

We should simply have reinforced the French at Verdun and kept blockading and shelling otherwise.

The British were reinforcing the French, by attacking at the Somme. If British soldiers had been engaged at Verdun the French would have had to have supported them, meaning less soldiers overall, as the disunity in supply would slow things down. And shelling generally comes with attacks.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

More mortars, and man portable backpack radios could have been done, all the technology was there. Not enough thought was put into once an advance had occurred after an attack.

Supplying them, and keeping in contact was not given enough attention

Wasn't part of the problem the fact that the British troops were weighed down with heavy packs because they had to carry several days' supplies?
Supplying across the Somme's uneven churned mud by men or horses would be slow and very dangerous until communications trenches could be dug, then merely slow and ordinarily dangerous until it was safe to build rails [1]
Having said that, radios and mortars would definitely have been useful. The radios would only need to be a short term measure as telephone/telegraph lines would have been relatively fast to install and more reliable and more secure once in place.
[1] I'd expect that a basic tramway or even a boarded floor that could take a cart or barrow in a communications trench would have been very useful, but realise now that I don't know how WW1 armies actually got supplies right to the front. Can anyone recommend good sources?

 

[marktaha]

The British were reinforcing the French, by attacking at the Somme. If British soldiers had been engaged at Verdun the French would have had to have supported them, meaning less soldiers overall, as the disunity in supply would slow things down. And shelling generally comes with attacks.

It doesn't have to And making our men advance carrying heavy packs..

 

[ArtosStark]

It doesn't have to And making our men advance carrying heavy packs..

Perhaps not, but that was seen as the best compromise at the time.

As to packs, AIUI they were not really any heavier on the Somme that they were at Amiens in 1918, when troops carried their objectives much more successfully. When troops were sent over the top, there was a real possibility of them being out of supply for several days. That meant they had to take enough with them to cover several days of supplies. I understand the stories of people being unable to get up under their packs were somewhat overplayed.

 

[Garrison]

We should simply have reinforced the French at Verdun and kept blockading and shelling otherwise.

That would not have worked, without fighting on the Somme a huge number of German troops would have been freed up to attack the flanks of the Verdun position.