UK badly needs a stronger start

[YellowMoonshine]

I'm curious now, how did they do to have a worst army in 1916 than 1914 despite two years of war experience behind them ?

In 1914 the BEF was the best equipped and best trained military force in Europe. It was also the smallest. And while they fought exceptionally during the openng stages of the war they were pretty much wiped out in a few months. By 1916 the british army was rebuilt into a conscript army that had so far played second fiddle to the french, meaning that their soldiers and commanders were less experienced that the french or the germans.

But was it worse? The quality of the individual soldier was certainly worse. A massive conscript army cant choose and train the best soldier like a small professional army can. Equipment? Probably the 1916 army. In 1914 no one was ready for trench warfare, while the 1916 army had adapted with more artillery, machine guns and spades.

But I suppose if you compare both armies to their enemies then both come up short. The german army was always larger that the british, with a bigger war industry to support it. The 1914 BEF may have been well trained and surprised everyone by how well they fought but they were never going to survive longer than a few months.

 

[Katsuki126]

I would say the Somme did turn into a bloody disaster by it's self, it was called arrogant (I would say snooty) leaders. But I'm no expert on WW1 only going on what my Grandfather and his brothers would have said about the Somme.

In 1914 the BEF was the best equipped and best trained military force in Europe. It was also the smallest. And while they fought exceptionally during the openng stages of the war they were pretty much wiped out in a few months. By 1916 the british army was rebuilt into a conscript army that had so far played second fiddle to the french, meaning that their soldiers and commanders were less experienced that the french or the germans.

But was it worse? The quality of the individual soldier was certainly worse. A massive conscript army cant choose and train the best soldier like a small professional army can. Equipment? Probably the 1916 army. In 1914 no one was ready for trench warfare, while the 1916 army had adapted with more artillery, machine guns and spades.

But I suppose if you compare both armies to their enemies then both come up short. The german army was always larger that the british, with a bigger war industry to support it. The 1914 BEF may have been well trained and surprised everyone by how well they fought but they were never going to survive longer than a few months.

Interesting, I didn't knew for the early war British army. I should read more on the period but alas, time is scarce... Much of my readings were about later part of the war

Nice explanation, that explain why the British officers and tactics were subpar compared to French and German (in the Somme).From my readings on the Somme, it appears that they also had inadequate artillery, too light, and they couldn't build enough heavy artillery for the offensive. The first day, no British division reached their objectives while all French division did. So in the Somme, the British army was clearly subpar quality wise (and Britain could never possibly field as many soldiers as France or Germany, hence all my comparison are quality wise).

 

[Opanashc]

I'm curious now, how did they do to have a worst army in 1916 than 1914 despite two years of war experience behind them ?

Easy. Before the war, they had ~700,000 men that served for 7 years, could do "mad minutes" of 15 aimed shots and so on. In 1916, they had over 2 million men who first saw the army from the inside for less than a year. Mad minute requirement was dropped, for example.
And you are confusing strength and quality. Was the army stronger in 1916, as compared to 1914? Absolutely. Was it as effective on a per-man basis in 1916 as in 1914? Hell no.

 

[Opanashc]

So in the Somme, the British army was clearly subpar quality wise (and Britain could never possibly field as many soldiers as France or Germany, hence all my comparison are quality wise).

UK had a larger population than France. During the course of the war, ~5.7 million men from British Islands served, out of population of ~46 million, compared to ~8.3 million men from French population of ~40 million. However, London had more soldiers due to colonial recruitment. London got ~8.8 million soldiers to Paris' ~8.7.

 

[Swordy_]

I would say the Somme did turn into a bloody disaster by it's self, it was called arrogant (I would say snooty) leaders. But I'm no expert on WW1 only going on what my Grandfather and his brothers would have said about the Somme.

I've seen this called a myth that was perpetuated by class stereotypes and TV shows. More here.

 

[hkrommel]

I've seen this called a myth that was perpetuated by class stereotypes and TV shows. More here.

I'm aware there's a lot of the unfair and misleading "WWI and the destruction that followed was the result of stupid arrogant rich people" narrative floating around in literature but is it honestly so pervasive that it permeates the historical perspective of the war? I'm genuinely curious since I haven't studied it at all.