Lucy Earl on the correct use of apostrophes

Yet it was Haig that saw the promise of tanks at the Somme and ordered hundreds more to be built. That really doesn't chime with your notion that Haig was old fashioned and incapable of change. They didn't win the war but they sure scared the hell out of the Germans, at least for a while anyway. Their greatest contribution was in breaching obstacles like barbed wire and barriers.

What finally did for them was hugely improved artillery, aerial reconnaissance/bombardment and far better logistics and supply chains.

Yes Haig believed in cavalry attacks, hardly surprising as he was a cavalryman. However they weren't to know at the outset, that they would end up with trench warfare which prevented widespread use of horses anyway. In the very early days, cavalry were devastating against infantry, the battle of Mons is a good example of that.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Haig saw the promise of tanks....and dismissed investing them in favor of cavalry. To his dying day Haig believed in the supremacy of cavalry. As for not knowing at the outset of the war that Cavalry was completely obsolete he must have been the only major military figure in the war who had not drawn that conclusion after the American Civil War.

Don't get me wrong. The European Generals of WWI were some of the worst in modern history. They refused to recognize the technical ascendency of the defensive in WWI. We're out of touch strategically and tactically and to the horrors that they subjected their men too. Depraved is to gentle a term to describe these cretins.

Haig was lucky he wasn't an American general. At the least he would have been cashiered and at best he would have been shot like he so richly deserved. Sorry Tom...you'll never convince me that Haig was anything other than a glaring mediocrity and his inability to grasp the changes of modern warfare and his callous disregard for the lives of his own soldiers. Not even McClelland was as bad as Haig.
 
Haig saw the promise of tanks....and dismissed investing them in favor of cavalry. To his dying day Haig believed in the supremacy of cavalry. As for not knowing at the outset of the war that Cavalry was completely obsolete he must have been the only major military figure in the war who had not drawn that conclusion after the American Civil War.

Don't get me wrong. The European Generals of WWI were some of the worst in modern history. They refused to recognize the technical ascendency of the defensive in WWI. We're out of touch strategically and tactically and to the horrors that they subjected their men too. Depraved is to gentle a term to describe these cretins.

Haig was lucky he wasn't an American general. At the least he would have been cashiered and at best he would have been shot like he so richly deserved. Sorry Tom...you'll never convince me that Haig was anything other than a glaring mediocrity and his inability to grasp the changes of modern warfare and his callous disregard for the lives of his own soldiers. Not even McClelland was as bad as Haig.

Not everyone thought Haig was bad, some even praised him. John Pershing, the general of The Armies of the United States, said that Haig was "the man who won the war". What do you know that he didn't?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Not everyone thought Haig was bad, some even praised him. John Pershing, the general of The Armies of the United States, said that Haig was "the man who won the war". What do you know that he didn't?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Never knew this until just now, watching a TV programme about sport in WW1. Apparently the French called the Americans soldiers Sammies, not sure why. Maybe it had something to do with Uncle Sam?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
It's an internet forum, if it's understood it's good enough. I'm not going to constantly proof read what I write to make sure apostrophes are in the right place. It's not that I don't know, I don't care.
 
Back
Top