It makes one wonder had the British commanders really been clued up to the art of modern warfare or maybe even taken a lesson in sanity maybe the war might not have been so disastrous in terms of casulaties. Even theorists from ancient warfare had far more reason on their side , for example Sun Tzu ( to pretend he was just a single person ) writes:
"Victory is the main object of war ... delay ... [means] morale [is] depressed."
"[When leadership morale diminishes] ... advisors ... [will do badly]."
"Do not put a premium on killing. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. Capturing [an enemy soldier] is better than killing [him]. Attack first the enemy's strategy, second his alliances, third his army, and lastly his cities and strongholds ."
"[The leader with] fewer mistakes will win."
The third paragraph of the passage is perhaps the most important , and the one in which the commanders (from all sides) violated the most. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme 60,000 British soldiers died due mostly to ignorance but also to the fact that the commanders tended to attack the most strongly defended positions (which were supposed to have been destroyed by a barrage of artillery lasting a week), destroyed by shelling or not , this is ludicrous. The British seemed to have, not only an enormous amount of faith in their own ability but also the skill of hugely underestimating the enemy`s. The passage above does not seem to me so obviously to me the writings of a genius who has succinctly analyzed the very soul of warfare, creating on his journey tactics that would baffle the most intelligent of men rather a man with a keen eye for common sense (something the commanders lacked). Possibly it is the fourth part of the passage that had saved the British -"[The leader with] fewer mistakes will win." as quite frankly mistakes were as common as men falling in "No man`s land". Maybe i am stacking too much blame upon them, maybe they were just mediocre men thrust into a situation that overwhelmed them and after all they were only human.
Machine guns, the staple weapon for any modern army, had been surprisingly dismissed by both the French and the British - classed by them as unlikely to have any effect. The Germans had , however, stuck by this new technology and were duly rewarded , a single one was known to be able to kill hundreds of oncoming troops. this alone is damaging , enough to tip the balance of warfare, but with the Germans setting up a crossfire and the fact that the British were simply walking over "No man`s land" - it was all too easy.
Some may say that the lack of aerial reconaissance, the fact that Germany was prepared (through their own aerial reconaissance) or the ineffectiveness of the shelling to take out enemy forifications , troops and guns ( i dont think it was their place to use such an untested weapon and to place it on the lives of thousands of men when the soldiers were so inexperienced in using such a device) resulted in the poor performance of the generals but ultimately i think it comes down to a lack of respect for human life (to the extent that it can be held without putting oneself at a disadvantage in warfare) and the general insularity of the generals with regards to the recent advances in the technique of warfare, preferring to relive the glory in battle of the Napoleonic era.
