Time table for attack
-
by
josiepegg
Time table for attack July 1917 - unfortunately it doesn't take into account any action by the enemy
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
No orders or plans I've seen so far ever account for any action by the enemy. I don't know if it's a feature of the British Army in this war only, or if it is standard practice in military action everywhere. I can see how including possible enemy retaliation might be demoralizing before they have even begun, but it seems to me that having contingency plans, so that at least the officers knew what to do if Plan A got bogged down, might have saved lives and possibly led to more successful operations.
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
There's the old adage 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy'. Although that might be paraphrased a little.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
Posted
-
by
erik.schaubroeckscarlet.be
in response to cyngast's comment.
Reading a plan of attack or a raid I often wondered if there was a plan B in case the attack went wrong. The planners always thought the attack would succeed, that hte objectives would be achieved, despite they must have experienced "numerous" failures.
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
In some ways, there was probably little opportunity for detailed Plan Bs. If an attack bogged down or failed, there wouldn't have been many options other than to try and hold whatever position had been reached in the hope that reinforcements would reach you, or to fall back to your starting point, which of course would likely result in even more casualties.
In general, there will have been tactical reserves who would have been sent forward to keep attacks progressing - the use of these to some extent probably was Plan B.
Posted