10. military history monthly - october 2015
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
1/84
www.military-history.org
HOBART’S FUNNIEExtraordinary D-Day tan
October 2015 Issue 61 £4.50
T
GAS ATTACK British chemicalweapons at Loos, 1915
GAS ATTACK British chemicalweapons at Loos, 1915
FOREIGN LEGION’SFINEST HOUR
The defence of Camerone
FOREIGN LEGION’SFINEST HOUR
The defence of Camerone
++The Last of the Tide:portraits of veterans
Tank Island: the Home Guardversus the Nazis
The Last of the Tide:portraits of veterans
Tank Island: the Home Guardversus the Nazis
Outnumbered, h ngry, disease-ridden... g s win
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
2/84
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
3/84
MHM
This has been a year of anniversaries: Gallipoli, Waterloo,
Agincourt. This issue we mark Henry V’s great victory on 25 October 1415, when a heavily outnumbered
English army formed mainly of archers smashed a traditionalFrench feudal array.
Military systems are embedded in the social orders they serve. The soldiers raised reflect the society from whichthey are recruited.
The victors of Agincourt – the English longbowmen(recent research suggests they were predominantly English rather than Welsh) – were recruited from a social
class that hardly existed in France: the yeomanry – pros-perous, independent, enterprising free peasants.
The English kings – unlike the French – were thereforeable to raise first-class infantry: men with a stake insociety and a will to train hard and f ight well. And almost always – from Hastings to Waterloo – if infantry have themorale to stand firm, they will stop a mounted charge.
So it was at Agincourt – one of a succession of 14th-and 15th-century battles in which solid ‘middling sort’infantry triumphed over their social superiors, andheralded the end of the medieval world and the beginningof the modern.
Also in t his issue, Robin Smith describes the French
Foreign Legion’s epic defence of Camerone in 1863,Steve Roberts recalls the first British use of poison gas at Loos in 1915, and Mike Relph analyses the anti-invasiondefences of Second World War England.
CONTRIBUTORS THIS MONTH’S EXPERTS
SUBSCRIBE NOW
STEVEROBERTSis a former
history teacher
anda historian,
whohas written
several times for
MHM inthe past,
includingcoverstories on EdwardIII
and the Siege of Leningrad.
MIKERELPHisa former army
officer, who
served inthe UK,
Germany, North-
ern Ireland, Belize,
andCyprus, and
wasawarded theMBE.He nowworks
as a freelance conict archaeologist.
ROBIN SMITHis anauthor and
freelance journalist,
specialising in
military history,
particularly the
American Revolution,
the War of 1812,and the American
Civil War.
PATRICKBONIFACEis a freelance
journalist who
specialises in
naval history.
He has published
a number of books proling Royal
Navy destroyers and frigates.
MILITARY www.military-history.orgHOBART’S FUNNIES
Extraordinary D-Day tanks
October2015 Issu e61 £4.50
AGINCOURT
G CBritish chemicalweaponsat Loos,1915
GAS ATTACK British chemicalweaponsat Loos,1915
O N SFINESTHOUR
f
FOREIGN LEGION’SFINESTHOURThe defence of Camerone
++ e astoftheTide:portraitsofveterans
an I sl an h H e ue rs s h N s
TheLastoftheTide:portraitsofveterans
TankIsland:theHomeGuardversustheNazis
Outnumbered, h ngry, disease-ridden...
g s w in
ONTHE COVER: Henry V, with an artist’srepresentation of the Battle of Agincourtin the background.
Image: Look and Learn
Nowyou can have your opinions
on everything MHM heard online
as well as in print. Follow us on
Twitter @MilHistMonthly, or
take a look at our Facebook page
for daily news, books, and article
updates at www.facebook.com/
MilitaryHistoryMonthly.
Think you have spotted an error?
Disagree with a viewpoint? Enjoying
the mag? Visit www.military-
history.org to post your comments
on a wide range of different articles.
Alternatively, send an email to
WHAT DO
YOU THINK?
ADD US NOWand have your say
Fill in the form on p.78 and SAVE UP TO 20%
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD:
Martin BrownArchaeological Advisor, DefenceEstates, Ministry of Defence
Mark Corby Military historian, lecturer, andbroadcaster
Paul Cornish Curator, Imperial War Museum
Gary Gibbs Assistant Curator, The Guards Museum
Angus Hay Former Army Offi cer, militaryhistorian, and lecturer
Nick Hewitt Historian, National Museum of theRoyal Navy, Portsmouth
Nigel Jones Historian, biographer, and journalist
Alastair MassieHead of Archives, Photos, Film, andSound, National Army Museum
Gabriel Moshenska Research Fellow, Instituteof Archaeology, UCL
Colin Pomeroy Squadron Leader, Royal Air Force(Ret.), and historian
Michael Prestwich Emeritus Professor of History,University of Durham
Nick Saunders Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol
Guy Taylor Military archivist, and archaeologist
Julian Thompson Major-General, Visiting Professor atLondon University
Dominic Tweddle Director-General, National Museumof the Royal Navy
Greg BaynePresident, American Civil War Tableof the UK
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLYwww.military-history.org 3
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
4/84
FEATURES
Gas!Loos, 1915
Steve Roberts describes the argumentssurrounding the rst British chemical
attack, a century ago this month.
18
46
52
Welcome 3
Letters 7
Notes from the Frontline 8Behind the Image 10MHM studies a photograph of the French Foreign Legion in theCentral African Republic.
Conict Scientists 12Patrick Boniface assesses thecareer of Major-General Sir PercyCleghorn Stanley Hobart.
War Culture 14MHM looks at portraits of D-Day
veterans featured in ‘The Last of the Tide’ exhibition.
Agincourt INBa
T
Th
Bat
14
The defence of CameroneThe French Foreign Legion’snest hour
Robin Smith reports on the nine-hour
last stand at a remote Mexican hamlet
in 1863.
UPFRONT
Tank IslandBritain’s defence, 1940
Mike Relph explores the impact
of the threat of Nazi invasion
on the Wiltshire market town
of Marlborough.
ON THE COVER
October 2015 | ISSUE 61
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY4 October 2015
26
To mark the 600th
anniversary, our
special feature this
month focuses on
the game-changing
battle and victory of‘the middling sort’ at
Agincourt in 1415.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
5/84
MHM C ONT E NT S
THE DEBRIEF
IN THE FIELD | MHM VISITS
Museum | 70Neil Faulkner visits ‘The Sinewsof War: Arms and Armour from theAge of Agincourt’, an exhibition atthe Wallace Collection.
Listings | 72The best militaryhistory events comingup this October.
Competition | 80Win a day out fortwoat theScience Museum.
Brieng Room | 82All you need to know aboutthe Gatling Gun.
72
INTELLIGENCE | MHM OFF DUTY
www.military-history.org
Military History Monthlywww.military-history.org
EDITORIALEditor: Neil [email protected]
Acting Ass istant Editor: Polly Heffer
Editor-at-large: Andrew [email protected]
Sub Editor: Simon Coppock
Art Editor: Mark [email protected]
Designer: Lauren Gamp
Managing Editor: Maria [email protected]
Managing Director: Rob Selkirk
Tel: 020 8819 5580
COMMERCIAL
Advertising Sales Manager: Mike TraylenT: 020 8819 5360 E: [email protected]
Advertising Sales: Tiffany HeasmanT: 020 8819 5362E: [email protected]
Marketing Manager: Emma Watts-PlumpkinT: 020 8819 5575 E: [email protected]
Business Manager: Erin GoodinT: 0208819 5576 E: [email protected]
Commercial Director: Libby Selkirk
SUBSCRIPTIONS
UK: £45.95 (12 issues) RoW: £55.95 (12 issues)
Back issues: £5.50 each / £6.50non-UK (inc p&p)
Binders: (hold 12 copies) £15 / £20
Slip Cases: (hold 12 copies)£15 / £20Military History Monthly Subscriptions
Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD
Tel: 020 8819 5580 Fax: 020 8819 5589
www.military-history.org/subscribe
NEWS DISTRIBUTION
UK & Restof World: COMAG, Tavistock Road,WestDrayton, UB7 7QE Tel: 01895444 055
Printed in England by William Gibbons
Military History Monthly (ISSN2048-4100) is
publishedmonthlyby Current Publishing Ltd,
Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD
© Current Publishing Ltd 2015
Allrightsreserved.Textand picturesare copyrightrestricted and mustnotbe reproduced withoutpermissionof thepublishers.The publishers,
editorsand authorsacceptno responsibilityin respectof anygoods,
promotions orserviceswhichmay beadvertised orreferredto in this
magazine. Every efforthas beenmadeto securepermissionfor copyright
material. In theeventof anymaterialbeingused inadvertentlyor where
ithas beenimpossibleto contactthe copyright owner,acknowledge-
mentwillbe made ina futureissue.All liabilityfor loss,disappointment,
negligence ordamagecausedby relianceon theinformation contained
within thispublication isherebyexcluded.The opinionsexpressed by
contributorsare notnecessarilythoseof thepublisher.
SUBSCRIPTIONS | MHM
Subscribe | 78Turn to our subscriptions pagefor MHM special offers.
7060
BACK AT BASE | MHM REVIEWS
War on Film | 60Taylor Downing reviews the documentary-drama, Theirs is the Glory .
Book of the Month | 64
MHM Editor Neil Faulkner reviewsa new biographyof Augustus by Jochen Bleicken.
Books | 67 Jules Stewart on TheBlitzed City by KarenFarrington and TakingCommand by DavidRichards, and Andre vanLoon on Field Marshal by Daniel Allen Butler.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
6/84
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
7/84
TREBUCHET
REDESIGN
An interest ing
back-page
article on the
trebuchet
(‘Briefing
Room’, MHM
60) was slightly
spoiled by a
major error in
the description
of its operation.
To the best ofmy knowledge,
there was no
padded cross-
beam. The arm
swung freely.
No drawing or
reconstruction
I have seen has
such a thing. Indeed, neither of the two drawings
you used have a crossbeam. These were used in
torsion-powered weapons such as the Roman
onager and its subsequent derivatives.
Richard Foinette
Bristol
ADVERTISING ERROR
I am a regular reader of your magazine and
generally enjoy the inclusion of articles that I
do not agree with and the (few) factual errors
that creep in. What did sadden me, though, was
an advertisement for a book by David Irving in
the September issue.
David Irving should not be given any space!
Bruce James
Scotland
In last month’s issue on page 60 there was an advert
for signed copies of David Irving’s book Churchill’s War .
Irving has been convicted of Holocaust denialand was banned from a number of countries. As a
contributor, reader, and friend of MHM , I am amazed
and shocked you should be advertising such a book.
Chris Bambery
London
Your thoughts on issues raised
in Military History Monthly
ARMENIAN APPRECIATIONI was lent a copy of your magazine by one of my neighbours,
who knows I am a British-born Armenian. Although I have
ead many accounts of what happened to my forebears, I
was very impressed by the way you managed to convey in
st seven pages such a full, unbiased , and accurate picture
of what happened ( MHM 60).
I can understand the fear the Turkish government
had that the Armenian community might join with their
Christian Russian attackers from the East, bearing in mind how badly the Armenians had been treated
under Abdulhamid. However, although there is some evidence of this, there is much greater evidence
of many Armenian units serving the Turkish Army faithfully.
An uncle of mine was ser ving in the Turkish cavalry when they were disarmed and killed. He had been
sent somewhere else for training and was luck y to survive.
Thank you for your article.
Antony Abadjian
Hertfordshire
LE T T ER OF THE MONTH
TWITTER@MilHistMonthly
FACEBOOKwww.facebook.com/ MilitaryHistoryMonthly
6 August 2015On the morning of
6 August 1945, 70 years
ago today, three USB-29s appeared over
Hiroshima. Two carried
cameras and scientific
equipment. The third
carried an atomic bomb.
13 August 2015The Battle of Blenheim
was fought #OnThisDay
in 1704, during the War of
the Spanish Succession.
Here is a blow-by-blow
account of this decisive
battle, along with battle
maps, published in issue 9:www.military-history.org/
articles/blenheim.htm
15 August 2015Today is the 70th
anniversary of VJ Day.
#OnThisDay in 1945, Japan
surrendered, effectively
bringing
World
War II
to an
end.
020 8819 5580
@MilHistMonthly MilitaryHistoryMonthly
WHAT DO YOU THINK?Let us know!
Military History Monthly , ThamesWorks, Church Street, London, W4 2PD
@MilHistMonthly
6 August 2015 A rare photo collection
capturing the aftermath
of the #Hiroshima
bombing is on display
at Scotland’s Secret
Bunker @Secretbunker .
@MilHistMonthly
18 August 2015Today is the 75th
anniversary of the
Battle of Britain’s ‘Hardest
Day’. #OnThisDay both
sides recorded their
greatest loss of life.
@MilHistMonthly
20 August 201575 years ago
#OnThisDay, Churchi
made his famous speech
about ‘The Few’. Here’swhat you should know
about it:www.military-
history.org/articles/
the-few-churchills-
wartime-speech.htm
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLYwww.military-history.org 7
I wish to apologise wholeheartedly to readers andcontributors for the advertisement that appearedin our last issue. It slipped through our, usuallyrigorous, system of checks. We will not retainthe fee for the advertisement, but donate it to arelevant charity.
Neil Faulkner Editor
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
8/84
Volunteers have been helping
uncover a former military camp
in Surrey where war poet Wilfred
Owen trained for service in
World War I .
Owen arrived at the camp in
June 1916 to tr ain for combat in
France. While he was t here, he
penned a sonnet that wa s later
reworked into his famous poem
‘Anthem for Doomed Youth’.
Owen died a week before the
end of the war, aged 25.
The site, near Godalming in
Surrey, was active during both
world wars: it was known as
Witley Nor th C amp during W WI
and Algonquin Camp during
WW II. However, it was almost
completely lost until Surrey
County Council’s a rchaeological
unit initiated the project to exca-
vate the area for the first time
and document the findings.
The project is backed by
a £30,000 grant from the
Government’s community
covenant scheme. The
scheme aims to strengthen
ties and mutual understanding
between members of the
armed forces and civilians
in the wider communities
in which they live.
So far the project has
uncovered many contemporary
artefacts, including mess
tins, dummy bullets used for
training, and a harmonica.
These finds, along with docu-
ments from the archives, will
be collected together to form
an exhibition and booklet
for the wider public to learn
more about the history of this
military site.
Follow the team’s progress
on their Facebook page at www.
facebook.com/diggingsurreyspast
Our round-up o this month’s military history news
THECATCH-22 LOOK340th Bomb Group, among
them 43-4064.
This historically accurate
repainting was completed by
a conservation team at IWM
Duxord over a period o six
weeks. Care was taken to make
sure it is identical to the original
43-4064 – all the lines and colour
changes were taken rom original
photographs o the aircrat during
WWII. It will be exhibited in the
newly renovated American Air
Museum at IWM Duxord when it
reopens to the public in the spring
o next year. For more details, visit
www.iwm.org.uk/duxford
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY8 October 2015
A North American aircraf has been
repainted to represent the plane once
own by Joseph Heller.
The paintwork has transormed
the B-25J Mitchell to exactly match
43-4064, a plane that served with
the 488th Bomb Squadron o the
340th Bomb Group, 12th Air Force,
United States Army Air Force, at the
end o WWII.
Heller relied heavily on his time
spent serving as a bombardier
in the 488th Bomb Squadron in
Corsica or the inspiration or his
amous satirical novel Catch-22 .
The writer in act lew several
dierent planes assigned to the
Wilfred Owen’s training camp
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
9/84
To commemorate its bicentenary year,
the British Overseas Territory of Ascension
Island is hosting celebrations all summer,
culminating in a weekend of special events
on 22-25 October.In 1815, a small British naval garrison
named HMS Ascension was established on
an uninhabited volcanic island in the South
Atlantic Ocean, between the coasts of West
Africa and Brazil. It was a precaution after
Napoleon was imprisoned on Saint Helena
to the south-east. In October of that year,
the captains of HMS Zenobia and HMS
Peruvian had landed to claim the island
as British territory.
During WWII, the islandwas an important
naval and air station, providing anti-
submarine warfare bases during the Battle
of the Atlantic. It was also used during the
Falklands War. Today, Ascension Island
has a temporary population of around 800
people, and an MoD and a USAF base.
British Base Commander Mark Taylor
said, ‘Those of us who live on Ascension
today must pay tribute to all our military
forebears, who worked in extreme condi-
tions from 1815 onwards to establish a
fresh water-supply, sanitation, militaryfortifications, housing, and healthcare
in this isolated and remote environment.
Ascension continues to have great strategic
importance, and those of us who serve here
today have a key role to play as a staging
post for British interests – both military
and diplomatic – in the South Atlantic.’
Scrapbooks made by a amilyduringWWI are
being made availableor publicviewing afer
staff at Edinburgh Council’s Capital Collections
library tracked down the original owners’ son.
The two books were made by the Thomson
amily, who lived at Glengyle Terrace in
Edinburgh. Most o the letters are addressed
to Thomas Davidson Thomson, who was just
three years old when the war broke out. The
researchers believe his parents were collecting
the material on his behal, to document the times
he was living through when just a little boy.
The rst scrapbook contains newspaper
articles relating the news o the ‘impending
E ropean War’, illustrations
Allied military in their
fferent uniorms, and
ewspaper cuttings o
he British and Belgian
oyal Families, as well as
ropaganda cartoons and
dvertisements.
The second scrapbook
less colourul, and has
ewer scraps,
tokens, and
illustrations,
but shows the
impact o war
on the home
ront. There are items related to rationing and
offi cial notices to conserve resources . There are
also letters o thanks or small donations given
to charitable causes. Finally, there is n ews o
peace and the surrender o the German eet.
On the last page, pressed like real owers, are
two handmade red-silk poppies.
Library offi cer Clare Padgett and John Temple
rom the digital volunteer team conducted a
thorough investigation through records, ship’s
passenger lists, and online search engines,
managing to nd Thomson’s son, Dave
Thomson, who now lives in the Netherlands.
Thomson has allowed the scrapbooks to be
included in the Capital Collections so that his
amily’s history is available to the public.
The scrapbooks can be viewed at the
website www.capitalcollections.org.uk
MHM
F R ONT L I NE
NEWS IN BRIEFDefendingDoverThe only working example oa British 3-inch
anti-aircraf gun rom WWI has been restored
and installed at Dover Castle. This marks the
centenary o the rst successul hit on a Zeppelin
by an identical anti-aircraf gun, controlled rom
Dover Castle’s Fire Command Post.On 21 December 1914, Dover was the target o
the rst bombing attack on Britain by a German
aeroplane. The threat o this type o aerial warare
led to the development o anti-aircraf deences,
such as the 3-inch gun.
Now an anti-aircraf emplacement, including a
Fire Command Post and Port War Signal Station,
has been painstakingly recreated thanks to a
Heritage Lottery Fund grant. By restoring some
o these eatures, visitors will be better able to
appreciate the crucial part the castle played in
the deence o Britain during WWI.
Stamp dutyThe Royal Mail is to create aSpecial Stamp honouring Sir
Nicholas Winton, who rescued hundredso children
rom Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, afer an online
petition calling or him to receive the accolade
reached over 100,000 signatures. On the eve o
WWII, Winton organised eight trains to take 669
unaccompanied children away to saety in Britain.
He also helped nd them oster amilies. He died
earlier this year, aged 106.
A spokeswoman or Royal Mail had said, ‘It is
clear that Sir Nicholas Winton is a worthy candidate’.
The campaign was launched by Justin Cohen and
Richard Ferrer rom Jewish News , in conjunctionwith the Holocaust Education Trust, and backed
by Sir Mick Davis, who chaired the Prime Minister’s
Holocaust Commission. The stamp will be issued
in 2016 as part o a commemorative set.
Mightier than the swordThe pen used by US General Douglas MacArthur
during the Japanese surrender
ceremony that ended WWII has
been displayed in Chester Town
Hall to coincide with the 70th
anniversary o the signing.
The pen was used on 2 September 1945,
on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, and then
was given by MacArthur to Lieutenant General
Arthur Percival, a ormer orces commander,
Japanese prisoner-o-war, and witness to the signing
on board the ship. He, in turn, donated it to the
Cheshire Regiment beore his death in 1966.
The pen will be shown as part o the year-long
‘Chester Unlocked’ programme that celebrates the
city’s diverse heritage. Afer its loan to theTown
Hall, the penwill returnto theCheshireMilitary
Museum, where it will gobackon display to the
public. For more inormation about the museum,
visit www.cheshiremilitarymuseum.co.uk
GOTASTORY?Letusknow! [email protected]
Military History Monthly , Thames Works,Church Street, London, W4 2PD
020 8819 5580
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLYwww.military-history.org 9
SCRAPBOOKS FROM THE HOME FRONT
Ascension Islandbicentenary
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
10/84
OPERATIONSANGARIS
10 October 2015MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
11/84
MHM
BEHI NDTHEI MA GE
CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC, AUGUST 2014 What immediately grabs one’s attention in this
photograph is the different poses o the soldiers
behind the sandbags. They are clearly protecting
themselves rom the dust, yet why is the gure
at the right standing upright and not ully pro-
tected by the wall o sandbags?
It is not merely the act that these are people,
which always attracts our attention, but also
the act that their different poses rise so neatly
rom lef to right. This is the only movement in
the photograph – through the rising diagonal
line to the slightly off-vertical o the makeshif
agpole, proudly ying the French Tricolour. A
visual link is created rom the soldiers to the ag,
which clearly declares their allegiance to France.
The various gestures o the squatting soldiers
almost make one think o the three wise monkeys:
‘Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil’. Perhaps
all that is literally behind them as they ace
towards the ag. Or again, are they gradually
rising rom their crouched positions to stand
tall beneath the French ag?
The setting could almost be staged. The sand-
bags orm a limited oreground space in which the
gures are placed, and create a strong horizontal
that gives the whole image a static eel, stressing
the gentle rise o the soldiers.
There is a rather muted eel about the picture,
or behind the sandbags the view is limited by
the dust (in act, stirred up by a helicopter) that
clouds both middle ground and the background.
This haze washes out the colour in the shot,
and it is difficult to make out eatures beyond
the lineo the sandbags– itcouldbe almost
anywhere. Or, at least,anywhere warm and
sunny. Theonly slash o colour lookslike thered
cross o an ambulance, barely seen at theright o
thephotograph, reminding us that these menare
soldiers, and that ghting is dangerous.
Thephotograph’s setcan thus be taken to sym-
bolisethe men’s readiness to serve anywhere
underthe French ag, as many meno theForeign
Legion have done. It might also touchon the
Romantic idea o men whohave leftheir pasts
behind to grow tall again under the Tricolour.
The photograph is one o an award-winning
series taken by the French photographer Edouard
Elias,whose photo-essay documented 30 men
rom theSecondForeign Inantry Regiment
(rom Nîmes, France) ora month duringtheir
involvement in Operation Sangaris, which sought
to reduce ethnic tension between Muslim Seleka
rebels and Christian anti-balaka militias. It is on
show at Visa pour l’Image 2015 Perpignan. . T e x t : K e i t h R o b i n s o n
I m a g e : E d o u a r d E l i a s / G e t t y I m a g e s R e p o r t a g e ; c o u r t e s y o f V i s a p o u
r l ’ I m a g e P e r p i g n a n 2 0 1 5
.
www.military-history.org 11MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
12/84
Percy Hobart wasborn on
14 June 1885 to parents
Janet ta and Robert Hobar t
in Naini Tal,India. His father
worked for the Indian Civil Service.
On the family’s return to Great Brit-
ain, youngPercy was educated at a
number of private schools, before
graduating in 1904 from the Royal
Military Academy at Woolwich.
From an early age, he hadshown
an aptitude for engineering, and he
was commissioned into the Corps
of theRoyal Engineers. His rst
postingtookhim back to India, but
within the space of a decade hewas
ghting in France and Mesopotamia
during the First World War. Between
1919 and 1920 he wasonce again
in India, where he took part in the
Waziristan campaign.
During theclosing stages of the
First World War, Hobart had seen
Confronting us isthe problem of
getting ashore on adefended coastline.
Sir Percy Hobart
the difference mechanical warfare
had made, and in 1923 he trans-
ferred to the Royal Tank Corps.
In 1934 he was promoted to
the rank of brigadier, and took
command of the rst permanent
armoured brigade in the British
Army. His task was a tough one, as
he battled with cavalry staff offi cers
who regularly denied his requests
for resources and personnel.
In 1938, Hobart had attained
the rank of major-general. He was
sent to Egypt to train Mobile Force
(Egypt), the forerunner of the famed
7th Armoured Division, ‘The Desert
Patrick Boniface considers the inuence of science on warfare
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY12 October 2015
“
MAJOR-GENERAL
SIR PERCYCLEGHORN
STANLEYHOBART
ABOVE RIGHT The Duplex Drive (DD)‘swimming’ Sherman was an
amphibious tank used on all five
beaches on D-Day.RIGHT The ‘Crocodile’, a Churchill tank
rebuilt as a flame-thrower.
BIOGRAPHY
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
13/84
Rats’. Hobart’s ‘unconventional’
attitude and personality led to
many run-ins with his superiors,
and Sir Archibald Wavell dismissed
Hobart into retirement in 1940.
Back homein Chipping Campden,
Hobart joined the Local Defence
Volunteers as a lance corporal.
Hearing of this, Winston Churchill
convinced Hobart to re-enlist into
thearmyin 1941 to train the 11th
Armoured Division.
Percy Hobart was no longer
young–in fact, he was 57. Many
senior officers wanted him removed
MHM
C ONFLI CT S CI E
NTI ST SThe success of
[Overlord] dependson the element ofsurprise caused bynew equipment.Suggestions fromall ranks for improve-ments in equipmentare to be encouraged.”
The first needwas to inspire allofficers with thebelief that wire-less communicationbetween tanks onthe move was prac-ticable; and the next,to convince them thatthey were capable ofmaking use of it.”
Confronting usis the problem ofgetting ashore on adefended coastline.The success of theoperation dependsof the element ofsurprise caused bynew equipment.”
There seems
to be in somequarters a frigidattitude as regardsmechanical matters.”
The need is soacute that we cannotaffordeither to neglector drop any possiblemethod of dealingwith minefields.”
QUOTESFROM
HOBART
IN CONTEXT: HOBART
Unpopular and brilliant Major-General Hobart was described by his direct superior,Lieutenant-General H M Wilson, as ‘self opinionated’ and ‘lackingin stability’, as a man who ‘showed little consideration for thefeelings and wishes of others’.
Such was the extent of some military top brass’s dislikeof Hobart that Prime Minister Winston Churchill had tointervene to defend him: ‘The High Commands of the Armyare not a club. It is my duty… to make sure that exceptionallyable men, even those not popular with their military contempo-raries, should not be prevented from giving their servicesto the Crown.’
Churchill felt it necessary to defend this particular manbecause of his uniquely creative mind in coming up with solu-tions to defeat German defences. Despite his unpopularity,Hobart would go on to lead a group of talented individualsat the 79th Armoured Division who created a multitude ofinnovative devices for landing on the D-Day beaches in June1944 – the so-called ‘Hobart’s Funnies’.
from command, but instead he was
put in charge of the 79th Armoured
Division. Following the disastrous
Dieppe Raid of August 1942, the
Army became focused on ways of
overcoming strong coastal defences.
That task fell to Hobart. The 79th
Armoured Division was converted
into a unit of specialised armour
and renamed 79th (Experimental)
Armoured Division, Royal Engineers.
In 1943, Hobart was knighted.
Hobart’s leadership led to the
creation of some of the most in-
novative, unusual, and downright
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLYwww.military-history.org 13
strange mechanical devices ever
created by the Royal Engineers.
Among the most notable of
these creations were the Duplex
Drive (DD) ‘swimming’ Sherman
tank, the Crab ail tank that drew
much from the Matilda Scorpion
used in the Battle of El Alamein
in 1942, the Churchill Armoured
Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE),
the Bobbin Carpet Layer, the
Armoured Ramp Carrier (ARK),
and the Crocodile a methrower.
The latter, when tted to a con-
verted Churchill tank, could deliver
100 one-second bursts to a range
of around 110 metres.
These would later become known
as ‘Hobart’s Funnies’, although
funny they were not. While some
were spectacular failures, most
proved to be very effective. The
unit’s work was a decisive factor
on D-Day, with the ‘Funnies’ dealing
with German mineelds, tank traps,
and a multitude of other devices on
the Normandy beaches.
Percy Hobart retired (again)
in 1946. In recognition of his huge
contribution to the success of Opera-
tion Overlord, he was awarded the
American Legion of Merit and also
the Companion of the Order of the
Bath to add to his Military Cross and
his Distinguished Service Order.
Major-General Sir Percy Cleghorn
Stanley Hobart died aged 72 at Farn-
ham in Surrey on 19 February 1957.
BELOWSherman Crab Mk II flail tank, one of General Hobart’s ‘Funnies’ of 79th
Armoured Division, during minesweeping tests in the UK, 27 April 1944.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
14/84MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY14 October 2015
Inspired by last year’s commemorations in Normandy,
Prince Charlescommissioned 12 portraits o surviving veterans
to coincide with the 71st anniversary o the D-Day landings.
The portraits show some o the survivors o the greatest
amphibious and airborne invasion in history, involving some
7,700 ships and 12,000 aircraf.
The men were painted wearing their medals or this rst
collection o D-Day veteran portraits, which pays tribute to
all those who served in the Normandy campaign.
The title o the exhibition originates rom a message sent
to all the troops on the eve o D-Day by Genera l Eisenhower,
in which he announced, ‘The tide has turned! The ree men othe world are marching together to Victory!’.
1
23
1. GEOFFREY PATTINSONA sergeant with 9th Parachute Battalion,Pattinson was to land at the MervilleBattery, but, due to a faulty glider, heactually landed in Hampshire. By theevening, his platoon managed to landin Normandy where he rejoined his unit.
2. JAMES ‘JIM’ GLENNIEGlennie was a private with the 5th/7thGordon Highlanders, who advancedinland and took up defensive positionsnear Caen. During a German counter-attack, Glennie was wounded and takenas a prisoner-of-war for four months.
3. ERIC JOHNSTONJohnston was a trooper with the 4th/7thRoyal Dragoon Guards and co-driverwithin the Reconnaissance Troop, whichlanded on Gold Beach at dawn. He tookpart in the Battle of Villiers-Bocage andthe defence of Hill 103.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
15/84
MHM
WAR C ULT URE
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLYwww.military-history.org 15
Painted by some o the UK’s leading artists, the portraits were
recently exhibited in the Queen’s Gallery, London, in a collection
put together by the Royal Drawing School in collaboration
with the Royal Collection Trust. They will also be shown at the
Palace o Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh early next year.
Artist Jonathan Yeo, who painted the portrait o veteran
Geoffrey Pattinson, said, ‘Painting someone who candidly
describes the rst time they set oot on oreign soil as the
time they jumped out o a moving aircraf and parachuted
down through ying bullets to land in Normandy or D -Day
makes Geoffrey one o the more extraordinary sitters I’ve
encountered in my time as a por trait artist.’Here, MHM highlights nine o these historic portrayals.
5
4
6
4. BRIAN STEWARTStewart was the Anti-Tank PlatoonCommander with the Tyneside Scottish.He helped rescue comrades in the 8thBattalion of the Parachute Regimentwho were cut off in their bid to destroythe bridges over the River Dives.
5. TOM RENOUFA private (later lieutenant) with the 5thBattalion Black Watch, Renouf took partin the battle for high ground aroundBreville. He was also part of the 51stHighland Division that rescued the 8thBattalion of the Parachute Regiment.
6. ROBERT ANTONY ‘TONY’ LEAKEA corporal with the 8th Battalion ofthe Parachute Regiment, Leake tookpart in the mass parachute dropbehind German lines, blew bridgesover the River Dives, and set updefensive positions.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
16/84
TheLastof theTide:
Portraits of D-Day Veterans
Royal Collection Trust and Modern Art Press,
£5.00. ISBN 978-1909741294
Available from the shop at theQueen’s
Gallery,BuckinghamPalace, and online
at www.royalcollection.org.uk/shop
GO FURTHER
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY16 October 2015
7. RAYMOND ‘TICH’ RAYNERRayner was a sergeant with the Oxfordshire and
Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, and flew as part of theoperation on Pegasus Bridge. His glider had navigationalissues, landing seven miles from the planned landing zone.He eventually fought his way back to his unit.
8. LAURENCE ‘LAURIE’ WEEDENWeeden was a pilot during the mass airborne operation onD-Day. He landed safely in Normandy, where his cargo of jeeps, explosives, and ammunition were used by the 8thParachute Battalion to blow up bridges over the River Dives.
9. JACK GRIFFITHS
Griffiths flew a glider containing Parachute Regiment soldiers,successfully landing on the morning of D-Day. The soldierswent on to destroy bridges over the River Orne.
7
8
9
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
17/84
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
18/84
THE FIRST BRITISH GAS ATTACK, LOOS, 1915
It was outlawed, but the Germans had used it at Ypres in April 1915. The British followed suitin September. Steve Roberts explores the arguments about, and the effects of, the first British
chemical attack, a century ago this month.
BELOWThis exceptional photograph apparently
shows men of the 47th Division advancing through
the cloud of gas and smoke in no-man’s-land
on 25 September 1915, the first day of Loos.
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY18 October 2015
Men hold one another, hand
on shoulder, bandages cover-
ing eyes, straggling towards
the guy ropes of a field hos-
pital. John Singer Sargent’s
painting depicting a line of blinded soldiers was
given the simple title Gassed . Wilfred Owen, in
‘Dulce et Decorum Est’, conjured a nightmare
vision of ‘clumsy helmets’, ‘choking, drowning’,
‘white eyes writhing’, and ‘froth corrupted lungs’.
The Battle of Loos, fought in northern
France in September 1915, was the first British
gas attack of WWI – despite the Hague
Convention of 1899 having banned shells
‘diffusing asphyxiating or deleterious gases’.
Who was first? Some claim the French,
using ineffectual tear-gas grenades in August
1914. The Germans, benefiting from a highly
developed chemical industry, first used gas
on 27 October, when deployment was largely
ineffective, the shells containing a chemical
irritant that resulted in violent sneezing fits.
Gas was a worrying development for
Entente troops, given that early anti-gas
measures comprised holding urine-sodden
handkerchiefs over mouth and nose.
The first ‘major’ gas attack allegedly
occurred at Bolimow on 31 January 1915,
when the Germans rained 18,000 gas shells
on the Russians. They used ‘xylyl bromide’,
an early tear gas – but its effect was vitiated
by the cold of the Eastern Front.
The Germans were the first to give serious
study to chemical weapons and to deploy
them in quantity. During WWI, their tonnage
of gas exceeded that of Britain and France
combined. They tried an improved tear-gas
concoction at Nieuport (in March 1915)
against the French.
SECOND YPRES
The first time the Germans tried ‘poison’
gas was at the Second Battle of Ypres on
22 April. This time, the effect was dramatic.
The Entente line was shattered when
171 tons of chlorine were released from
cylinders on a four-mile front in a period
of five minutes.
The prevailing wind carried the gas towards
French lines, resulting in 6,000 casualties
and many agonising deaths. The gas attacked
wet tissue (lungs and eyes) and destroyed
the respiratory organs. Ominously for those
inclined to imitate, the Germans lost men
releasing the gas.
The French troops fled, leaving Ypres
exposed. The Germans gained ground –
but, unsure of the gas’s effectiveness, failed
to push on and break through.
The British observed a low cloud of yellow-
grey vapour (some say ‘ghostly green’). Almost
immediately the French appeared, galloping
horses spurred away from the cloud. A pungent,
nauseating smell became evident, tickling throats
and making eyes smart. In the worst cases, men
were frothing at the mouth, their eyes bulging.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
19/84MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLYwww.military-history.org 19
The Germans had driven a French army
corps out of the line. Sir John French, BEF
(British Expeditionary Force) commander,
called the enemy gas attack ‘cynical’, ‘barba-
rous’, and alien to the concept of ‘civilised war’.
The Western Front was quiet over most
of the following summer, the Allies preparing
a ‘great offensive’ for the autumn. When
it came, the centrepiece was French
commander-in-chief Joseph Joffre’s Second
Battle of Champagne (22 September-
6 November). This was supported by a
secondary British offensive, the Third Battle
of Artois (25 September-15 October). Loos
(25 September-8 October) was an integral
part of this British offensive; and, French’s
moral reservations notwithstanding, it was
to see the first British use of gas.
CHLORINE, PHOSGENE,
AND VESICANTS
At Second Ypres, the Germans had released
chlorine, a characteristically green gas. Victims
choked, gas reacting quickly with water in air-
ways to form hydrochloric acid, swelling and
blocking lung tissue, resulting in suffocation.
Two days later, when gas was released a second
time, Canadian troops used socks soaked in
urine as protection.
By 1917, chlorine was no longer the only
chemical agent employed. A more dangerous
irritant, phosgene, now became the main
killer. Slow to act, with victims often not
developing symptoms for hours, or even
days, it is easy to see why panic spread.
The standard-issue gas mask of 1917,
the ‘small-box respirator’, provided good
protection against both, provided it could
be donned quickly – an ‘ecstasy of fumbling’,
according to Owen.
Worse was to come, as both sides resorted
to ‘blistering agents’ (vesicants), which maimed
even those wearing masks. The most widely
used, mustard gas, blistered lungs and throat.
Masked soldiers blistered all over as gas soaked
into uniforms, which had to be stripped and
washed quickly: never easy at the front.
DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
The British were in a game of catch-up. They
needed to know what chemicals the Germans
were using and how to counter them. After
Second Ypres, Kitchener appointed Colonel
Lois Jackson RE to conduct a feasibility study
into British use of gas.
The research team at the Imperial College
of Science concluded that chlorine could
be despatched from pressurised cylinders to
form a ‘cloud’. Using a soda-siphon system,
gas could escape under pressure controlled
by stop-cocks. A ½-inch diameter iron-pipe,
three metres long, would deliver liquid
chlorine, which developed into yellow-
white gas on emerging.
Experimental research was conducted
at Porton, a name now synonymous with
chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear warfare (CBRN). A laboratory was
constructed at Helfaut, St Omer (the gas-
warfare ‘Special Companies’ would have
their depot here, and when assembled
would be given the option of quitting once
the mission had been explained).
The Kestner-Kellner Alkali Company, the
only one in Britain capable of manufacturing
large quantities of chlorine, supervised trials
at Runcorn, concluding on 4 June. They
would not, however, be able to manufacture
enough gas to attack the entire enemy front
by the time of the planned offensive, so smoke
candles were to be used as well, creating the
illusion of a continuous chlorine cloud.
The War Office called in Oxford academic
John Scott Haldane to produce the first gas
mask. The primitive veil respirator followed,
pads of cotton waste, wrapped in gauze,
soaked in sodium thiosulphate; this countered
low concentrations. Haldane also developed
the more effective box-respirator, introduced
in April 1916 and used for the rest of the war.
ARGUMENTS AND SPECIALISTS
Prior to Loos, General Haig might have been
persuaded that battlefield and armament were
unfavourable, but the availability of 150 tons of
Tear gas – chemical irritant, resulting in violent
sneezing ts.
Chlorine – rst ‘poison’ gas, potentially deadly,
irritant to lungs and mucous membranes, causing
victim to cough violently and choke.
Phosgene – caused less coughing, so more gas
inhaled, thereore more potent. Delayed effect, with
poisoning ofen apparent only afer 48 hours.
Phosgene/chlorine – so-called ‘white star’
mixture, chlorine supplying the vapour necessary
to carry phosgene.
Mustard gas (Yperite) – rst used in 1917,
odourless chemical causing serious blistering
internally and externally, brought on several hours
afer exposure. Hard to protect against.
THE COMMON AGENTS
ABOVEAfter the German gas attack at Second Ypres
in April 1915, the British began experimenting with
gas masks. These soldiers, photographed in May
1915, are shown wearing an early improvisation.
chlorine gas was persuasive. With a shortage of
artillery, the ‘advantage’ of gas forced the battle.
Not everyone was happy. Lieutenant Charles
Ferguson, while conceding that Britain had not
been the first to use gas, condemned it as a ‘cow-
ardly form of warfare’. It had an image problem
– it was considered ‘dirty’ when compared with
‘honourable’ weapons like swords and guns.
Special gas units were raised, approximately
1,400 men in total, many of them science
students, all given the rank of ‘chemist
corporal’. They operated under the leadership
of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Foulkes RE.
The new arm was ordered to prepare for a
gas attack at Loos.
Such was the stigma, the chemical-warfare
specialists were forbidden even to utter
the word ‘gas’. Gas canisters were called
‘accessories’. Anybody mouthing the G-word
was punished.
It was considered
‘dirty’ whencompared with‘honourable’weapons likeswords and guns.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
20/84
GAS!
20 October 2015
ABOVEA fanciful reconstruction of British infantry
storming German trenches on the first day of the
Battle of Loos. This engagement saw the first
British use of poison gas.
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY
tube, nose clip, and a pair of glass eyepieces.
Air came through in suffocatingly small
amounts; it was a feat to breathe at al l,
never mind fight.
The gas was released at 5.50am. French
claimed that heavy volumes floated forwards,
over enemy lines.
TRAGICOMEDY
Decision made, but it was then tragicomedy,
as spanners and cylinder cocks proved misfits.
Corporal G O Mitchell RE reckoned only
eight cylinders discharged. On the British
left, gas drifted back and many 2nd Division
(I Corps) regiments were gassed, with men
staggering about vomiting.
Brigadier J D Selby MC, observing at 8,000
feet, saw the wind change and gas drift back
over the British trenches. ‘Thank God we are
in the Flying Corps, old boy,’ was the prescient
comment from his pilot.
Wearing sweaty flannel gas helmets made
breathing almost impossible, and impaired
vision as eye-pieces misted. Men had a choice
between being semi-blinded and virtually
asphyxiated, or chucking the helmets and
being ‘mildly’ gassed.
On the right, gas drifted over German lines
and was moderately effective, the chlorine
cloud causing temporary panic.
a total of 140-150 tons of chlorine, maybe half
what was needed. Immediately on release, con-
trol was lost, as deployment depended on wind.
Weather reports were mixed.
Although conditions were not ideal
(the wind was not blowing towards the
German trenches), release was ordered
anyway, as the use of gas was an essential
part of Haig’s masterplan.
The wind, doubtful all night, had finally
turned at 5am, and Haig confirmed the attack
after consulting with meteorologist Captain E
Gold, who predicted favourable 20mph speeds.
Haig wavered, as the predicted wind failed
to materialise. He asked if there was time to
cancel: negative. At 5.30am, the assault troops
fitted their recently delivered gas masks: PH
Helmets – flannel bags impregnated with a
foul-smelling solution, supplied with mouth
Cylinders, brought up from Maroc mine,
were handled by Special Service Brigade REs
wearing green, red, and white armlets, making
them clearly distinguishable as they prepared
their gas and smoke.
On 23 September, French went to see
Foulkes about the Gas Company, and declared
himself happy. He thought all ‘in order’, and
a favourable wind would deliver. A change in
the weather that night augured well.
SET-UP AND RELEASE
The diary of L G Mitchell of the SSB RE
confirmed the secrecy. Equipment was
brought by train from the coast to a siding
at Gorre a week before, transferred to the
RE dump in wagons with muffled wheels
at night, then manhandled into trenches
by 8,000 REs – a major undertaking, begging
the question, how come the Germans did
not realise something was afoot?
Two men carried six pipes, the journey up
the 3½-mile communications trench taking
7-8 hours. Foulkes later wrote to the Gas
Company alluding to ‘alterations’ made in
the equipment, suggesting the initial kit was
difficult to operate or unsafe. One problem
was only having two pipes for 12 cylinders,
pipes being switched when a cylinder was
empty. Apparatus leaked, so men worked
in a gas cloud as they turned on the cylinders
and attempted to direct the gas over the
parapet via the pipes.
Gas would be released from 5,250-5,500 metal
cylinders, each weighed around 200lbs, contained
I m a g e : A l a m y
Immediately onrelease, control waslost, as deploymentdepended on wind.Weather reportswere mixed.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
21/84www.military-history.org 21MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY
ABOVEPlan of the first day of the Battle of Loos, 25 September 1915, showing
the effects of the British gas attack and the subsequent advance of the infantry.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
22/84
GAS!
22
Accounts suggest the greenish-yellow hue
rose to form a cloud 40 feet high, drifting
towards the enemy, but it also festered in
no-man’s-land, whirling around uselessly.
Rain the previous day and night considerably
reduced its effectiveness.
The secret weapon was a failure. Even
where the gas drifted over enemy trenches,
it was slow and thin. At the southern endof the attack front, no gas had reached the
October 2015MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY
1899Hague Convention Declaration(IV, 2) prohibits use of projectiles
to spread asphyxiatingpoisonous gases
August 1914French use tear-gas grenades
27 October 1914First attempted use of gasby Germans
31 January 1915First major use of gas – againstRussians in Poland
TIMELINE
Gas canisterswere called‘accessories’.Anybody mouthingthe G-word was
punished.
ABOVE British walking wounded at a dressing
station near Loos during the battle.ABOVE RIGHT German gas casualty being treated
with oxygen at Loos in September 1915.
P h o t o : W I P L
enemy after 30 minutes. L G Mitchell said the
Germans kept machine-guns firing through-
out by lighting fires around them while gas
was going over; the attackers emerging from
the gas, silhouetted against a white cloud,
made clear targets.
CHAOS
German batteries opened up on the Britishlines – and had more success opening cylin-
ders than their operators. The Gas Company
scarpered. The gas was turned off at 6.28am,
two minutes before the assault, which had
been delayed by 90 minutes in the hope that
the wind would become favourable. Then, with-
out any real change in conditions, the men
went over the top, many describing the wind as
‘in their faces’. Allegedly, the gas caused more
British casualties than German.
Chaos reigned in many sectors of the British
front, yet in others the gas did carry to the
German trenches and initial British attacks
prospered. In many areas, however, attackinginfantry were enveloped in their own gas as
they caught up with the slow-motion chlorine
cloud: a chemical ‘friendly-fire’.
Feint-attacks, kicking off earlier, were
hampered by small amounts of gas the wind
barely shifted. It seems surprising gas was used
in the feint, warning the Germans this would
come in the main event. The fact word did not
spread on the German side was due to the gas
not reaching them.
The offensive was a catastrophe. The
bombardment was not strong enough
to destroy German wire or machine-guns.
Accounts often do not mention gas,although A F Francis of 5th Field Ambulance
22 April 1915Germans use gas at Second Ypres
4 June 1915Final trial of British chlorine gasat Runcorn
July 1915Nos 186/187 Special Companies
formed
August 1915Nos 188/189 Special Companiesformed
21 August 1915Kitchener advises French that
Germans are short of men andurges an attack
24 August 1915French meets Haig todiscuss Loos and arguesagainst waste of lives
4 September 1915First two Special Companiesassigned to First Armyfor operations
22 September 1915First Army bombardmentbegins
23 September 1915French sees Foulkes
about Gas Company,which starts for trenchesat 4.45pm
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
23/84
did confirm effects on eyes and stomach.
Flesh wounds were aggravated.
The Germans rallied after initial panic,
although in some areas morale was wholly
unaffected. This confounded British expecta-
tions, which had been that German infantry
and gunners would be neutralised to a depth
of three miles.
The difficulties in releasing gas at Loosled to the development of gas shells, fired by
artillery, which increased the range and made
the use of a variety of gases easier.
GAS PANIC
The effects of gas are several. As well as causing
death or disabling injury through its direct
effect, it can also cause panic and flight, and
may neutralise resistance through the encum-
brance of wearing gas masks.
Panic was widespread. The mere threat of
gas attack was terrifying, panic spreading like
a virus, resulting in gas ‘casualties’ who had
not been affected at all. Since the effects wereinvisible, soldiers feared ‘contamination’.
Gas had other effects, too – chlorine gas
caused rapid rusting of rifles and artillery
breech blocks, rendering them useless.
Despite the limited effect of gas on the
battlefields of 1915, research and develop-
ment continued, and gas remained a major
weapon until the end of the First World War.
A key innovation was mustard gas, which could
inflict severe burns. A respirator could save a
soldier, although the gas might still remove
the power of speech for several days.
Trench mortar batteries experimented
with new bombs, the gas emitted on impactdesigned to penetrate gas helmets, resulting
in intense nausea and vomiting, compelling
the victim to wrench off his mask. The mortarteam would then switch to standard chlorine
and phosgene bombs.
British and Empire deaths due to gas in
WWI numbered 6,000. Of the 90,000 of all
nations killed by gas, over 50% were Russian,
many without masks. Some 185,000 British and
Empire troops were ‘injured’, the vast majority
during the last two years, when mustard gas was
deployed. Most gas casualties made full recover-
ies, however, and by 1929 just 1% of British
disability pensions were paid to gas victims.
GAS BAN
After the war, humanity delivered its verdict:the Geneva Protocol of 1925 banned gas as a
www.military-history.org 23MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY
Attacking infantrywere enveloped intheir own gas as theycaught up with theslow-motion chlorinecloud: a chemical
‘friendly-fire’.
24 September 1915Some 400 chlorine gas emplacements
established along British front
Morning, 25 September 1915Haig orders gas to be released
(5am), commencing Battle of Loos
Afternoon,25 September 1915
Some, but not all, initial gains lost inGerman counter-attack
Evening, 25 September 1915Haig confirms at 11.30pm thatattack will continue at 11am
26 September 1915Reserve divisions committed. Frenchvisits wounded at dressing-station
27 September 1915Foch visits French, who is unawarehow much German line at Hill 70has been reinforced
30 September 1915Gas Company moved to Annaquin,close to Cambrin, preparing for asecond gas attack
8 October 1915Battle of Loos ends
13 October 1915Second British gas attackusing new equipment
September 1917Mustard gas is used byGermans against Russiansat Riga using artillery shells
30 November 1917Mustard gas is usedat Cambrai
1925Geneva Protocol bans useof gas – this ban is nominallystill in force today
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
24/84
GAS!
24 October 2015
BELOWAustralian soldiers recover at a casualty
clearing station after being gassed – probably by
mustard gas – in May 1918. Most such men made
a full recovery, with relatively few fatalities. Artillery,
machine-guns, rifles, and grenades killed far more
than gas ever did, but its moral effect was great.
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY
battlefield weapon. No other weapon was
condemned in this way. Cynics argue that
it was because the weapon was ineffective:
the Great Powers were willing to sign away
something they did not need. This is almost
certainly correct.
Had gas not been available to the British
at Loos, the attack may never have been
launched, and a major defeat costing 60,000
casualties avoided. It was ineffective at Loos,
and on most other occasions on which it
was used. Its primary effect was always moral
rather than physical – as the relative casualty
figures show – but even this was hardly ever
decisive in shaping a battle, let alone in
determining its outcome. History knows no
great victory for gas warfare.
Gas played almost no part in the Second
World War, except that residual gas panic
remained, symbolised by the ubiquitous
gas mask. The gas mask was one of the iconic
artefacts of that conflict, and also, in the
event, one of the most redundant.
Steve Roberts is an historian and former history
teacher, who has written for MHM on many occasions,
including cover stories on Edward III and the Siege of
Leningrad. Steve has been published in more than 50
different magazines, and his first book, Lesser Known
Christchurch, was launched on 6 August.
ABOVEGas became an obsession after its first
large-scale use on both the Eastern and Western
Fronts early in 1915. Here, pictured in 1916, a
British soldier in a gas mask poses with a gas alarm.
P
h o t o : W I P L
P h o t o : A l a m y
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
25/84
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
26/84
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
27/84MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY 27
T
hree great victories overFrench chivalry during
the so-called ‘HundredYears War’ haveachieved
iconic status in British popular history: Crécy
(1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415).
Viewed from a geopolitical perspective, their
status is undeserved. England was too small and distant to have
any hope of making good the claims of its kings to French
territory, at least in the long term.
Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt were tactical battlefield
victories without the strategic weight behind them necessary
to consolidate any temporary gains they yielded. Whatever
France’s often timid Valois kings might concede in the imme-
diate aftermath of defeat was invariably recovered in the years
and decades following. The meteoric career of Joan of Arc
(following the campaigns of Henry V) is only the most famous
example of such a French resurgence.
But these battles do, in fact, have great significance: they
herald the decline of feudalism and a way of war based on
armoured cavalry.
During the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, heavy horse had
dominated European battlefields, and indeed battlefields
beyond, like those of the Middle East during the Crusades. But
the primacy of heavy horse was contingent on the absence
of a strong infantry.
Serfs make poor soldiers. For men to fight well, they must
be stakeholders, or at least imagine themselves to be, in the
social order of which they are part. The new infantry of the
14th and 15th centuries – Flemish club-men, Scots pikemen,
English longbowmen, Swiss pikemen, German landsknechts,
Hussite hand-gunners – were recruited from a distinct social
layer of free men who were relatively prosperous, indepen-
dent, and entrepreneurial.English sources refer to ‘the middling sort’, by which they
mean the yeoman farmers of the countryside and the indepen-
dent artisans and petty-traders of the towns. This layer of society
was driving radical economic and social change across a large
swathe of Europe. Feudalism had become brittle. New forms
of wealth based on commercial farming and maritime trade
were upsetting the traditional social order. Radical ideas – like
those of the English Lollards, who anticipated the Protestant
Reformation by a century – were undermining old certainties.
Agincourt, the focus of our special this month, was not
only a victory of a small English army over a larger French
one. It was also a victory of strong infantry over heavy horse,
of common men over feudal chivalry, of the rising ‘middling
sort’ over what had by then become a dying social order.
In tr oducti on
Battlecourt
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
28/84
: BEGINNING OF HUNDRED YEARS WAR
The ‘war’ was really a succession of separate wars
spread across more than a century (1337-1453) that
pitted the English House of Plantagenet against the
French House of Valois in a dynastic conflic t over
control of territory in France. In the long run, the
French had the advantage: they were fighting ‘on home
ground’, close to their bases; their population and
resources were much greater; and their enemies were
compelled to fight overseas and, if they penetrated
far inland, at the end of perilously long supply-lines.
A greatly superior military system often allowed the
outnumbered English to win tactical successes on the
battlefield; but any short-term gains were soon lost inthe long periods of relative inactivity in-between.
1413: SUCCESSION OF HENRY V
England had passed through a period of
urmoil with the Peasants’ Revolt (1381),
he overthrow of Richard II and usurpation
f Henry Bolingbroke/Henry IV (1399), and then
wars with the Scots, the Welsh, and English
ebels. The succession of Henry V was itself aminor achievement. As Shakespeare’s plays
amously record, the young king had been a
e’er-do-well at odds with his father. Though
ars with France had become unpopular in
e late 14th century, a new generation
ad grown up in troubled times, and
e prospect of foreign war under a
young leader offered an opportunity
to forge a stronger national unity.
Henry V came to the
throne gagging for
war, and many of
his countrymen
responded
enthusiastically.
MAY/OCTOBER 1360: TREATY OF BRÉTIGNY
Following a conference in May,
a peace treaty was agreedbetween the English and the
French at Calais in October.
Edward III agreed to renounce
his claims to Normandy, Touraine,
Anjou, and Maine, in return for
increased lands in Aquitaine. He also
agreed to reduce King John’s ransom by
a million crowns (the French king had been
captured at Poitiers), and to abandon his
claim to the throne of France.
26 AUGUST 1346: ENGLISHVICTORY AT BATTLE OF CRÉCYThis was the first great continental
victory of the new English military
system based on the ‘bill and bow’ combination. The
clash between King Philip of France and King Edward III
of England took place in Flanders. Heavily outnumbered,
the English fought an essentially defensive battle,
while the French staged a long succession
of unauthorised, badly co-ordinated, andchaotically conducted mounted charges,
most of which were destroyed
by arrow-shot before the French
chivalry could get to grips with their
enemies. The main lesson of the
battle was that that traditional heavy
horse could not prevail against massed
English archery.
1369-1389REIGN OF
CHARLES V:FRENCH
RESURGENCE
1389-1415
THE SECONDPEACE
19 SEPTEMBER1356
ENGLISH VICTORY ATBATTLE OF POITIERS
337
24 JUNE 1340ENGLISH VICTORY
AT BATTLE OFSLUYS
SPRING 1414ENGLISHGREAT COUNCILRECOMMENDS
FURTHERNEGOTIATIONSWITH FRENCH
Timel ine
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
29/84
17 JULY 1453: BATTLE OF CASTILLON
An English army
under John Talbot
was defeated. Two
years later, the Wars
of the Roses began
in England. Thus
the war was never
renewed, and the
Battle of Castillon
has therefore come
to be regarded as the
effective end of the
Hundred Years War.No treaty was ever
signed, however, and
in a sense the
conflict
had
no
formal closure. Indeed, English
claims on French territory were
to remain a diplomatic irritant
for many years to come.
1420: TREATY OF TROYES
y p g g, y
of England married Catherine of Valois, daughter of
King Charles VI, and was recognised as heir to the
French throne. But Henry died two years later, and
his son, Henry VI, a minor who became one of England’s
most unsuitable monarchs, wasnever able to make
goodhisclaim.
13 AUGUST 1415: ENGLISH ARMY
LANDS IN NORTHERN FRANCE
decision
ight in the
th – not in the south-
st, where the most
ensive English territories
– was critical. Edward III
d campaigned in the
rth – and won the Battle
Crécy close to where
e Battle of Agincourt
ould be fought – but his
n, the Black Prince, had
ampaigned mainly in the
outh-west, and it was
ere that a slow war of
ttrition had eventually
round the English down.
enry was aiming for a
nockout blow close to
he richest territories of
he French Crown.
1428: SIEGE OF ORLEANS
The English laid siege to
Orleans with insufficient
force, and it was
relieved by a French
army inspired
by the young
mystic Joan of
Arc. The English
army retreated
and suffered
heavy losses.
The Dauphin was escorted to Reims, and
crowned King Charles VII. Though Henry VI was
crowned King of France at a ceremony at Notre Dame
in Paris in December 1431 (Joan of Arc having been
captured and burnt as a heretic the previous May), it was
but a token gesture. The French resurgence continued
and the English lacked the resources to drive it back.
14
DECEMBER 1414ENGLISH
PARLIAMENTGRANTS ‘DOUBLE
SUBSIDY’ TOFUND WAR
13 AUGUST-22 SEPTEMBER
1415SIEGE OF
HARFLEUR
19 APRIL1415
ENGLISHGREAT COUNCIL
SANCTIONS WARWITH FRANCE
8-24OCTOBER 1415
MARCH FROMHARFLEUR TOTHE SOMME
Timel ine
25 OCTOBER1415
BATTLE OFAGINCOURT
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
30/84
A l l i m a g e s : W I P L
The Middling Sort English Way of War
MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY30 October 2015
ABOVESquires armaknight forbattle.Agincourt
wasa collisionbetweenanarmy formedmainly ofheavilyarmouredmen-at-armsrecruited from the
toplevelofsocietyandoneformedmainly oflightly
equipped archersrecruited from themiddleranks.
Thearchers,thoughtheyweregreatly outnumbered,
werethe victors.
The background
The mounted,armoured, lance-bearing knight hadbeen transformedinto a clankinganachronism.
T he French army at Agincourt was
a traditional feudal host. Estimates
of its size vary wildly, but claims
of 60,000, or even 100,000, can
be rejected out of hand as gross
exaggerations by contemporary chroniclers.
Most modern accounts regard a figureof about
25,000 as realistic, but Anne Curry, Professor of
History at Southampton,has argued convinc-
ingly that theactual figuremay have been less
than half this total. She hasalso suggested that
the English army may have been larger than
generally assumed, perhaps 8,500 rather than
the6,000 usually given. The implication is that,
while the Englishwerealmost certainly outnum-
bered, their disadvantagemayhave been of the
order of three to two, rather than the four or
five to one of traditionalaccounts.
Nor isit the casethat the whole mass of
the French army wasformed of chivalry. Curry
believes that archers may have accounted forone
in three of the French, and that they arelikely to
haveincluded longbowmenas well as crossbow-
men. There may also have been some French
cannon on thebattlefield. Since the chroniclers
and t he
say nothing of these elements in their accounts,
it seems reasonable to assume that their role was
marginal. The fighting was done by the French
men-at-arms, and it is on these we must focus in
seeking to make sense of the action.
These men-at-arms were organised into
three giant ‘battles’, each of between 3,000 and
8,000 men (depending on which figures one
accepts). The battlefield seems to have been
highly constricted. The traditional location
has the armies facing each other across a field
about 1,000 yards wide between two woods.
Though this location is, in fact, uncertain,
all the accounts of the battle seem to imply a
relatively narrow front and secure flanks. The
French army seems to have been compelled
to deploy in three lines, one battle behind
the other, the first two dismounted, the last
mounted. The only major exception was that
two contingents of cavalry, each about 500
strong, were placed on the flanks.
THE FEUDAL ARRAY
Who were these men? They comprised the
retinues of the lords who, honouring their
feudal obligations (or commercial contracts),
had answered the King’s call to arms. The
retinues will have varied in size according to
the wealth and power of their lord. Since the
feudal system was a hierarchy of vassals and
sub-vassals under the King, many of these
individual retinues would have been grouped
in larger agglomerations under a great lord.
A sea of banners indicated the position of
each lordly retinue in the array.
Though military service was a feudal obliga-
tion – in return for holdings of land – it was
also a moral obligation, its performance being
the culmination of a chivalric code that
stressed bravery, skill-at-arms, and the glory
and honour to be had in an ordeal by battle
with rivals of equivalent rank.
Anne Curry’s research has collapsed the
differences between the English and French
armies in the Hundred Years War – she argues
that war had become professionalised and sub-
ject to commercial contract on both sides of the
Channel – but this need not alter the essentially
‘feudal’ moral code governing military action.
Knights might now be paid for service, but they
were still embedded in a feudal array preoccu-
pied with individual combat and personal glory.
This meant that French medieval armies were
undisciplined and disorderly. Command and
control was limited. On the battlefield, each lord
MHM analyses the ‘bill and bow’
military system used by Edward III,
the Black Prince, and Henry V.
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
31/84MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLYwww.military-history.org 31
did much as he pleased. Once the action began,
a dense mass of several thousand men-at-arms
was unlikely to be capable of anything more than
a plodding advance to contact with the opposing
line, the more headstrong lords pushing forwards
eagerly to get to grips with their peers.
This problem – lack of control, of manoeuvre,
of tactical finesse – was compounded by two
other characteristics of the French army at
Agincourt. First, even with the battles stacked
up in three lines, the constricted front would
have meant that each was ranked in consider-
able depth. As they advanced, moreover, the
French men-at-arms seem to have veered away
from the English archers, directing themselves
towards the waiting English men-at-arms,
thereby contracting their front and increasing
their depth even more. Only the men at the
front and on the flanks would have had any
clear view of the enemy; most would have been
able to see very little except the press of their
own comrades around them.
PROTECTION VERSUS MOBILITY
The second factor making the French array
more plodding lump than masse de manoeuvre was
the weight of armour. By the early 15th century,
armour was no longer a mix of plate and mail
– lighter and more flexible – but almost wholly
plate. Many changes had taken place in the
preceding half century, largely in response to
the power of the English longbow, and all in one
direction, towards greater protection and safety.
Neck and shoulders were now guarded not by
mail, but by a steel gorget, which rose from the
upper rim of the breastplate to meet the helmet.
Beneath the waist, the groin was now covered by
a skirt of overlapping steel bands (taces). Arms
and hands, legs and feet were also protected by
plates, some rigid, some articulated. Helmets
now tended to be completely enclosed bascinets,
with visors that covered the face except for eye-
slits and sometimes breathing holes.
Sir Charles Oman, the great historian of
medieval warfare, considers these armours
to have been wholly impractical: mobility, in
his view, had been sacrificed to protection to
the point of absurdity. ‘The later 14th century
had seen many changes in armour – all in the
direction of “safety first”, and all detrimental
to mobility, and tending to secure the early
exhaustion of the wearer. We have arrived at the
time when middle-aged knights of a stout habit
of body died of heart-failure in battle, without
having received any wound, as did Edward of
York at Agincourt, and when, at the end of a
long fight on a sultry day, masters were seen
supported by their pages, lest they should lose
their footing and be unable to rise again…’.
A CLANKING ANACHRONISM
Though recent research has raised
questions about the weight, restriction,
and impracticality of late medieval armours,
there can be no question that there is always
a trade-off between protection and mobility,
and that the plate armour of the 15th century
represented an all-time extreme in favour of
the former at the expense of the latter.
The French men-at-arms in the first
two lines fought dismounted, because
of the vulnerability of horses to the
arrow-storm. They moved slowly forwards
because of their armour, impeded by
the mud of a ploughed field following
heavy rain, and if they fell, they found
it exceptionally difficult to rise again.
With their visors down, moreover, as they
would have been in battle, their hearing
and vision would have been seriously
impaired, and their ability to perceive
and respond to threats gravely, sometimes
fatally, compromised.
The feudal array, now encased in plate,
had become a lumbering leviathan. The
former king of the battlefield – the mounted,
armoured, lance-bearing knight of the
12th century – had been transformed into
a clanking anachronism.
RIGHTA manuscript illustration depicting 15th-
century knights jousting. The joust – mock combat
between warrior-nobles – was the supreme ‘sport’
of feudal chivalry.
The background
THE ENGLISH PROFESSIONAL ARMY
The English army – probably far more so than
the French – was less a feudal array than a
professional army under contract. Many feudal
land-holders had commuted their military-
service obligations into money payments. This
suited both parties. The nobility acquired
personal freedom – those who wished could
still, after all, go on campaign if they chose –
while the monarchy was strengthened by its
ability to hire professional soldiers rather than
rely on levies of unruly feudatories.
Not only did the King acquire more skilled,
disciplined, and effective soldiers, he acquired
men willing to serve for long periods, at least as
long as they continued to be paid; whereas feu-
dal service was restricted to only 40 days a year.
Equally limiting were the commissions of
array by which militia were traditionally raised.
The obligation on all free men to serve went
back to Anglo-Saxon times, but it was restricted
to home defence: the militia could not be forced
to embark on a foreign expedition.
Again, the King preferred a commercial
arrangement, and the common pattern was
for a lord or captain to be contracted with to
supply a specified number of both men-at-arms
and archers. The King’s brother, the Duke of
Clarence, for example, agreed to provide 240
-
8/18/2019 10. Military History Monthly - October 2015
32/84MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY32 October 2015
men-at-arms and 720 mounted archers for
the 1415 campaign.
The Duke’s weekly wages bill was over £250.
The King published a schedule of payments:
13s. 4d. per day for a duke; 6s. 8d. for an earl;
4s. for a baron; 2s. for a knight; 1s. for other
men-at-arms; 6d. for an archer. There was also
a schedule of bonuses due. All had to be paid
for out of royal state revenues, which included
income from the King’s private estates, various
feudal dues, war taxation, and the booty and
ransom money to be had on campaign. Victory
almost certainly meant profit, mainly from the
ransom money that could be charged for the
return of high-ranking prisoners. Defeat, on
the other hand, could bankrupt the royal state.
A MILITARY HYBRID
Henry V’s army was a military hybrid. It was
the product of a ‘bastard feudalism’ in which
lords, knights, and retinues served under
contract, performing military service not as a
feudal obligation, but because they were paid,
and because they hoped to enrich themselves
on booty and ransoms.
Equally, while royal edicts required all
classes of Englishmen to be equipped for
war – the poorest were expected to possess
a bow and a quiverful of arrows – Henry V’s
archers represented a selection of English
and Welsh yeomanry who had chosen the
profession of arms, and offered themselves
willingly for contractual service.
Henry took 2,000 men-at-arms and 8,000
archers to France, and when he fought the
Battle of Agincourt he is believed to have had
at least 1,000 men-at-arms and 5,000 archers
in his line (and probably more, judging by
what we now know of his losses to combat and
disease up to this point). The proportion of
archers in English medieval armies had been
steadily rising – from two or three to one under
Edward III (1327-1377) to four or five to one
under Henry V (1413-1422), and occasionally
as many as ten to one in the later 15th century.
Archers were usually recruited from the
rich-peasant class, the yeomanry, so, in the highly
class-conscious society of the time, they were
‘commoners’. That they did military service at all
was testimony to a further element of hybridisa-
tion in the English way of war, for they repre-
sented a continuation of the Anglo-Saxon military
system based on a militia – a fyrd – of free men.
Norman-style feudalism had been laid across
this system, but had not replaced it. Thus, when
medieval English kings went to war, they tradi-
tionally both summoned the feudal host and
issued commissions of array to raise militia.
THE MIDDLING