10. military history monthly - october 2015

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


2/84


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

[email protected]

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


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.


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

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

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.


6/84


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

[email protected]

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


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


8/84

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


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


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


SCRAPBOOKS FROM THE HOME FRONT

Ascension Islandbicentenary


10/84

OPERATIONSANGARIS

10 October 2015MILITARYHISTORY MONTHLY


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


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


“

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


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


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.


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.


15/84

MHM

WAR C ULT URE


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.


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


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


17/84


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


25/84


26/84


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


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


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


30/84

A l l i m a g e s : W I P L

The Middling Sort English Way of War


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.


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


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

10. military history monthly - october 2015

Documents