WWI underground: Unearthing the hidden tunnel war (...killed an estimated 10,000 Germans.)

BBC ^ | June 10, 2011 | Peter Jackson

[decimon]

Archaeologists are beginning the most detailed ever study of a Western Front battlefield, an untouched site where 28 British tunnellers lie entombed after dying during brutal underground warfare. For WWI historians, it's the "holy grail".

When military historian Jeremy Banning stepped on to a patch of rough scrubland in northern France four months ago, the hairs on the back of his neck stood up.

The privately-owned land in the sleepy rural village of La Boisselle had been practically untouched since fighting ceased in 1918, remaining one of the most poignant sites of the Battle of the Somme.

In his hand was a selection of grainy photographs of some of the British tunnellers killed in bloody subterranean battles there, and who lay permanently entombed directly under his feet.

When most people think of WWI, they think of trench warfare interrupted by occasional offensives, with men charging between the lines. But with the static nature of the war, military mining played a big part in the tactics on both sides.

The idea of digging underneath fortifications in order to undermine them goes back to classical times at least. But the use of high explosive in WWI gave it a new dimension.

One of the most notable episodes was at the Battle of Messines in 1917 where 455 tons of explosive placed in 21 tunnels that had taken more than a year to prepare created a huge explosion that killed an estimated 10,000 Germans.

Tunnelling was mainly done by professional miners, sent from the collieries of Britain to the Western Front.

[ken5050]

You have “forced” me to do some research this weekend..I’m fairly sure of my facts, but will verify and discuss with you later. If you can provide any links/sources to substantiate your statements, I’d appreciate it. Thanks

[ken5050]

My post #41 crossed your #38..same comments apply again, best

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

However, I believe the French suffered casualties rivaling the English.

French casualties were far worse than British. The official statistics are 1,697,800 French dead, or 4.29% of their total population, versus 994,138 British dead, or 2.19% of their total population. Adding British Empire forces (Canadians, Anzacs, South Africans, etc) brings their total to 1,225,914, still far behind the French.

[golux]

Boy, have I enjoyed reading your profile! One day I hope to make your acquaintance.

[wideawake]

If you can provide any links/sources to substantiate your statements, I’d appreciate it.

Sally Marks is the one recent historian who has actually delved deep into the math of WWI German reparations. She wrote a good-sized chapter in a Routledge festschrift about 10 years ago or so.

Most analyses seem to be the work of non-economist historians.

Ultimately I find that all this misrepresentation of Versailles and of the established practice of reparations is in service of a rational explanation of the supposed inevitability of National Socialism.

It was neither rational or inevitable - sometimes nations do irrational things. Human nature can be very dark and unpredictable.

I find these arguments similar to the arguments that 9/11 was inevitable and was a predictable and foreseeable response to US foreign policy.

[ClearCase_guy]

Well, thank you. It’s really just a dumping ground for anything that strikes my fancy and which I don’t want to lose.

[golux]

Every once in awhile a thread comes along which I wish was taking place in my living room over cigars and a few bottles of single malt. This is, of course, one of them.

[Timocrat]

To look at the momuments, with the endless lists of the dead..it is humbling experience. It makes D-Day, and the American military cemetary, look like a minor skirmish.

The first day of the First Battle of the Somme the Brits lost over 19,000 dead and took 35,000 casualties. Adjusting for population sizes that would be the equivalent of the present day US loosing 125,000 dead and taking 225,000 casualties - in one day.

[hellbender]

I’ve read that casualties suffered by the forces of the Confederate States in the Civil War were proportionately comparable to those suffered by the major European combatants in WW I. The North lost similar numbers, but its population was much larger.

[hellbender]

The Turkish attack on Vienna in 1529 featured use of tunneling, mines, and pitched battles underground.

http://wesulm.bravehost.com/history/vienna_siege.htm

[Pecos]

The recent History Channel show on Gettysburg pointed out that the number of Americans killed during the war was proportionally equal to 6 million dead out of today’s population.

[RinaseaofDs]

My interest in military history began with Patton, and your short post helps me understand the cultural and academic barriers Patton had to overcome in trying to introduce tank doctrine in the US Army.

Patton designed the last military sabre for calvary officers, I beieve, as a Calvary Lt. Colonel as late as 1930 or so. I was so struck by that.

Even more impressive is his integration of air and ground attack, where the officers actually involved in the air phase were able to essentially dictate to Patton when to attack.

Thanks for the observation, and I echo someone else’s comment on the thread that this would be much better done with cigars and cognac, or a good bourbon, in comfortable leather armchairs.

[hellbender]

The Civil War was our costliest war in terms of casualties, but I think the Revolutionary War ranks second in deaths as a % of population, simply because the population was so small at the time. Amazing to think that the govt. against which the Founders revolted was far less intrusive and confiscatory than that of today's U.S.A.

Germany lost far more than the British, as did many other countries, proportionately speaking. The worst casualties in WW I, proportionate to population, were not in the West, which most history books concentrate on, but in the Balkans: Greece, Turkey, Romania, Serbia.

[libstripper]

Mining and tunneling go back to the 13th century and before. In the days before gunpowder the sappers would undermine a tower while building an inflamable wooden framework to support it. The mine being finished, they’d stuff the chamber with combustible materials, set everything on fire, and wait for the targeted tower to fall into the hole.

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal  & archive  Archaeologica  Archaeology  Archaeology Channel  BAR  Bronze Age Forum  Discover  Dogpile  Eurekalert  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Thanks decimon. No ping, just adding to the catalog. The British estimates of WWI Germany casualties and KIAs are known to be BS, but still are used in UK books and articles to this day. If the casualties and KIAs had been as high as the wartime claims, nearly the entire German fighting population would have been killed off. Instead, the French (and to some extent, the British; although they heavily recruited from other nationalities of the B.E.) wound up with a lost generation. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dccfarr/Messines.htm

[snip] There has been much controversy concerning the missing mines, one came to light in 1955, when its 32,000Ibs charge was detonated by a thunderstorm, fortunately there were no casualties. The same may not be said today if one were to detonate... on June 7th 1917, nineteen of the mines were fired... The explosion was heard by David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister who was in his study in 10 Downing Street in London... The outstanding achievement brought joy to the British public, however the losses were still substantial[.] Allied killed and wounded were put at 24,562... German casualty figures were put at 23,000. [/snip]

IOW, even with this single, supposedly massive, stroke, German losses were still 1500+ fewer than British/French/etc losses. Remarkable — except that it’s obviously the product of overestimation of German casualty rates, itself the result of wartime propaganda.

The danger of believing official propaganda has been illustrated well since that time, for example, the Six Day War, in which Egyptian media trumpeted the entirely fictional brilliant victories over Israel — and no one dared to tell Nasser, hey, buddy, we make this stuff up 24/7 even when we’re not fighting. The final nail was driven by the ragged remains of the Egyptian forces staggered, thirsty, up to the Suez Canal, then those who could still swim plunged in to try to make it home before the IDF arrived.

Not for the squeamish (or people on dialup, it’s a big image):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Battle_of_Messines_-_destroyed_German_trench.jpg

Also, “greatest non-nuclear explosion of all time” has been claimed for lots of conventional explosions, including the WWII Operation Aphrodite detonation that killed Joseph Kennedy, Jr. Apparently he was actually in the process of radio communication regarding flight status, while still over England, and in the background on his end something started to make a hissing sound. The brilliant light from the blast was seen and the sound was heard all over. That was a mere 10+ tons of high explosive, but it was not muffled by the ground, either. :’)

[SunkenCiv]

• Early chemical warfare comes to light

  01/12/2009 7:37:48 AM PST · by BGHater · 5 replies · 633+ views

  ScienceNews | 11 Jan 2009 | Bruce Bower

  Roman soldiers defending a Middle Eastern garrison from attack nearly 2,000 years ago met the horrors of war in a most unusual place. Inside a cramped tunnel beneath the site's massive front wall, enemy fighters stacked up nearly two dozen dead or dying Romans and set them on fire, using substances that gave off toxic fumes and drove away Roman warriors just outside the tunnel. The attackers, members of Persia's Sasanian culture that held sway over much of the region in and around the Middle East from the third to the seventh centuries, adopted a brutally ingenious method for penetrating...

• Ancient Persians who gassed Romans were the first to use chemical weapons

  01/14/2009 8:37:02 PM PST · by bruinbirdman · 20 replies · 968+ views

  The Telegraph | 1/14/2008

  They gassed Roman soldiers with toxic fumes 2,000 years ago, researchers have discovered. Archeologists have found the oldest evidence of chemical warfare yet after studying the bodies of 20 Roman soldiers' found underground in Syria 70 years ago. Archeologists have found the oldest evidence of chemical warfare after studying the bodies of 20 Roman soldiers Clues left at the scene revealed the Persians were lying in wait as the Romans dug a tunnel during a siege -- then pumped in toxic gas -- produced by sulphur crystals and bitumen -- to kill all the Romans in minutes. Dr Simon James,...

• Buried Roman Soldiers of Dura May Be Victims of Ancient Iranian Chemical Weapon

  03/09/2011 10:35:20 PM PST · by OddLane · 23 replies

  The Circle Of Ancient Iranian Studies | Thursday, 10 March 2011 | CAIS

  LONDON, (CAIS) -- Almost 2,000 years ago, 19 Roman soldiers rushed into a cramped underground tunnel, sent to defend the Roman-occupied Syrian city of Dura-Europos from an army of Persians digging to undermine the city's mudbrick walls. But instead of Persian soldiers, the Romans met with a wall of noxious black smoke that turned to acid in their lungs. Their crystal-pummelled swords were no match for this weapon; the Romans choked and died in moments, many with their last pay of coins still slung in purses on their belts. Nearby, a Persian soldier -- perhaps the one who started the...

[Citizen Tom Paine]

As I understand it, the Brits didn’t allow deferments in WWI. This resulted in there best and brightest college students being killed. We may still be seeing the results.

[Pilsner]

But if the main purpose was to deprive Germans of hope and destroy Germany, the Allies could have permanently occupied large portions of Germany.

The Treaty of Versailles is one of those instances where "splitting the difference" was the worst thing to do. The Germans might have accepted with good grace much more lenient terms. The Germans might have sullenly submitted to far harsher terms, that really left them with no hope. But Versailles was too harsh for them accept, and not harsh enough for them to be left without hope of bettering their lot by war.

[jmacusa]

You donate to The Civil War Trust? So do I, it’s agreat organization.