IrishGunner

Brian, another great blog entry. Of course, we've kicked this topic around quite in bit in the forum. I'm in the "nothing is inevitable; we always have choices" camp. But rather than re-debating if WWI was avoidable or not, I prefer to redirect the conclusions to how can we avoid the bad choices. That's the value of the inevitable/avoidable debate. As with military tactics, we often hear "lessons learned." I mentioned previously in another space in a discussion with Bernhard that, in reality, we have few tactical "lessons learned," but plenty of "lessons identified." They are only lessons learned when they are analyzed, adapted, and changes in the way things are done are implemented. The same is true at the operational and strategic levels of warfare, as well as diplomacy. We identify from the past many things that could have been done differently, but unfortunately, we don't "learn" those lessons and history repeats itself. I was particularly struck by this paragraph you wrote... "If we could travel back in time to the turn of the twentieth century what would we find? What was the political and social atmosphere of the day? France was still stinging over the loss of territory to Germany as a result of the Franco Prussian War and still in distrust of Britain, Germany and Russia due to their alliance against Napoleon. The British were embroiled in a very unpopular war in South Africa and was being criticised for their involvement by just about everyone outside of their own Empire. The Russians had been a pain in the behind of the British and the French in the Crimea and through their involvement in adding to the hatred of the British Raj in India through Afghanistan resulting in the Indian Mutiny of 1857 (First War of Indian Independence?). Fear and distrust were the watch words of the day. It would be quite accurate to suggest that this period in history was not unlike the Cold War of post WW II times, which was experienced by many of the older members here at GMIC." You didn't carry the time-line analogy far enough. Fear and distrust are still the watch words of the day. I'd say your description of the pre-WWI era is strikingly similar to today. France is still stinging from the loss of influence in the world and control of the EU to Germany. Of course, Eastern Europe (Poland et al) are in distrust of Germany/France due to their "alliance" with Russia. The US has been embroiled in an unpopular war (Iraq/Afghanistan) and is criticized by everyone by just about everyone outside their own Empire. The Russians are a pain in everyone's backside...oh, because they are back in Crimea (interesting coincidence). Oh, and we can add some of the scariest parts of pre-WWII era to the soup. War weariness and Appeasement come to mind. Many would call Princip a terrorist (oh, they had that scourge back then too). Others would hail him as a freedom fighter (oh, many consider jihads in a similar way). So, add those to the pot. Was WWI inevitable or avoidable? (And I say WWII was a continuation of the first with a strategic pause in between) ((I also say that the Cold War was a continuation of the second with an operational pause in between)) It doesn't matter if WWI was inevitable or unavoidable. It is inevitable to be continued if we don't consider the way it might have been avoided - LEARN the lessons. Change our thinking. Adapt. Otherwise, we risk moving into the Dénouement of this drama, which saw WWI as the First Act.

Nice to get some history behind the medal. Careful, you'll get hooked and buy more Vics.

No. All of the clasps are for "combat zone" duty only. If someone never left the US, he wouldn't have a clasp. DEFENSIVE SECTOR: -- In the First Army area, between 30 August and 11 November 1918, or in the Second Army area between October 12 and November 11, 1918. -- At the regulating station at St Dizier and in the billeting region in connection therewith between October 31 and November 11, 1918. -- In the area of corps, divisions, or smaller independent organizations under French, British, Belgian, or Italian commands between April 6, 1917 and November 11, 1918. -- In any engagement not included in one of the thirteen major operations recognized by its own battle clasp. -- In any engagement in European Russia after August 1, 1918, or in Siberia after August 15, 1918.

Nice back story Bernhard.

I have read three pages already - fantastic stuff! Will be great for further research later.

Christer, officers' medals were inscribed only with Rank and Name. They do not include a regiment nor a number. A search of the UK Archives site for Medal Index Cards turns up 17 men with the last name Mancer. Only one with initial "W" who was an officer: Medal card of Mancer, William Manchester Regiment 17419 Serjeant Manchester Regiment Second Lieutenant Manchester Regiment Lieutenant While it's not 100% certain, this is probably your man. Link to the UK Archive page

"Changing Faces of Heroism since the First World War" - University of Leeds teams up with BBC for free online course Since many of our discussions within GMIC revolve around the "heroism" of the soldiers and units, and their corresponding awards, this might be of interest to some.

I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the list. Without a reference that specifically refers to FuAR Batl. Nr. 62, there is no way to really determine its "purpose" during a span of 2 years. Even if you find it referenced, it would only apply to the dates specifically noted. As I'm mentioned previously, the study of the Fuß-Artillerie can be quite frustrating; there were many re-organizations, units changed headquarters more frequently than their socks, and references are very inconsistent. A Corps initially had one or two associated regiments of Fuß-Artillerie; however, once the war began, the Fuß-Artillerie no longer fought as regiments. Battalions were allocated individually and regimental staffs assumed duties as Corps Artillery commands. As the war progressed, heavy artillery units often remained in one sector providing general support and frequently changed its higher headquarters affiliation. Usually there were 8 or 9 batteries allocated to a quiet division sector, with twice that many in a division sector considered more active. Heavy batteries within a sector would come under control of the divisional Artillery commander; the heavy batteries would usually remain in place as divisions rotated throughout the front. From it's formation in 1916 to 1918 (when it seems to be with the artillery observer school), FuAR Batl. Nr. 62 could have had any number of missions and could have been assigned to any number of higher headquarters.

See Post #5 from Dave Danner in the FussArtl. Bn 64 thread you started previously: http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/63028-fussartillerie-regiment-64/ Yes, FussArtl. Bn 62 was formed in 1916 according to his info. The info here provided by Andy is referencing the battalion in 1918.

Sources vary and exact figures are difficult to achieve; however, consensus is that artillery caused the majority (something close to 60 percent) of combat casualties in the First World War. Add in the effects of constant harassing fire, reaching far behind the lines with large caliber weapons, as well as those of artillery-delivered gas attacks, and there can be no doubt that artillery was an effective killer. German production of artillery shells went from 1.36 million in 1914 to 36 million in 1916. Certainly, many (if not most) of those were fired across no-man’s land into allied positions. On the other side, Britain’s Royal Artillery fired 170 million shells by the war’s end, sometimes in barrages that would last for days. The sheer volume of artillery ammunition expended during the First World War certainly made life on the battlefield very dangerous. Given the importance of artillery to the First World War and the centenary of the war, a broad survey of the topic seems in order. Ideally, over the course of the centenary, I will periodically add installments to this space. While I spent over 10 years as a professional artilleryman, I am only an amateur historian; therefore, I do not presume I will add anything new to the wealth of information already written about artillery in the multitude of volumes on the First World War, including several texts dealing exclusively with the subject. There are also some very detailed and worthwhile websites on the topic. However, I have noted that this wealth of information is a lot like disconnected pockets of gold in a mine. By bringing together some basic facts and interesting information from both the printed works and these websites, my goal is to provide a useful starting point for discussion and further research for those with an interest in artillery during the First World War. I also will try to bring the topic to the soldier’s level by tying in post cards, documents, and other items related to artillery in the First World War that I have collected over the years. This also will allow me to try and focus the discussion more on the tactical level of regiment and below rather than on the strategic and operational levels above divisions. The series started with two articles introducing Germany and France's artillery. These have already been published in GMIC Articles. (The above paragraphs are copied from the introduction of the "The Kaiser's Guns," the first in the series.) They are survey articles looking at the topic from a pre-war and macro level. Artillery in the First World War: The Kaiser’s Guns Artillery in the First World War: France - Vive la Soixante-Quinze The next article in the series will be "Artillery in the First World War: Russia – The Tsar’s Cannons" This article will not only be a survey of Russian artillery from a pre-war and macro level, but will also delve into Russian artillery at the Battle of Tannenberg. This should be published to coincide with the 100th Anniversary of the battle, 26-30 August. Hopefully, an article delving into both French and German artillery at the First Battle of the Marne, 5-12 September, will quickly follow. The series will then pick back up with survey articles on British, Austro-Hungarian, and Turkish artillery, as well as on the artillery of the smaller combatant nations. In the meantime, enjoy this video I found while researching the Russian artillery article:

Yea, Germany has won more football games than wars in the 20th Century.

Hmmm. A bread bag?

I have no idea, Andy. I pulled it off a Google search. I wish I had your "close up" of the FussArtl. officer with the periscope in your other topic.

One of these perhaps...

Say what?

The Lovett Artillery website has this extract from the "Ehrenbuch der Deut. FussArt." FussArt Btl 62 1. Batterie - 15cm sFH M93 2. Batterie - s 10cm K (Marine) 3. Batterie - 15cm sFH M93 It also cites the Artillerie Beoab. Schule

I seriously doubt it's a quantity of guns. In 1914, according to Hermann Cron's book, Fuß-Artillerie battalions consisted of two types; heavy howitzer battalions and mortar battalions. Heavy howitzer battalions had 16 howitzers (typically the 15cm schwere Feldhaubitze - 15 cm sFH), manned by 1219 troops and were supported by 707 horses and 56 ammunition wagons. Herbert Jäger's figures are 416 15cm heavy field howitzers total at the outbreak of the war. Heavy batteries typically had four guns; even if the Fußart.Btl. 62 had four batteries (in 1918), that would be 16 guns. I can't imagine this type of garrison unit having more guns - even for training.

According to the UK National Archives reference, "D.S.C." is the abbreviation for the South African "Divisional Signal Company"

That's what she said.

This is at the top of my wish list. Unfortunately, it's at the bottom of my wife's budget.

While it's difficult to reference because it isn't indexed very well (and focuses more on the politics/personalities than the guns), I also couldn't find a heavy howitzer model 1896 in William Manchester's book, "The Arms of Krupp"

See Post #8. I've been researching German WWI artillery for quite some time and these are the best resources I have found. As I've mentioned, researching FussArtillerie is very difficult; like looking for pfennigs on the beach. Resources are scattered on the web and print and all are incomplete.

Andy, your sources are always very good, but I don't think there was a "schwere Feldhaubitze 96" Franz Kosar's book, "Artillerie im 20 Jahrhundert" is probably the best print resource on WWI artillery pieces, he lists: 15cm schweres Feldhaubitze M1893 (as in your photos) and it's successor piece the 15cm schweres Feldhaubitze M1902 There also was the 10.5cm Feldkanone M1899 and M1902/04 - mainly guns of the FussArtillerie. The only piece with model year 1896 were FeldArtillerie guns - the famous 7.7cm Feldkanone 96 (FK 96 a/A). The FeldArtillerie also had the 10.5cm leichte Feldhaubitze M1898/09. This is corroborated by two of the best websites available on WWI and German artillery: Lovett Artillery Collection Landships II Three other very good websites on WWI artillery also make no mention of a "schwere Feldhaubitze 96". Nor does Herbert Jager's book, "German Artillery of World War One." Jager writes a bit about German artillery development just prior to WWI. He mentions that Krupp pieces from the mid-1870s saw fortress (and probably training school) service into WWI; the next big advancement was in 1894-1899. But he only writes about the 7.7cm Feldkanone M96 (both alter Art and neue Art). Andy, does your artillery source have any other unit armed with a "schwere Feldhaubitze 96"? Perhaps it's a typo.

Article with link to archives on the Centenary News website.