Battle of St Quentin Canal
Battle of St Quentin Canal | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I | |||||||
Breaking the Hindenburg Line by William Longstaff | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
United States | Germany | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Sir Henry Rawlinson Sir John Monash Sir Walter Braithwaite George Windle Read | Adolph von Carlowitz | ||||||
Strength | |||||||
32 divisions: 30 British Empire; two American divisions[1] | 39 divisions[a] | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
8,802 (partial)[3][4] 13,182[5] 2,577[6] | 36,000 POW[7] |
The Battle of St Quentin Canal was a pivotal battle of
Background
Rawlinson wanted the Australian Corps, under the command of Lieutenant General Sir John Monash, with its well-earned reputation, to spearhead the attack. Monash was unhappy, because his Australian force was by now short of manpower and many soldiers were showing signs of strain, having been heavily engaged in fighting for several months. There had been some episodes of mutiny by troops who were feeling unfairly put upon.[11] Monash was however very pleased when Rawlinson offered him the American II Corps (the U.S. 27th and 30th Divisions),[12] which still remained at the disposal of the British command, since American divisions were twice the numerical strength of their British counterparts.[13][b] U.S. Corps commander Major General George Windle Read handed command of his American force for the duration of the action to Monash.[14][15] However, the American soldiers lacked battle experience. A small group of 217 Australian officers and N.C.O.s was assigned to the U.S. troops for advice and liaison.[16] The British high command considered that German morale was suffering badly and that their capacity to resist was much weakened.[17] Monash believed that the operation would be "more a matter of engineering and organisation than of fighting." [18] Whilst there had been some evidence of poor German morale from previous operations, this proved to be a dangerous assumption.[19]
Monash was tasked with drawing up the battle plan. He would use the Americans to breach the
Prelude
After the German spring offensive, British Empire, French, and American counterattacks during the Hundred Days Offensive brought the Allies back up against the outposts of the Hindenburg Line by the autumn of 1918, close to the village of Bellicourt, where the Battle of Épehy was fought on 18 September 1918.[17]
Preliminary operation of 27 September
Monash's plan assumed that the Hindenburg outpost line would be in Allied hands by the date set for the start of the battle. Whilst the Australians had already captured it in the southern part of the front (from where the American 30th Division would launch its attack), the northern section of the line was still in German hands.
The U.S. attack was unsuccessful. Monash asked Rawlinson for permission to delay the main attack due on 29 September, but this was refused because of the priority given to Marshal
Main assault of 29 September
The battle was preceded by the greatest British artillery bombardment of the war. Some 1,600 guns were deployed (1,044 field guns and 593 heavy guns and howitzers),
Attack over Bellicourt Tunnel
On 29 September, the two American divisions attacked followed by the two Australian divisions, with approximately 150 tanks of the 4th and 5th Tank Brigades of the British
On the left of the front, where the U.S. 27th Division began at a disadvantage, none of the objectives were met on the first day and the Americans suffered severe losses. The 107th Infantry Regiment suffered the worst casualties sustained in a single day by any U.S. regiment during the war.[40] Rather than leapfrogging through the Americans, the Australian 3rd Division became involved in a desperate fight for positions that should already have been captured had Monash's plan run to timetable. Despite some individual acts of heroism[41] the lack of progress on the left of the front had an adverse effect on the progress of the right of the front too. As the American 30th Division and then the Australian 5th Division moved forward whilst the units to their left did not, they had to contend with German fire from the side and rear as well as from ahead.[42] An added difficulty was thick fog across the battlefield in the earlier stages of the attack which led to American troops passing by Germans without realising that they were there, with the Germans causing severe problems to the Americans following the assault wave.[43] Fog also caused problems for infantry/tank cooperation.[44][d] The 30th Division broke through the Hindenburg Line in the fog on 29 September 1918, entering Bellicourt, capturing the southern entrance of Bellicourt Tunnel and reaching the village of Nauroy, where Australian troops joined them to continue the attack.[46]
The advancing Australians came across large groups of leaderless, disoriented Americans. Charles Bean wrote: "By 10 o'clock Monash's plan had gone to the winds.... From that hour onward ... the offensive was really directed by Australian battalion or company commanders at the front..."[47] The 30th Division won the praise of General John J. Pershing, who wrote: "... the 30th Division did especially well. It broke through the Hindenburg Line on its entire front and took Bellicourt and part of Nauroy by noon of the 29th."[48] There has since been considerable debate over the extent to which the American forces were successful.[49] Monash wrote: "...in this battle they demonstrated their inexperience in war, and their ignorance of some of the elementary methods of fighting employed on the French front. For these shortcomings they paid a heavy price. Their sacrifices, nevertheless, contributed quite definitely to the partial success of the day's operations..."[50] The objective of U.S. II Corps, the Catelet–Nauroy Line, was not captured by the Americans. During the battle, Monash was furious about the performance of the American divisions.[51] Late on 29 September Rawlinson wrote: "The Americans appear to be in a state of hopeless confusion and will not, I fear, be able to function as a corps, so I am contemplating replacing them ... I fear their casualties have been heavy, but it is their own fault."[52]
Meanwhile, on the right of the Bellicourt Tunnel front, the Australian
By this stage in the war the Tank Corps had suffered greatly and there were fewer tanks available for the battle than had been deployed in the Battle of Amiens in August. Eight tanks were destroyed when they strayed into an old British minefield but the 29 September attack also highlighted the high vulnerability of tanks to strong German anti-tank measures. In one instance, four heavy tanks and five medium tanks were destroyed in the space of 15 minutes by German field guns at the same location.[54] This was during the attempt to subdue severe machine gun fire coming from the Le Catelet–Nauroy Line in the vicinity of Cabaret Wood Farm[55][page needed] (a tank fort – see map) and showed the danger posed by German field guns to tanks operating without close infantry support (because the crew had very limited visibility and often could not see a threat which those outside the tank could see). The tanks could protect the infantry but they also needed the close cooperation of the infantry to alert them to the danger of concealed field guns.[56][page needed] In the case of this attack, the machine gun fire was so severe that the infantry were ordered to withdraw, leaving the tanks well forward of them and prey to the German field guns.[57]
Attack across the canal cutting
The attack across the canal cutting, also known as the Battle of Bellenglise,
The ferocity of the creeping artillery barrage contributed greatly to the success of the assault, keeping the Germans pinned in their
The assault across the canal met all of its objectives, on schedule, at a cost of somewhat fewer than 800 casualties to the division.[70] The great success of the day had come where many had least expected it. The 46th Division assault was considered to be one of the outstanding feats of arms of the war.[71] Bean described the attack as an "extraordinarily difficult task" and "a wonderful achievement" in his official Australian war history.[72] Monash wrote that it was "an astonishing success...[which] materially assisted me in the situation in which I was placed later on the same day".[37]
Later in the day the leading brigades of the 32nd Division (including Lt
Aftermath
Subsequent fighting
On 2 October, the British 46th and 32nd Divisions, supported by the Australian 2nd Division, planned to capture the Beaurevoir Line (the third line of defences of the Hindenburg Line), the village of Beaurevoir and the heights overlooking the Beaurevoir Line. While the attack succeeded in widening the breach in the Beaurevoir Line, it was unable to seize the high ground further on. However, by 2 October, the attack had resulted in a 17 km breach in the Hindenburg Line.[6]
Continuing attacks from 3 to 10 October (including those by the Australian 2nd Division capturing Montbrehain on 5 October and the British 25th Division capturing the village of Beaurevoir on 5/6 October) managed to clear the fortified villages behind the Beaurevoir Line, and capture the heights overlooking the Beaurevoir Line – resulting in a total break in the Hindenburg Line.[76][77] The Australian Corps was subsequently withdrawn from the line after the fighting on 5 October, for rest and reorganisation. They would not return to the front before the Armistice on 11 November.[78]
Cemeteries and memorials
Dead American soldiers from the battle were interred in the
Notes
- ^ Bean lists the following German divisions facing the attack: 54th, 121st, 185th, 75th Reserve, 21st, 2nd Guards, 2nd, 119th, 241st, 54th, 24th, 8th and 21st Reserve divisions. Note: this list is incomplete, as it does not include the forces facing the Allies after 5 October.[2]
- ^ A number of U.S. divisions had trained in the British sector with British instructors, though Pershing had always resisted having their entire training carried out by the British. The 27th and 30th Divisions were the only ones which Pershing permitted to remain with the British by this time. Both had spent their entire time since arriving in France in the British area.[13]
- ^ The two American divisions were reliant on British guns because they did not have their own artillery.[31]
- ^ The fog was however helpful to IX Corps.[45]
- ^ On the right of the IX Corps front the canal ran through the 1,200-yard (1,100 m) Le Tronquoy Tunnel, but there was no intention to launch an attack across the tunnel in the manner of the planned assault on the Bellicourt Tunnel.
- ^ The bridge had not been destroyed previously by the Germans because it was a major link to the ground they held west of the canal.
Footnotes
- ^ Boraston 1920, pp. 282–285.
- ^ Bean 1942, pp. 984, 985, 986, 995, 1008, 1013, 1027.
- ^ Nichols 2004, p. 560.
- ^ Scott & Middleton Brumwell 2001, p. 212.
- ^ Clodfelter 2002, p. 454.
- ^ a b Australian War Memorial.
- ^ Boraston 1920, p. 285.
- ^ Stacke 1928.
- ^ Montgomery 1919, pp. 151–152.
- ^ Lloyd 2014, pp. 195–198.
- ^ Blair 2011, p. 12.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 942.
- ^ a b Yockelson 2008, Chapter 12.
- ^ Yockelson 2008, Foreword.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 943.
- ^ Monash 1920, Chapter XIV.
- ^ a b Stevenson 2012, p. 139.
- ^ Blair 2011, p. 9.
- ^ Blair 2011, p. 138.
- ^ a b Monash 1920, Chapter 13.
- ^ a b Terraine 1978, p. 165.
- ^ Priestley 1919, p. 23.
- ^ Priestley 1919, p. 32.
- ^ a b Monash 1920, Chapter 14.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 952.
- ^ Yockelson 2008, Chapter 15.
- ^ Blair 2011, pp. 8, 138.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 983.
- ^ Blair 2011, p. 139.
- ^ a b Yockelson 2008, Chapter 17.
- ^ Yockelson 2008, Chapter 11.
- ^ Blair 2011, p. 8.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 956.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 994.
- ^ a b Montgomery 1919, p. 153.
- ^ Sheffield 2001, Chapter 9.
- ^ a b c d Monash 1920, Chapter 15.
- ^ Blair 2011, pp. 7–8.
- ^ Coulthard-Clark 2001, p. 163.
- ^ American Battle Monuments Commission 1938, p. 380.
- ^ American Battle Monuments Commission 1938, p. 377.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 966.
- ^ American Battle Monuments Commission 1938, p. 378.
- ^ Williams-Ellis 1919, p. 252.
- ^ Terraine 1978, p. 171.
- ^ American Battle Monuments Commission 1938, pp. 378–380.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 995.
- ^ Pershing 1931, p. 304.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 972.
- ^ Monash 1920, Chapter 17.
- ^ Blair 2011, Conclusion.
- ^ Yockelson 2008, Chapter 20.
- ^ Bean 1942, p. 973.
- ^ Terraine 1978, pp. 170–171.
- ^ Bean 1942.
- ^ Travers 1992.
- ^ War Office, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.
- ^ Priestley 1919, Chapter 1.
- ^ Montgomery 1919, p. 155.
- ^ Priestley 1919, pp. 31–32.
- ^ Priestley 1919, p. 30.
- ^ Priestley 1919, p. 31.
- ^ a b Montgomery 1919, p. 158.
- ^ Winter 2010, pp. 40–41.
- ^ Priestley 1919, pp. 41–42.
- ^ "No. 31583". The London Gazette (Supplement). 3 October 1919. p. 12221.
- ^ Priestley 1919, pp. 77–78.
- ^ Hart 2009, p. 452.
- ^ Montgomery 1919, p. 162.
- ^ Priestley 1919, Chapter 2.
- ^ Terraine 1978, p. 173.
- ^ Bean 1942, pp. 973–974.
- ^ Montgomery 1919, p. 161.
- ^ Montgomery 1919, p. 169.
- ^ Montgomery 1919, p. 170.
- ^ Terraine 1978, p. 177.
- ^ Monash 1920, Chapter 16.
- ^ Grey 2008, p. 109.
- ^ American Battle Monuments Commission 1938, pp. 387–388.
- ^ American Battle Monuments Commission 1938, p. 383.
- ^ CWGC Bellicourt.
- ^ CWGC Unicorn.
- ^ CWGC La Baraque.
- ^ CWGC Villers-Bretonneux.
- ^ CWGC Vis-en-Artois.
References
Books
- American Battle Monuments Commission (1938). American Armies and Battlefields in Europe (PDF). Washington, D.C.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - OCLC 41008291.
- Blair, Dale (2011). The Battle of Bellicourt Tunnel: Tommies, Diggers and Doughboys on the Hindenburg Line, 1918. Frontline Books. ISBN 9781848325876.
- Boraston, J. H. (1920) [1919]. Sir Douglas Haig's Despatches (repr. ed.). London: Dent. OCLC 633614212.
- Clodfelter, Micheal (2002). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500–2000 (2nd ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. ISBN 9780786412044.
- Coulthard-Clark, Chris (2001). The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles (Second ed.). Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1865086347.
- ISBN 978-0-521-69791-0.
- ISBN 9780753826898.
- ISBN 9780241953815.
- Monash, John (1920). Overton, Ned (ed.). The Australian Victories in France in 1918 (2003 eBook ed.). Project Gutenberg. OCLC 609167193.
- OCLC 67297210.
- Nichols, G. H. F. (2004) [1922]. The 18th Division in the Great War (Naval & Military Press ed.). London: Blackwood. ISBN 978-1-84342-866-4.
- Pershing, John J. (1931). My Experiences In The World War. Volume II. Frederick A. Stokes Company. OCLC 963979053.
- OCLC 1068586826.
- Middleton Brumwell, P. (2001) [1923]. Scott, A. B. (ed.). History of the 12th (Eastern) Division in the Great War, 1914–1918 (Naval & Military Press ed.). London: Nisbet. ISBN 978-1-84342-228-0. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ISBN 9780747271574.
- Stacke, H. FitzM. (1928). "The Worcestershire Regiment In The Great War". Kidderminster: G.T. Cheshire & Sons. OCLC 21645652.
- ISBN 9780141020792.
- ISBN 9780304353217.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - Travers, Tim (1992). How The War Was Won. Routledge. ISBN 9780415076289.
- ISBN 9781843425700.
- ISBN 9781921497421.
- War Office. 5 Brigade Tank Corps: 8 Battalion War History, WO 95/114/5. National Archives (UK).
- ISBN 9780806153490.
Websites
- "Bellicourt British Cemetery". CWGC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
- "La Baraque British Cemetery". CWGC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
- "St Quentin Canal". Australian War Memorial. Archived from the original on 29 September 2017. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
- "Unicorn Cemetery, Vendhuile". CWGC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
- "Villers-Bretonneux Memorial". CWGC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
- "Vis-en-Artois Memorial". CWGC. Retrieved 29 September 2017.