The Battle of the Frontiers

When we think of World War I we usually think of the endless battles in trenches. It is true that much of the war was fought from armies facing off in trenches but for the first month and a half of the war the armies moved very fast and fighting was moving through the villages, countryside and cities of Europe. In fact when Germany invaded France again in World War II using the infamous blitzkrieg tactics and panzers (tanks) it did not move significant faster than the German invasion of World War I.

Speed was essential to the German invasion in the Battle of the Frontiers (See "Why Belgium"). But just as Germany had the Schlieffen Plan, France had a plan of its own. It was known as "Plan XVII." While not as detailed as the Schlieffen Plan it was the guiding force behind the French army for the first few weeks of the war. Plan XVII was to be a reaction to a war with Germany, it called for a rapid mobilization of the French army and to have it quickly positioned on the border with Belgium and Germany. With most of the Army position on the border with Germany (the exact opposite of the German Schlieffen Plan).

France was not caught off guard by a German invasion through Belgium, in fact the French army was expecting it (French spies had even acquired some (but not all) of German plans before the war). The French plan was to take advantage of the weakly protected German border. France could invade Germany, retaking its lost territory along the border and turn north moving up though Germany into Belgium. The Germany army would then be trapped in Belgium unable to move past the Belgian fortresses when supported by a combined French and Belgian army. With the main French army south of them and a combined Belgian and French army to the west. Being attack on two sides at once German army would be crushed and the war would be over in a matter of weeks, months at the most.   

In many ways the Germans and the French had the same plan: bypass the main enemy force, turn around and it attack from behind or the side. When war broke the race was on, France trying to rush east and Germany trying to rush west. Both sides were confident of victory and both would fail to encircle the other. But the German assault would initially be much more successful. Pushing through Belgium and deep into France. The French armies initially were successful in entering into German territory and forcing back the German army. But within a few days the German army counter attacked and the French invasion of Germany started to fall apart.

The primary reason that the French invasion failed and the German invasion succeeded was the German army was better prepared for a modern war than the French army. The last major wars to be fought in Europe prior to World War One were fought in the 1870's. These wars were fought with weapons and equipment not all that different from the American Civil War. No nation on earth had much experience fighting against an enemy who had machine guns, heavy artillery, telephones, telegraphs, airplanes and railroads. The European military minds had nothing but past experience and intuition (with a heavy dose of guesswork) on how a modern army should function. For example at the start of the war none of the nations involved issued metal helmets to their troops. Troops were issued hats or caps, even the famous spiked helm of the German army was actually made of polished leather and was intended to be more decorative then offer any real protection.

The German army put its faith in it massive industrial capacity. It built an army around the use of heavy artillery and machine guns. All of the major European armies had both artillery and machine guns in abundance, but they used them differently then Germany. They did not concentrate them one place but tended to spread them out over large areas. Germany would gather its artillery and machine guns into specific locations were they could have a decisive impact.

France put its faith in the speed and fighting spirit of its men. It was the French belief that the army with greatest confidence and fighting spirit would win, and that the best defense was a good offence. This philosophy seemed sound in theory, but would prove disastrous.

For example on the onset of the war British troops wore dark khaki, the German troops wore dark green or grey, Austro-Hungarian troops wore grey-blue or green and the Russian troops wore green or brown. But the French dismissed the use of dark colors that could provide some camouflage. The French army went to war in much the same uniforms it had in the nineteenth century. Infantry wore bright red caps with a red shirt and trousers, covered by a brilliant blue overcoat with large decorative buttons. The cavalry wore polished steel breastplate and leather helmets with great plumes. There had been those in the French army that wanted to modernize the uniforms but this idea was met with great resistance as the French uniform was seen as symbol of national pride. Despite the resistance the French army was in the process of replacing these older uniform. But there would be months of war before the new uniforms reached the troops. It was believed that men in drab uniforms would not have the same confidence as a man in a dashing traditional uniform and camouflage would only encourage men to take cover when they should be on the attack. Even the new modern uniforms reflected this thinking. They were colored blue-grey, so a man would blend into the sky of the horizon but would be of little use hiding in foliage or trenches.

Another shortcoming of the French army was the philosophy of "always attack." In the Battle of the Frontiers French troops heading into battle were only issue a small number of machine guns and only lighter artillery. The idea being that heavy machine guns (at this time machine guns usually required two or three men to carry and fire them) and artillery would slow the troops down too much. In the French philosophy it was speed and not firepower that would carry the day. As it turned out this was not be the case. Additionally this philosophy was problematic because if an initial French attack failed the French troops were poorly equipped and trained for how to deal with a counter attack. The philosophy of "always attack" did not hold up on modern battlefield where battles would rage for weeks (as opposed to days in 19th century wars) and consist of a series of attacks and counter attacks.

Finally the French army suffered from the same problem that all the nations fighting the war suffered. All the troops, officers and generals had been trained in the thinking of warfare in the 19th century. The world had never seen a conflict like World War One and no nation was truly prepared for it. An example of this thinking is that troops in World War One did not fight in small teams like soldiers today. They fought like in the American Civil War in groups of one hundred or even more. By 1914 troops did not generally march in lines in battle but they did move in large groups in combat that were easily seen and fired upon.

Now let us look at the factors of the German and French army to see why the French invasion of Germany failed.

Imagine this hypothetical (but historically likely) scenario of a battle between German and French forces. A French force of one thousand troops are advancing into Germany. A scout reports that the about one hundred German troops are in a position at the top of a nearby hill with no artillery. Conventional wisdom of the military training at the time would be for the French to rush and attack (taking advantage of their numerical superiority) the German troops on hill before they could be reinforced or haul artillery into position. This was how battles in the 19th century were fought and won; speed, aggression and bravery.

But this was 1914. The hundred German troops on the top of the hill had ten machine guns. In 1914 most infantry carried bolt-action single shot rifles. A well trained solider could fire 30 aimed shots in minute. A World War One machine gunner could fire 400 to 600 shot in a minute. Both the rifles the machine guns could hit a target at the range at 1000 yards. The advancing French troops would rush forward in a great mass with their easily seen brightly colored uniforms. They would need to run though 1000 yards (ten football fields) of fire, facing about over 6000 bullets being fired at them every minute. As if that was not bad enough the German commander on the hill had a telephone. Though there was no artillery on the hill, there was a German artillery battery a few miles away (far out of sight). The telephone had wire laid down the hill to a communication post with runners to carry a messages. In a matter of minutes the German artillery battery, who could not even see the French troops, could fire their guns at the positions the German commander on the hill relayed to them (Something impossible only a few decades earlier). Facing a hail of bullets and artillery shells raining down on them the French troop would be massacred before they could hope to reach the hill.

This scenario played out over and over during the Battle of the Frontiers, with every nation involved being on the losing side of it at times. It was not uncommon for thousands to soldiers to die every day. For example August 22, 1914 was (and still is) the deadliest day in French army history. In that 24 hour period approximately  27,000 French soldiers died.  It was these kind of losses that resulted in the iconic trench warfare that World War One would become infamous for. The trenches came as a necessity to prevent these types of horrendous losses and it was these same trenches that would deadlock the conflict between France and Great Britain against Germany for the next four years.