Talk:Third Battle of the Aisne

Good job
Nice work Spawnman! If you could though, it would be nice to return in the aftermth to a few topics you mention in the intro. A few questions still remain, and as i am completely ignorant on the matter, maybe you can expand a bit.
 * For example, did the divisionary attack work? Did the allied troops need to redeploy?
 * You say they captured 50,000 men; that seems like quite a victory, but the battle seems to be characterized as a draw with minor German gains.
 * Was the German position sustainable? You note the advance was halted, and it had several problems (supply lines, counter attacks), so perhaps a kind of sketch as to the German position in the end would be nice. Were they surrounded, resupplied or something else?

The main bulk is looking good; i like your writing style, its very clear and to the point! --The Minister of War 07:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To answer a few of your points:


 * The German territory gain was quite big. They after all, did actually reach within 60 km of Paris, something which had not ben seen since 1914, see Great Retreat & First Battle of the Marne. So although the Germans gained lots in territory, they still lost the battle due to the fact that they basically ran out of steam at the last hurdle.
 * I would assume the diversionary attack worked, as there were quite a few large-scale battles as the offensive continued. Also, the British troops mentioned, had recently been redeployed on the Aisne from Flanders before the subject battle.
 * I'm not quite sure however, what exactly you mean by, was the German position sustainable?
 * I'm glad you like my writing style...

Thanks. Spawn Man 11:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this does clarify quite nicely; they'd make a nice addition to the article as well imho. But to see if i get you right, you mention that the attack was meant to ease the front in Flanders; does your answer mean that they were in fact succesful in diverting allied forces from Flanders to Paris?
 * About sustainable, you mention that the Germans run out of steam, but in the aftermath there is no mention of the consequences of this. To me it implies they were unable to hold the position, but maybe thats just me. Still, you note at the end that "Ludendorff, encouraged by the gains of Blucher-Yorck, would launch further offensives cumulating in the Second Battle of the Marne." implying they launched these offensives from this new position. So were they able to solve the supply line problem? --The Minister of War 12:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi,


 * Yes, I'm pretty sure that some forces were diverted from Flanders to the Aisne, although I haven't a clear or precise source on this.
 * The German position was sustainable, but they could not actually capture Paris like they thought due to those ailments. NOTE: I didn't actually write the, "Ludendorff, encouraged by the gains of Blucher-Yorck, would launch further offensives cumulating in the Second Battle of the Marne", line. Someone else did. However I would presume that maybe while defending themselves from the Allied counter-attacks, their morale perked up, or the got supplies\reinforcements, & were able to launch the Second Battle of the Marne. I myself am not an actual expert on the topic, I just wrote down what my sources told me (very secret service!). So I would think that the person who wrote the above line would be better informed on that stage of the battle.... Thanks. Spawn Man 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

0.5 nom
This article was nominated for Version 0.5 I failed this article because it has no references, well-written though, maybe try to combine the 3 Aisne battles together. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed text:
I've removed the following text from the article because it is suspected to be copy & pasted & it is at least badly written. Placing it here for anyone to decided what to do with it. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

British Forces were involved in the 3rd Battle of the Aisne/ Chemin des Dames on the 27th May to 6th June 1918:(Check out the link for more information:http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44335&hl= )

Order of Battle:

British IX Corps Sir Alexander Hamilton Gordon

8th Division: Major-General W C G Heneker

23rd Brigade: Brigadier-General W St G Grogan VC

2nd Devonshire 2nd West Yorkshire 2nd Middlesex

24th Brigade: Brigadier-General- General R Haig (wounded)

1st Worcestershire 1st Sherwood Foresters 2nd Northamptonshire

25th Brigade: Brigadier-General R H Husey (Killed In Action)

2nd East Lancashire 2nd Royal Berkshire 2nd Rifle Brigade

R F A Brigades:

XXXIII XLV

Field Coys. R E:

2 15 490

Pioneers:

22nd Durham

21st Division: Major-General D G M Campbell

62nd Brigade: Brigadier-General G H Gater

12/13th Northumberland Fusiliers 1st Lincolnshire 2nd Lincolnshire

64th Brigade: Brigadier-General H R Headlam

9th KOYLI 15th Durham

110th Brigade: Brigadier-General H R Cumming

6th Leicestershire 7th Leicestershire 8th Leicestershire

R F A Brigades:

XCIV XCV

Field Coys. R E:

97 98 126

Pioneers:

14th Northumberland Fusiliers

25th Division: Major-General Sir E G T Bainbridge

7th Brigade: Brigadier-General C J Griffin

10th Cheshire 4th South Staffordshire 1st Wiltshire

74th Brigade: Brigadier-General H M Craigie Halkett

11th Lancashire Fusiliers 3rd Worcestershire 9th Loyal North Lancashire

75th Brigade: Brigadier-General A A Kennedy

11th Cheshire 8th Border Regiment 2nd South Lancashire

R F A Brigades:

110 112

Field Coys. R E:

105 106 130

Pioneers:

6th South Wales Borderers

50th Division: Major-General H C Jackson

149th Brigade: Brigadier-General E P A Riddell (wounded)

4th Northumberland Fusilers 5th Northumberland Fusilers 6th Northumberland Fusilers

150th Brigade: Brigadier-General H C Rees (Prisoner of War)

4th East Yorkshire 4th Yorkshire 5th Yorkshire

151st Brigade: Brigadier-General C T Martin (Killed in Action)

5th Durham 6th Durham 8th Durham

R F A Brigades:

250th 251st

Field Coys. R E

7 446 447

Pioneers:

7th Durham

A Russian brigage also fought there; 54 Russians are buried in the Memorial French Cemetery.

US 92d & 93d Divisions.
The first paragraph contains this passage: "American soldiers of the 92nd Infantry Division and the 93rd Infantry Division were the first Americans to fight in France, albeit detached from the AEF and under French command.[citation needed]a[›] The 92nd & 93rd would continue to fight under French command for the duration of the war." Both sentences are incorrect and should be deleted. Further, it appears neither unit took part in the subject Battle.

The 92d Divisions began sailing on 7 June 1918 and closed at ports in France on 12 July 1918. Not only does this put their arrival after the subject Battle, but their arrival post-dates initial combat by several other US divisions. The 92d first served in a quiet sector in the Voges where it received training under French command (as did most US divisions). During the initial stages of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, the division (less one regiment fighting under the French) served in the US I Corps as reserve. In Octotber it fought as part of the US VI Corps, which was under the US First Army. Upon establishment of the US Second Army, on 12 Octber 1918, the US VI Corps and the 92d Division were placed under that command. They served under the US Second Army for the remainder of the war. Source: http://www.history.army.mil/topics/afam/92div.htm#4

The 93d "Division" was merely a provisional grouping of regiments for movement to France. It was never intended to be an operational division nor did it serve as such (as far as WWI went). It never had a permanent division headquarters or divisional troops (artillery, engineers, signal, medical units, etc.) established or assigned. Upon arrival in theater, the provisional division headquarters was disestablished, and the regiments were intended to serve as lines-of-communications troops (12 white divisions were skeletonized or converted to depot/lines of communications troops in this manner during the war). Contemporary US Army documents from WWI do not even list a 93d division as being part of the division-level organizations in-theater in WWI. [Source: http://www.gwpda.org/docs/statistics/diagrams/d46.gif]  It's individual regiments did arrive in theater early enough to - theoretically - serve in the Third Battle of the Aisne, but they did not take part in that battle. The four regiments either arrived at the front after the Third Battle of the Aisne, were stationed near the Swiss border at the time, and/or occupied static sectors which took no part in the Battle. The 369th Regiment was the only one in the line anywhere near the Thrid Battle of the Aisne, but it was in the quiet Afrique Sector, occupying a section 30 miles east of the area of the Battle.

The first American troops to fight in France (about 2500) did so during the Battle of Cambia (Nov-Dec 1917), before any of these two black units arrived in theater. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on the above considerations, I deleted the references to the US 92d and 93d Divisions, as well as the explanatory note. Neither division was involved in the battle and the passages were generally incorrect in all regards.

98.255.89.22 (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)