How competent were Britain's First World War Generals?

"Not very" is the standard response. "Haven't you seen Blackadder?" Case closed.

Well, I would beg to differ. I am going to open up the question. Because that's the kind of guy I am.

First question: what do you mean by competence? Winning the war? Ah, that was the Blockade - nothing to do with the Western Front. Well, let's - just for the sake of argument - assume that's true. What, now, does competence mean in terms of the Western Front?

"Not ordering your men to walk slowly towards the enemy?" Yes, but that (as I understand it) only happened once: 1 July 1916 at the beginning of the battle of the Somme. And, anyway, in that case the Germans were just as guilty eg 1st Battle of Ypres.

Perhaps, then, they were all incompetent - every man jack of them. But how likely is that? Are we really to say that not a single one of the armies of Europe was able to produce a competent general? And it seems clear that away from the Western Front: Serbia, Tanganiyka, Palestine and the Middle East, there was no lack of competence. We even have examples, eg Allenby, of generals who were supposedly very mediocre on the Western Front but became tactical geniuses when they arrived in the Middle East.

No, it doesn't stack up. You can't have it both ways. Either there were competent generals on the Western Front or there were no competent generals anywhere. And as Palestine and Serbia rather tend to suggest that there were some competent types somewhere we have to conclude that there were some competents on the Western Front.

But that still doesn't give us a measure. Let's try this one: being able to capture heavily fortified positions, inflicting heavier casualties on the enemy than he inflicts on you.

There are quite a few operations that don't really fit the bill: Ludendorff Offensive - defences not well fortified, 1914 German advance - ditto.

So what do fit these criteria:

• German attack on Verdun
  
• Vimy Ridge
  
• Messines Ridge
  
• Storming of the Hindenburg Line

I am pretty sure about those. There are some might bes:

• Nivelle Offensive (not the disaster everyone thinks it was)
  
• Amiens
  
• Georgette
  
• 14 July 1916
  
• Cambrai (initially)
  
• Le Hamel
  
• The French half of 1 July 1916
  
• Passchendaele

Now, if you accept my criteria then it tends to suggest that the British were really rather good. However, you could just as easily argue that the Germans weren't really attacking and that the Allies weren't really defending. And you could argue that the Germans couldn't afford to lose as many men as the Allies. And you could argue that the French spent an awful lot of time waiting for the British to get up to speed.

Whatever it is, it is not a simple question.

Update 30/07/04

I've added some footnotes to this here.