German soldiers preserved in World War I shelter discovered after nearly 100yrs

[roo_ster]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9074336/German-soldiers-preserved-in-World-War-I-shelter-discovered-after-nearly-100-years.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9074125/German-soldiers-found-entombed-in-a-perfectly-preserved-World-War-One-shelter.html

The men were part of a larger group of 34 who were buried alive when an Allied shell exploded above the tunnel in 1918 causing it to cave in.
Thirteen bodies were recovered from the underground shelter but the remaining men had to be left under a mountain of mud as it was too dangerous to retrieve them.
Nearly a century later French archaeologists stumbled upon the mass grave on the former Western Front during excavation work for a road building project.
Many of the skeletal remains were found in the same positions the men had been in at the time of the collapse, prompting experts to liken the scene to Pompeii.
A number of the soldiers were discovered sitting upright on a bench, one was lying in his bed and another was in the foetal position having been thrown down a flight of stairs.

Fascinating.

Not liking the idea of having soil collapsed about myself and suffocating.

[vaskidmark]

Rest in peace.

Hopefully their families still remember them and can now close that chapter.  "Missing, and presumed dead" is possibly the worst news a family could receive.

stay safe.

[RoadKingLarry]

 

Even the skeleton of a goat was found, assumed to be a source of fresh milk for the soldiers

I wonder how common that would have been?

[vaskidmark]

I wonder how common that would have been?

Trench warfare is really pretty static, in spite of all the "over the top" attacks.  Lines remained the same for years.  I imagine that, like all soldiers, they took advantage of every opportunity to make their living conditions better.  Decorations, ways/means to get up out of the water/mud, fresh milk, even pets.

Although I would have expected a complex of that size to have dedicated a stable area for a herd of goats and a corps of soldiers dedicated to tending them.  Perhaps they were empolying the "fresh container" method of delivery and the goat was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Either that or some of the perjoritive appelations directed at the enemy by Allied troops indeed had a basis in fact?

stay safe.

[MicroBalrog]

Perhaps I can help.

German military regulations allowed German units to keep auxiliary sources of food - for example to raise pigs that would be fed with leftovers from company-level kitchens. Typically these existed on the regiment level, but who knows.

[roo_ster]

I wonder how common that would have been?

All armies relied on horse-drawn logistics.  A few more domesticated critters is not going to be that big a deal.

[AJ Dual]

Kind of amazing how WWI sort of had it's feet firmly planted in both eras of warfare, the Napoleonic (for lack of a better term), trenches, lines, formations, fixed fortifications.. and the modern, gas, breechloading artillery, aircraft, machine guns, radio...

[roo_ster]

Kind of amazing how WWI sort of had it's feet firmly planted in both eras of warfare, the Napoleonic (for lack of a better term), trenches, lines, formations, fixed fortifications.. and the modern, gas, breechloading artillery, aircraft, machine guns, radio...

The American Civil War was the pivot point.

[TommyGunn]

Yes.... actually the American Civil War was fought with more modern tactics than WW1 (except for aircraft & armor).  The Civil War had trenches as well, but in WW1 they were used to the extent it stagnated the war.  Of course the invention of the machine gun did encourage people to keep their heads down.

[roo_ster]

Yes.... actually the American Civil War was fought with more modern tactics than WW1 (except for aircraft & armor).  The Civil War had trenches as well, but in WW1 they were used to the extent it stagnated the war.  Of course the invention of the machine gun did encourage people to keep their heads down.

I remember walking in on my wife watching some movie and wondering, "When has my wife EVER evidenced an interest in WWI combat movies?"

Then, I noticed the rifles and realized it was a movie taking place late in the Civil War, eastern theater.  I think the movie was Cold Mountain.  Worthless movie, outside of the combat scenes.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes.... actually the American Civil War was fought with more modern tactics than WW1 (except for aircraft & armor).  The Civil War had trenches as well, but in WW1 they were used to the extent it stagnated the war.  Of course the invention of the machine gun did encourage people to keep their heads down.

And infiltration teams...

[Waitone]

It is an interesting exercise to list the technologies which make 20th century warfare 20th century warfare.  Take the list and examine it against the American Civil War.  I came to the conclusion tactics were overwhelmed by technology which contributed to the level of casualties.

[roo_ster]

It is an interesting exercise to list the technologies which make 20th century warfare 20th century warfare.  Take the list and examine it against the American Civil War.  I came to the conclusion tactics were overwhelmed by technology which contributed to the level of casualties.

Ayup.  The first to figure it out was Longstreet.  Sherman figured out the only way to keep from becoming a bloody mess.  Lee either never learnedor was a late learner.  Grant used it all to his advantage as he worked his bloody arithmetic to the South's doom.

[MechAg94]

Questions
1.  They didn't have man portable mortars in WWI did they?  I don't recall reading of any short range infantry mortars short of cannons.  What about rifle grenades?

2.  If they had had light machine guns and sub machine guns earlier in the war, how much do you think it would have changed things? 

It seems to me that man-portable infantry weapons went through some developments from WWI to WWII.   

[MicroBalrog]

Questions
1.  They didn't have man portable mortars in WWI did they?  I don't recall reading of any short range infantry mortars short of cannons.  What about rifle grenades?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_inch_Medium_Mortar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_cm_Mortar_Type_GR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#History

2.  If they had had light machine guns and sub machine guns earlier in the war, how much do you think it would have changed things?  

The issue with WW1 was not so much weaponry but the failure of general staffs to understand the weaponry and the tactics its entailed. The few that did (Brusilov, for example, understood very clearly what the new warfare entailed) achieved spectacular results.  In fact, it's likely (Guderian's Achtung, Panzer goes into this in great detail) that many individual officers on all sides understood what was entailed, but the leadership of the various armies as a group was not capable of comprehending it. A group is often dumber than an individual.

[agricola]

The issue with WW1 was not so much weaponry but the failure of general staffs to understand the weaponry and the tactics its entailed. The few that did (Brusilov, for example, understood very clearly what the new warfare entailed) achieved spectacular results.  In fact, it's likely (Guderian's Achtung, Panzer goes into this in great detail) that many individual officers on all sides understood what was entailed, but the leadership of the various armies as a group was not capable of comprehending it. A group is often dumber than an individual.

That is perhaps a bit too harsh - after all, the senior military leaders of the time were confronted with a war for which none of them had been trained, of (at least from the 1914 viewpoint) really quite staggering continual technological advances and which rapidly became - for whatever side they were on - a rather obvious and growing disaster that noone had an idea of how to stop, much less actually win. 

That geniuses like Fuller were able to concieve of, develop, train, and execute (as he proved at Cambrai) a way of winning the war shouldnt really be used as a stick to beat the Generals with - after all, Fuller had the time and the intellect (and after the Somme, the backing) to devote himself to it.  Of course, a stick that they should be beaten with is the repeated use of tactics that they knew (or at best, should have known) would never work, and the immense (and almost unimagineable) human cost that was associated with it.   

[MechAg94]

From what I have heard, there was a lot of arrogance to go around with the general staffs of a lot of those armies. 

[wmenorr67]

From what I have heard, there was a lot of arrogance to go around with the general staffs of a lot of those armies. 

Still an issue with today's militaries.