Second Battle of Champagne
The Second Battle of Champagne in World War I was a French offensive against the German army at Champagne that coincided with an Anglo-French assault at north-east Artois and ended with French retreat.
Battle
On 25 September 1915, twenty divisions of the Second Army and Fourth Army of Groupe d'armées du Centre, attacked at with each division on a front. A second line of seven divisions followed, with one infantry division and six cavalry divisions in reserve. Six German divisions held the line opposite, in a front position and a reserve position the R-Stellung further back. French artillery observers benefitted from good weather but on the night of heavy rain began and fell until midday.The German front position was broken in four places and two of the penetrations reached as far as the R-Stellung, where uncut barbed wire prevented the French from advancing further. In one part of the line, the French artillery barrage continued after the first German line had been taken, resulting in friendly fire casualties. The French took and several guns but French casualties were also high; the Germans had anticipated the French attack, having been able to watch the French preparations from their high ground and outposts. The main defensive effort was made at the R-Stellung, behind which the bulk of the German field artillery had been withdrawn. A supporting attack by the French 3rd Army on the Aisne took no ground. German reserves, directed personally by Falkenhayn, plugged any gaps in the German lines.
Joffre allotted two reserve divisions to the GAC and ordered the Groupe d'armées de l'Est to send all 75 mm field gun ammunition, except for per gun, to the Second and Fourth armies. On 26 September, the French attacked again, closed up to the R-Stellung on a front and gained a foothold in one place. Another troops were captured but attacks against the R-Stellung from broke through on 28 September. A German counter-attack next day recaptured the ground, most of which was on a reverse slope, which had deprived the French artillery of ground observation; Joffre suspended the offensive until more ammunition could be supplied and ordered that the captured ground be consolidated and cavalry units be withdrawn. Smaller French attacks against German salients continued from
Aftermath
Analysis
On 3 October, Joffre abandoned the attempt at a breakthrough in Champagne, ordered the local commanders to fight a battle of attrition and then terminated the offensive on 6 November. The offensive in Champagne had advanced the French line for about, at a cost of French and British casualties than German losses. The French had attacked in Champagne with against the equivalent of divisions. On the Champagne front, the Fourth, Second and Third armies had fired artillery and shells, which with the consumption in Artois during the Third Battle of Artois, exhausted the French stock of ammunition.French methods and equipment were insufficient for the demands of trench warfare and a lull followed, as the French rested the survivors of the offensive, replaced losses and accumulated more equipment and ammunition. French artillery was unable to destroy the German artillery, often situated on the reverse slope of the Champagne hillsides. In some instances French regiments attacked with bands playing and their regimental flags waving. On 22 October, Joffre claimed that the autumn offensive had resulted in important tactical gains, inflicted many casualties and achieved a moral superiority over the Germans and that only a lack of artillery had led to a failure to achieve the strategic objectives of the offensive. To keep as many German troops as possible away from the Eastern Front, offensive operations must continue but troops in the front line were to be kept to the minimum over the winter and a new strategy was to be formulated.
The theoretical bases of the French offensives of 1915 had been collected in But et conditions d'une action offensive d'ensemble and its derivative Note 5779, which had been compiled from analyses of reports received from the front since 1914. The document contained instructions on infiltration tactics, rolling barrages and poison gas, which were to be used systematically in continuous battles to create rupture. Continuous battle was to be replaced by step-by-step advances, through successive German defence lines. Methodical attacks were to be made each time and would inexorably consume German infantry reserves. The German defences would eventually collapse and make a breakthrough attack feasible. The slower, more deliberate methods, would conserve French infantry, as they battered through the deeper defences built by the Germans since 1914.
In the autumn battles, the Allies had outnumbered the Westheer by battalions but had not achieved a breakthrough and after the first day, German reinforcements made one impossible. Several divisions had returned from the Eastern Front but were tired and of little value. The German commander in chief, General Erich von Falkenhayn had underestimated the possibility of an offensive and kept the Oberste Heeresleitung reserve spread all along the Western Front, rather than concentrating it in threatened areas. French reviews of the offensive found that reserves had moved close to the front, ready to exploit a breakthrough and had advanced on time. The troops had then become bunched up with the leading divisions, blocked the lines of communication and suffered many casualties, while held up. Communications failed and commanders had been in ignorance of the situation, artillery co-ordination with the infantry had been poor and rain grounded French artillery-observation aircraft. Many of the French commanders concluded that a breakthrough could not be forced in one attack and that it would take several set-piece battles, to make the defenders collapse and be unable to prevent a return to mobile operations.
The German report, Experiences of the 3rd Army in the Autumn Battles in the Champagne, 1915, noted that unyielding defence of the most forward positions had failed several times, because the attackers had severely damaged German field fortifications and cut the barbed wire obstacles in front of them, by long artillery bombardments. The second position had not been broken into and the 3rd Army reported that the decision to construct the second position had been vindicated, since the French had to suspend their attacks until artillery had been moved forward, which took until 4 October. The momentum of the initial breakthrough had not been maintained, because the French troops crowding forward had become disorganised, which made co-ordinated attacks impossible to arrange. French prisoners were reported to have said that there had been no methodical staging of the reserves to exploit a breakthrough and concluded with the view that a breakthrough might still be possible.
Lack of troops made it impossible for the Germans to respond with big counter-attacks but smaller hasty counter-attacks by local troops, had succeeded against French units weakened by losses, which had not had time to consolidate captured ground. It was recommended that such reserves should be made available by reducing the number of German troops in the front line, as one man every in the front line was enough. Co-operation between all arms, assistance from neighbouring sectors and the exploitation of flanking moves had defeated the French offensive. More intermediate strong points, built for all-round defence were recommended, between the first and second positions. Defence of the first position was still the intention but deeper defences would dissipate the effect of a breakthrough and force the attackers to make numerous individual attacks, in areas where local knowledge and preparation of the ground would be advantageous to the defenders. Observation posts should be made secure from attack, reconnaissance reports acted on promptly and communication links were to be made as robust as possible. A wide field of fire was unnecessary and to be dispensed with, to make each part of the position defensible by placing defences on reverse slopes, concealed from ground observation
In his memoirs, Falkenhayn wrote that the autumn battle showed that on the Western Front, quantity was not enough to defeat armies sheltering in field defences
and that the plans made earlier in 1915, for an offensive in France were obsolete. Falkenhayn needed to resolve the paradoxical lessons of the war since 1914, to find a way to end the war favourably for Germany, which culminated at Verdun in 1916, when Falkenhayn tried to induce the French to repeat the costly failure of the Second Battle of Champagne.