Second Battle of Champagne

On 3 October, Joffre abandoned the attempt at a breakthrough in Champagne, ordering the local commanders to fight a battle of attrition, then terminated the offensive on 6 November. The offensive had advanced the French line for about 4 km (2.5 mi), at a cost of c. 100,000 more French and British (in Artois) casualties than German. The French had attacked in Champagne with 35 divisions against the equivalent of 16 German divisions. On the Champagne front, the Fourth, Second and Third armies had fired 2,842,400 field artillery and 577,700 heavy shells, which, with the consumption during the Third Battle of Artois in the north, exhausted the French stock of ammunition.[6]

Champagne battlefront, 1915

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.[7] French artillery had been unable to destroy the German artillery, often situated on reverse slopes of the Champagne hills.[8] Some French regiments attacked with bands playing and their regimental flags waving.[9] 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 the 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.[6]

The theoretical bases of the French offensives of 1915 had been collected in But et conditions d'une action offensive d'ensemble (Purpose and Conditions of All Offensive Action, 16 April 1915) and its derivative, Note 5779, which were 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.[10][lower-alpha 1] Continuous battle was to be conducted by step-by-step advances, through successive German defensive positions. 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.[11]

French soldiers in a trench line near Champagne (1915)

In the autumn battles, the Allies had outnumbered the Westheer (German army in the west) by 600 infantry battalions but had not achieved a breakthrough and after the first day of an attack, German reinforcements made one impossible.[7] Several German 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 (OHL, German army high command) 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 they were held up. Communications had 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.[12]

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. The French 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 it 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 one might still be possible.[13]

Lack of troops made it impossible for the Germans to respond with Gegenangriffe (methodical counter-attacks) but smaller Gegenstösse (hasty counter-attacks by troops remaining in the vicinity), 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 2.2–3.3 yd (2–3 m) 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 it on reverse slopes, concealed from ground observation [14]

In his memoirs (1919), Falkenhayn wrote that the autumn battle showed that on the Western Front, quantity was not enough to defeat armies sheltering in field defences

.... the lessons to be deduced from the failure of our enemies' mass attacks are decisive against any imitation of their battle methods. Attempts at a mass breakthrough, even with the extreme accumulation of men and material, cannot be regarded as holding out the prospects of success.[15]

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 it favourably for Germany, which culminated at Battle of Verdun in 1916, when Falkenhayn tried to induce the French to repeat the costly failure of the Second Battle of Champagne.[16]

The offensive had been disappointing for the French. Despite their new 'attack in echelon' they had only made quick progress during the time it took for the Germans to strip reserves from elsewhere and rush them up. The French suffered 145,000 casualties, against 72,500 German casualties, (Foley gave 97,000 casualties based on Der Weltkrieg, the German Official History.)[17] The French had taken 25,000 prisoners and captured 150 guns. In Der Weltkrieg, French casualties in the Fourth, Second and Third armies from 25 September to 7 October were 143,567, with 48,230 more casualties in the Tenth Army from 25 September to 15 October and 56,812 casualties in the British First Army from 25 September to 16 October, a total of c.  250,000 casualties against c.  150,000 losses in the German armies, of which 81,000 casualties were suffered in the Champagne battle from 22 September to 14 October.[18] The French Official History recorded 191,795 casualties in the fighting in Champagne and Artois.[19]