OR.

This is coolbert.

The German army in WW1 was the first to institute the practice of operational research. Ask questions the answers to which would provide insight to the battlefield. Allowed the Germans to formulate tactics, doctrine, strategy to deal with battlefield situations in a more efficient and effective manner.

Here is an example of how operational research was done.

The German General Staff decided to find out what was the best way to conduct a defensive.

To answer this question, officers were sent out to the line units to interview lieutenants, captains, and battalion commanders of the line units actually involved in the trench warfare fighting of WW1.

The question that was asked was, "under what circumstances did you kill the most Frenchmen or Englishmen?" Ask this question of enough persons and you will begin to get a feel for what the consensus is of the most favorable conditions for conducting the defense. You can then make adjustment to your doctrine, tactics, etc., and be able to make the most of the defensive.

The answers provided enabled the interviewers to arrive at a conclusion as to the best method for conducting the defense. This answer runs counter-intuitive to what would be normally accepted as the best method for defending a position.

The conclusion goes something like this:

Your unit of German infantry is defending. You select a position for defense that will be your main line of resistance [trench line] at the bottom of the forward slope of a hill in front of you. Skeletal numbers of troops will be placed on top of the hill to give advance warning of attack by French or English troops. The German troops manning the trench line will have early warning of an attack by French or English troops, your troops being able to reach their trench positions in time to meet the attack. The attackers will surge over the top of the hill in front of your position and move down for what is them [attackers], the reverse slope. It is at this point that the waiting German defenders will inflict the greatest casualties upon the attackers.

Now, why is this so?

No real reason was given, other than empirical results said it was so.

Reasoning as to why it was would not be important. Knowing what to do was more important than knowing why.

However, with a little reasoning, some factors can be identified as to why this defensive stratagem seemed to work. These factors would include: [Not in any order of importance].

1. Attackers would be skylighted twice, once as they came over the top of the hill the first time, and a second time as they retreated back over the top of the hill after the attack being repulsed. In both instances they would make very easy targets for the defender. And they would have to reach safe positions on what for the attacker would be the forward slope of the hill. They could not remain under direct fire from the German defenders.

2. The Germans would be able to bring to bear all their direct fire and indirect fire weaponry to bear on the attackers, while the attacker could not bring indirect fire or direct fire artillery to counter the German defenders. British or French direct fire artillery would be masked by the terrain, and indirect fire artillery would be hesitant to fire for fear of hitting their own troops [English or French].

3. Physical and mental exhaustion would take a toll on the attacking troops that would inhibit their ability to get back up the hill when retreating. This would make them more susceptible to German weaponry. Once going up the hill on the forward slope and then again up hill, this time on the reverse slope, would exhaust the attacker. Demoralization knowing that you had gotten as far as you had but now had to retreat would create a depressed mental condition causing further physical exhaustion.

4. It may be that the cone of fire from the German machineguns would have a greater effect due to the ability of the gunners to elevate the muzzle and still be able to engage the attacker [French or English]. Normal sighting of the machinegun would allow for grazing fire at a range of 400 meters. Elevating or depressing the muzzle of the machine gun would not have much effect, due to the trajectory of the bullet. Not so when firing against a hillside. The gunners could elevate the muzzle and use grazing fire until the muzzle would be pointed at the top of the hill and still be effective. I am not 100 % sure about this factor being important. Just an intuitive guess.

Postscript to this post. I think the conventional wisdom would have been that the German defenders, or any defenders for that matter would have placed their main line of resistance [trench line] on the military crest of the hill, on the same side of the hill facing the French or English lines. The military crest is that point on the hill where the defender can see all the way to the bottom unimpeded. Like I have said, this solution the Germans devised is counter-intuitive.

coolbert.