During the 1996 European cup quarter final football match between England and Germany the number of fans in wembley stadium was approximately equal to numbers lost by both sides on the 1st June 1916.
The interesting thing about the battle of the Somme was that it ultimately won the first world war for the allies. It is not a popular theory but runs something like this:-
The british attacked in 1916 with a poorly trained and untried army, the Kitchener Battalions. The defending German troops were good experienced troops. British loses throughout the campaign(battle) were high but the german loses were higher. WW1 was fought on the pronciple of attrition. The actual ground won or lost in any given advance was not important. The number of enemy troops lost was the deciding factor in success or failure. This is similar to american tactics/strategy in Vietnam.
By March 21st 1918 when the Kaiserschlact offensive was launched by the Germans they were forced to attack with the only good troops they had, by this time what was left of the British Army was battle hardened by 2 years of continuous offensive operations. Combat is often said to be a darwinian process, the best survive the worst do not.
When Kaiserschlact ground to a halt in April of 1918 the counter attack was devestating and virtually all of the German Sturmtruppen were wiped out.
Added to the US army that was now in position and attacking, the Germans never really stood a chance after their best troops had been lost on the Somme and at Verdun, killed by, in the case of the British at least, initially third rate troops.
Whilst this proved to be a war winning tactic it was understandably not popular and the regular soldiers never forgave high command for their decision to adopt it.
Please note that there may be innacuracies in dates and spelling. I'm at work right now. The basic pronciples in my opinion are however correct.
Will
by Blade » Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:23 pm 
