Famous Tank Battles

The British attack at Cambrai is often remembered for the shock it delivered on the twentieth of November, Nineteen Seventeen, but the battle is just as important for the answer it provoked. The Germans did not simply absorb the blow and wait for events to settle around them. They responded as an army that had already spent much of the war learning how to survive against stronger material offensives, and that had developed a doctrine built around rapid recovery, local counterattack, and, when necessary, a larger deliberate counterstroke. What makes the German answer so important is that it was not improvised in blind panic. It was a measured military reaction to a dangerous new kind of British attack, and it showed that Cambrai was not a one-sided revolution. It was a contest between two armies that were both changing under pressure.

This podcast is accompanied by a companion book that expands the story of the Battle of Cambrai, with additional historical context, maps, and dozens of enhanced colorized photographs from the battle. Your purchase helps support our mission to keep these podcasts free. You can find the book at Military Author dot me or at track pads dot com

By late Nineteen Seventeen, German defensive thought had already moved far away from the idea that the front line should simply stand and die where it first came under attack. Instead, the defense was built in depth, with the expectation that some ground might be lost in the opening violence but could then be recovered by organized reply. That reply could come in two forms. If the local situation allowed, there might be an immediate counterthrust while the attacker was still disordered and before he had consolidated. If that failed, or if the attacker had gone too deep to be pushed back at once, then the Germans preferred a more deliberate counterattack prepared with reserves, artillery, and careful timing. In other words, the German answer to Cambrai had been written into their tactical thinking before the battle began. The British surprise did not create the doctrine. It activated it.

That distinction helps explain the first German reaction after the British breakthrough. On the opening day, German troops in several sectors were badly shaken, and in places they were driven back with a speed that no one on that front could treat lightly. Yet the defenders did not disintegrate everywhere at once. At Flesquières, at parts of the canal front, and in the ground leading toward Bourlon, enough resistance remained to slow the British and buy time. Time was the real German necessity in those first hours. Every village that held out for part of a day, every field gun that stayed in action, and every local counterattack that delayed the British advance helped turn a catastrophe into a crisis that higher command could still manage. This is the first thing to understand about the German answer. It began with survival, not with brilliance, and survival was enough to make larger action possible.

Once the immediate emergency had been contained, German commanders could begin to think in wider operational terms. The British had advanced deeply, but they had not done so evenly. Their eastern push across the canal crossings had narrowed, their northern effort had become tangled around Bourlon Ridge, and the result was a salient that looked threatening but also exposed. For the German command, this was a battlefield shape full of possibility. A salient presents a target with shoulders and a neck. It can look like the beginning of a breakthrough to the attacker, but to the defender it also offers flanks to strike and communications to disrupt. German commanders therefore did not need to invent a miracle. They needed to identify the geometry of British weakness and gather the means to exploit it before the British could consolidate on more favorable terms.

That gathering took several days, and it depended on more than simply ordering tired units back into line. Reserves had to be drawn in, artillery concentrated, command arrangements tightened, and the local front re-understood after the shock of the British opening. By the time the British offensive had slowed in the savage fighting around Bourlon Wood and the villages near the ridge, German headquarters had the breathing space to think beyond piecemeal reply. The object was no longer just to check the British. It was to strike the salient in a way that would make the gains of the twentieth look far less secure than they had seemed in the first burst of success. That meant choosing where to hit, how to prepare the ground with artillery, and how to use the assault methods the German Army had been refining through Nineteen Seventeen.

Those assault methods are often reduced to the word stormtrooper, which is vivid but too simple if it is left unexplained. Stormtroopers were not magical soldiers who somehow made all older battlefield problems disappear. They were the sharp edge of a tactical system that emphasized speed, initiative, and selective violence. Rather than attacking evenly across the whole width of the enemy line in dense, obedient ranks, assault groups moved in small, flexible bodies. They struck weak points, slipped through openings, bypassed stubborn strongpoints when possible, and left isolated pockets to be reduced by following troops. Their weapons reflected that close, fast style of fighting. Grenades, light machine guns, pistols, trench mortars, and other short-range tools mattered as much as the ordinary rifle. The aim was not a grand parade of mass. It was a rapid spreading confusion that broke the enemy’s local coherence before he could restore it.

By Nineteen Seventeen, this method had spread beyond a handful of elite detachments. Specialist storm battalions still existed and still carried prestige, but the tactical idea had travelled much more widely through the German Army. That matters at Cambrai because the counterstroke was not simply a showcase for a few chosen assault troops while everyone else watched. It was a larger operation built around methods that had already been taught across the army and tested in previous fighting. German commanders were therefore not just assembling men. They were assembling a way of attacking. They wanted a short, violent artillery preparation that would stun rather than warn, followed by infantry who could move in broken groups through mist, shell smoke, and gaps in the British line, flowing around resistance rather than battering every obstacle head-on. This was the German answer to British surprise: not imitation, but a response in the same modern language of tempo and disruption.

Artillery was central to that language. Just as the British had shown at Cambrai that gunnery could be used for surprise rather than only for long warning bombardments, the Germans now prepared their own concentrated fire to shatter the British defensive system inside the salient. The point was not simply to kill men in trenches. It was to break communication, paralyze artillery, isolate strongpoints, and disorganize local command so thoroughly that the first assault groups could move through before a coherent reply formed. This is an important point because stormtrooper tactics were never meant to stand alone. They depended on fire. A small assault detachment is only dangerous if the enemy it meets has already been stunned, blinded, or cut off from support. The German answer at Cambrai was therefore an artillery-and-infantry system, not a romantic cult of daring. Its modernity lay in the partnership between short, intense fire and dispersed, aggressive movement.

The plan that emerged reflected that logic and the shape of the British position. The main blow would come on the southern side of the salient, across the canal zone south of Masnières, where German forces aimed to drive westward and then turn north, rolling up the British line from below. A second major attack would strike from the west of Bourlon and press southward, increasing the pressure on the opposite shoulder of the salient. In simple terms, the Germans were trying to pinch the bulge rather than merely shove it backward from the front. That was a dangerous idea because it attacked the British where the offensive had made them long, tired, and difficult to supply. If the southern thrust cut deep enough and the northern pressure held or widened the crisis, forward British forces could find themselves trapped inside the very shape their earlier success had created.

Yet it is important not to imagine the entire German reply as one pure expression of infiltration technique from edge to edge. The southern assault reflected the newer style more clearly, using mist, short preparation, and rapid movement to slip through the British defense and open a deep wound in the line. The northern attack around Bourlon was different. There the terrain, the existing British positions, and the tactical necessity of battering a stubborn ridge sector produced heavier, more repeated assaults, some of them much closer to the older image of waves and weight of numbers. That contrast is useful because it shows how real armies actually fight. Doctrine is adapted to ground and circumstance. The German answer at Cambrai was modern, but it was not doctrinally pure. It mixed infiltration, artillery concentration, and brute pressure according to what each part of the battlefield demanded.

All of this was helped by the state of the British Army inside the salient. The troops who had made the initial gains were tired. Many of the tanks that had transformed the first day were gone from useful action. Roads were crowded, reliefs were difficult, and much of the newly won ground near Bourlon remained exposed to enemy observation. The British had created a dangerous position for the Germans, but they had not made it comfortable for themselves. German commanders understood that perfectly. A counterstroke is most effective when delivered not against a fresh and settled opponent, but against an attacker who has advanced far enough to be disordered and not far enough to be secure. That was exactly the British condition by the end of November. The Germans did not have to invent British weakness. They had only to strike it before it hardened into something stronger.

There is also a larger historical significance in the way the German answer was assembled. The British opening at Cambrai is often treated as a preview of the combined-arms offensives of Nineteen Eighteen, and that is fair. But the German counterstroke belongs in the same conversation. It showed that Germany, too, was learning fast, and that its commanders were capable of absorbing surprise, identifying the attacker’s vulnerable shape, and preparing a reply that relied on concentrated artillery and evolving assault methods rather than on blind persistence alone. In other words, Cambrai was not simply a lesson the British taught the Germans. It was a battlefield school for both sides. The Germans learned not only how dangerous massed tanks and predicted artillery could be. They learned how to strike back at the fragile battlefield form such an offensive could create when it outran its own consolidation.

So when dawn approached on the thirtieth of November, the German answer was ready because the army behind it had spent years learning how not to die passively in place. Local resistance had bought the time. Commanders had read the shape of the salient. Reserves and artillery had been brought in. Assault methods that emphasized small groups, speed, and bypassing resistance had been prepared for the sectors where they best fit. And where the ground demanded it, heavier attacks would add pressure by force of numbers. What followed was not an accidental rebound. It was a deliberate attempt to turn British success against itself and to prove that a modern breakthrough could still be punished if it became exposed before it became secure.