Weather And Human/military History

[0000]

After a few interesting conversations with formerly BARRY and more recently Tim M,It occurred to me that a thread dedicated to the effects the weather had on military history and how it changed the world we live in now could be fascinating, a few examples being

*Kublai Khan's dashed fleet at the hands of the Kamakazi in 1274/81

*Agincourt 1415 Did Henry V take advantage of conditions that overwhelmed a modern army in WWI or was that just the Generals incompetence?

*Napoleons retreat from Moscow in 1812

*Stalingrad '42-43

And any other weather related defeats/victories.

Also I think may be interesting to discuss alternative histories ie,what if Hitler had overwhelmed the RAF in September 1940? would he have invaded or would Britain have sued for peace?How close did Galtieri come to winning the Falklands conflict,what if the Amada had made land etc?

Any homefront recollections either firsthand or passed down through the family-anything from POW camps to powdered eggs,rationing, even yomping to Goose Green or indeed the day the Germans bombed the chippy!

And those chaps who made the most important forecast in history prior to the D-Day landings,are they unsung heroes?

Other related topics and historical events would be welcome as would weather reports/maps where available,I hope I have posted this in the correct area mods :lol:

Phil

Edited October 2, 2008 by hannegan

[saint]

D-Day i think was put back a few days due to bad weather?

[cheeky_monkey]

think this has been discussed in the weather history section

[Gray-Wolf]

Though William the B stard waited for a time when most of Harold's army had returned home to bring in the harvest what if a storm had delayed the crossing for 4 days? Would Harold's army have the taken the day and changed British history?

Edited October 3, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Weather-history]

think this has been discussed in the weather history section

Indeed it was

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...&hl=history

[Coast]

D-Day i think was put back a few days due to bad weather?

The Met Office played a crucial part in deciding the timing of Operation Neptune which took troops and equipment across the English Channel and lead to Operation Overlord - the D-Day landings in Normandy on the 6th June 1944.

Operation Overlord needed specific minimum conditions:

• D-Day should be within one day before, to four days after a full moon
  
• D-Day itself should have quiet weather, followed by three quiet days
  
• Winds should be less than force 3 (8-12 m.p.h.) onshore, and force 4 (13-18 m.p.h.) offshore
  
• Cloud should be less than 30% coverage below 8,000 feet
  
• Visibility should be more than three miles
  
• Cloud base should be generally above 3,000 feet
  

Additonally, darkness was needed when the airborne troops went in, but moonlight once they were on the ground. Spring low tide was necessary to ensure extreme low sea level so that the landing craft could spot and avoid the thousands of mined obstacles that had been deployed on the beaches. If this narrow time slot was missed, the invasion would have to be delayed for two weeks.

The tides and moonlight would be favourable on 5, 6 and 7 June, and General Dwight Eisenhower set the 5th as the date for Operation Neptune to commence 'subject to last-minute revision in the event of unfavourable weather'.

Eisenhower really needed seven-day forecasts, but these were impossible with the available knowledge and tools. Representatives of the forecasting centres of the RAF, USAF and the Royal Navy presented weather summaries to him and his commanders, who then learned how to assess them. The weather would be one of the most important factor for the success of both Neptune and Overlord.

Early June was unseasonably unsettled as depressions, fronts and strong winds moved over the UK. The weather forecasting centres combined their efforts and Group Captain James Stagg (RAF and Met Office) told General Eisenhower that the weather would be unfavourable for operations on the 5th. With ships already loading and putting to sea, Eisenhower decided to delay Neptune on a day-to-day basis, and those ships at sea returned to port.

By late evening on the 5th there was driving rain from a cold front that had been unexpected earlier, but Stagg and the other meteorologists advised that it would clear the Overlord area within two or three hours, and a following ridge of high pressure could provide a weather window for 6 June. Early on the morning of the 6th, having taken and carefully considered the best meteorological advice, Eisenhower ordered Operation Neptune to begin.

Later, Stagg's memorandum to an official report to Eisenhower on the meteorological implications of 6 June stated that had Neptune been delayed until the next suitable tides the troops would have met the worst Channel weather for 20 years. Eisenhower wrote across the bottom of the memo:

"Thanks, and thank the Gods of war we went when we did."

Courtesy: Met Office

The decision to postpone the invasion for 24 hours had been taken by Eisenhower and the Supreme Command at 0430 on Sunday June 4. It was not taken lightly, because so many ships were already converging on Normandy that the risk of detection was grave.

The advice of the MetOffice, the Admiralty and from the United States Army Air Forces was often diametrically opposed. The American team used an analog method, comparing the current map with maps from the past, and were often over-optimistic. The Meteorological Office, aided by the brilliant Norwegian theoretician Sverre Petterssen, had a more dynamic approach, using wind and temperature observations from high altitude provide by the air force, and were closer to the mark.

Rommel, the general commanding the defence of the invasion beaches, had identified the period of June 5, 6 and 7 as high risk because of the state of the moon and tide. However, he also believed the Allies would not attempt an invasion without a guarantee of six days' fine weather. Reassured by the Luftwaffe weather forecaster's prediction that the bad weather starting on Monday the 5th would last at least three days, Rommel left France for Berlin. There he hoped to persuade Hitler to relinquish his personal control of the Panzer reserves in Holland and France to either himself or Von Rundstedt, who had overall command in the west. (As it transpired, Hitler held most of the reserves in the north, near Calais, for almost two months after the Normandy invasion, because he was persuaded Normandy was only a diversion).

Consequently, Rommel was in Germany when the invasion began, and only made it back to the front at the end of the first day. The German Navy also dropped their guard when the bad weather commenced, and did not patrol the Channel. Only five weeks before, some of their torpedo boats had crossed the Channel and attacked a night-time dress rehearsal for the landings. In ten minutes they sank two landing craft, crippled a third, and killed over 600 sailors and soldiers.

But on the Monday night when the invasion fleet of over 6000 ships crossed the Channel, the torpedo boats did not venture out until 4am - after the fleet had been detected from the French shore. By this time the fleet had been anchored about 15km off the beaches along a front of 100km for more than an hour.

The weather on June 6 was tolerable but not ideal. Strong winds scattered the paratroops, some of whom overshot the Cherbourg Peninsula and landed in the sea and were drowned. However, the Germans were also obliged to scatter their defences. Large waves swamped 27 out of 32 amphibious tanks, and all the artillery was lost on the run into Omaha beach, where the Allies suffered their greatest losses of the day and briefly considered withdrawing. At the end of the first day, Allied casualties were 12,000 killed, wounded and missing, as against an estimated 75,000 if surprise had not been achieved.

The weather that Northern Summer was among the worst on record. Several days after the landing, a storm wrecked one of the artificial harbours that had been built and caused four times the losses in ships and equipment that occurred during the landing.

Courtesy: Wiki

[0000]

Indeed it was

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...&hl=history

I apolgise if aspects of this thread were discussed several years ago I have posted this thread in serious discussion as I was not purely aiming at weather related history but also general war history/social experiences and what ifs.......

As such I was touched by this Noth East related essay.

http://www.bpears.org.uk/Misc/War_Misc/May1st42.html

Though William the B stard waited for a time when most of Harold's army had returned home to bring in the harvest what if a storm had delayed the crossing for 4 days? Would Harold's army have the taken the day and changed British history?

I think the double whammy of the Vikings invasion in the north(which was defeated) and then the Normans at Hastings soon after were major factors,however it was still an incredibley close battle-if the Saxons,As you stated GW had been allowed possibly just another weeks preparation time then I believe things may well have gone the other way.But what kind of Britain would we be living in now?

Edited October 3, 2008 by hannegan

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Interesting thread and a very difficult topic, much more worthy of its place on an undergraduate or even post-graduate politics degree course than that post-structuralist studies nonsense.

The weather plays a much greater role in human history than as a random variable in battle, though that is very significant (as is therefore prediction of weather). Weather has caused migrations (the Vandals, who due to cold weather moved through France to Spain, where some even ended up in modern Morocco hence blond-haired Moroccans, Mongol Empire and medieval warm period, spread of blight and the Irish potato famine, NO and Hurricane Katrina), the complete collapse of civilisations (the old kingdom of Egypt fell - the pyramid building one - circa 2200 BC due to devastating droughts, which meant low Nile floods and famine). But even that's not all.

Firstly, the weather affects agriculture. Agriculture affects the state, which affects military capability and the culture of society. Secondly, it affects the people, what we typically think of as race. Races are similar in many ways but obviously differ too. Thirdly, the weather affects who wages war on whom. The majority of successful invasions in history have been north-south affairs, although in warm times organised empires in the south can move north. Hardened barbarians like the Vikings. The sacks of Rome by the Visigoths and Gauls. Mongols and China, sub-continent and the middle East. During warmer times it is thought Empires from the easier-living southern lands can push north through sheer power, while there is less reason for more northern people to want to raid south. Romans are an example, until 400+ AD.

My knowledge is only just developing on what I hope people agree is a fascinating subject. I've read blogs that discuss this, I doubt if any books are yet published that cover all the aspects of weather and human history. That's why it's so sad politics departments are obsessed with meaningless drivel like Marxism, constructivism etc. If anyone has anything to contribute other than weather as a military variable I'll be an avid reader.

Edited October 3, 2008 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[0000]

Fascinating read AF,do you believe we are as a civilisation just as vunerable to climatic related dissolution of our known world as the great civilisations of the past were or do you feel we have developed enough to withstand what mother nature may throw at us in the future?

Is it possible we could all or even just individual nations that get badly affected by a major change in climate go the way of the Mayans for example?

http://www.cambodianonline.net/earth03003.htm

During WWII my maternal Grandmother(nan) served in the WRVS,in Bootle, Liverpool, she recieved quite a few medals for her service during this time. Bootle was badly hit during the blitz. During air raids they use to have 'smokey joes' I'm not sure what they quite where, but they use to give off black smoke to camoflage the buildings etc from the planes, my nan use to take great big urns of tea round on a hand cart to all the lads working them during air raids. After the all clear she would visit bombed out homes offering assistance to the affected families.With so many people being 'bombed out' it was very usual for my mum to get home from school and find a family living with them until they where rehoused.

My mother was about 5 or 6 years old when the blitz was on, she recalls they all slept in the cellar, with their gas masks, if the sirens went off, she would run with her younger brother who was about 3, to the park at the top of the road, (it takes me 20 minutes to walk there at my adult pace) they would shelter in the air raid shelters until the all clear, can you imagine children that age running in the pitch dark, with the sirens going, it must have been terrifying.

Just on a lighter note during the War my Paternal Grandfather served in the Merchant Navy,and he was home on leave, my nan returned home to find he had white washed the air raid shelter in the back yard!!

Great story Jan,I hope that was the inside of the shelter he whitewashed?

[0000]

The Battle of the Bulge......the USA's most costly single battle in Europe and yet it was the extreme winter cold that slowed Germany's advance on Antwerp....

http://ice.mm.com/user/jpk/battle.htm

[Summer of 95]

Certainly a fascinating topic that despite a few widely-accepted theories (eg cold thwarting Hitler's attack on Russia, Little ice Age putting paid to Norse Greenland) one that I think has barely been touched upon and deserving of far more wide-ranging attention than it has received.

Some that I believe need closer scrutiny are:

1) 3000-1500 BC; The number of what seem to be observatories, and buildings aligned to celestial objects, built in areas that today can go days, even weeks, without seeing clear skies; eg all over Western Britain as well as Ireland, the Hebrides and the Northern Isles. The one that particularly springs to mind is Newgrange which is built so that sun shines in on the WINTER solstice- it must have been possible for that to happen on a far more regular basis than nowadays for it to have been worth building (and indeed for them to know how to build it)?

2) AD 800-1100; More frequent easterly winds across the Atlantic between 50-70N (ie more negative NAO) helping the Vikings reach Britain/Faeroes/Iceland/Greenland/America? This is suggested on Martin Rowley's site among other places; what use ice-free seas if there's a constant Bartlett High/Icelandic Low setup that keeps blowing them back to Denmark? There's also a passage somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that refers to no rain falling for three years (!)

3) 1300s; What was this "droghte of Marche" that Chaucer refers too? Is he suggesting that it was normal, or at least common, to have a very dry late winter/early spring with "Zephirus with his sweete breeth" suddenly turning up sometime in April?

4) 800-1500; Just as noteworthy as the Vikings but less studied from a weather point of view: Settlement of S Pacific islands. And subsequently (contemporary to the Little Ice Age) the abandonment or decimation of population in many of them (Easter Island climate marginal at present for most tropical plants, a few decades of temperatures 2C lower meant they didn't grow leading to famine?)

[0000]

Certainly a fascinating topic that despite a few widely-accepted theories (eg cold thwarting Hitler's attack on Russia, Little ice Age putting paid to Norse Greenland) one that I think has barely been touched upon and deserving of far more wide-ranging attention than it has received.

Some that I believe need closer scrutiny are:

1) 3000-1500 BC; The number of what seem to be observatories, and buildings aligned to celestial objects, built in areas that today can go days, even weeks, without seeing clear skies; eg all over Western Britain as well as Ireland, the Hebrides and the Northern Isles. The one that particularly springs to mind is Newgrange which is built so that sun shines in on the WINTER solstice- it must have been possible for that to happen on a far more regular basis than nowadays for it to have been worth building (and indeed for them to know how to build it)?

2) AD 800-1100; More frequent easterly winds across the Atlantic between 50-70N (ie more negative NAO) helping the Vikings reach Britain/Faeroes/Iceland/Greenland/America? This is suggested on Martin Rowley's site among other places; what use ice-free seas if there's a constant Bartlett High/Icelandic Low setup that keeps blowing them back to Denmark? There's also a passage somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that refers to no rain falling for three years (!)

3) 1300s; What was this "droghte of Marche" that Chaucer refers too? Is he suggesting that it was normal, or at least common, to have a very dry late winter/early spring with "Zephirus with his sweete breeth" suddenly turning up sometime in April?

4) 800-1500; Just as noteworthy as the Vikings but less studied from a weather point of view: Settlement of S Pacific islands. And subsequently (contemporary to the Little Ice Age) the abandonment or decimation of population in many of them (Easter Island climate marginal at present for most tropical plants, a few decades of temperatures 2C lower meant they didn't grow leading to famine?)

You have raised some fascinating talking points summer,I will certainly need to do some reading up on this,one point I wish to query though(and I'm probably wrong) but my understanding of the Easter Island decimation was deforestation leading to chronic soil erosion and starvation with the arrival of desease ridden European sailors delivering the final blow.

[Summer of 95]

You have raised some fascinating talking points summer,I will certainly need to do some reading up on this,one point I wish to query though(and I'm probably wrong) but my understanding of the Easter Island decimation was deforestation leading to chronic soil erosion and starvation with the arrival of desease ridden European sailors delivering the final blow.

Easter Island has probably attracted more theories in various fields than any other small remote island on Earth but as I understand it the best evidence available nowadays (from a combination of archaeology/carbon dating and legends told by the islanders) points to:

Settlement sometime in the late first millenium AD by people from Society Islands/Tahiti area; these settlers brought tropical plants as well as chickens, dogs and rats (DNA tests on the latter have lately been invaluable in tracing patterns and dates of settlement); arriving on a pristine island covered in native forest probably full of now-extinct bird species.hat

A significant though initially not catastrophic impact on the island ecosystem over the first few centuries; the species and agriculture brought by settlers flourished but plenty of the original forest remained for the natives to build houses, boats etc.

Sudden deforestation some time in the 1600s (pollen records) combined with evidence of a huge inter-tribal war (human remains carbon-dated, and remembered in legends) that decimated the population so that when Europeans arrived (not long afterwards as it turned out) it was an island devoid of trees with a small remnant population.

What strikes me as worth investigating is 1) the timing; the time when the society collapsed corresponds so closely with the peak of the LIA while the time of the great Polynesian migrations is contemporary with those of the Vikings; there is evidence that they reached as far south as the Auckland Islands (well S of New Zealand, climate similar to Iceland); 2) why the sudden collapse, if it was due to overpopulation it would have happened gradually 3) the current climate of Easter Island is suited for growing tropical plants- but only just So it was too a thousand years ago. Drop the average temps 2 or 3 degrees and you get a climate similar to northern New Zealand- OK for the hardier palm trees but too cold for the likes of coconuts and breadfruit. My inkling is that the climate went just too cold for just too long, leading to crop failure that caused a food shortage, leading to either a mad dash to clear the forest in order to create more land for cultivation or a raid on any surviving forest food sources, followed by a bitter fight over the remaining food.

Certainly IMO climatic factors deserve more attention where the Rapa Nui mystery is concerned.

[cheeky_monkey]

The Battle of the Bulge......the USA's most costly single battle in Europe and yet it was the extreme winter cold that slowed Germany's advance on Antwerp....

http://ice.mm.com/user/jpk/battle.htm

sorry..but it wasnt extreme cold that stop the german advance on antwerp..the germans litterally ran out of fuel...the allies were dogged by low cloud and snow at the start of the offensive which aided the germans as the allies had overwhelming air superiorty..when the weather cleared the allied airforces devasted the german armour and their supply columns...the offensive was sheer folley on the part of Hitler and probably shortened the war by six months.

[0000]

sorry..but it wasnt extreme cold that stop the german advance on antwerp..the germans litterally ran out of fuel...the allies were dogged by low cloud and snow at the start of the offensive which aided the germans as the allies had overwhelming air superiorty..when the weather cleared the allied airforces devasted the german armour and their supply columns...the offensive was sheer folley on the part of Hitler and probably shortened the war by six months.

Yup CM that was my understood take on that offensive too,however after reading the account of someone who was there it rather surprised me to find that they felt the weather had indeed been a major factor-if however the Germans had secured major fuel dumps and weather allowing re:poor airpower visibility,been able to distribute the fuel it may have caused major delaying problems and although not actualy changing the course of the war it would have allowed the Soviets more time to push even further West than they did,possibly changing the face of the Europe we now know.

[acbrixton]

"1300s; What was this "droghte of Marche" that Chaucer refers too? Is he suggesting that it was normal, or at least common, to have a very dry late winter/early spring with "Zephirus with his sweete breeth" suddenly turning up sometime in April?"

1. Impossible to know in any detail now whether 13thc late winter/early springs were particularly dry.

2. However dry easterlies are, I believe, more prominent in Feb/March than other months in the south east.

3. Whilst 20thc data for the south east shows February to be either the driest or one of the three driest months on average there is little evidence to suggest that April is more than marginally wetter than March.

4. Reading the first 10 lines or so of 'The General Prologue' I suspect that the reference to March "droghte" may be broader/metaphorical; i.e. contrasting the absence of growth/life in both farms and the countryside immediately after winter with lambing, crop growth and leaf bud evident in April as days lengthen and temperatures rise.

regards

ACB

[Weather-history]

During the War of the Austrian Succession, one of Britain's top naval commanders, Lord Anson and his flagship, Centurion sailed through the French fleet undetected because of fog.

Charles X Gustav of Sweden led a successful campaign against Denmark during the winter of 1657-58 by crossing the frozen sea to Denmark

General Charles Pichegru, the French soldier, led a successful campaign against Holland in 1795 by crossing its frozen rivers and canals. His cavalry even captured the Batavian navy that was ice-locked.

In 1800, the Austrians successful controlled the Tonale Pass by using ice from the glaciers as fort which proved to be impregnable.

[cheeky_monkey]

After a few interesting conversations with formerly BARRY and more recently Tim M,It occurred to me that a thread dedicated to the effects the weather had on military history and how it changed the world we live in now could be fascinating, a few examples being

*Kublai Khan's dashed fleet at the hands of the Kamakazi in 1274/81

*Agincourt 1415 Did Henry V take advantage of conditions that overwhelmed a modern army in WWI or was that just the Generals incompetence?

*Napoleons retreat from Moscow in 1812

*Stalingrad '42-43

Phil

the weather had little or no effect on the german defeat at stalingrad..apart from hampering the wholly ineffectual airlift to the german kessel.

[Weather-history]

During the War of the Austrian Succession, one of Britain's top naval commanders, Lord Anson and his flagship, Centurion sailed through the French fleet undetected because of fog.

Which begs the question, how did the ship know they were sailing through the French fleet as the fog shield works both ways. They can't see you, you can't see them.

[Roo]

Which begs the question, how did the ship know they were sailing through the French fleet as the fog shield works both ways. They can't see you, you can't see them.

Unless they were in line, they tended to keep a fair way apart (partly due to risk of explosion), and so would pass without each other seeing. A 60 gun frigate would have only been about 100ft long and so could have easily hidden in plain sight.

Also, there is always the possibility that he downed his flag and pretended to be part of the enemy fleet: would have been very easy had Centurion been a prize from another country (often fleets of any country were a hotch potch of other countries' vessels that had been taken as prize...very few had the money to build completely new fleets from scratch). Apart from officers, the crews would have been dressed remarkably similarly and so would not have stood out.

But, if it really was thick fog he was lucky he didn't hit anything.....

EDIT: Looks like it was just good luck:

http://www.archive.org/stream/lifeofadmira...00anso_djvu.txt

He turned up at Spithead (on the Solent) and was told he'd come through a fleet on the way there!

EDIT 2: This is a very good 18th century account (published in 1901) of the voyage which has a large section about how the squadron communicated in fog, etc.

'The next day we had very squally weather, attended with rain, lightning,

and thunder; but it soon became fair again, with light breezes, and

continued thus till Wednesday evening, when it blew fresh again; and

increasing all night, by eight the next morning it became a most violent

storm, and we had with it so thick a fog that it was impossible to see at

the distance of two ships' lengths, so that the whole squadron

disappeared.* On this a signal was made by firing guns, to bring to with

the larboard tacks, the wind being then due east. We ourselves lay to

under a reefed mizzen till noon, when the fog dispersed; and we soon

discovered all the ships of the squadron, except the Pearl, which did not

join us till near a month afterwards. The Trial sloop was a great way to

leeward, having lost her mainmast in this squall, and having been

obliged, for fear of bilging, to cut away the wreck. We bore down with

the squadron to her relief, and the Gloucester was ordered to take her in

tow, for the weather did not entirely abate until the day after, and even

then a great swell continued from the eastward in consequence of the

preceding storm.'

http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/di...16611/16611.htm

Edited January 16, 2009 by Roo

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

The weather played a signifcant role in the Battle of Waterloo. Overnight on 17/18 June there was a torrential downpour which left the battlefield sodden. Napoleon delayed the start of the battle until late morning because it would have been difficult to manouever his cavalry and artillery. This delay was crucial in allowing the Prussian IV Corps under Von Bulow, I Corps under Zeiten and part of Von Pirchs II Corps to advance from Wavre, play a decisive role in the battle late in the afternoon.

It has also come to light that the weather (and the sodden ground) played a crucial role in lessening the impact of Napoleons artillery. Napoleons Artillery, the "Grande Batterie" was widely feared and yet despite an intensive bombardment to start the battle it had, on this occasion, little effect. The reason? It is now believed that the cannon balls from Napoleons artillery simply 'plopped' into the mud caused by the overnight rain rather than ploughing into the ranks of the allied troops.