We all know that World War One was one of the deadliest in history (although it would be beaten
out by a sequel that no one asked for). From incompetent generals to terrifying trenches, life
as a World War One soldier was never easy. But who really had it the worst on the battlefield — and
why? In this video, we’ll take a look at five major World War One armies. Join us as we discuss
what made them so terrible and decide which army would truly be the worst one to fight for.
Great Britain entered World War One with a small force of highly trained soldiers.
Tasked with holding a tiny slice of the Western Front, this capable army did their
job well — at first. Like all good things, the British Expeditionary Force (also known as the
Old Contemptibles) did not last. Heavy casualties eventually decimated the Old Contemptibles. They
were replaced with the large, yet inexperienced, Kitchener’s Army. With no seasoned commanders
to guide them, Kitchener’s Army went through a devastating learning curve on the front lines.
Inexperience (and a shortage of quality munitions) eventually led to the disastrous Battle of the
Somme. At the Somme, UK soldiers bombarded German forces for a week. When the artillery fire ceased,
British soldiers marched across No-Man’s-Land, not realising that their earlier attack had
been completely ineffective. Incompetent and inexperienced leaders aside, UK soldiers dealt
with other problems. Ever-present supply issues, harsh trench conditions, and a cobbled-together
army were just a few issues they faced that made the war even more difficult. Add to that
fact that the top military brass in the UK had the attitude of honour over practicality and
serving in the British Armed Forces became even more hellish. For example,
the unofficial reason as per the Air Board as to why British Pilots didn’t have parachutes was
because ”the presence of such an apparatus might impair the fighting spirit of pilots and cause
them to abandon machines which might otherwise be capable of returning to base for repair.”
By 1914, France was a well-recognised power in the Western world and was ready to face its old rival,
Germany. And the French did get off to a good start, with heavy patriotism running rampant
across the country. This (and mandatory service laws) helped swell the ranks of
the French reserves. Then it all went downhill. For the duration of the war, commanders operated
under a “Cult of the Offensive" mentality. This strategy can be boiled down to hit them first,
hit them hard, and keep hitting them until you win. Unfortunately, this strategy
proved to be a bad one. Take the events at Audregnies as an example. Here, two mounted
calvary regiments — the 9th Lancers and the 4th Dragoon Guards — charged across an open field.
On the other side? Hundreds of German machine guns, rifles, and artillery pieces.
And we can’t forget Robert Nivelle and the Second Battle of Aisne. Convinced that he could win the
war in a single battle by throwing men at the enemy, Neville instead ended up sending thousands
of men to their deaths. This manoeuvre was the straw that broke the camel’s back; morale began
to plummet. Riots, protests, and mutinies broke out on the Western Front and at home.
French leaders arrested hundreds of French soldiers for mutiny and later executed dozens
of them as a warning to the rest of their soldiers. In fact, France held the sombre
title of having shot the highest number of its own soldiers throughout the war, with at least
918 men executed, which placed it far ahead of Germany and the other Anglo Saxon Countries
according to official figures. The French army was stuck — stuck in the past, stuck in a cult of
the offensive mentality, and stuck with leaders too willing to use their men as cannon fodder.
Russia boasted the largest army in World War One, with forces already five million strong at the
start of the war. With all those troops marching out to conquer the Eastern Front, surely the
Russian army would score some victories. Right? Wrong. Large numbers actually turned out to be one
of Russia’s biggest weaknesses. Overestimating its military ability (and its railroad supply chain),
the Russian army struggled to deploy all its men. So, sure, the Tsar could raise a huge
army — but that doesn’t matter much if it isn’t functional. With so many soldiers to supply,
it’s no surprise that one of Russia’s main problems was a lack of…well…everything.
As a soldier in this army, you would likely march out to war without boots, a rifle, or a gas mask.
It was up to you to scavenge the necessary supplies from fallen enemies — or fallen friends.
And the problem of ill-equipped soldiers was only compounded by another serious shortage — that of
medical staff. The Russian army had only about one surgeon for every 10,000 men. That means that
your chances of getting some medical attention if you were wounded or ill were next to none.
Imagine you’re an unprepared and untrained Russian soldier, hungry and disillusioned
with what seems to you to be a pointless fight. Now throw in plenty of bad military manoeuvres.
Add a few useless commanders. Round it out with some huge losses like the Battle of Tannenberg,
where more than 30,000 Russian troops lost their lives. That’s what it might have been
like to be a soldier in the Tsar’s army. It comes as no surprise that the weary Russians
later took the fight to what they saw as the true source of their problems — their own government.
While about to become notorious for its approach to warfare,
the German Empire was young, not even 50 years old at the start of World War One. At the time,
Germany was a collection of smaller states still getting the hang of working as a cohesive unit.
That’s what made it so surprising when the German army functioned so well…at least for a time.
German military leaders were doing some great things (elastic defence and
coherent communication, to name a few). Also important (especially on the Western Front),
German trenches were more sophisticated than the holes that the British were using. In fact, some
even sported homey features such as electricity, toilets, and roomy, reinforced accommodations.
So, where did they go wrong? It all started with some hopeful thinking. Concerned that they
couldn’t win a war on two fronts, Germany’s plan was to neutralise France and then focus on Russia.
Not a bad idea, right? Wrong! At the First Battle of the Marne, a little miscommunication between
German generals and some quick thinking from the British and French forced the Germans to
make a quick retreat. The result of that retreat was disastrous. Soldiers weren’t the only ones
upset by this poor showing. General von Moltke, a top general in the German Empire, reportedly
admitted to the Kaiser that the army had “…lost the war.” Even more telling, the General also
confided in his wife following the battle, writing to tell her that “things have not gone well.”
These prominent losses had serious consequences. Morale on the Western Front was understandably
low, and soldiers in the Eastern flanks weren’t much happier. Add supply shortages caused by
the collapse of the German economy and things didn’t look good for Deutschland’s soldiers.
Finally, let's take a look at the Austro-Hungarian army. While they started off as one of the most
notable European powers, Austria-Hungary didn’t fare too well on the battlefield,
suffering debilitating defeats from the very beginning of the war. Originally, Austria-Hungary
only saw itself fighting on one front. By the end of the war, though, they were resisting not
only Russia but also the UK and Italy. Fighting on three fronts is hard enough for a cohesive
and well-trained army, and, unfortunately, the Austro-Hungarian forces were neither of those
things. The Austro-Hungarian army was made up of a patchwork of ethnicities, each with its own
language. This made effective training, fighting, and commanding near impossible. Think fighting in
World War One couldn’t get any worse? Try being a part of an army where your superiors might accuse
you of betrayal or cowardice or blame you for military losses — just based on your ethnicity.
Austria-Hungary also entered the war with a smaller force than any of the other major players.
And by December 1914, more than half of their forces were gone, victim to enemy fire,
starvation, exposure, and disease. And, of course, you have to add to that all the usual problems
afflicting World War One armies — incompetent commanders, limited supplies, and ill planning.
Attacked from within and without, is it any wonder that the Austro-Hungarian army fared so badly?
So, which major World War One army was the worst to fight in?
Going by the numbers (and our own opinion), Austro-Hungarian soldiers likely had it the
worst overall. The cards were stacked against them thanks to the size and makeup of their army,
as well as a lack of training and preparation. Austria-Hungary also suffered some of the most
debilitating defeats of World War One, even with the help of its German allies.
Of course, numbers don’t tell the whole story here. Every army discussed above faced its own
unique — and not-so-unique — challenges. But what do you think? Does one army stand out to
you as the worst? Which one would you have hated to fight for? Are there any examples that should
have made it to this list — but didn’t? Share your thoughts in the comments below.