Beyond the Western Front: The Practice of Inter-Theatre Learning in the British Army during the First World War

I. Publications

The British army entered the First World War as an institution that prided itself on adaptation and devolved decision-making. ¹⁶ As it was required to mount expeditions in different parts of the world, its ethos was one of flexibility. The sheer diversity of conditions that forces could realistically face meant that tactics relevant for one campaign could be markedly different for the next. As General Sir Neville Lyttelton, the first chief of the General Staff, remarked:

Few people have seen two battles in succession in such startling contrast as Omdurman and Colenso. In the first, 50,000 fanatics streamed across the open regardless of cover to certain death, while at Colenso I never saw a Boer all day until the battle was over, and it was our men who were the victims. ¹⁷

This ethos of flexibility encouraged a highly individualized, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach to learning. The nascent General Staff could do little to challenge the primacy of the regiment or curb the influence of individual generals, which often resulted in a proliferation of different tactical methods. ¹⁸

The experience of the South African War in particular had shocked the army, and resulted in a long period of organizational reform and introspective lesson learning. ¹⁹ This led to a change in its tactics, weaponry, command structure, and training, but the learning process itself was far from straightforward. ²⁰ Individual units still often retained the knowledge they derived from operational experience as a form of oral tradition, which resulted in lessons and experience failing to influence the army as a whole. ²¹ Although the pre-war army had formal learning methods, such as the military academies and service journals, they were not designed to reach everybody at once. The small size of the army and the relative homogeneity of the officer corps made a personalized approach to learning feasible if not wholly desirable. However, the army’s rapid expansion during the First World War and its deployment to diverse operational theatres challenged this personalized approach. The army had to develop a series of organized, formal learning methods to ensure that its forces were aware of the latest developments taking place around the globe and not just on the Western Front. It became apparent that the army could no longer rely on a personalized approach to learning. The growing scale, size, and intensity of the war compelled it to adopt a bureaucratic approach in its dissemination of knowledge.

One of these bureaucratic methods for knowledge sharing within the army was through publications. Although the army’s methods for learning have been neglected in the historiography, the writing and production of the Stationery Service (SS) series of publications is an exception to this rule and has been a subject of interest for scholars. ²² The first SS pamphlet, SS23 Preliminary Deductions, for Instruction, from Recent Engagements was issued in November 1915. Prior to this, publications were printed by the War Office’s Central Distribution Section (CDS). The earliest known CDS pamphlet, CDS2 Notes from the Front, was published in December 1914. These publications represented the British army’s standard operating procedure. They were an explicit form of knowledge in that they were portable and could be readily transmitted to different parts of the military organization. For the high command, these publications were ‘merely amplifications’ of the army’s pre-war manuals, produced to ‘meet the varying requirements’ of the war. ²³ These ‘amplifications’ covered a wide range of topics, ranging from the training and employment of bombers to lessons drawn from specific operations. The use and subsequent adaptation of the SS series went beyond the Western Front and was widespread throughout the army’s operational theatres.

Although there was provision for a printing depot in the field as part of the BEF’s mobilization plans, the War Office’s CDS held responsibility for the initial production of military publications. Once printed, these CDS publications were dispatched to France for distribution via the Army Printing and Stationery Service (APSS). In addition to Western Front demands for general stationery and specific publications, both the CDS and APSS also received ad hoc requests from the general headquarters (GHQ) of the various expeditionary forces that desired the latest literature from France and Flanders. ²⁴ One of General Sir William Birdwood’s first actions as commander of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, for example, was to ask for ‘copies of any instructional pamphlets you may have on points of training … on experience gained up to date in the war’. ²⁵ This was followed up with a subsequent demand for ‘Notes from the Front vols one and two 1500 copies of each’ and ‘three hundred copies each of Lecture by [Brigadier General Robert] Montgomery, Notes on Artillery in the Present War, and Notes on the Use of Plane Tables with Artillery’. ²⁶ The turnaround time for these demands was surprisingly quick. Birdwood received his publications after less than a week, ²⁷ while Webb Gillman – Brigadier General General Staff (BGGS) British Salonika Force (BSF) – referenced publications such as Memorandum Relating to the Experience Gained from the Verdun Actions in a BSF training memorandum in early July 1916, less than two months after its publication in France. ²⁸

This continual stream of individual demands placed strain on a system that had been established for a small field force. Although the APSS had printing depots in Salonika and Egypt by mid-1916, the initial distribution of Western Front SS pamphlets was still conducted on an ad hoc basis. ²⁹ Unsurprisingly, this practice soon became unworkable. However, the army continued to operate in an ad hoc manner until early 1917, when the distribution process was finally overhauled. Following a request for recent SS pamphlets from the Mesopotamia and Salonika theatres in February 1917, GHQ BEF instructed the APSS to issue three copies of all publications forthwith to ‘G.O.Cs Egypt, Salonica, Mesopotamia [and] C.in.C. India’. ³⁰ Any further copies of these pamphlets were to be produced locally in-theatre. The army’s decision to standardize distribution marked the transition from ‘pulled’ transfer – where theatres requested publications that would be of use to them – to ‘pushed’ transfer, where all publications were sent out to the various theatres, irrespective of need or relevance. This decision ran counter to the army’s pre-war ethos, which had centred on a highly individualized and decentralized approach to learning. The pushed transfer of publications aimed to reach as many individuals as possible. However, this decision did not represent a complete departure from the pre-war ethos. It still remained up to each expeditionary force’s GHQ to judge whether or not to circulate the material. This suggests that there was considerable organizational flexibility that allowed for independent learning in the subsidiary theatres.

As the various operational theatres grew in size, base supply depots were established to satisfy printing needs in-theatre. This permitted them to produce their own publications based on local experience. Examples of this include the Italian Expeditionary Force’s SS652 I.E.F. Traffic Orders and a subsequent publication on hill training, along with the EEF’s Notes on the Employment of Lewis Guns in the Desert. ³¹ Despite the production of these theatre-specific publications, there was still considerable appetite for Western Front literature. ³² However, the question of relevance was never far from the minds of the high command. Major General Guy Dawnay, a senior staff officer both in Palestine and on the Western Front, noted the ‘well marked tendency to apply the lessons of experience indiscriminately’, ³³ while Major General Arthur McNamara criticized commanders at Gallipoli for trying to ‘apply the methods applicable to the war in France, to which they had little relation’. ³⁴ Although the army favoured principles over prescription, this attitude echoed the pre-war reluctance to apply the tactics and lessons from one campaign to another. ³⁵

A number of Western Front publications were broad enough to cater for most theatres, such as SS135 Training and Employment of Divisions and SS143 Instructions for the Training of Platoons for Offensive Action, and provided the foundation for infantry training in the subsidiary theatres. The BSF Infantry School listed both SS135 and SS143 as required reading for officers undertaking the course, ³⁶ while corps and divisional commanders’ conferences in the IEF drew attention to these same publications for the purposes of patrolling and hill warfare in April 1918. ³⁷ However, the majority of pamphlets were concerned with battle conditions on the Western Front. This required commanders and staffs of the various expeditionary forces to modify these pamphlets for use in-theatre. For example, two pages of notes by Major General Sydenham Smith – Major General Royal Artillery (MGRA) EEF – accompanied the distribution of SS139 Notes on Artillery, offering guidance on the use and applicability of this particular publication in Palestine. In his consideration, Smith noted that ‘the whole tenour [sic] of this book applies to conditions of trench warfare such as appertain in France … we must therefore be careful to adapt the principles to the nature of such defences as confront us from time to time’. ³⁸ The adaptation of these publications was not just limited to the higher levels of command. With tactical publications such as SS143, divisions had latitude to interpret and adapt them to their local situation. ³⁹ Whereas some divisional commanders in the subsidiary theatres, such as John Shea, GOC 60th (2/2nd) London Division, thought that the new platoon structure was ‘absolutely correct’, ⁴⁰ the 74th (Yeomanry) Division modified SS143 to meet its own needs and experiences. In August 1917, battalions of that division reorganized as per SS143. However, instead of a section of rifle grenadiers being included, a sniper section took its place. ⁴¹ The type of warfare that confronted the division meant that the enemy was rarely within assaulting distance, which thus rendered the rifle grenade – a trench warfare munition – somewhat superfluous. In contrast, a sniper section offered a useful way of engaging the enemy at long range.

The decision to reorganize based on Western Front principles suggests that expeditionary forces, such as the EEF, did not exist in isolation from the wider tactical or indeed administrative developments taking place in other theatres. ⁴² Although adaptation was encouraged, a clear attempt to promote uniformity endured across the army’s expeditionary forces. The BSF, for example, ordered its formations to reorganize on the basis of SS143 to ‘assimilate the organisation of battalions in this Force with that of battalions in the British armies in France and to ensure the necessary degree of uniformity of training in battalions’. ⁴³ This serves to highlight the conflict between ensuring a systematic approach while simultaneously encouraging devolved decision-making. Expeditionary forces were not compelled to adopt Western Front practice, yet, due to manpower demands, it was ill-advised to prepare for just one type of warfare. The possibility of transferring to another theatre of operations at relatively short notice meant that formations usually had to prepare for two types of warfare: offensive operations in their current theatre and warfare as conducted on the Western Front. ⁴⁴ In the case of 52nd (Lowland) Division, for example, its training in Western Front methods enabled it to make an effective contribution to the military operations of the BEF. ⁴⁵

II. Training Schools

Although they were a learning method in their own right, military publications also provided the basis for the army’s training school system. Indeed, the dissemination of a publication was not always enough. Recalling preparations for the second battle of Gaza, one soldier in the 5th Highland Light Infantry recalled that ‘pamphlets on the attack, written for trench warfare in France, were liberally issued. One’s brain became terribly confused’. ⁴⁶ Although the ‘pushed’ distribution method was working, this soldier’s account suggests that pamphlets were not always read or understood. No soldier was ever expected to read every training pamphlet issued. Indeed, the pamphlets read would have depended on that soldier’s rank or role. However, in some cases, these pamphlets still required interpretation and to be put into practice. Training – both in schools and in units - provided that method of interpretation.

Prior to the creation of the BEF’s Training Directorate in January 1917, the establishment of training schools relied on the initiative of individual commanders. ⁴⁷ By the winter of 1916–17, a number of schools at army, corps, and division existed, but had little uniformity as to how they ran or the methods taught. ⁴⁸ The establishment of the Training Directorate offered a way of enforcing ‘uniformity of doctrine’, as well as standardizing the teaching of that doctrine. The publication of SS152 Instructions for the Training of the British Armies in France encapsulated this drive for uniformity. Published as a provisional document in June 1917, ⁴⁹ SS152 set out the army’s ‘general policy of training’ and the system it would use to ensure ‘uniformity of doctrine’. Its publication led to a complete overhaul and standardization of the schools system within the BEF. As Alastair Geddes has argued, the reduction of the number of schools limited the opportunity for different training creeds. ⁵⁰ This made the system more manageable. To complement the standardized school system, SS152 was highly prescriptive regarding the syllabus for each school, including the number of students in each cohort and the types of publications to be used. ⁵¹

Devised for use in the BEF, SS152 was disseminated to the other expeditionary forces, which meant that it also provided the basis for schools in the subsidiary theatres. Its use was notable in the BSF with the establishment of GHQ schools for infantry, artillery, signal, gas, and Lewis and Vickers guns. ⁵² Surviving records for the BSF’s Lewis and Vickers Gun School outline the development of a new programme of training, prepared ‘on the lines laid down in “Instructions for the Training of the British Armies in France” with reference to the latest literature from France and Grantham’. ⁵³ However, as with military publications, the training syllabus needed to be made relevant to local conditions. The BSF Lewis and Vickers Gun School, therefore, eliminated certain aspects of the syllabus prescribed by SS152, such as revolver drill and ‘warfare of highly organised defences’. ⁵⁴ This flexible approach was also evident in the BSF Infantry School. The core pamphlets mirrored those used in France, including SS135, SS143, and SS185 Assault Training, yet responsibility was placed on the Commandant and his instructors to ensure that the course was relevant to conditions in Salonika. ⁵⁵ This tendency towards decentralization suggests that the centre of the organization was positively delegating responsibility to the periphery. This policy of adaptation and decentralization is also evident within the EEF. In a letter to the force’s corps commanders, Guy Dawnay wrote that:

The various pamphlets, published on training, cannot be accepted as containing the final word so far as the preparations for operations in this country are concerned. It is considered that the experience gained on the subject, which may have called for modifications and variations in the pamphlets referred to, are worth … collating and placing on record for future guidance. ⁵⁶

Although syllabi were adapted to suit local training needs, training in Western Front warfare was not neglected. Within the EEF, for example, a specialist branch of the Imperial School of Instruction was established for the sole purpose of training in trench warfare. Governed by SS143, the syllabus included the ‘combined training and tactical handling of Stokes Guns, Lewis Guns and bombers’. ⁵⁷ The EEF also established a sniper school to be ‘conducted on the lines of an Army Sniper School in France’. This was, in large part, due to the success of the BEF’s First Army School of Sniping under Major Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard. ⁵⁸ To ensure that training remained up to date, the schools sought instructors with relevant experience and the ability to ensure that both military publications and the wider training syllabi were understandable to the student. Schools in the subsidiary theatres wanted instructors with ‘recent experience in France’, as well as those familiar with the latest literature from schools in the UK. ⁵⁹ In the BSF, for example, a Regular RSM was brought over from France as ‘Sergeant of Training’ at the Infantry School, ⁶⁰ while two instructors and three sergeant instructors were dispatched from the Machine Gun Training Centre at Grantham to run the Lewis and Vickers Gun School. ⁶¹ The EEF was just as keen as its Salonika counterpart, requesting two regular officers from France to run the senior officers’ school at Heliopolis. ⁶² Brigadier General Walter Salmond (GOC Middle East Brigade, Royal Flying Corps) called for the attachment of a GSO1 to help him ‘keep in touch with progress at home and in France’, but also to help ‘coordinate methods of training out here with those at home’. For Salmond, the lack of expertise meant it was ‘not possible to keep abreast of improvements in France … and this affects operations’. ⁶³ The need for these experienced staff officers was clear in the EEF’s appointment of three regular officers with experience of staff duties and instruction to run its staff school at Mena House. ⁶⁴ Of these three officers, two of them had been instructors at the junior staff school at Clare College, Cambridge, prior to their appointment to Mena House. The EEF staff school, established in January 1917, was run on similar lines to the staff school in France with an intake of 30 students; ⁶⁵ 15 of these students were nominated by the BSF. As part of their participation on the course, the BSF candidates were taken ‘to see something of the work on the eastern front’. ⁶⁶ This gave them an appreciation of the situation facing the EEF and grounding in the administrative requirements of fighting in the desert. A fortunate by-product of this mixed cohort was that it also allowed for students from different theatres to learn from each other.

The use of Western Front publications and instructors ensured that training schools and courses of instruction served as key fora for the practical dissemination of Western Front knowledge. This knowledge spread throughout the expeditionary forces through the army’s use of cascade training or ‘teach the teacher’ systems. ⁶⁷ Cascade training focuses on the training of a small group who then pass on what they know to others further down the organization hierarchy. It allows for the dissemination of information through the ranks in a relatively short period of time. ⁶⁸ Officers and men who attended formal schools were expected to cascade the information to their respective units either as an instructor or through less formal means such as lecturing. John Monash, for example, wrote that to keep up the supply of trained instructors in 3rd Australian Division, ‘selected officers and NCOs do courses of from one to three weeks … and are then returned to their units to continue the training of the junior personnel’, ⁶⁹ while Brigadier General Herbert Gordon (GOC 70th Brigade) decided to deliver a lecture to his men on his ‘recent course with the French at Verona’. ⁷⁰ Gordon’s approach was recommended by SS152, which advised that ‘lectures should be given on matters of interest by Officers recently returned from Schools, by Staff Officers and outside Lecturers when procurable’. ⁷¹ This suggests a greater emphasis on the individual as a way of sharing knowledge. Where possible, instructors from training schools would also visit formations to deliver lectures on the latest methods. ⁷²

Like training schools, lectures provided a good way of sharing knowledge as well as distilling the information found within military publications. The army recognized that ‘subordinate commanders have not always the time or the inclination to study official books. This can to a large extent be remedied by lectures given by officers of all ranks.’ ⁷³ Often informal in nature, these lectures made the explicit information found within publications accessible to a larger group. Colonel Rory Macleod, an artillery officer serving in the IEF, practised this approach, making ‘all the officers in this battery give lectures in the evenings. Each Officer has one subject, and he lectures on it once a week.’ ⁷⁴ This practice was important to the battery, as ‘officers are quite keen on listening to what one of their number is saying’. ⁷⁵ In the EEF, Captain Noel Drury recounted a ‘very informal lecture by Gen F[rederick] A[ugustus] Greer, all of us sitting round in shirt sleeves, and smoking’. ⁷⁶ The informality often found in these lectures was a welcome departure from the prescriptive syllabi of the training schools. As Macleod recalled, although he enjoyed the senior officers’ course at GHQ IEF, he found that some of the syllabus was ‘quite old’ and covered principles he had already learned during initial training at Woolwich. ⁷⁷

III. People

As seen with the use of lectures, the individual could play an important role in the sharing of knowledge. As Foley argues, informal, people-centred methods formed a central part of the army’s learning process. ⁷⁸ This aligned with the army’s organizational culture, its amateur tradition, and the continuing importance of personalities and patronage. However, this approach to learning is not limited to the British army. Research into corporate workplace learning reveals that nearly two-thirds of work-related information comes from face-to-face meetings, mentoring, and apprenticeships. ⁷⁹ The army recognized the importance of these ‘on the job’ methods through its promotion of secondment and attachment schemes. ⁸⁰

For the army, secondments facilitated the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge between theatres. Inter-theatre secondments were usually governed by the GHQ of the various expeditionary forces and were often in response to identified gaps in the force’s knowledge base. The request for suitable instructors for training schools is a good example of this. The same can be said for both staff officers and individuals with specialist technical knowledge. As early as March 1916 Brigadier General Philip Howell (BGGS BSF) drew attention to the ‘rapidly decreasing’ proportion of staff officers with Staff College or specialist training. Howell suggested arranging ‘permanent or temporary transfers’ to widen the experience of new and existing officers. ⁸¹ Lieutenant General Sir George Milne (C-in-C BSF) was vocal in his support for secondments. In early 1918 Milne advocated ‘an interchange of officers between Salonica and the French and Italian fronts’. Lieutenant Colonel Edward Plunkett, a liaison officer to the BSF, wrote how Milne believed that:

80% of the officers at Salonica would volunteer for service in France, while a large number of officers now in France would welcome a change to Salonica … There are many officers at Salonica with from 10 to 20 years experience, and Lt-Gen Milne does not consider that the country is getting full value from the time and money spent on their military education. ⁸²

Having previously served as both an artillery and divisional commander on the Western Front, Milne realized that the nature and tempo of operations in France would invariably result in the most up-to-date methods. Favouring Western Front practice and the wider attachment system, he endorsed the attachment of a number of his senior artillery officers to formations on the Western Front to ‘study modern artillery methods’ in June 1917. ⁸³ This party included, among others, Major General William Onslow (MGRA BSF), Brigadier General Hugh White-Thomson (BGRA XII Corps), and Lieutenant Colonel Philip Holbrooke, who later became the first counter-battery staff officer (CBSO) at XII Corps in August 1917. ⁸⁴ By sending senior officers to the Western Front, Milne increased the likelihood that modern Western Front artillery methods would disseminate throughout his force. Milne’s decision to sanction these attachments may well explain the subsequent decision to trial a CBSO in XII Corps to ‘carry out counter battery work as employed in France’. ⁸⁵ CBSOs were established on the Western Front from January 1917 onwards, seven months earlier than in Salonika. ⁸⁶ Sound ranging (SR) – a vital component of counter-battery work – was also pioneered and developed on the Western Front. ⁸⁷ By November 1918 there were 25 SR groups on the Western Front and a handful scattered among the theatres of Italy, Palestine, and Salonika. ⁸⁸ To benefit from this new technology, the subsidiary theatres relied on the dispatch of trained officers from France, or they were required to send their own officers for attachment and training on the Western Front. ⁸⁹ It was only in January 1918 that SR was added to the establishment of the field survey companies in Salonika. This suggests that, even with attachments, there could still be a considerable lag when importing Western Front practice and technology to other theatres.

In addition to lectures and secondments, the interpersonal relationships between individuals in the British army provided another method for learning. Modern management theory depicts the process of organizational learning as an iceberg. The small section above water covers formal learning, while the larger, submerged section represents informal learning. ⁹⁰ The prevalence of informal learning can be attributed to the fact that individuals often turn to each other, rather than documents, for information. ⁹¹ The use of informal social networks allows individuals to circumvent often unwieldy formal systems, thus reducing the problem of knowledge lag. ⁹² Individuals such as Philip Howell took advantage of their own social networks to secure up-to-date publications prior to the army’s decision to standardize distribution. Howell’s pre-war relationship with Sir Douglas Haig resulted in the latter sending him ‘some reports which may interest you, and [I] have also got [Lieutenant General Sir Richard] Butler to make up a package of publications on training questions which might be of use to you’. ⁹³

Although a shared identity and culture bound together individuals within the army, the importance of informal networks to the working of the army cannot be overlooked. ⁹⁴ Knowledge does not simply result from processes or activities; it comes from people and communities of people. There needs to be an element of connectedness between individuals for social networks to bear fruit. This connectedness could be through shared attendance at public school, Sandhurst, or the Staff College, or through membership of other social groups such as hunts or gentlemen’s clubs. In a letter to Alec Godley, for example, George Milne reminisced on the fortunes of his cohort at the Staff College, noting that:

a good many of us who were at the S[taff] C[ollege] together seem to be fairly busy in the war. You, Robertson, Gough, Hunter Bunter, Braithwaite … and many others … We know little of the war in France and anxiously pick up all the crumbs we can. ⁹⁵

The tendency to focus on formal, hierarchical methods of learning has meant that the impact of these informal, lateral relationships has sometimes been overlooked. As these interactions are social and often ad hoc in nature, the process and outcome are very rarely written down. However, evidence of these interactions can be found in personal correspondence, particularly between senior officers. Like Milne, Stanley Maude (C-in-C Indian Expeditionary Force D) was keen to keep in touch with Western Front developments during his time in Mesopotamia. Writing to his family, Maude noted that he was ‘getting a good many letters now … from the War Office, and from Army, Corps and Divisional Commanders in France and Egypt’. This ensured that he was kept ‘posted with what is going on there’. ⁹⁶ Throughout the Gallipoli campaign, Henry Rawlinson was in regular communication with senior officers in the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, including Braithwaite, Godley, and Ian Hamilton. ⁹⁷ The correspondence between these men reveals discussions around the reasons for success or failure in the different theatres. In a letter to Clive Wigram (private secretary to King George V), Rawlinson wrote that he had:

heard from Braithwaite the other day describing the difficulties of the situation which confronts them – Achi Baba is not dissimilar to many of the fortified strongholds which confront us here so I sent him some of our experiences on the best way to deal with barbed wire and trenches. ⁹⁸

Rawlinson also sent reports and sketches to Godley, outlining how the divisions and corps on the Western Front were arranged to ensure that the troops were kept in ‘good fighting trim’. ⁹⁹ A further example involved an exchange between Rawlinson and Philip Chetwode (GOC XX Corps) who were both Old Etonians and members of the Turf Club. It provides an illuminating example of the written learning relationship between theatres. Prior to the Beersheba operations in October 1917, Chetwode consulted Rawlinson over the difficulties of water supply in the Palestine theatre. The reply from Rawlinson was sensible enough: ‘Why don’t you do as I’ve done in my Army Area here? I’ve got nearly twenty miles of pipe lines laid down.’ Chetwode smiled, remarking: ‘I must tell him … we’ve already got one hundred and fifty miles of pipe line.’ ¹⁰⁰ Knowledge was shared across boundaries, but logistical lessons were not always applicable, given the poor existing transport infrastructure and hostile desert terrain of the Middle East.

Far from preventing these informal exchanges of information, the army tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged these discussions. The concepts of ‘clubbability’ and the ‘old school tie’ encompassed a variety of pre-existing social networks that overlaid the shared identity of service in the army. These concepts still held currency in Edwardian society and were exploited by the army with the establishment of officers’ and social clubs in the UK and abroad, such as the King George and Queen Mary Clubs and the Australian Imperial Force’s War Chest Club in London. ¹⁰¹ The value of these clubs was quickly realized by the army, which used the clubs’ bulletin boards to post information and orders from the front. ¹⁰² The ‘old school tie’ was further manifested through the numerous school, university, and regimental dinners that took place on all fronts during the war. These dinners were often advertised in the General Routine Orders of each expeditionary force and, while not envisaged as a way of sharing knowledge, still served to provide extra lubricant for the mechanics of socialization. ¹⁰³ The army also used its formal training schools to promote socializing and discussion. The object of the first Royal Engineers (RE) School of Instruction at Le Parcq, for example, was to ‘enable officers from different parts of the line to exchange their experiences and methods, to their mutual advantage’. ¹⁰⁴ The second RE school, which started at Blendecques in December 1917, built on the principles espoused at Le Parcq. However, unlike Le Parcq, officers at Blendecques ‘came to know each other much better and consequently more discussion took place’. ¹⁰⁵ This forum for discussion was not just reserved for attendees on the course. In connection with the school, several conferences of divisional Commanders Royal Engineers (CRE) were held under the presidency of an army chief engineer, which thus afforded ‘an invaluable opportunity for the exchange of ideas’. ¹⁰⁶

IV. Conclusion

Shaped by its pre-war attitude to learning, the British army shared knowledge among its operational theatres through a number of different media. In response to its rapid expansion and its increasing global commitments, the army was forced to develop a series of bureaucratic methods, including publications and training schools, to share knowledge between its expeditionary forces. It could no longer rely on a purely ad hoc, highly personalized approach to learning. As a result, forces were bombarded with the latest literature and tactics. However, owing to its organizational and learning culture, the army was reticent when it came to enforcing this literature. The dissemination of Western Front publications to the other theatres often came with a caveat around the ‘considerable dissimilarity in conditions and methods’. ¹⁰⁷ It was, therefore, for each force to discern the value of this information for use in-theatre. The various forces were not obliged to adhere to Western Front practice, which suggests that the army had not completely departed from its tendency towards decentralized decision-making. It was flexible enough to delegate responsibility to the periphery. Indeed, by focusing on the learning experience beyond the Western Front, this article has highlighted the depth and expanse of the army’s learning process.

As both Foley and Beach have argued, the development of formal methods took time to mature. It took until February 1917 for the systematic dissemination of military publications to the subsidiary theatres, while the doctrine-writing process behind those publications did not really mature until mid-1918. ¹⁰⁸ The army recognized that it needed to invest in a series of methods to enhance its organizational learning experience. However, it could not favour formal over informal methods. In keeping with its highly personalized approach, the army actively encouraged a variety of ‘people-to-people’ methods for sharing knowledge, including secondments, while tolerating underlying informal social networks. These avenues were heavily influenced by the social and cultural affiliations that transcended the shared culture of the army. The army exploited these affiliations, working in conjunction with existing Edwardian social structures and using them as a means of increasing its learning potential. It clearly understood the benefits of networking and conversation as a way of sharing knowledge both in-theatre and between theatres. These informal methods were a legacy of the army’s preference for pragmatic solutions. This suggests that, unwittingly or not, the army pursued a strategy of personalization, supported by one of codification. ¹⁰⁹

Although the various expeditionary forces had their own tactical and geographical peculiarities, coupled with the inevitable differences in scale and tempo, the lessons and innovations from the Western Front were highly sought after. Training schools based their syllabi on Western Front publications and preferred instructors with ‘experience gained in France’. The army’s learning methods were effective in sharing knowledge among the theatres, as well as ensuring the successful establishment of a Western Front bedrock. This bedrock was propagated by senior officers and commanders in the British army who were willing to engage with the mass of literature produced in order to identify, assess, and, where required, adapt the learning process of the Western Front to suit conditions faced in their own theatres. Ultimately, success in the First World War was predicated upon the swift, efficient transfer of knowledge. The army had to develop and engage with both formal and informal methods to realize this knowledge transfer. Its desire to develop these mutually supportive methods suggests that the army had a greater awareness of the importance of organizational learning than hitherto thought.