由詹姆斯·愛(ài)德華·埃德蒙茲準(zhǔn)將（James Edward Edmonds）指導(dǎo)下于1920年撰寫的英軍官史。誠(chéng)然，各國(guó)官史在研究自己軍隊(duì)上有著不可替代的權(quán)威和專業(yè)性，但就在對(duì)蒙斯會(huì)戰(zhàn)的研究上，英軍官史可以說(shuō)是后世流傳的神話來(lái)源地

佐伯（Zuber）在他2010年可以說(shuō)是關(guān)于蒙斯研究這跨時(shí)代的作品中提到了，埃德蒙茲準(zhǔn)將幾乎沒(méi)有提到任何關(guān)于英軍戰(zhàn)前的訓(xùn)練和戰(zhàn)術(shù)理論內(nèi)容，而是提到了英軍“可怕的步槍火力”，還有所謂德軍的步兵戰(zhàn)術(shù)以“集體進(jìn)攻”，直到感受到了“快速步槍射擊”的力量后才有時(shí)散開(kāi)。佐伯直接在后文批駁了這些論調(diào)

最后德軍憑借數(shù)量?jī)?yōu)勢(shì)迫使英軍撤退，而英軍官史又提到了“德軍定然損失非常慘重”

這也引入本文的主要內(nèi)容了

蒙斯會(huì)戰(zhàn)的戰(zhàn)損

跟英國(guó)遠(yuǎn)征軍可怕的步槍火力的傳說(shuō)一樣，蒙斯會(huì)戰(zhàn)離譜的戰(zhàn)損比也隨著以英語(yǔ)為母語(yǔ)的戰(zhàn)役歷史中反復(fù)被提及。絕大部分英文戰(zhàn)史中對(duì)德軍損失的估計(jì)也是在6,000-10,000，有著基本小學(xué)數(shù)學(xué)知識(shí)的歷史學(xué)家就會(huì)對(duì)這個(gè)數(shù)字有所懷疑，而更為靠譜的估計(jì)也是在5,000人以上

而佐伯，則使用德軍團(tuán)史，根據(jù)各團(tuán)團(tuán)史記錄的傷亡在加上一些微不足道的如炮兵騎兵傷亡得出，德軍第一集團(tuán)軍的傷亡不到2,000人！

也就是說(shuō)，蒙斯會(huì)戰(zhàn)的戰(zhàn)損比不是4:1或者6:1，而是1.25:1

Twelve infantry regiments of IX AK and III AK were seriously engaged on 23 August. Ten of those unit histories state the regiment’s casualties and these add up to 1,692. IR 12 was the highest (627), the next highest was IR 75 with 276. Three regiments had fewer than 200 casualties; five more had fewer than 100. IR 90 had about 75 wounded, probably 100 casualties altogether. If one assumes that IR 24 had the same casualties as IR 8 (95), the adjacent unit with a similar situation and mission, then the total comes to under 1,900. Throw in IV AK casualties (about 50), and artillery and cavalry casualties (fewer than 25), and the German 1st Army suffered no more than 2,000 casualties. Instead of the casualty ratio being about 4:1 or 6:1, it was actually 1.25:1. As a proportion of the forces engaged, British losses were far higher than the German: eleven British battalions took roughly the same number of casualties as thirty-six German battalions. British accounts of massacring German hordes were wishful thinking or worse.

而這也是英粉們宣稱的“非常漂亮的戰(zhàn)術(shù)勝利”了