PDA

View Full Version : World War I: Trench Warfare Begins



Mister D
11-20-2012, 02:27 PM
Great series. I didn't realize so much footage existed from the beginning of hostilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3S9RgDIDs

Mister D
11-20-2012, 02:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fELflpkGsr4&feature=relmfu

Peter1469
11-20-2012, 06:07 PM
Military technology for offensive and defensive tactics does not keep pace with each other. This was a case where defensive weapons clearly were superior to offensive weapons. Yet the generals and the marshals tried to fight as if offensive weapons were supreme.

Mister D
11-20-2012, 06:38 PM
Military technology for offensive and defensive tactics does not keep pace with each other. This was a case where defensive weapons clearly were superior to offensive weapons. Yet the generals and the marshals tried to fight as if offensive weapons were supreme.

Military planners understood the capabilities of the new the technology and before long it was obvious to everyone. The problem facing the generals was that ultimately you have to attack to win. They came up with a host of ideas to break the deadlock and I think that is often forgotten.

Peter1469
11-20-2012, 06:50 PM
Military planners understood the capabilities of the new the technology and before long it was obvious to everyone. The problem facing the generals was that ultimately you have to attack to win. They came up with a host of ideas to break the deadlock and I think that is often forgotten.

I disagree slightly. I think that they clung to old tactics until it was obvious that it was getting 10s of thousands of soldiers killed. Then they started to innovate. Who was the French marshal who said it took ~80,000 casualties to produce a brigadier (general)?

Mister D
11-20-2012, 07:02 PM
I disagree slightly. I think that they clung to old tactics until it was obvious that it was getting 10s of thousands of soldiers killed. Then they started to innovate. Who was the French marshal who said it took ~80,000 casualties to produce a brigadier (general)?

In 1914 I think was at least partly true and a bunch of generals were sacked after the first campaign because of it. That said, it's still true that the leadership desperately sought a solution to the stalemate. unfortunately, they couldn't just stand still in the meantime.

by 1915 gas and flamethrowers were already making their first appearance.

Re the quote I'll say Petain but I'm guessing.

Peter1469
11-20-2012, 07:23 PM
In 1914 I think was at least partly true and a bunch of generals were sacked after the first campaign because of it. That said, it's still true that the leadership desperately sought a solution to the stalemate. unfortunately, they couldn't just stand still in the meantime.

by 1915 gas and flamethrowers were already making their first appearance.

Re the quote I'll say Petain but I'm guessing.


unfortunately, they couldn't just stand still in the meantime.

Why not? If charges across no-mans land produced such high casualties, why not let the enemy break themselves on your hard defenses?

Mister D
11-20-2012, 08:33 PM
Why not? If charges across no-mans land produced such high casualties, why not let the enemy break themselves on your hard defenses?

but you have to attack and force a decision at some point. by not attacking you surrender all initiative to the enemy. That's guarantees defeat and it's precisely the kind of thinking that lost the war for France in 1940. The static defense will be defeated. Germany adopted this strategy in 1915 but only temporarily. They knew they were outnumbered so they decided the strategic defense in the west would be best for a while. Except for the attack at Verdun they maintained this for a couple years but they had no chance of winning unless they knocked France out of the war. The English blockade was starving them out and there as a lot of social unrest at home. The historical circumstances will obviously vary but you must attack to win.

Peter1469
11-20-2012, 09:57 PM
but you have to attack and force a decision at some point. by not attacking you surrender all initiative to the enemy. That's guarantees defeat and it's precisely the kind of thinking that lost the war for France in 1940. The static defense will be defeated. Germany adopted this strategy in 1915 but only temporarily. They knew they were outnumbered so they decided the strategic defense in the west would be best for a while. Except for the attack at Verdun they maintained this for a couple years but they had no chance of winning unless they knocked France out of the war. The English blockade was starving them out and there as a lot of social unrest at home. The historical circumstances will obviously vary but you must attack to win.

That is my point. In trench warfare, where a trench extends from the Baltic Sea to Switzerland any charge across no mans land = changing into heavy machine guns ensuring 10s of thousands of casualties. Instead, build your defenses to ensure you defeat all charges against your positions. The enemy will reduce itself to defeat. The political reality called for useless charges regardless of the loss.

Mister D
11-20-2012, 10:23 PM
That is my point. In trench warfare, where a trench extends from the Baltic Sea to Switzerland any charge across no mans land = changing into heavy machine guns ensuring 10s of thousands of casualties. Instead, build your defenses to ensure you defeat all charges against your positions. The enemy will reduce itself to defeat. The political reality called for useless charges regardless of the loss.

That (bold) didn't work for Germany and they tried it albeit because they had to until Russia collapsed. They launched a massive offensive (Operation Michael) in 1918 in a bid to win. You can only win via the offense. The circumstances of trench warfare did not change that fundamental reality of warmaking. That was the problem facing the generals. I think it's a myth that they were particularly callous with their mens' lives.

The military and political realities cannot be neatly separated in total war or in modern war at all.

Peter1469
11-20-2012, 10:27 PM
That (bold) didn't work for Germany and they tried it albeit because they had to until Russia collapsed. They launched a massive offensive (Operation Michael) in 1918 in a bid to win. You can only win via the offense. The circumstances of trench warfare did not change that fundamental reality of warmaking. That was the problem facing the generals. I think it's a myth that they were particularly callous with their mens' lives.

The military and political realities cannot be neatly separated in total war or in modern war at all.

I understand that conventional military doctrine says you can only win on the offense. That is why the casualty rates in WWI were so high. That is my point. I think that the commanders who orders charges against maxim guns (and their equivalents) were guilty of incompetence.

Mister D
11-20-2012, 10:41 PM
I understand that conventional military doctrine says you can only win on the offense. That is why the casualty rates in WWI were so high. That is my point. I think that the commanders who orders charges against maxim guns (and their equivalents) were guilty of incompetence.

but that's a myth. It wasn't a common mentality among officers. It's come down to us that way from literature like All Quiet on the Western Front ut that wasn't an accurate reflection of reality. They didn't line up their men to be massacred. They did all they could to make sure their men would not be charging into Maxim guns. Gas, flamethrowers, creeping barrages, tanks, and so forth were efforts to counter the advantages the defense held. Sitting still simply was never an option with an entire population and economy mobilized for war.

Peter1469
11-20-2012, 10:47 PM
That is counter to what I have read.

Mister D
11-21-2012, 08:52 AM
That is counter to what I have read.

From what I understand this has become a popularized image but it doesn't jive with reality. Literature can have a powerful effect on how even professional historians perceive history.

As an example of what I meant above I'm sure you know the story of the British fiasco on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Marching in line toward the German positions etc. Casulaties were horrific and little progress was made. No one thought they would be facing much in the way of Maxim guns or anything else. The week long artillery bombardment was expected to have demolished the German positions and the advancing infantry would meet little resistance. Unfortunately the guns did not do what was expected. It was trial and error. The French knew better having borne the brunt of the fighting prior to the Somme and suffered far fewer casualties. My point is that the generals of the First World War were in an extremely difficult position. While there were "butchers" most officers were not callous with the lives of their men.

Kabuki Joe
11-21-2012, 12:59 PM
I disagree slightly. I think that they clung to old tactics until it was obvious that it was getting 10s of thousands of soldiers killed. Then they started to innovate. Who was the French marshal who said it took ~80,000 casualties to produce a brigadier (general)?

...old tactics are why the British lost in the revolutionary war...


Kabuki Joe

Peter1469
11-21-2012, 09:14 PM
From what I understand this has become a popularized image but it doesn't jive with reality. Literature can have a powerful effect on how even professional historians perceive history.

As an example of what I meant above I'm sure you know the story of the British fiasco on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Marching in line toward the German positions etc. Casulaties were horrific and little progress was made. No one thought they would be facing much in the way of Maxim guns or anything else. The week long artillery bombardment was expected to have demolished the German positions and the advancing infantry would meet little resistance. Unfortunately the guns did not do what was expected. It was trial and error. The French knew better having borne the brunt of the fighting prior to the Somme and suffered far fewer casualties. My point is that the generals of the First World War were in an extremely difficult position. While there were "butchers" most officers were not callous with the lives of their men.

I agree with that; but they tried the same thing over and over...

Mister D
11-21-2012, 09:19 PM
...old tactics are why the British lost in the revolutionary war...


Kabuki Joe

The British would have won the war if not for French assistance to the colonials.

Mister D
11-21-2012, 09:21 PM
I agree with that; but they tried the same thing over and over...

no more so than in any other conflict. Some generals are unimaginative but that is not peculiar to the generals of WW!. The circumstances, however, were such that mistakes were punished severely.

Peter1469
11-21-2012, 09:43 PM
no more so than in any other conflict. Some generals are unimaginative but that is not peculiar to the generals of WW!. The circumstances, however, were such that mistakes were punished severely.

And that take us back to my first point.....

Mister D
11-22-2012, 01:26 PM
And that take us back to my first point.....


Military technology for offensive and defensive tactics does not keep pace with each other. This was a case where defensive weapons clearly were superior to offensive weapons. Yet the generals and the marshals tried to fight as if offensive weapons were supreme.

I agree with your first point. It's the second we have a disagreement on.

Peter1469
11-22-2012, 04:18 PM
I agree with your first point. It's the second we have a disagreement on.

I can live with that.

Mister D
11-28-2012, 02:38 PM
Interesting colorized footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP_0DkpFOKs

Mister D
12-01-2012, 04:26 PM
While many people have the impression that the worst years were spent in the trenches the reality is that the costliest fighting took place in the late Summer and Fall of 1914 (i.e. before the trench systems were dug). Casualties actually decreased every year from 1914 to 1918.

Peter1469
12-01-2012, 05:07 PM
When you look at the numbers, this doesn't count for much. The numbers are staggering.

Mister D
12-01-2012, 05:35 PM
When you look at the numbers, this doesn't count for much. The numbers are staggering.

They certainly are staggering. The fact is, however, that the trenches saved a lot of lives. The fluid combat of 1914 was the bloodiest.

Peter1469
12-01-2012, 05:54 PM
They certainly are staggering. The fact is, however, that the trenches saved a lot of lives. The fluid combat of 1914 was the bloodiest.

That takes me back to my original point. The offensive tactics / weapons lagged behind the defensive weaponry of the day. Pre-trench warfare was mass suicide. Trench warfare was a lot of waiting for the whistle to blow, and then mass suicide. Without the trenches the war would have been over a lot sooner for lack of pawns to march into machine guns. The Germans improved offensive tactics near the end of the war, but by then it was too late.

Mister D
12-01-2012, 09:14 PM
That takes me back to my original point. The offensive tactics / weapons lagged behind the defensive weaponry of the day. Pre-trench warfare was mass suicide. Trench warfare was a lot of waiting for the whistle to blow, and then mass suicide. Without the trenches the war would have been over a lot sooner for lack of pawns to march into machine guns. The Germans improved offensive tactics near the end of the war, but by then it was too late.

Casualties were immense for both the attacker and the defender. Sometimes, the latter suffered more heavily. Moreover, the defenders advantage did not last for long. by the Spring of 1915 gas had appeared; by 1916 tanks and new artillery tactics. It took time but the deadlock was broken. This time, however, could not be spent idly.

The fluid warfare of 1914 carried with it the prospect of decision despite the higher casualties whereas the long slog in the trenches was destined to be just that: a long slog.

Mister D
12-05-2012, 08:59 PM
Thanks to our resident Kiwi I've been in an ANZAC state of mind these last few days. This is great footage from the ANZAC trenches on the heights above the beach on the Gallipoli Peninsula although I'm not sure how much is staged for the cameras. The best footage, IMHO, starts around 2:07.

ANZAC = Australian New Zealand Army Corp.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feVOwtwR4OM