Of course I don't mean end completely but was it the addoption of tanks in WWI that helped make trench warfate less popular by decreasing its effectivness?
The second (static) phase of the Korean war can be described as trench warfare and tanks were avaiable.
The Iran-Iraq War would suggest otherwise.
not at all. the Germans, and then later the French and Americans (not the British mind you) figured out the limitations of trench warfare, and figured out how to defeat it.
And when in WW1 did this happen? The French army was on the verge of braking when the war ended; the US army was stupid enough to try tactics the French had abandoned as suicidal and got away with them to a limited extent because they were facing a German force that was collapsing. The German infiltration attacks allowed them to make some deepish penetrations late in the war - but then the penetrating forces collapsed, because the tactics (go around strongpoints rather than defeating them) that they had adopted meant they couldn't be re-supplied...
The French did copy the German infiltration tactics, and did well with them in 1918. the US also adopted them quite well. It was only the British that were taking horrendous losses even in Autumn of 1918.
The French took more losses than any Allied army in the last 100 days of the war.The Hundred Days Offensive was the final period of the First World War, during which the Allies launched a series of offensives against the Central Powers on the Western Front from 8 August to 11 November 1918, beginning with the Battle of Amiens. The offensive forced the German armies to retreat beyond the Hindenburg Line and was followed by an armistice. The Hundred Days Offensive does not refer to a specific battle or unified strategy, but rather the rapid sequences of Allied victories starting with the Battle of Amiens.
Casualties and losses
Killed, wounded and prisoners:
531,000 French
411,636 British Empire
127,000 American
Total: 1,070,000
What??? I have no idea what you're talking about and I've specialized in studying late 1918 infantry tactics, including have had conversations with Bruce Gudmundsson (author of 'Stormtrooper Tactics' the definitive book on WW1 German assault tactics and their evolution) and have his bachelors thesis that compares infantry and their tactics in the French, British, and German armies throughout WW1 on the Western Front. The French DID NOT adopt German tactics. They developed their own, which did not resemble German assault tactics. French tactics were combined arms that relied very heavily on massive artillery preparation, tanks, strong artillery-infantry coordination, and overwhelming air superiority/air attacks. The US still were using human wave attacks through most of 1918 and NEVER adopted German assault tactics in WW1.
The British were NOT the only ones take horrible losses in the last 100 days of the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive
The French took more losses than any Allied army in the last 100 days of the war.
What??? I have no idea what you're talking about and I've specialized in studying late 1918 infantry tactics, including have had conversations with Bruce Gudmundsson (author of 'Stormtrooper Tactics' the definitive book on WW1 German assault tactics and their evolution) and have his bachelors thesis that compares infantry and their tactics in the French, British, and German armies throughout WW1 on the Western Front. The French DID NOT adopt German tactics. They developed their own, which did not resemble German assault tactics. French tactics were combined arms that relied very heavily on massive artillery preparation, tanks, strong artillery-infantry coordination, and overwhelming air superiority/air attacks. The US still were using human wave attacks through most of 1918 and NEVER adopted German assault tactics in WW1.
The British were NOT the only ones take horrible losses in the last 100 days of the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive
The French took more losses than any Allied army in the last 100 days of the war.
Ok, i overstepped with exact copying of Storm Trooper Tactics. Though, the French did take a lot of lessons, such as the quick barrage, and not attacking head on like lemmings. Petain did do a lot to reform the Army. Though no where near what the Germans did. They also used a crap ton of tanks, unlike the British, who used them all pale male.
The France took the brunt of the Spring offensive though, to be fair. They were folding when the Germans hit the Americans, and couldn't dislodge them. Which effectively ended the German momentum
The French developed the quick bombardment on their own and it was partly the French attack tactics that were copied by the Germans in 1915 when they captured a copy of Laffargue's assault manual.Ok, i overstepped with exact copying of Storm Trooper Tactics. Though, the French did take a lot of lessons, such as the quick barrage, and not attacking head on like lemmings. Petain did do a lot to reform the Army. Though no where near what the Germans did. They also used a crap ton of tanks, unlike the British, who used them all pale male.
The France took the brunt of the Spring offensive though, to be fair. They were folding when the Germans hit the Americans, and couldn't dislodge them. Which effectively ended the German momentum
But they had far less density in frontage, while the Germans were on the strategic defensive, so actually had less over all 'wastage' than the lines on the maps suggest. The British had IIRC double the troop density in their sectors.They also covered a much larger section of the front.
That sounds about right:The British had evolved highly effective combined arms tactics by 1918; hence their large scale successes in the 100 Days. The heavy casualties were the result of heavy fighting during their advance. I don't have the figures to hand but I believe it was the British(in which I include Imperial and Dominion troops) who took the most ground and inflicted the most casualties during the 100 days.