Did tanks end trench warfare?

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?
 

Deleted member 1487

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?

No. The combination of combined arms warfare, the improvement in communication, and above all else attrition of the German army and homefront coupled with the influx of millions of Americans giving the allies 2:1 combat soldier advantage over the Germans won the war.
The tank on its own helped with the initial break in, but was much less effective in that role than the masses of artillery and even aircraft in 1918. The tanks get publicity because of their initial impact once they became more reliable AND the effect they had in WW2. By late 1918 the German anti-tank measures were becoming effective enough to blunt their impact as a breakthrough weapon.
 
I don't believe so. Trench warfare didn't really begin to diminish until both sides decided to go on the offensive again late in the war. And even then with decent numbers of tanks involved, the casualties were still horrifying and the gains made were not as significant as they would have been if the losses were not so large. Take a look at Operation Michael. Excellent example.
 
The second (static) phase of the Korean war can be described as trench warfare and tanks were avaiable.
 
The second (static) phase of the Korean war can be described as trench warfare and tanks were avaiable.

True, but the terrain there wasn't ideal for an armored offensive so they essentially were used to support the infantry. Did a tremendous job too
 
The Iran-Iraq War would suggest otherwise.

Yes, I was thinking of that example too. Not in all areas, of course, but in the places where it did happen the similarities were remarkable: trenches, barbed wire, poison gas, artillery and machine guns firing at infantry attacks across no-mans land.
It didn't have to go that way - there were ways the Iranians might have got a victory without recreating WW1 in the Persian Gulf - but that isn't really the topic. In any case it's a vastly under-appreciated war.
 

elkarlo

Banned
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.
 

amphibulous

Banned
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...
 

elkarlo

Banned
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.

biggest problems for the German inflitration tactics, was a total lack of supply. The would stop and loot for food whenever they made any real gains. As they had very little of their own.

BTW I am no fan of the French in WWI.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.

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 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
The French took more losses than any Allied army in the last 100 days of the war.
 

Jason222

Banned
I am say tank add lay to the way wars be foguth no way end Trench warfare the Israeli 1948 used trench some case successful fought of tanks. Egypt Yom Kipper war used some like trench I think. Not I am say no effect but it did end the us trench. Pratice having right anti tank weapons and need be in place it adds to what people trench need fight with .
 

elkarlo

Banned
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
 
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.

They also covered a much larger section of the front.
 
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 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.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
Petain developed his methods at Verdun mostly, but also in 1915 when France was on the offensive.
The French offensive techniques were based on their major material advantage, as they alone outproduced Germany in aircraft, while had the largest allied artillery and tank production, not to mention shell production. French manpower had been worn down in 1914-16, so by 1917-18 they were relying on the technological and material edge they had to develop a combined arms attack method that cost them relatively few casualties when properly conducted. The French attacks in late 1917 are the best example, especially when they retook Morte Homme at very little loss and bashed the crap out the Germans, who lost disproportionately when counterattacking. Also Petain's follow up attack on the Chemin des Dames was brilliantly conducted and very low cost in lives to the French.

As to British tank methods, check out how they used them at Cambrai; they massed the tanks and bashed right through.

They also covered a much larger section of the front.
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.

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.
That sounds about right:
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Germ...UTF8&qid=1357175384&sr=1-8&keywords=1917+1918
 
Top