No going over the top

How early or how late does WWI have to take place in order to avoid degenerating into trench warfare? This does not refer to "over by Christmas" scenarios where the Germans take Paris or the Russians take Berlin; the war should last at least a year. Assume the same camps.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
How early or how late does WWI have to take place in order to avoid degenerating into trench warfare? This does not refer to "over by Christmas" scenarios where the Germans take Paris or the Russians take Berlin; the war should last at least a year. Assume the same camps.

Anywhere in the 20th century is too late or too early, degenerating in trench warfare in the west came about from the sheer mass of soldiers used over so little space with little mechanization. Have the model of mass clockwork armies fail in the Franco-Prussian war, or even as early as the french revolution, for some reason and maybe it might not happen but once mass mobilisation is in the portrait over very dense territory it's almost a given.

Alternately, positional warfare somehow still dominates military thinking and people fight for places instead of for every damn inch of ground.
 
Trench warfare was common in the late stages of the American Civil War and standard procedure in the Russo-Japanese war so going any earlier won't help. But by WW2 the lessons of WW1 plus mechanisation meant that trenchlines could be broken, but they were still a highly effective way to fight.

So I think that 'over the top' is virtually inevitable until sound tactics and equipment are developed to break out of trenches, and that would take a long war unfortunately.
 
Trenches had already grown obsolete by the end of the war, resulting in lines moving quickly toward the Germans. It was the figuring out of tank doctrine by the Entente that made the difference. After all, its purpose was to move an armored shell containing soldiers witn guns over trenches.
 

loughery111

Banned
The Germans could break through trenches without tanks by 1917.

Only at an absolutely prohibitive expenditure of men and material... they were losing shortly after their offensive fell apart... The Entente (even sans USA) would have won after that. Hooray, primitive armored warfare!
 
The Entente (even sans USA) would have won after that.


A very theoretical case, as without the massive US loans of 1917/18, Britain can't subsidise its continental allies, so France and Italy are likely to be at the end of their tether by late 1917. The 1918 campaigns as we know them simply don't happen.
 
Last edited:
The possibility was discussed in the German High Command in 1914, when the failure of the first thrust into France became apparent.
Either one started to dig in on a wide front - or one beat general retreat and marshalled the armies for a new thrust.
The decision fell for digging in as they were reluctant to cede the ground already taken - and feared for the psychological effects of a general retreat.

Taking trenches and trench lines was something all armies could do throughout the Great War; exploitation was the big problem, because neither cavalry nor the WW1 tanks were capable of doing this.
The final offensives of the Allies in 1918 were a series of continued pushes without aiming at breakthrough and exploitation - and only possible because the Germans had sacrificed too many men and means in trying to exploit with infantry.
 
Last edited:
Only at an absolutely prohibitive expenditure of men and material... they were losing shortly after their offensive fell apart... The Entente (even sans USA) would have won after that. Hooray, primitive armored warfare!

All trench breakthoughs were prohibitively expensive, Canada's awesome performance in the last 100 days of WW1 were also her bloodiest.
 
Taking trenches and trench lines was something all armies could do throughout the Great War; exploitation was the big problem, because neither cavalry nor the WW1 tanks were capable of doing this.

Exactly. Rail lines could supply troops up to your own trench lines, but almost immediately after crossing no-man's land your own troops' logistic support collapsed, and they lost communications with their own artillery. There wasn't a single line of trenches in most places, there were multiple lines. Take the first, and the second can still call fire to interdict no man's land. Even if you manage to breach all the trench lines in a zone, getting artillery up to the new front, much less the ammo for it, is a nightmare.

Radio fire direction for artillery had quite a bit to do with allowing mobile warfare, and is often forgotten.
 
rast wrote:
exploitation was the big problem, because neither cavalry nor the WW1 tanks were capable of doing this.
Yeah - and that's why the Entente started sending supporting infantry to accompany their tanks (a little after?). And THAT'S when the lines really got moving, and they won win after win.
 
Top