WI Weaker Defensive Advantage in WWI

Or, of course, invent the tank. Which is then countered by anti-tank rifles, heavy machine guns and light cannon (M1916 or Becker types).

This. Its important to remember, like Gas or the old cavalry charge dealing with WW I level tanks wasent too hard with the proper prep and responce (though devastating if you got caught with your pants down). If they exist in large numbers prewar, expect both sides to have counter measures to neutralize these large, cumbersome, highly flammable targets
 
With a LMG or similar, and grenadiers, that could actually work. The problem is the size/mass of the shield and the doctrinal change.

I wonder if it would be feasible to have the soldiers fight in pairs, with one of them carrying the shield and the other firing from behind it... That would give quite a bit of protection, although of course it would also reduce the amount of fire you can put down quite significantly.
 
I wonder if it would be feasible to have the soldiers fight in pairs, with one of them carrying the shield and the other firing from behind it... That would give quite a bit of protection, although of course it would also reduce the amount of fire you can put down quite significantly.
Well firstly you'd need more LMGs, not really a common weapon early in the war. I suspect any shield capable of stopping systained rifle-calibre fire of the period would be rather heavy; a large design with (say) two soldiers to push it on wheels with 2-4 others to use it might be better.
 
The British 1914 professional army, the French Alpine Corps, The German foot guards etc; the standing professional soldiers were used to fire and maneuver, skirmish lines, taking advantage of every piece of cover, not attacking while wearing 25kg packs etc

One would need to change the mindset away from masses of poorly trained conscripts in favor of trying to maintain the effectiveness level of the pre war formations. The professional formations could and did break WW1 defensive lines with the weapons at hand
 
Back-of-envelope calculations.
Shield 1.5m x 2.5m (to protect a fire team, rather like a medieval mantlet)
5mm thick (minimum for protection from ball ammunition)
Therefore the shield would weigh ~150kg. Add wheels, grips et cetera and 160+
 
Back-of-envelope calculations.
Shield 1.5m x 2.5m (to protect a fire team, rather like a medieval mantlet)
5mm thick (minimum for protection from ball ammunition)
Therefore the shield would weigh ~150kg. Add wheels, grips et cetera and 160+

Mobile metal shields where tried by both sides numerous times; the end result was that it was hard to move them through the shell scape and they were sighted and destroyed by field guns with direct fire; and or showered with grenades and flamethrowers if they got in range
 
Light artillery was pretty useless against emplacements, except with massed fire, unless the weapons were able to accompany infantry (the old 'galloper guns' idea) for direct fire. They also required rapid communications between infantry and their divisional artillery detachments.

Light artillery, thanks to lighter shell, was quite useful for suppressive fire covering advance. As for rapid communications, field telephones were available, and in many cases signal lights could be used for retransmitting messages. These were basic perks used during WWII too.
 
This might need some pre-1900 PODs but what if the defence had a weaker advantage over the offence during World War I?
The entire trench system has to be made mobile. Put it on wheels and have the infantry push it from behind so the MGs can't get to them. I call it "The 400-mile wide tank"
 
Well firstly you'd need more LMGs, not really a common weapon early in the war. I suspect any shield capable of stopping systained rifle-calibre fire of the period would be rather heavy; a large design with (say) two soldiers to push it on wheels with 2-4 others to use it might be better.

A pity no-one thought of putting this heavy apparatus on tracks with an engine.


Hey....wait....
 
Man in the hole, in field fortifications, is comparatively easy target for indirect fire. You can't create a trench system instantaneously.
It doesn't take long to dig a fox hole, and a man in a hole is immune to anything but a shrapnel bust directly overhead, a direct hit or an underground charge going off below him.
 
It doesn't take long to dig a fox hole, and a man in a hole is immune to anything but a shrapnel bust directly overhead, a direct hit or an underground charge going off below him.

You keep the man down with suppressive fire, first with artillery, then with mortars, finally by light machine guns. Basic technique used in WWI onwards time and time again.
 
Top