Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Trench Warfare
Topic Started: Oct 28 2013, 11:49 PM (373 Views)
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Is there any way we might see alternate developments leading to a rather different Western Front in World War I, one which does not have the widespread stalemate of trench warfare for four years?

The mobility of the first two months always stuck out at me considering the stalemate that was to follow. It is certainly something that has proved difficult to replicate systematically, as we've seen in our games. What was it about the circumstances that allowed such rapid movement, followed by the total absence of progress after summer 1914?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Well, I've always thought it had to do with the role of the machine gun and the number of artillery involved, in addition to the sheer density of the formations on the western front.

The British and French did not have a significant number of machine guns or, for that matter, artillery, when the war started, so that would enable the Germans, who were on the attack, to make significant gains. After the German advance was halted and thrown back, it was the Allies who needed to attack, and the larger number of German machine guns and artillery made this far more difficult than it had been when it was going the other way around.

Plus, we are talking about a huge amount of unmechanized and unarmoured infantry in a relatively small space fighting with lots of mud churned up by artillery, which wouldn't help movement, reinforcement (especially in battle) or logistics (the latter two both also being necessary to sustain any significant advance.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Yes, to paraphrase what Lee said about Gettysburg, I always thought the machine gun had something to do with it. ;) That is basic historical literacy.

What I mean to ask is how one can quantify it, for lack of a better term. Does it really just come down to the fact that the Germans were better at defending through superior firepower and artillery?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Basil Fawlty
Oct 29 2013, 12:03 AM
Yes, to paraphrase what Lee said about Gettysburg, I always thought the machine gun had something to do with it. ;) That is basic historical literacy.

What I mean to ask is how one can quantify it, for lack of a better term. Does it really just come down to the fact that the Germans were better at defending through superior firepower and artillery?
Actually, that was Pickett, not Lee, in regards to the failure of the fateful charge. ;)

I think that the biggest issue, as pointed out by Matt, is the fact that you had massive infantry formations, well armed with most modern weapons of the era, fighting in limited space on a scale not even thought of before. Things ran out of hand too quickly after the end of the Race to the Sea, and the only viable option was let the other side get its nose bloody.

I still think that geography was of more importance here, though. Notice how on Eastern Front, where you had ample space for maneuver, things never really got down to trench warfare. But on the West, the Soča Front as well as the Balkan/Salonika Front...

EDIT: I think I'm done with editing the post, you can reply now. :P
Edited by Petar, Oct 29 2013, 12:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
That's interesting in a different way, as it means there is something to the "combat width" used in Victoria.

From a systemic point of view, what would the major difference be in World War II, then? Armor and planes change the balance, of course, but for pure infantry vs. infantry fights, does it again come down to the fact that offensive firepower is much higher, relatively, when compared to defensive firepower?

My interest is obviously in developing a system flexible enough to handle both situations, so that's why I brought it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Increased offensive firepower of the infantry would be one of the matters, with increased mechanization of forces involved important as well. With a mechanized force, you can easily take use of a breach in enemy's defense very, very quickly - this wasn't so in the Great War. Basically, what I think it comes down to the most is the possibility of combined arms operations, which, while possible to a degree in WWI, were a concept still in an early stage of development, and became fully possible only with breakthroughs in both weapons and doctrine.

Basically, infantry became more potent and more mobile - thus all mistakes in defensive operations became much more difficult to cover up, at least that's how I see it.
Edited by Petar, Oct 29 2013, 12:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts
Member Avatar

Everything I've read suggests that defensive firepower (aka the maxim and other kinds of machine guns) had greatly surpassed offensive firepower (the infantry). The end result once the Allied and German commanders figured this out was trench warfare with the majority of the causalities being from fragments.

However causalities could have been dramatically reduced in trench warfare had the allies utilized the available body armor.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/could-body-armor-have-saved-millions-in-world-war-i/275417/
Edited by Vonar Roberts, Oct 29 2013, 01:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
I don't know about body armor, but from a mechanical point of view, the difficulty with assigning much higher defensive values for all infantry (correct though it is) is that it makes all attacks that much harder. I've seen scenarios where Germany can't get through Belgium because the defense is modeled on trench warfare.

Some get around this by triggering a trench warfare event, which sets up fortifications throughout northern France. Effective, but crude and a little bit too hands-on. I suppose if we must, we must.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

I wouldn't discount the advent of airpower on a tactical level which would make the work of countering artillery much simpler and much more dangerous, making it far more difficult to concentrate artillery as was seen on the western front. This, in turn, makes both armoured and unarmoured movement less dangerous, as artillery isn't just pounding everything and anything.

I really think the key is artillery here, really.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts
Member Avatar

Artillery and Grenades were very important in trench warfare. However I would argue that the Machine gun made ww1 the killing grounds that it became.
As it was put by Hilaire Belloc, in the words of the figure "Blood" in his poem "The Modern Traveller":
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Artillery produced the majority of casualties on the Western Front.

Primarily, trench warfare was a response bought on by the combination of geography and the primacy of defensive firepower and especially the advantage of interior lines of movement and communication that amplified firepower. The Allies tried to solve the issue of impassable defences by going around it (Gallipoli), with going over it or under it only of tactical utility.

That leaves going through it. 1915 was the year of holding, 1916 the year of blooding, 1917 the year of learning and 1918 the year of victory, when the various advances in tactics, strategy and equipment were all put together on sufficient scale to break the deadlock of the Western Front and defeat the German Army in the field.

Those included, but were not limited to: Infantry tactics, mobile infantry firepower in the form of LMGs, tanks, artillery (more heavy guns, barrage tactics, HE shells, communications, accuracy), aircraft (observation, bombing and strafing) and the willingness to pay the butcher's bill.

Very interesting link about the body armour as well...that could get a use soon.
Edited by Simon Darkshade, Oct 29 2013, 07:07 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts
Member Avatar

Indeed. I thought shrapnel fragments, not artillery in general caused the majority of the ww1 casualties. The body armor could be useful in a time line where shell fragment induced causalities are reduced.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Shrapnel shell was used less and less over the course of the war; general shrapnel fragment damage from HE shells is usually included as being caused by artillery.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · History · Next Topic »
Add Reply