Talk:Trench warfare

Bite and hold

This article fails tomention the "bite and hold" tactic which was a fair common tactic during World War I and oneof the most effective means of advancing through the trenches. --Gary123 11:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Hmm, note that the Maori_Wars appear to predate all the examples of trench warfare given here.

Boer War reference?

probably worth mentioning early [2nd] boer war examples also - ability of dug in mounted infantry with long range Mauser rifles to hold off greatly superior numbers of Empire troops with complete artillery supremacy

I would recomend renaming the "Mining" section as "sapping", to avoid confusion with land mines, versus underground tunnels.

There were very few land mines in WWI, as far as I know, just mortar rounds stuck in the ground to disable tanks. I've never seen "mining" refer to anything other than underground mines. Geoff/Gsl 22:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The term is commonly used in naval circles to indicate minelaying. I've never seen it (as far as I recall) in reference to land war. Trekphiler 06:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Poison gas & artillery

Germany was the main innovator of gas warfare.

Why was this line removed?

Because it makes it sound as though Germany was the only country innovating gas. As I stated in the change, Britain, France and the US made more than their fair share of chemicals. Stargoat 20:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you want to make that point, I would have expanded the sentence, rather than deleted it. And I don't know how any other country could claim the title of "main innovator". As far as I know, Germany was first to develop and use all the main gases. Geoff/Gsl

Artillery would reach its peak during the two World Wars where it was the most decisive weapon on the battlefield.

I would hardly classify artillery as the most decisive weapon in WW2. I think the original version of this sentence was correct.

Geoff/Gsl 23:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Artillery killed more soldiers in world war II than all the airplanes and rifles put together. In terms of a battlefield weapon, it was the most decisive. It was pretty well shown that the carpet-bombing of cities did little to affect wartime production levels. Stargoat 20:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find that pretty far-fetched but I don't know much about WW2. It may have killed the most soldiers but that doesn't necessarily make it the decisive weapon.

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this article. Geoff/Gsl 03:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Artillery killed more in both WWs, thanx to intro of HE shell & QF (RF) guns with hydraulic recoil mechanisms, pioneered by the French 75mm M1897 (the "French 75"). Only in USCW was the traditional pride of place of artillery supplanted by rifles. Trekphiler 06:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Castles

Although both the art of fortification and the art of weaponry advanced a great deal in the second half of the second millennium, the advent of the longbow, the muzzle-loading musket, and even of artillery did not substantially change the traditional rule that a fortification required a large body of troops to defend it. Small numbers of troops simply could not maintain a volume of fire sufficient to repel a determined attack.

Who ever wrote this has never been to Harlech. Or castle castle 'Atlit also known as Castle Pilgrim or Chastiau Pelerin. It was never taken, and was only lost when the Templars evacuated the Holy Land in 1291. Castle Pilgrim could hold over 4000 people. It was attacked by the Sultan of Damascus:

The Sultan laid siege to the castle with sophisticated weapons... But the castle was well protected against the ...undermining of defense walls, since its foundations were under sea level. The garrison of 300 Templars, supervised by Pedro de Montaigu ... resisted all attack...

Or going back into history the Zealots who defended Masada may have been overwelmed in the end, but against any other force at that time other than Roman Legions, it would probably have held out indefinitely. Philip Baird Shearer 16:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sapping

Sapping involved extending the trench by digging away at the end face. The diggers were not exposed but only one or two men could work on the trench at a time. Tunnelling was like sapping except that a "roof" of soil was left in place while the trench line was established then removed when the trench was ready to be occupied.

The sapping link definds sapping as Sapping, or undermining, was a siege method used in the Middle Ages against fortified castles.'

I understood that since the early modern period that "Sapping" was the definition as in this article. If it is can someone who knows more about it please update the Sapping entry. Philip Baird Shearer 08:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A sap is a trench running forward from a parallel, either to start a new parallel or for initiating an attack according to

Equally "sappers" is a nickname used for combat engineers.GraemeLeggett 12:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Machine Guns

The reference to the awkwardness of the Vickers Machine gun contrasts with the article on said gun and its continued use for around 50 years. GraemeLeggett 12:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

further to that, the commments on the Vickers ought also to applay to the MG 08/13 . Discuss! GraemeLeggett 09:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"and the barrel of the gun had to be changed after two belts were fired. It was a fragile and difficult weapon to maintain and operate, but was very effective."

I'm leaving this snippet from machine guns here, until I see some proof. GraemeLeggett 13:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From Death's Men by Denis Winter, "In practice the barrel needed to be changed after two belts unless the gun was to be sacrificed in an emergency." (p.112) The original Vickers content came from here, including "needed sixteen men to sustain it". Geoff/Gsl 07:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So we have contradictory sources: the figure 16 for a crew seems improbably high. What period of the war does you source refer to? And how do we resolve the issue? GraemeLeggett 09:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I may quote from: http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/mgun_vickers.htm

"It fired some 450 rounds per minute; after some 10,000 rounds had been fired the gun barrel invariably required replacement." "The gun itself was usually operated by a team of six men." "As a measure of the effectiveness and reliability of the weapon, during the British attack upon High Wood on 24 August 1916 it is estimated that ten Vickers fired in excess of one million rounds over a twelve hour period." (approx 140 rpm) GraemeLeggett 12:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to resolve, I just gave you the source. Whether it's proof or not, I don't know. I assume if Winter's statement is correct that the practice of changing barrels was done to prolong barrel life and achieve the 10,000 rounds per barrel figure. If it's going to be covered, it should probably be done on the Vickers MG page, which didn't exist when I originally wrote this stuff, rather than on trench warfare which is in need of a vigorous prune. Geoff/Gsl 00:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've thinned down the MG section a bit since there is adequate info on each weapon at its relevant entry. GraemeLeggett 13:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added the bit on Canadian MG use; their force was led by a former French Army officer. Unfortunately, I recall neither his name nor my source... Trekphiler 09:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Just came across Brutinel's name. Also a note Canadians, unlike Brits, didn't segregate MGs into sep platoons. And a note Arthur Currie was first to provide terrain maps to every man in his corps. Trekphiler 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a number of concerns, hence the requests for sources.

"The Germans embraced the machine gun from the outset- in 1904, every regiment was equipped with one machine gun - and the machine gun crews were the elite infantry units." and "The British High Command were less enthusiastic about machine gun technology, supposedly considering the weapon too "unsporting", and they lagged behind the Germans in adopting the weapon."

I don't believe machine gunners were an infantry elite in the German army, that would surely be the Guards, followed by the Jaegers. This reads like a misapprehension of Bidwell & Graham's remarks in Firepower at p123ff. Given the fact that the British issued Maxims to infantry brigades and battalions from 1891 it could be said that the Germans were well behind the British in issuing machine guns to the infantry rather than being enthusiastic early adopters.

"By 1917, every company in the British forces were also equipped with four Lewis light machine guns"

I am pretty sure the "also" is wrong and that the Lewis completely replaced the Vickers in infantry battalions before the start of 1917.

In addition, the claim of a 16 man crew for a heavy machine gun, which was reduced to 8 earlier, was probably in the right range in 1914 or before. French infantry battalions had 34 men for 2 guns in 1914, German infantry regiments had 99 men for 6 guns, respectively 17 and 16 men per gun, most of whom manned or supplied the guns. Angus McLellan 20:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Trench Warfare

Might it be relevant to mention the Siege of Khe Sanh in Vietnam? From what i understand the conditions were very close to that of world war I.

Or better compared to the siege of Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war.GraemeLeggett 14:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me Khe Sanh should be omitted. It's more about fortification than trench warfare. The RJW experience should be expanded, though.

As a sidebar, I'd say the references to castles & siege warfare should be deleted & placed on a Fortification or Siege War page; they really aren't trench warfare, either. Trekphiler 02:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference for claim about Gate Pa

This line "One authority calculated that Gate Pa absorbed in one day a greater weight of explosives per square metre than did the German trenches in the week-long bombardment leading up to the Battle of the Somme." is vague - who is the authority? The article on Gate Pa says it is a "historian" but does not identify the historian.

• It's most probably James Belich but I didn't add the statment so I'm not sure. It's pretty meaningless anyway as Gate Pa was pretty small (maybe an acre tops) whereas the "German trenches in the Somme" would be measureed in square miles. Personally I think the claim should be removed.. Lisiate 20:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me the ariticle should include the period of the Maori Wars, now omitted. Trekphiler 06:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Tactical Change

"Two main factors were responsible for the change. First, the new breech-loading firearms—which were curiously ignored by both sides until midway through the conflict—made it possible for a small number of troops to maintain a heavy volume of fire. A handful of defenders sheltering in a trench or behind an improvised obstacle could hold off a large body of attackers indefinitely. Second came the gatling gun, which multiplied the power of the defender still further and yet did little for an attacker (provided that only the defenders could take cover)."

This concerns me. First, it over-emphasises the Gatling gun, which has an undeserved reputation; it was never common. Second, it over-emphasises breechloaders, which were not terribly common in USCW, either. It ignores the tactical reality: both sides still used essentially Napoleonic columnar formations, unresponsive to the need for increased dispersal produced by the proliferation of rifles, capable of killing at 1000m, and effective at over double the range of the Napoleonic smoothbore. I cite Dyer's War & Dupuy's Numbers, Predictions, & War. I've rewritten the paragraph.

I've rewritten the paragraph on artillery, also. It overemphasized the importance of barbed wire (& misdated its appearance), & oversimplified the change in artillery to merely "high velocity breechloading", with no accounting for change in materials, improved (HE) shells, or recoil mechanisms. Here, I rely on Dyer again, & Dupuy's Evolution of Weapons and Warfare, as well as The Encyclopedia of 20h Century Weapons and Warfare.

I'd also sugggest adding comment on the influence of aircraft on the trench stalemate of WW1. I've heard it said aircraft, by making surprise impossible, created it. (I'm unable to cite a source...) Tactical mobility at the time was insufficient to overcome this, for motor transport was not common; the precursor to blitzkrieg was seen in the "taxi squad" at First Marne.... Trekphiler 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted this:

"Blitzkrieg relied on the concentration of armour launched at a narrow front to make the breakthrough followed by a high-speed encirclement of the enemy's front line. Armour was supported by close air support with airmen inserted into army units to direct tactical air strikes."

It isn't on point to trench warfare, & anyone who wants to know about blitzkrieg can use the link. Trekphiler 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Terms

I corrected the use of shrapnel to mean fragmentation; this is a common error. Shrapnel was a specific type of shell that ceased to be used when high explosive (HE) rounds were introduced. Trekphiler 08:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

Reading the "naming" section, I'm left with a strong sense of Brit/Oz bias. While I understand why (Eng-lang sources...), I'd suggest rewrite for better balance with German POV is in order. Trekphiler 09:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Body Armor

Does it merit a mention, here? I've read it was developed during WW1 as a response to the trench stalemate and sniping. Trekphiler 01:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sniping

It often doesn't get mentioned in ref to trench warfare, but it was a significant cause of losses, & made troops feel particularly persecuted. It also doesn't get coverage on the Sniper page... As a chauvinistic aside, I'd add a mention of Calgary native Metis sniper Henry Louis Norwest, of 50h Inf Rgt, who racked up 115 kills before being sniped himself 3mo before war's end. Trekphiler 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Tank

I rewrote this:

"Trench warfare is a static battle, ruled by machine gun and wire. The tank was developed to break this stranglehold. From its first outings the tank showed that the trenches could be broken. More and better tanks including the first light tanks appeared during the war on the Western front."

It makes little difference light tanks appeared. And tanks were not developed to "break this stranglehold", they were developed to provide protection in the advance. It's incidental they restored mobility. I also added a mention of their great morale effect on the Germans late in the war; I'd almost say they broke von Ludendorff. Anybody think that's not too strong? Trekphiler 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)