WWI Attrition Battles: Could the opposing armies have done better?

Half_Life_Expert#4276

Here is the next What if/Could it? thread, and in honor of the Centennial of the start of WWI, this one is WWI themed.

Although this war was fought globally and in many types of terrain, the Western Front in France and Belgium has become the icon of this war, particularly the high attrition battles such as Passchendaele, the Four Ypres, and of course The Somme and Verdun.

The First Day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916 has become one of the iconic moments of this war, when over 57,000 British Soldiers became casualties after climbing 'over the top' and into German machine gun fire after a mostly ineffective week long artillery barrage.


Today, when most people think of WWI, they think of that, helpless infantrymen being ordered out of their trenches to certain death.

In 1916, the Tank was the first major breakthrough in countering this problem, but the war had already gone on for two years when it was introduced.

So the question I put forth this time is:

"In the First World War battles of attrition, between late 1914 and 1916, could the opposing armies have done a more effective job in their offensive tactics? Particularly with major reductions in casualty rates?"

Basically this is to factor out the advances made by 1917, just looking at the situation at the latest of the end of the Battle of Verdun in December 1916. The tank had not been fully deployed yet so it can easily be factored out.


Could the high casualty rates have been avoided while still being able to conduct some form of offensive operations (as in not just sitting in the trenches and not attacking)?

Discuss!

daelin4#9896

Although armies usually have to learn the hard way when it comes to exactly the kind of warfare they should expect with current trends and technological advances, by the time of 1914 one would think they'd at least know better about what would happen when you march a line of infantry against a next of heavy machine guns. Even the US Civil War had demonstrated the limitations of pitched battles what with artillery and entrenched infantry positions at, say, the battle of Fredericksburg. Military planners and generals often are trained to used prevailing tactics of the day, not trained to envision new ones. For the powers at war, it took them teo years and thousands of soldiers' lives before they decided to think up something that would allow them to advance towards fortifications with reasonable amount of protection. Poison gas was also attempted, and you'd think with something like a lethal breathable agent that drifts along air, they'd consider the possibility that winds might instead turn the as back around and kill your own men (yes, that happened).
I guess in a way when it's not your own life or property at stake you're much less hesitant to commit to battle.

Socially speaking the military by that time had become a prestigious place to join, at least if you aspire to the officer class which exemplified restrictions on social mobility. A large gap between the last conflict between the European powers, specifically France and Germany, and within that gap large advances in technology had progressed as well. Without wars to fight militaries tend to lose the ability to learn and adapt. This in fact is an extension of the infamous military-industrial complex: not only is there an inappropriate relationship between industry and the military, but the military would be more inclined to commit to combat operations as means to test products and discover (or rather manufacture) new demands for the industry to provide. War is profitable because it creates new things armies need.

I say the offensive capabilities for armies during that time was simply not really explored with the industrial advances of their age; no one expected the need until armies stalled on campaign. Sure railway was used to transport personnel and supply, but vehicles were never made or brought to combat until this time; rifles and cannon were sophisticated, but anything that could be piloted or driven by a human was primitive; even gigantic majestic battleships showed their limits.

BillyRuffian#6250

All I can think of, off the top of my head, are walking barrages, and wireless telegraphy for artillery spotter planes to enable better co-ordination between said artillery barrages and infantry advances.

Nisemono

Half Life Expert wrote: »

Here is the next What if/Could it? thread, and in honor of the Centennial of the start of WWI, this one is WWI themed.

Although this war was fought globally and in many types of terrain, the Western Front in France and Belgium has become the icon of this war, particularly the high attrition battles such as Passchendaele, the Four Ypres, and of course The Somme and Verdun.

The First Day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916 has become one of the iconic moments of this war, when over 57,000 British Soldiers became casualties after climbing 'over the top' and into German machine gun fire after a mostly ineffective week long artillery barrage.


Today, when most people think of WWI, they think of that, helpless infantrymen being ordered out of their trenches to certain death.

In 1916, the Tank was the first major breakthrough in countering this problem, but the war had already gone on for two years when it was introduced.

So the question I put forth this time is:

"In the First World War battles of attrition, between late 1914 and 1916, could the opposing armies have done a more effective job in their offensive tactics? Particularly with major reductions in casualty rates?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiltration_tactics

Short answer: no.

Basically this is to factor out the advances made by 1917, just looking at the situation at the latest of the end of the Battle of Verdun in December 1916. The tank had not been fully deployed yet so it can easily be factored out.


Could the high casualty rates have been avoided while still being able to conduct some form of offensive operations (as in not just sitting in the trenches and not attacking)?

Discuss!

Short answer: no.

Long answer: The battlefield is saturated with barb wire, trenches providing interlocking fire from heavy automatic weapons, and the artillery you have is not capable of making a deep impression on the defenses. Meanwhile, the only attacking force you have consists of unarmoured humans serving as conscripts. Do the math.

Even if you somehow can force a breakthrough, your reserves are walking up from the back to the front lines. Meanwhile, the enemy's reserves are walking up to plug the gap.

epic_159750290354zas2GHf

Yes, I believe it could've been avoided. Commanders believed that throwing hundreds of men against a fortification would eventually lead to a breakthrough.

It's a matter of mentality, one that caused the trench mess to start in the first place. The germans were pretty much the only nation on the western front that switched tactics to turn the tide, obviously too late.

If the summer offensive in 1918 was applied by the Germans at an earlier date, say 1916, the allies in the western trenches would've collapsed without doubt. The ultimate shortcoming of the offensive was due to blockades and the many years of war that drained the minds of the soldiers.

Ace_Blazer

I think militaries tried almost everything by the middle of the war from infiltration, to tunneling, and then eventually to massive armored hulks powered by motor engines and airplanes. The only reason WWII didn't end up being the same on the Western front was because of the last two inventions. What more could have been done? Almost every innovation and tactic you could think of must have been tried at one point I bet, and even the ones that were successful must have been countered in some way.

Nisemono

Ace Blazer wrote: »

I think militaries tried almost everything by the middle of the war from infiltration, to tunneling, and then eventually to massive armored hulks powered by motor engines and airplanes. The only reason WWII didn't end up being the same on the Western front was because of the last two inventions. What more could have been done? Almost every innovation and tactic you could think of must have been tried at one point I bet, and even the ones that were successful must have been countered in some way.

The airplane did not make a sufficient big impact during WW1 to matter on the final outcome. The Russian generals in Paris joke comes to mind.

The ultimate deciding factor for WW1 was actually economic exhaustion.

Half_Life_Expert#4276

after some thought, and reading of your responses, I think that there really was no alternative short of not attacking at all.

I'm going to put up the next thread very soon, its a new one I thought of today...