Why was WW1 a trench war and not a maneuver war?

Why were Frenchies, Germans, British and Russians so retarded?

I can't understand that, why would you let so many of your soldiers die in such nonsensical way?

Technology advanced faster than tactics
It has always been this way, it will always be this way

cos feminism

because they hadn't overcome the learning curve of 20th century warfare before going to war, so they played like total noobs wasting troops cause they don't know what to do.

you stupid fuck muritard

all nations involved in WWI had access to equivalent technology and infrastructure to produce it.

It was a war about maneuvering, the problem was when they ran out of room to flank each other.

Then they discovered that machineguns and barbed wire are pretty formidable against massed infantry rushes.

Like in the previous centuries when the meta became pure pikemen and musketmen inside castles.
You needed a cannon to wreck that.

The life of a common soldier was seen as an expendable commodity. I'm a pretty big elitist but even I'll admit that the ruling elites of that time didn't give a flying fuck if local Devon lads were being blown to bits, so long as they advanced 5 miles

But the tactic was to sit on your ass regardless

>all nations involved in WWI had access to equivalent technology and infrastructure to produce it
I think the Frenchies lagged behind the Germans, this is why they got their asses kicked so hard, just like in 1871

Machine guns

Actually in the first days of war, the french tried to fight the germans using napoleonic-era tactics, and they go wooped hard. Without knowing what to do, they trenched up. Then it just happened to continue trenching for the rest of the war.

It's the logical thing to do when manoveurs fail and it becomes a war of attrition. We even had them back in richmond in 1864. Soviets had them at moscow in 41 and the reds had them in madrid in 36.

you stupid fuck Britard

you completely overlook the political/diplomatic situation between the Great Powers at the time.

the problem is NOBODY CARED that millions of men where sent to die. fking feminists didnt care, politicians didnt care, nobody cared.

men where slaughtered against each other in the millions, and NOBODY gave a fuck.

and yet feminists WHINE about "oppression" in this 21st Century?

Too many poors.
Cull through wars.

Hard to maneuver anywhere in that kind of terrain, if you tried they would just relocate the artillery and make the land swamp again.

wew lad

fking cocksucker

bend over and take it in the ass till you die from it

This desu

Frenchies were far more military technological in 1871 than germans and they still got destroyed by prussian plebs

This.

People were still fixated on the rifleman having as much power as accuracy as possible, when this was really not necessary for regular infantry, and it wasn't really until after WW2 when the world started to slowly get a hang of this, after having seen the Germans field assault rifles en mass.

It's just one example of the kind of backwards shit which was thought as obvious back then. People were on the right track with submachineguns but that still wasn't the most useful weapon for a soldier.

Because of not letting officers and lower generals make there own decisions and not using infiltration tactics.

There's something extremely cynical about Verdun

Shit wrong image

Are you really that clueless?

Speaking of WWI, someone mentioned a book a few weeks ago that talked about how this war led to decline of the west. I think they were alluding to a sizable portion of Europe's best genes weren't able to be passed on. Any ideas?

>men where slaughtered against each other in the millions, and NOBODY gave a fuck.
Pretty much.

this guy is actually right. Firepower had eclipsed mobility so the defensive side held the advantage over the attackers. Because of that the armies refused to meet each other in the open field so they fought over tiny advances in gaining land.

This was actually true going as far back as the Civil War with the advent of the minie ball which revolutionized rifles in 1850. Minie balls allowed for far more accurate, far more long-range rifles, to the point where 500 troops carrying traditional muskets could be easily defeated by a hundred or so soldiers with minie balls. The reason that the Civil War wasn't fought in trenches is because it took until the end of the war for generals on either side to understand how deadly and effective the rifle had become. The Battle of Fredericksburg is a notorious example of an absolute slaughter due to Revolutionary war tactics going up against modern rifles, something like 7,000 yankees were gunned down in 20 minutes. But the Siege of Petersburg, in many respects the final major battle of the war, was basically a premonition of WWI. 30 miles of trenches surrounded the cities of Petersburg and Richmond and the battle lasted 9 months. That's very typical of the type of warfare that would come 50 years later in WWI

first post best post

Initially the war was pretty mobile. Germans tried to push into France but the British and French chased them from the German- French border all the way up to the coast. They were left with no more room and with no obvious solution, the only thing they could do was dig in. This resulted in a build up of arms and munitions on the line which then resulted in trenches.

The Germans developed the doctrine of storm troopers which were proving highly effective at taking ground but suffered pretty heavy losses. But as you probably know the rut continued in Western Europe until the British surprised motherfuckers with tanks. Other locations of the war were not like Europe, for example, Arabia and Northern Africa.

They found out the hard way that the same tactics used since the Napoleonic Wars weren't going to work this time against machine guns and more powerful and accurate artillery. When they realized a decisive quick victory wasn't possible they went "Well fuck, lets see if we can win this by attrition while we figure something out."

To be fair, they did get pretty creative with tunneling and planting mines under the enemy's trench, flamethrowers, chemical warfare, armoured vehicles, airplanes, ect.

your shit makes no fking sense, swede fag.

have you ever even held a gun, let alone undergone military training?

no?

then keep to sucking cocks as you know best.

I've read that the Germans had better guns and Frenchies since 1815 are just sad, degenerate people in decline, so Germany had it easy

Well a shit ton of whites died in the war. It was also the war that killed god and the church.

>Frenchies were far more military technological in 1871 than germans
As far as I know thr Prussian army was the most advanced in Europe,and used more artillery than any other nation

For decades the only fighting the European armies did was relatively small scale and usually against unsophisticated people. An entire generation of senior officers advanced their careers under the assumption that a spirited charge of brave men could overcome any defense. This didn't work against modern european armies with millions of men, machine guns, quick firing howitzers, over-the-horizon artillery, and radios and field telephones.

That's a pretty retarded theory.

>im poland im smarter than you !

Why don't we talk about WW1 more often?

they used late 1800s era tactics but with the advent of heavy artillery, aircraft and machienguns all those tactics were useless

Fortified positions with machine guns
limited motorization
poor infrastructure
poor or no armored divisions
poor supply lines for troops

The germans did the best they good at maneuvering but eventually failed to break through due to lack of supplies and primitive motorization. They couldn't win a trench war without tanks and motorization because they were starved out by the british fleet.

These problems were fixed in WW2 and thats why the Germans broke through easily and crushed the French and British still playing by the same rules.

Stop talking about history you don't understand.
Both the German War and the Franco-Prussian War happened not too long before that

Because it was whitewashed by history. No one talks about how it was a war for melanin.

Because the Germans and the Entente ran out of room, basically.

In the beginning it was a manoeuvre war, but after the race to the sea the front line stretched from Switzerland to the coast and there was no part of the line you could flank, so you just had to settle for direct, frontal assaults. You couldn't swing around Switzerland because Italy was neutral, and then when it wasn't neutral its borders were guarded by mountains and fighting a war there was literally hell on Earth, and Austria-Hungary was incompetent anyway to the point where their mountain divisions were wearing cardboard shoes in the fucking snow.

There's no ideological element to it. It's also less sexy.

Pretty baffling that such a destructive war that devasted France, Germany, England, and Russia started over an Austrian duke murdered by a Serbian and somehow Germany took most of the flak.

R3dditors think all Sup Forums is good for are Trump memes and YLYL. So that's most of what we get.

Thanks for the info friend
I think im gonna look into the later years of the civil war more

wrong

"storm troopers"/shock troops had existed already for centuries.

see this guy for the essential boiled down problem of WWI, in terms of the military conflict:
and this guy:
the fronts slowed and then consolidated.

the weapons technology at the time and as it developed and became increasingly prevelant, forced this form of warfare.

the insanity in all of that, is that NOBODY GAVE A SHIT that an entire generation of men was wiped out.

this is something feminists will never understand, and why they are never, ever, to be taken seriously.

Firepower technology advanced too rapidly, forcing everything to a standstill. Only after mobility advanced to some degree, with tanks etc, could it become a mobile war.

Yes it fucking does.

Look at the Mauser rifle at the time, high powered 7.92mm cartridge good for 800m and farther.

Problem is, infantry do not fight each other at this distance, this kind of power and range isn't necessary for the average soldier to have, why do you think intermediate cartridges is the standard for fighting rifles today? It hits hard, but it recoils a lot, has limited capacity and is awkward to use in closer quarters.

But the insistence on full powered cartridges was one of the many blunders that remained after WW1 and into WW2

Why do you think he's wrong? A WWI rifle is a fucking beast; one bullet would dig your lungs out. Now we know that it's better to just spray as much dakka as possible.

>WW1 was pretty bad guys BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT FEMINISM
Take your memes to a thread where somebody cares.

jews will get ya like that

But the Franco-Prussian War was a maneuver war aswell.

It's because Germany gave Austria-Hungary unconditional support.

Clinically retarded.

In a word: artillery. it was like someone hacked the game files so everyone just artillery spammed. Planes/tanks weren't developed enough yet so the only country was to dig a hole. also

Dem fucking defense pacts, man. The outcome of WW1 pretty much contributed to WW2 so you could imagine the tens of millions of deaths this guy caused including almost the 300,000 jews Hitler had killed.

Almost a third of a million jews dead because of that Serb.

death of the Arch-Duke destabilisesd the Austro-Hungarian Empire due to its succession crisis.

before this, Europe had been largely in an extremely intense entente following Napoleons rise and fall.

the balance of power, between the Great Powers, was tenous at best. the death of the Arch-Duke, led to a political/diplomatic cascade of events where each Great Power reacted with increasing and reciprocating shows of force, resulting ultimately in a "world" war.

Because we had tactics from the last century, inadapted with technologies. It resulted during the maneuver war in 1914 in more than 14,000 soldiers killed during the first hour of the war between the french army and the german one

The artillery and the rifle were too powerful

I learned something today. cheers user have a pepe

This may not apply as much as the general bad learning curve, but you should know two things:

>WW1 was a lot more than trench warfare, the infantry rushes were actually only in the beginning and were later replaced by more suitable tactics
>information took along time. Oftentimes, generals didn't know the outcome of a battle hours after it ended

Thing was also, that most generals saw themselves in the tradition of great emperors and fighters and as such saw the battlefield as a mano a mano situation. The myth of the honorable fight, if you so desire. Infantry wasn't seen as a mobile and agile fighting unit, but rather as another tool in an even front.
Again, this was only in the beginning of WW1.
After the first year, most parties started to adapt ond maneuver more efficiantly. THe misconception of the trench is mostly perpetuated because of Verdun, which if it comes down to it, wasn't that big of a deal all things considered.

typical woman/fag completely ignored my questions and points, yet expects me to answer hers.

get raped by a nigger.

1st post best post
You completely misunderstood him

To sum up what went wrong, you will often find in biographies about those who fought and commanded in this conflict, the phrase "those damn machienguns" comes up alot. To put it simply, nobody had seen terminator yet, so nobody knew how effective and powerful machineguns were, just a few holding back entire regiments

The term storm/shock trooper has been around for centuries, the tactics the German storm troopers used were not, fucktard.

That's idiotic. The reason why were here is a sum of many things, and indoctrinal education is by far the biggest reason because Europe was still fine from 60's to 80's depending on country, but then things started to escalate.

Also WW1 only lasted 4 years, that kind of time won't wreck an entire generation. Many of the soldiers already had families.

this thread is full of millenial women and homos.

im out.

have it our way, stupid uneducated shits.

He's not totally wrong, the idea from WW1-WW2 was full power rifle rounds, heck even post WW2 NATO's official cartriadge was .308 another full power rifle round, hence all the FAL's, the FAL was originally designed to fire an intermediate cartrige that was similar to 8mm kurz if I remember right. even you kikes made some nice FAL's. Then immediately after the US demanded that the rest of the world accept .308/7,62NATO as the standard we said "lol" and started using an intermediate round which is todays 5,56

That said, rifles/caliber alone aren't enough to completely dictate military strategy so Swedefag is wrong in some ways.

>This resulted in a build up of arms and munitions on the line which then resulted in trenches
Fine, but what use there is of sending soldiers against machine guns? Wouldn't it be wiser to advance with your own machine guns of a longer reach?

The ultimate reason was the sheer scale of the war combined with the near absolute superiority of artillery. Pretty much WW1 was fairly mobile in several areas at several times, although in the western front this was mostly relegated towards the beginning and end of the war. Ultimately the early war offensives were ground to a bloody halt under artillery barrages, waves of machinegun fire, and the British mad minute where where platoons could pour ungodly amounts of accurate fire onto German troops. If you can't advance and retreating provides no advantage you might as well dig in.

Once both armies were dug in the problem developed that neither side had the means to truly achieve a breakthrough, sure the Germans broke through in 1915 in the East and Brusilov shattered the Austro-Hungarians in 1916 but each of these offensives eventually ran out of steam. It took until 1917 for both sides to develop effective trench breaching tactics, for the Western allies this was primarily combined creeping barrages with artillery support, for the Germans this was primarily specially trained infiltrators known as storm troopers. Each side had their own advantages and disadvantages but eventually the numerical superiority of the allies allowed for a final major breakthrough that shattered the German line. This breakthrough (which was never halted by the time the war ended) combined with the naval mutiny due to rumors of being sent on a suicide mission and widespread discontent at home from the lack of supplies led to the complete collapse of the Second Reich.

In 1914 Europe had three sick countries, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, WW1 showed that Italy was a country born with, only slightly older than Germany but somehow unable to breakthrough a dying Austro-Hungarian empire.

New wepons, outdated tactics

>Calls me a nigger
>Can't even capitalize his posts
W E W
E
W

Because it's ancient.

>le makes no sense
Pre wwi was highly international and there were two competing power blocks (think USA and USSR) however there was no way for these power blocks to cope with international crises (league of nations). So when any sort of crisis occurred, there was a risk for massive war. So it was just a matter of time really.

Woops sorry Finn, I saw white/blue and assumed you were a kike.

what is the difference between the tactics of storm/shock troopers as they have always existed, and those the Germans implemented in WWI?

how much vodka have you drank angry fin?

frenchies in 1871 had repeating rifles...they lost anyway...go read a book you retard. France always had one of the best military and still has...

>Verdun, which if it comes down to it, wasn't that big of a deal all things considered.
~300.000 dead and another 400.000 unable to fight.
Falkenhayn's strategy being to literally bleed out France.
It kinda deserves the attention

I never said it was a deciding factor, merely that it was one of those things that is very telling of tactics and mentality at the time.

And there he rage quits! Bye mongol!

To some extent. It's true that the Prussian army had one of the most advanced artillery systems in the world by that time, but to my knowledge the french army had the first "machineguns" in use, experienced troops and more manpower at the beginning of the war and the use of effective and cheap rifles(Chassepot), the only thing they lacked were good tactics

nice meme see &

wrong.

WWI wiped out almost an entire generation of males, as well as many younger and older, in reproductive age.

WWI was an utter catastrophe for men
There is no way to know how different our world today would be had they not died there in the mud and the shit.

When the US MARINES showed up, it became more of a real war.

Fires with Maneuver.

Note I didn't write Fire and Maneuver, though that tactic may have been in use in those days.

yes indeed it did lead to a decline of the West, the high losses shocked the societies. The colonies became rebellous after they saw their white masters butcher each other by the millions, conservative ideals were disavowed and radical ideas like socialism and feminism suddenly appeared as a legit alternative to mass killing, hunger and despair.

which are you

gay or female

Not an argument.

And a third of Germany's total population got killed during the 30 years war.
That's a much bigger effect.

Well you wouldn't hit anyone because they are in the trenches for starters. Second, the machine guns were bulky and primitive early on in the war, if you were to advance with one you would get cut down in no man's land before you could set it up.

Thats because all the prussians had to do was remain prone with their new needle guns to absolutely destroy the french formations of standing troops.

>Wouldn't it be wiser to advance with your own machine guns of a longer reach?
The enemy troops are all in trenches, and your machineguns and their machineguns are already probably less than 100 metres apart.

To take land you have to capture the enemy's trenches, and that means you have to get into their trenches. The only way to do that is to get to there trenches.

There are a couple ways of doing this, but a charge is the most effective way. It's not very effective at all, but it's still the most effective way. You could dig a sap to their trench but the diggers are vulnerable to having grenades lobbed into their sap, and even if you do make it all the way you've got to get your entire force into their entire trench through a single sap. Digging multiple saps makes it easier, but also vastly more complicated.

its a question, you stupid cocksucking swede

not an argument

>WWI wiped out almost an entire generation of males, as well as many younger and older, in reproductive age.

Jews got what they wanted, to be sure.

Even Kaiser Bill realized the Jew was behind it all.

pic unrelated

nobody planned it to go like that, you see you must understand that the 20th century European leader is a moron, usually an aristocrat and inbred, and lacks any sense of foresight or basic understanding of how wars even work, who then employs similar men who are at least in the military, but mostly think it's the day after the last Franco-Prussian war and don't much care for doing anything differently.

the main idiocy of the Briton and the European in WW1 was all of them assuming "this will be easy lol" and thinking it'd be done in time to tuck into Christmas lunch of that year.

It sure as hell deserves the attention, but if you ask a question about the tactis of WW1, while assuming that everything was like Verdun is moronic. WORLD WAR 1 was all around europe.
The eastern front. The desert fighting. The combined arms at the end. The ace pilots. The gas warfare throughout late battlefields and the beginning of close-quarter-tactics.
THis is what needs to be the dominating picture of WW1, not one fucking battle, that just ended in both armies getting stuck, because the generals wanted to pull a Bismarck and overrun the enemy by having the time advantage.

ww1 may have been an engineered genocide, when you think about it.

>however there was no way for these power blocks to cope with international crises (league of nations)

There was, there was Metternich's Congress of Vienna but it fell into utter ruin after decades of liberal insanity politics. It could have prevented WW1.

lol are you retarded burger?
Trenches WERE the tactic to cope with the new power of artillery (rifles to a Much lesser extent). What possible tactic can you invent to outmaneuver an artillery/machine gun barrage when you only have infantry and calvary?

Honestly it should be considered an invasion of privacy and illegal to take a picture of a total stranger and then post it online.

The german alliance had more troops in the beginning of the war and some french generals made some mistakes that cost the war, just like the austrian did in Sadowa, the french army was strong but not really prepared, besides the republicans were plotting to eliminate Napoléon III, he had only two options : risking a war with the germans (a war that was strongly supported by the republicans btw) or risk a coup. He tried and fail.
But anyway, the french army had better rifles during the war of 1871 (even if the german army had good equipment). During WW1 howeover the french army had better artillery (canon de 75mm modèle 1897 capable of firing 28 shells per minute, the best canon during WW1)

>Both the German War and the Franco-Prussian War happened not too long before that
45 years before, just like I said decades and long enough for a whole generation of officers to have a career. And those wars didn't have WW1 technology I mentioned.