When two German politicians signed an Armistice treaty in Compiégne, France, the entire world was relieved that the bloodiest war in known history was finally over. This war had drawn out so long, resulted in the deaths of so many people, because there was very often no clear victor. This is what I will be discussing in my essay, why the war on the Western Front ended up in a stalemate between 1915 and 1917. I will be evaluating the tactics of defense and offense, why offensive tactics were highly ineffective, and how new “trench warfare” completely changed the way wars were fought, and won. 

 

Firstly, contrary to what one might think, the overarching tactics of generals on both side of the war were certainly not the most relevant factor in the slow progress of the conflict. What was substantially more important was how the war played out on a small scale in smaller battles, in the trenches and smoke-filled fields. What was so unusual about this war is how it was played out defensively. Before WWI, battles would consist of short, angry attacks from both side, soldiers rushing at each other, stabbing and screaming. WWI, however, brought a new, long term aspect to battles. The key idea was “trenches”, semi-permanent ditches in the ground, filled with temporary buildings, surrounded by menacing barbed wire and machine guns, and swarming with soldiers. Practically every side in WWI utilised these trenches, often with rows and rows of frontline trenches and reserve trenches behind. This meant that, to kill the enemy, troops would either have to attack from long range, which was highly ineffective as technology hadn’t developed to shoot as far away as the enemy trenches were. Alternatively, troops would have to storm across open terrain at the defensive trenches, hoping to get close enough to shoot enemies or use their bayonets. This was how almost all of the surges and fights of WWI played out, and it was almost always the offensive troops who were slaughtered, with the defensive troops in the trenches losing very few men. But why were defensive tactics so much more effective than offensive tactics?

 

Defensive tactics had developed hugely in the run up to WWI. New, or nearly new inventions such as the machine gun, heavy artillery such as the Howitzer, and the new format of barbed wire-surrounded trenches meant that soldiers in the trenches were incredibly effective at slaughtering incoming enemies en masse. However, offensive tactics had developed very little. Attacking soldiers had to run across open land very quickly. Offensive tactics involved running towards a trench in the hope of landing in the trench and destroying the unprepared enemy with rifles and bayonets at very close range. If the troops were able to get into the enemy troops, the slaughter would indeed by inexplicably huge, but this very rarely happened. Despite the attempts by advancing soldiers to hide themselves through a barrage of artillery fire from their trench, or advancing in a spearhead formation as the Allies did often, their desperate crawl through no-man’s land was often met with a hail of machine gun fire, heavy artillery, and gas, killing hundreds or even thousands of soldiers mercilessly all together. Even if the soldiers got through no-man’s land, they would often become trapped in the barbed wire surrounding the trenches, where they would die of hunger or exposure, or be killed. We saw in this in terrible tragedies, like the Battle of the Somme, which contained the single deadliest day for British troops ever. 

 

Because of the massive casualties created in attacking enemy trenches directly, both sides tended to push forward very rarely on the Western Front, for fear of losing thousands of men. This completely changed the conflict, and it is one of the reasons why it lasted years, as opposed to just a few months: It turned into a war of attrition. With both sides terrified of attacking the other, they simply sat in their trenches, taking pot-shots at the enemy and trying to survive. The war lasted so long, and lasted as a stalemate for years, because the troops very rarely attacked each other. Instead, they played the long-term game, trying to save rations and reserves, and organising their troops as well as they could. This idea completely revolutionised warfare. WWI made armies realise that a large part of winning future wars, with advanced technology and defensive trenches, was by preserving ammo and rations, and ensuring that their side was far better prepared. This was utilised far more in WWII, and is a key idea in every conflict after The Great War.

 

In conclusion, I have explained why defensive tactics were so powerful in WWI, and why offensive tactics were often incredibly ineffective against new trench warfare. I have explained why this resulted in a stalemate for much of the war, and how newfound ideas of “wars of attrition” and defensive tactics completely changed the idea of how wars were fought from then on.