WWI trench warfare was caused by 2 things. The first, is that the logistics supply train of modern warfare at the time was about 30 miles for food, fuel, tires, ammunition. So even if going over the top meant you took some of the enemy's trenches, you didn't get to far before our advance ran out of inertia.
The second, is that, until late in the war when both sides developed tactics to overwhelm defenders at one point and consolidate gains, and the tools necessary for this, such as tanks, the defensive use of machine guns made Franco-Prussian War era tactics suicidal and you just got a lot of men needlessly killed. The Europeans didn't learn from the American Civil War.
Neither of these things are why you have WWI type of trench warfare in Ukraine. You have trench warfare for dissimilar causes as WWI.
There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.
WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horribly in comparison to the heavy horse. Where cavalry was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.
The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.
Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.
That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead. I reckon it was conservative.
I might agree there is different goals. Capture and territory. But if I can put a finger on it seems to have another agenda and architecture. It's seemingly wearing down capacity and drawing and stalling as wider objects or even truce unfolds. Of course some of this is assumed modern weapons sam's, anti tank, and missiles, claiming otherwise. But it is problematic. Hence our discussion.
Railroads to the front lines don't matter when your front lines move past your trench system.
Pummeling with artillery was a mostly useless tactic in WWI. Napoleonic era stuff long since outdated by the time you had portable machine guns. Sadly the generals had "artillery barrage" as one of their outdated inventory of tactics. After retreating to the trenches, where troops would be mostly safe, when the noise stopped, machine gun nests were set up again quicker than the enemy could cross no man's land. The pummeling, as you call it, made the ground a churned up mess and didn't break the barbed wire more of then not. Troops were mowed down as the crossed the mess of no man's land. Infantry going over the top had better success when it was either a total surprise, or poison gas was used.
So, even though you said a lot without saying a lot, I get your point. The Germans wanted to bleed France white at the Somme, the Russians to bleed NATO/Ukraine white in Bakhmut. The most useful point you made, is that the reason they are even fighting over this place, is the railway transit system. From there, I surmise it degenerated into a type of Stalingrad situation.
You're chatting shit. Your opinion is otherwise stupid.
The Big Bertha, German Artillery rendered Czar Nicholas's Starfort obsolete. But you don't know history do you. He only just built it. Pop quiz. Which Baltic state?
The railroad was pivotal to the supply of munitions and the moving of wounded back from the front lines.
Munitions like all the gas used in shells to overrun the trenches.
Yes no man's land, fields of mud, and barbwire, and rows of trenches prevented the calvary flank, and the charge which tried repeatedly to get through the static, no assault rifles, machine gun nests. Equivalent of gattling guns but smaller. There was carbine rifles but they were hardly automatic. The tank was quite static sustaining more hits, but far more problematic, more broke down, than actually achieved victory. It's artillery that won the war, artillery firing shells of poison gases.
The war in all likelihood could've lasted longer but those causalities were really climbing as disease faster spread on the battlefield.
It's "talking shit"...which a native English speaker would know. And "talking shit" is casual talk. When you think someone is wrong about something, you say they are "full of shit". Here, this may help you. English is a difficult language.
Artillery barrages against forts. That's different from artillery barrages against trenches. I wrote about artillery barrages against trench systems. Stay on topic.
The railroad was pivotal to maintaining the trench system...but not when a breakthrough happened due to an attack. I agree it was important to the trench system, but not once a breakthrough attack started, which is what I wrote. Stay on topic.
You seem incapable of differentiating between what people are writing and the arguments you want to make. They are separate things.
Artillery didn't win WWI for the Allies. Lots of young men from the U.S. did. The Germans were close to Paris before the U.S. joined, and their system of attacking the trench system at specific points rather than broad fronts, is how they did it. Artillery played an ancillary role in that.
WWI trench warfare was caused by 2 things. The first, is that the logistics supply train of modern warfare at the time was about 30 miles for food, fuel, tires, ammunition. So even if going over the top meant you took some of the enemy's trenches, you didn't get to far before our advance ran out of inertia.
The second, is that, until late in the war when both sides developed tactics to overwhelm defenders at one point and consolidate gains, and the tools necessary for this, such as tanks, the defensive use of machine guns made Franco-Prussian War era tactics suicidal and you just got a lot of men needlessly killed. The Europeans didn't learn from the American Civil War.
Neither of these things are why you have WWI type of trench warfare in Ukraine. You have trench warfare for dissimilar causes as WWI.
Haha not entirely.
There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.
WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horribly in comparison to the heavy horse. Where cavalry was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.
The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.
Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.
That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead. I reckon it was conservative.
I might agree there is different goals. Capture and territory. But if I can put a finger on it seems to have another agenda and architecture. It's seemingly wearing down capacity and drawing and stalling as wider objects or even truce unfolds. Of course some of this is assumed modern weapons sam's, anti tank, and missiles, claiming otherwise. But it is problematic. Hence our discussion.
Railroads to the front lines don't matter when your front lines move past your trench system.
Pummeling with artillery was a mostly useless tactic in WWI. Napoleonic era stuff long since outdated by the time you had portable machine guns. Sadly the generals had "artillery barrage" as one of their outdated inventory of tactics. After retreating to the trenches, where troops would be mostly safe, when the noise stopped, machine gun nests were set up again quicker than the enemy could cross no man's land. The pummeling, as you call it, made the ground a churned up mess and didn't break the barbed wire more of then not. Troops were mowed down as the crossed the mess of no man's land. Infantry going over the top had better success when it was either a total surprise, or poison gas was used.
So, even though you said a lot without saying a lot, I get your point. The Germans wanted to bleed France white at the Somme, the Russians to bleed NATO/Ukraine white in Bakhmut. The most useful point you made, is that the reason they are even fighting over this place, is the railway transit system. From there, I surmise it degenerated into a type of Stalingrad situation.
You're chatting shit. Your opinion is otherwise stupid.
The Big Bertha, German Artillery rendered Czar Nicholas's Starfort obsolete. But you don't know history do you. He only just built it. Pop quiz. Which Baltic state?
The railroad was pivotal to the supply of munitions and the moving of wounded back from the front lines.
Munitions like all the gas used in shells to overrun the trenches.
Yes no man's land, fields of mud, and barbwire, and rows of trenches prevented the calvary flank, and the charge which tried repeatedly to get through the static, no assault rifles, machine gun nests. Equivalent of gattling guns but smaller. There was carbine rifles but they were hardly automatic. The tank was quite static sustaining more hits, but far more problematic, more broke down, than actually achieved victory. It's artillery that won the war, artillery firing shells of poison gases.
The war in all likelihood could've lasted longer but those causalities were really climbing as disease faster spread on the battlefield.
It's "talking shit"...which a native English speaker would know. And "talking shit" is casual talk. When you think someone is wrong about something, you say they are "full of shit". Here, this may help you. English is a difficult language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igh9iO5BxBo
Artillery barrages against forts. That's different from artillery barrages against trenches. I wrote about artillery barrages against trench systems. Stay on topic.
The railroad was pivotal to maintaining the trench system...but not when a breakthrough happened due to an attack. I agree it was important to the trench system, but not once a breakthrough attack started, which is what I wrote. Stay on topic.
You seem incapable of differentiating between what people are writing and the arguments you want to make. They are separate things.
Artillery didn't win WWI for the Allies. Lots of young men from the U.S. did. The Germans were close to Paris before the U.S. joined, and their system of attacking the trench system at specific points rather than broad fronts, is how they did it. Artillery played an ancillary role in that.