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 Napoleonic era stuff long since outdated by the time you had portable machine guns. Sadly the generals had "artillery barrage" as one of their outdated inventory of tactics.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.
At what monkey point. Because you're chatting shit. Didn't you understand the poison gases in the shells fired by the artillery overruning the trenches. The allies in particular the British fired the most chemical weapons in WW1.
Nothing won WW1 apart from surrender and truce. It might've lasted years longer.
You never answered which Baltic State and which starfort? You presumed it was a static defense. What's a trench and trench line? Pretty static. They're a fortified line. They halted supposed mechanisation. Tanks stuck in mud. Trucks no roads to a trench line, and not the same capacity. Where they sooner laid railroads to the front.
Suddenly look it starts agreeing. Artillery. It was the only real weapon. BiPlanes, no accuracy, hand dropped bombs, tanks problematic and breaking, guns not the same range as artillery, or were automatic outside of static machinegun turrets.
More men at it. Yes indeed. Against an artillery causing a larger no man's land.
Can you tell me of a particular hill that only lost because it surrendered. Its artillery was impossible to get close too?
American bodies won WWI, pretending any different is Eurocentrism.
When the Allies marched into Berlin, that kinda looks like victory to me. France and England, or Rome and Persia, fought back and forth for centuries, but each war was a distinct act in a long drama.
The Baltics were on the periphery. And so were static forts. I may as well claim that since the Turks pushed the Aussies and Brits off of Gallipoli...oh wait, the naval bombardment there did about nothing to stop the Ottomans from emerging and pushing the invaders off the beaches. Next thing you'll tell me is that naval bombardments of positions is somehow different from artillery, when it's the same thing in effect.
I'm not saying artillery was useless. Never did. It was mostly good on the defensive, but not very useful on the offensive. Later in the war, when they could, in a more sophisticated way, use a barrage that advanced ahead of the infantry going over the top it was useful for attacks. But it was part of larger whole, as I have been telling you over and over.
"Static" machine gun turrets? lol. Machine guns were mobile, their positions were changed regularly to give better fields of fire, or so the enemy didn't get used to them being in one position.
Tanks were prone to breaking down, but armored vehicles were instrumental for the Allies at Amiens, but like I was saying, it was part of a larger strategy of attacking at a specific point then across a wide front.
So, debate what I am saying, not what you want to argue against. Stay on topic.
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.
At what monkey point. Because you're chatting shit. Didn't you understand the poison gases in the shells fired by the artillery overruning the trenches. The allies in particular the British fired the most chemical weapons in WW1.
Nothing won WW1 apart from surrender and truce. It might've lasted years longer.
You never answered which Baltic State and which starfort? You presumed it was a static defense. What's a trench and trench line? Pretty static. They're a fortified line. They halted supposed mechanisation. Tanks stuck in mud. Trucks no roads to a trench line, and not the same capacity. Where they sooner laid railroads to the front.
Suddenly look it starts agreeing. Artillery. It was the only real weapon. BiPlanes, no accuracy, hand dropped bombs, tanks problematic and breaking, guns not the same range as artillery, or were automatic outside of static machinegun turrets.
More men at it. Yes indeed. Against an artillery causing a larger no man's land.
Can you tell me of a particular hill that only lost because it surrendered. Its artillery was impossible to get close too?
American bodies won WWI, pretending any different is Eurocentrism.
When the Allies marched into Berlin, that kinda looks like victory to me. France and England, or Rome and Persia, fought back and forth for centuries, but each war was a distinct act in a long drama.
The Baltics were on the periphery. And so were static forts. I may as well claim that since the Turks pushed the Aussies and Brits off of Gallipoli...oh wait, the naval bombardment there did about nothing to stop the Ottomans from emerging and pushing the invaders off the beaches. Next thing you'll tell me is that naval bombardments of positions is somehow different from artillery, when it's the same thing in effect.
I'm not saying artillery was useless. Never did. It was mostly good on the defensive, but not very useful on the offensive. Later in the war, when they could, in a more sophisticated way, use a barrage that advanced ahead of the infantry going over the top it was useful for attacks. But it was part of larger whole, as I have been telling you over and over.
"Static" machine gun turrets? lol. Machine guns were mobile, their positions were changed regularly to give better fields of fire, or so the enemy didn't get used to them being in one position.
Tanks were prone to breaking down, but armored vehicles were instrumental for the Allies at Amiens, but like I was saying, it was part of a larger strategy of attacking at a specific point then across a wide front.
So, debate what I am saying, not what you want to argue against. Stay on topic.