How to Attack a Trench?

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Ok I just finished doing WW1 in school. I like reading about that war which is now my favorite war. My question is what is the smartest way to attack a trench with the technology that existed. I mean today it would be pretty easy to bomb a trench to peices and a modern tank would be good at storming trenches. So what should the generals of WW1 have done?

 

[cairo140]

Chlorine or Mustard Gas: Used first in the second battle of Ypres to tremendous efficiency. Had the Germans accurately predicted the effectiveness of the strike, they could have easily taken the Ypres salient. In my opinion, this is by far the most effective (albeit very unethical for the innocent murdered civilians) method with which to attack a trench defense.

Other than that, I don't see any effective offensive manoever other than simply outnumbering your opponent and striking at night. Trenches had such effective defensive capacities that they were the quintessential strategy; so much so that it had an era of combat named after it.

 

[silver 2039]

Use a creeping artillery barrge to lay down a curtain of explosions in front to steadily advancing troops. Attack using planes to hit points in the trench lines, as well as tanks and such to overrun position. Such attacks call for great presecion and timing. A good strategy would be to us Stormtroopers to infilitrate the trenches causing chaos behind enemy lines.

 

[nonconformist]

The best way?
Attack your enemy when they don't expect it.
The Germans made some startling gains by merely walking over in daylight, without any artillery help.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Trench warfare in WW1 on the Western Front was a static business. In order to make an attack worthwhile, there needs to be a breakthrough. This needs the aforementioned combined arms warfare - heavy artillery continual suppressing fire against enemy artillery positions,communications and transport; medium howitzers and guns providing a creeping barrage, and field guns close up. Utilize tanks in significant numbers, in combination with enough fast moving sturmtruppen and large amounts of conventional infantry.
Utilize air support, particularly in regards to reconnaissance. Open up a breach and exploit it with the cavalry and reserves.

All these came together, along with the necessary command mindset and spirit of aggression, in 1918 for the Allies. Until then, the lessons still need to be digested, the technology advanced, and the manpower mustered. Millions of Yanks help a bit.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

when you hear the whistle... pray to God and climb over the top!

 

[Verbose]

From an infantry man's POV what you do remains pretty much the same as back in 1914. You get stuck in at some weak spot in the system, the you enlarge the section you control by bombing yourself along with handgranades and through close combat. All armies involved more or less independantly invented these tactics after 1914. It's the kind of warfare that the submachinegun was invented for.
What you don't do is rush the trench in a massive bayonet charge shouting hurrah! and expect to take the whole damn thing in one go. Surprisingly enough that was how a lot of senior commanders figured things in 1914.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Surprise is best, but if that cannot be managed, soften them up with heavy shelling and poison gas. Then have your army charge over the top. Even with the enemy weakened, expect heavy casualties(make that very heavy casualties), once your army makes it to the other side(if any make it over at all), the fighting will be at close quarters and be a mixture of short range weapons and hand to hand fighting. Trench warfare is very much a war of attrition. The side that can afford the worst casualties and has the most patience is the side that will win.

 

[Ace]

1. This is World War I, what innocent civilians??? anyone in the combat zone, ie. within artillery range of the other side, had better be under cover and out of sight. Both sides moved civilians out of the way if the civilians were dumb enough to stay near the front.

2. posion gas didn't work so good. Yes, it was really nasty stuff, but very unreliable. Like if the wind changes, oops, it blows back in your face. Or, counterbattery fire blows up your stockpile of shells and the gas floods your own lines. In practice, it was as dangerous to the attacker as to the defender. Which is why it was never used in World War II. Both sides felt it was not worth the hassle. Althrough both sides had stockpiles of it so that they could retaliate in case the other side did use it.

 

[History_Buff]

TBH, I was always kind of surprised they didn't try tunnelling into the enemy trench, ala the Medieval period. What with all the shelling, you wouldn't be able to hear the digging, and you would probably be able to surprise the enemy pretty good.

 

[YNCS]

Entrenchment triggered a complex and difficult to trace series of evolutions in both battlefield tactics and technology. The Germans responded by creating what amounted to modern combined arms squad tactics, something their French and British opponents initially brushed off as infiltration tactics. After a long period of grim failure, the British managed the mass deployment of a new weapon called the tank, which also changed the nature of warfare and helped break the brutal deadlock of position warfare. The French adopted both of these methods and weapons, applying them is a combined form which appealed to the French leadership.

 

[North King]

TBH, I was always kind of surprised they didn't try tunnelling into the enemy trench, ala the Medieval period. What with all the shelling, you wouldn't be able to hear the digging, and you would probably be able to surprise the enemy pretty good.

They did mine the trenches with explosives at Messines (sp?).

 

[Marla_Singer]

Send the bombers first, then the tanks.

 

[Stylesjl]

Hold your trench lines, and just keeping shelling the enemy. No need to make worthless charges at the enemy, let them do it and waste their soldiers

Also digging under the enemy trenches and firing poison gas helps quite a bit

 

[Speedo]

TBH, I was always kind of surprised they didn't try tunnelling into the enemy trench, ala the Medieval period. What with all the shelling, you wouldn't be able to hear the digging, and you would probably be able to surprise the enemy pretty good.

Semi-OT but it was also tried in the US Civil War at the Siege of Petersburg. Union soldiers mined under a fort on the Confederate lines and set a huge charge of power beneath it. Unfortunately after the (quite spectacular) explosion, the Union troops poured into the crater rather than moving around it.... so they basically pinned themselves in for slaughter.

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

 

[fing0lfin]

Heavy artilery can help attacking a trench, but if the trench system is well-built, the artilery is almost useless.

 

[Sisonpyh]

Watch Band of Brothers

 

[Shaihulud]

Im thinking that napalm or any incendiary device would do nicely. deliver it via a heavy artillery shell, the liquid fire would hopefully drip down into the trench and roast the enemy.

 

[Verbose]

Hold your trench lines, and just keeping shelling the enemy. No need to make worthless charges at the enemy, let them do it and waste their soldiers

That's Pétain's recipy from 1917. Mechanised warfare, massive fire power and as little exposure of your own troops as possible means static warfare with relatively low attrition. Unfortunately it's not enought to make the enemy evacuate your territory, if that's what he's dug himself into.

 

[ibn sina]

Blockade the other sides ports and wait for the hunger to make them surrender.