How to Attack a Trench?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Are you saying that WW1 trench warfare wasn't "real world?" There were several million Germans, British, French, Canadians, Australians, Italians, Portuguese, Indians, and miscellaneous other veterans who might have disagreed with that.

i think he means that if he were to encounter a trench warfare situation tomorrow, this is the way he would do it. "real world" referring to the here and now, not separating it from the fictional.

 

[warmwaffles]

well thats easy to beat...just use fast moving vehicles, grenades, and anti-personel bombs (cluster bombs)

 

[cidknee]

3 words, if today, fuel air explosives. and back then? well i like the close air support, but the planes were just too vulnerable.And they would still be supporting some poor sob's going over the top. So thats how I would do it.

 

[Steph]

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?

How can such a slaughter be someone's favourite war?

 

[Vietcong]

1, bomb the trench just befor the atack with arty.
2, even closer to the moment of atack, use posion gas
3, dont use just typical infantry, use storm troopers allso. armed with smgs and flame throwers.
4, use bombers and recon planes to try to spot enamy arty and destroy it.

 

[Ukas]

How can such a slaughter be someone's favourite war?

It can be for people who haven't experienced it.

 

[Nobody]

Gets lots of poor people (preferably australians) too young to understand whats going on, give them guns without bullets (not going to get a chance to shot them anyway) and have them charge the enemy trenchs until the enemy run out of bullets.

 

[Steph]

Gets lots of poor people (preferably australians) too young to understand whats going on, give them guns with bullets (not going to get a chance to shot them anyway) and have them charge the enemy trenchs until the enemy run out of bullets.

Why give them bullets if they won't use it anyway?

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

How can such a slaughter be someone's favourite war?

I would presume (hope) that it means it is his favourite war to study.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

From my understanding of the subject:

1. Surprise - don't telegraph your intentions by weeks of bombardment, nor weak communications, or obvious buildup. Far easier for the Germans given they usually held the ridges with the Allies coming to them to push them out. Cool surprises definitely included setting off mines below enemy positions, attacks after hurricane bombardments and of course...tanks.

2. Close proximity of reinforcements to exploit any gaps. Far too often gaps would be formed in the lines but reserve units were too far back to make use of, or too far forward and got caught up in the confusion of the initial attack.

3. Most attacks that succeeded happened on mornings that were misty - reasonably common in the early morning in Northern Belgium and France. If it ain't a misty morning, call your attack off.

 

[Leonel]

Well since the trenches are so confined I figure get some troops at one point and use a kind of shield to deflect bullets to sweep through.

 

[fing0lfin]

Well since the trenches are so confined I figure get some troops at one point and use a kind of shield to deflect bullets to sweep through.

It should be the lucky day of the enemy artilery

 

[Spartan117]

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.

at the time it had little effect as wind makes using gasses as a weapon very difficult...and unreliable

by the way the chemical gas used did not kill large amounts of soldiers

if you outnumber opponents then a machine gun nest will still be able to mow infantry and cavalry down

 

[Spartan117]

trench warfare became obsolete when WWI tanks were used on the offensive

the machine gun can't penetrate the armor...or most weapons at the time

 

[sydhe]

(1) Dig a deep tunnel under the trenches and emerge on the other side

(2) Prepare massive fire hoses, fill the trenches with water and dump jello on them. Give the jello time to set, then attack.

Seriously, study the tactics Brusilov used at the beginning of his Offensive, which the German-Austrian army used at Caporetto.

Or the best strategy: Attack so fast the enemy doesn't have time to dig in.

 

[EdwardTking]

Use artillery and air power against command nodes and then attack at night.

This requires very well trained troops, but was quite effective in the Falklands.

 

[GoldEagle]

Chemical Warfare in the Trench, Artillery Bombardments behind the trench, and infantry shooting at the trench. There'd be no way to get out.

 

[fing0lfin]

Chemical Warfare in the Trench, Artillery Bombardments behind the trench, and infantry shooting at the trench. There'd be no way to get out.

I read the memories of some British soldiers. They were saying how they had to leave a trench which they have captured, becasue of the chemical warfare
they had used before the attack

Also the wind may change and nobody where the gas will go.
I think that the chemical warfare in ww1 was too unreliable.

Actually how do you see a charging infantry shooting at the trench
'



I think that one if the things which helped when attacking a trench, were the grenades.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Well since the trenches are so confined I figure get some troops at one point and use a kind of shield to deflect bullets to sweep through.

Trenches were zig-zagged so bullets didn't travel far and tended not to deflect around corners much anyway. The big problem in a trench is the grenade. You forgot that all the other side has to do it throw a grenade past your shield and the shield will actually protect the guy who threw the grenade at you.

Realistically, big metal plates that are thick enough to deflect bullets are too heavy to hold by a person or people. There was no lightweight kevlar or polycarbonate equivalent at the time that could reliably deflect bullets. Metal helmets had to be light and thin enough to wear, and really only protected against shrapnel, which was a bigger threat in most cases. Remember, people stopped wearing full-body armor plating when the gun first spread through Europe. The most you could really carry long distances was that steel breastplate insert. The movie Blackhawk Down made an interesting plot twist out of it.

 

[MadScot]

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?

Actually, today it would NOT be easy to bomb a trench to pieces - in fact a trench system similar to the late war Western Front systems is perhaps the single target which is MOSt resilient against aerial attack; troops still construct dugouts and such today, and the deep shelters constructed by the Germans in particular would be on a par with the deepest modern command bunker type targets, and extremely difficult to locate, hit or destroy.

Again, a modern tank would not be as useful as you may think; it's got to get across the trenches, not a trivial task, and avoid the infantry taking it out with any of a variety of short-ranged anti-tank weapons.

What they should have done is precisely what they DID do - they spent 4 years working out the best ways to attack (and defend) a trench system, the idea that there was a "better way" with the existing technology is laughable. And the various battles in the last year of the war show that all the armies had essentially solved the question of how to break into a trench system, whether Cambrai, 'Michael', or August 8th is the example you prefer. What NO ARMY SOLVED - because it was essentially insoluble with the technology extant - was turning a break-in into a break-through; despite being defeated in the field the German army was able to retire in relatively good order on a strategic scale in 1918 because local tactical and operational success could not be turned into something bigger.