Which country had the best trenches?

[garric]

In World War I, almost all of the countries resorted to building trenches. Usually, a "no man's land" was between these trenches, soldiers sat a long time between the no-man's land between the trenches, waiting for advances. Men of either side would then run along the no-man's land while being shot by machine guns and whatnot to make it to the enemy's trenches and attempt to destroy the men inside. The question is, which nation had the best trench building techniques? Which nation was the cleanest? Which was the worst?

Thank you.

 

[Steve Thompson]

You could say, at least early on, that the Germans enjoyed the best conditions in their trenches on the Western Front. But I'm not too familiar on the subject...

 

[Adler17]

Indeed the Germans had the best trenches. In the Somme offensive the Brits fired millions of shells on the trenches. Then the artillery stopped and the infantry advanced. The Brits thought no one would be alive in the trenches. They were surprised by heavy German fire... Indeed the German trenches were as deep as 10 m, There were bunker within and in these bunker the German soldiers waited that the British artillery stopped. Then they went to the outer parts of the trenches where they awaited the infantry. So all the shells fired were invain. They did nearly no damage to the Germans.
The worst ones? I don´t know.

Adler

 

[LouLong]

One funny thing is that French kind of appreaciated offensives (if they were successfull and if they did nit die in the process) because the German trenches were better, stronger and more comfortable.
Main issue diaries of these day recall is the "German" smell !!!! (talk about psychological warfare).

Now it is true as well Germans understood faster and gave more means to their trenches.

At the end of the war they were more or less on par with the difference Germans wanted to pillage the French and English trenches because they had more resources (food mostly) while Germans had started to really suffer from the blocus.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Main issue diaries of these day recall is the "German" smell !!!! (talk about psychological warfare).

It was called the Mark of the Beast.

I would also point out that the french "pre-WW1 forts" were amazing. They lasted quite a while under bombartment.

 

[Verbose]

Well Robert Graves would go on about the "funny smell" in the French trenches the Brits would take over in "Goodbye to all that".

But the again he really hated the French, and his full name was Robert von Ranke-Graves, grandson of the historian Leopold von Ranke.

 

[Verbose]

As for the best trenches, as far as "penetrability" is concerned they seem to have been roughly equal.
The German's had the advantage of getting to pick the best spots in 1914, which gave them an edge.

As for living conditions, it would have to be the Germans as well. Partly due to the way the war developed.
The Germans dug is as if they were going to settle permanently. Everybody knew the French would be compelled to try to chuck them out. Just staying put in the middle of France would count as a German success.
The Frech trench warfare doctrine reflected this. They were generally as murderous to attack as anyone elses, bit skimped on living conditions. High command didn't want the troops to feel they were settling in on anything but a temporary basis. The British trenches would likely fall somewhere in between.

 

[MCdread]

In "All quiet on the western front" Remarque mentions more than once the tough conditions of the later stages of the war on the german side, in regards to food and uniforms when compared to their french and british foes.
Has anybody read Henri Barbusse's "Under Fire" (I think this is the title in english)?

 

[LouLong]

I have (but in French). Very interesting also is "Steel storms" or "storms of steel" by Ernst Jünger or the books by Maurice Genevoix.

Le Feu has the double advantage of being one of the first to be published (hence not much time to reflect and change things) and because Barbusse was no writer usually. It then adds some to its authenticity.
Ernst Jünger's is very interesting in that it mentions the birth of a new type of man under these situations, a type of man that would fit remarkably well in the paramilitary troops of Germany, with a climax under the Nazi regime.

Maurice Genevoix is a writer and it is more of a novel sometimes. What is interesting though is the different editions and the reasons behind the changes (as when he erased the fact he had killed from behind during an attack in a dark night) two Germans by handgun. Interesting choices of deleting or publishing stuff like that.

Verbose's point is very true. Germans occupied parts of France for most of the war, it was the French who had the pyschological obligation of kicking them out. Then if you add to that stupid high-level officers who thought French troops did not need stuff for trenches as war would resume in the customary manner (movements, bayonnet charges,....) it gives you some of the reasons why French trenches were not so good.

Now of course French ones were much better than Russian ones. And they got better during the war.

 

[MCdread]

Le Feu has the double advantage of being one of the first to be published (hence not much time to reflect and change things) and because Barbusse was no writer usually. It then adds some to its authenticity.

Hmm... I never read Barbusse's book (just asked because someone told me it was the best about WWI and thus I should read it), but are you sure he wasn't really a writer? I know of at least another novel of his, about a guy that cuts a hole in his room wall and through that he sees life passing by. I think it's called L'Enfer.

 

[Adler17]

Well the Russians were fighting no trench war. They were invading Austria and East Prussia first, but were repelled from the latter very soon and later they fought on their own terrain unable to build a trench warfare. Therefore they lacked in everything. Russia wasn´t ready for the war.

Adler

 

[Verbose]

Oh come on, the Russians dug in just as much as anyone else everywhere where the front seemed reasonably stable. It didn't reach the stalemate of the western front, but there were plenty of trenches on the eastern front, just not as permanent or elaborate.

The Russian lack of equipment was only relative. They started war with plenty of hardware but dispersed within their huge armies the proportions weren't very impressive. Russia had plenty of aircraft in 1914 for instance, only no one figured they would have any, certainly not the Russian troops who fired at anything that flew thinking it was German.

 

[Adler17]

I didn´t say the Russians made trenches. It was just another war in the east than in the west. Also indeed the Russians had plenty of hardware but were unable to use them correctly resp. had problems to equip the soldiers. I mean most soldiers had no shoes when they invaded East Prussia because there was so few time to give them all shoes. Also the supply was non existent when the Russian trains reached the German border: Germany has smaller railways. Later the Russian army lacked on heavy equipment and even not each soldier had an own rifle. The Russians made many mistakes. The first was invading Germany when you are not ready to do so. Then you have to build up strong forces and not masses of ill equipped units.
All in all the fights in the east and in the west are not compareable.

Adler

 

[Verbose]

OK, the wars were differet. I admit it.

But the advance in fire power favouring the defender was just as real in the east as in the west. The war never became stalemated in the same way, but cover and fire power was equally important in both theaters. And there were elaborate trenches at times where the front temporarily stabilised.

As for the Russian mistake of invading East Prussia, it was prompted by French calls for help. That's why they did it. Odds where that France would have been defeated otherwise. And if I remember correctly German devisions designated for the war in France got transferred east in the last minute.
Who knows, they could have tipped the scales at the Marne?

 

[Suomi]

Ever heard of the mannerheim line? Those Finns holding back nearly one million soviets.
finnish deaths: 26,000
soviet deaths: almost 350,000

 

[Suomi]

although that was in WII

 

[Adler17]

But the Finnish trenches in ww2, or better the Soviet Finnish winter war of 1939/ 40, were, although well done made, not overrun because of General Winter. The Soviets were attacking with heavy tanks and other material but they didn´t come through the snow of the especially cold winter 1939/40 (the Baltic was nearly completely frozen, every ship, which could be used, was used as ice breaker, like the predreadnoughts of the Kriegsmarine btw). The Soviets were trapped and so Finnish Sissi soldiers (Sissi= partisan), armed with MP and Pukki dagger could destroy whole armoured divisions trapped in the snow with masses of equipment. But unfortunately when spring came the Soviets managed it finally to break through the Finnish lines. But Stalin was not able to conquer Finland completely and so "only" annexed parts of Karelia and Viipuuri (Wyborg). That was the reason why Finland joined Germany in the war against the Russians, to retake that areas.

Adler

 

[elderotter]

Hmmm....who invented trench warfare? Know the Americans used them in the Civil War - esp in the seige of Petersburg.....sure they date way back tho. Anyone know?

 

[Verbose]

Trenches have been around about as long as siege warfare.

Trenches to get into in order to get out of enemy fire seems to come along with gunpowder. (But the medievals did dig as well.) Dirt has great stopping power against bullets, arty included.

I'd say in sieges you get a recognisable kind of trench warfare since about the Renaissance at least.

Pretty soon (17th c. at least) you also get prepared positions with troops digging in, building redoubts etc., for set piece battles, but usually not elaborate trench systems (unless there's lots of time for preparation at a very obvious spot: like Pultava perhaps?).

In order to get WWI style trenches I suppose you need the mass armies raised through general conscription (or similar) which makes it possible to man huge frontlines, and on top of that a supply system that allows these armies to stay put in one spot.

But that's a very general guesstimation.

 

[Zardnaar]

You've had siege warfare going back to at least the Assyrians. Trench warfare recognisable as WW1 style started in the 19th century in the Crimea War, and the American Civil War. The Maori in the Land Wars of New Zealand were also quite adept at digging trenches vs colonial troops espicially considering they were basically a stone age people vs imperial Britain.