Skip to main content
Notice removed Reward existing answer by Kepotx
Bounty Ended with Schwern's answer chosen by Kepotx
Notice added Reward existing answer by Kepotx
Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Kepotx
Starting to call your post a dumb question is not the most welcoming headline for a hot question :)
Source Link

Seems like a dumb question, but here it is: atAt least on the western front, trenches were heavily defended. Any charge was just suicidal, with heavy losses for the attacker and much smaller losses for the defender. As there is a big strategic advantage to be the defender and not the attacker, why bother launch an attack?

I understand that breaking the line of defense of the enemy and conquer their land grants you victory, but it's not the only way: the USA lost the Vietnam War, without being conquered. They withdrew because they endured too much of a loss.

Seems like a dumb question, but here it is: at least on the western front, trenches were heavily defended. Any charge was just suicidal, with heavy losses for the attacker and much smaller losses for the defender. As there is a big strategic advantage to be the defender and not the attacker, why bother launch an attack?

I understand that breaking the line of defense of the enemy and conquer their land grants you victory, but it's not the only way: the USA lost the Vietnam War, without being conquered. They withdrew because they endured too much of a loss.

At least on the western front, trenches were heavily defended. Any charge was just suicidal, with heavy losses for the attacker and much smaller losses for the defender. As there is a big strategic advantage to be the defender and not the attacker, why bother launch an attack?

I understand that breaking the line of defense of the enemy and conquer their land grants you victory, but it's not the only way: the USA lost the Vietnam War, without being conquered. They withdrew because they endured too much of a loss.

Seems like a dumb question, but here it is: at least inon the western front, trenches were heavily defended, and any. Any charge was just suicidal, with heavy losses for the attacker and much smaller losses for the defender. As there is a big strategic advantage to be the defender and not the attacker, why bother launch an attack?

ps: I understand that breaking the line of defense of the ennemyenemy and conquer their land grantgrants you victory, but it's not the only way: U.S.A.the USA lost the Vietnam War, without beiingbeing conquered. They withdrawwithdrew because they endureendured too much lossesof a loss.

Seems like a dumb question, but here it is: at least in the western front, trenches were heavily defended, and any charge was just suicidal, with heavy losses for the attacker and much smaller losses for the defender. As there is a big strategic advantage to be the defender and not the attacker, why bother launch an attack?

ps: I understand that breaking the line of defense of the ennemy and conquer their land grant you victory, but it's not the only way: U.S.A. lost Vietnam War, without beiing conquered. They withdraw because they endure too much losses.

Seems like a dumb question, but here it is: at least on the western front, trenches were heavily defended. Any charge was just suicidal, with heavy losses for the attacker and much smaller losses for the defender. As there is a big strategic advantage to be the defender and not the attacker, why bother launch an attack?

I understand that breaking the line of defense of the enemy and conquer their land grants you victory, but it's not the only way: the USA lost the Vietnam War, without being conquered. They withdrew because they endured too much of a loss.

Tweeted twitter.com/StackHistory/status/1017603895244312576
Simplified syntax of title
Link
MCW
  • 34.1k
  • 12
  • 109
  • 164

Trenches warfare: why Why bother to attack in trench warfare?

Source Link
Kepotx
  • 1k
  • 1
  • 10
  • 18
Loading