> **Question:** Why bother to attack in trench warfare? Ignorance mostly, ignorance fueled by historical precedent blind to recent changes in technology and tactics. Ignorance which was only overcome from several years costly losses trying to attack entrenched machine guns with infantry at the beginning of WWI. Why attack a chariot column on foot? Why confront an army wielding iron swords when all you have is bronze knives? Why would armored Calvery charge entrenched archers across a muddy stream? Why would people try to climb midivil castle walls? Why did the United States in 1941 bottle their entire Pacific fleet up at Pearl Harbor even knowing an attack by the Japanese was imminent? The answer to all these questions is because they didn't know any better. Because history which generally guides military leaders is always blind to the latest innovations or tactics and thus could not demonstrated the quaintness and sheer stupidity of these actions. Worse, because historical precident informed the commanders Offense was the quickest path to victory. Although already proven wrong in the British Crimean War and American Civil War conventional wisdom ((see [Cult of the Offensive][7]) ) in WWI was offense and massed infantry would overwhelm defensive formations. - [Despite the development of light infantry tactics and the increased effectiveness of firearms during the 19th century, -as was witnessed during the American Civil War and the Franco-German War-, the linear tactics, with massed volley fire, remained the basics of European warfare up to World War I.][1] In Crimean War(Battle of Balaclava) and the US Civil War(Picket's charge) the Minie ball, which enabled the wide use of rifles over muskets with their vastly improved accuracy and range (4 times the range) turned the Napoleonic tactics of platoon firing into a then unprecedented bloodbath. In WWI the machine gun turned the same tactics of volley fire into mass suicide. > **[The Bullet which Changed History][2]** > Almost as soon as the war(US Civil War) ended, historians began to study the factors that contributed to so much bloodshed – more than 200,000 killed and nearly 500,000 wounded – and concluded that the introduction of the rifle musket was the primary cause of the staggering casualty rates. And not without reason: the rifle musket combined the best features of the smoothbore musket and the Kentucky flintlock rifle. It could be loaded quickly and easily – an experienced soldier could load and fire up to four rounds a minute – while its long, grooved barrel gave it an effective range up to four times that of a smoothbore, with similar improvements in accuracy. [![Minié ball][3]][3] The Minié ball made rifles practical. Now instead of a specialized weapon reserved for sharp shooters and snippers, every man on the battle field could use a highly accurate long ranged riffle without sacrificing loading speed or reliability. The result was casualties skyrocketed as the tactics used for troops carrying smooth bore muskets were still employed for troops now carrying riffles with 4 times the effective range. > ["Minié ball"][4] > The Minié ball, or Minni ball, is a type of muzzle-loading spin-stabilized rifle bullet named after its co-developer, Claude-Étienne Minié, inventor of the Minié rifle. It came to prominence in the **Crimean War and American Civil War**. The development of the Minié ball was significant because it was the first projectile which was small enough to be easily put down the barrel of a rifled long gun. Rifling – the addition of spiral grooves inside the gun barrel, which imparted a spin to the bullet – greatly increased the range and accuracy of the gun. Prior to the Minié ball, balls had to be jammed down the rifle barrel, sometimes with a mallet, and after a relatively small number of shots, gunpowder residue built up in the spiral grooves, which then had to be cleaned out.[1] Both the American Springfield and the British Enfield rifles – the most common rifles used during the American Civil War – used the Minié ball. Why did trenches even occur? Because frontal approach of machine gun positions caused so many casualties they couldn't mass enough troops and keep them alive long enough for a proper offensive. Then they figured out that even massed overwhelming infantry emerging from trenches close to the enemy positions also stood no chance against machine guns the stalemate which was WWI began in earnest. > **[Trench Warfare][12]** > Trench warfare occurred when a revolution in firepower was not matched by similar advances in mobility, resulting in a grueling form of warfare in which the defender held the advantage... .. Machine guns at the beginning of WWI weighed [whopping 136.5 pounds][6]. Not a problem for defensive troops in pre-fortified positions; a huge incumberance however for advancing troops on the offensive. > **[Machine Guns][5]** > Machine guns inflicted appalling casualties on both war fronts in World War One. Men who went over-the-top in trenches stood little chance when the enemy opened up with their machine guns. Machine guns were one of the main killers in the war and accounted for many thousands of deaths. > Crude machine guns had first been used in the American Civil War (1861 to 1865). **However, tactics from this war to 1914 had not changed to fit in with this new weapon.** Machine guns could shoot hundreds of rounds of ammunition a minute and the standard military tactic of World War One was the infantry charge. Casualties were huge. Many soldiers barely got out of their trench before they were cut down. . > [By 1917, the Germans were reporting that the majority of their small arms ammunition, 90% to be exact, were going into the chambers of their machine guns.][6] Long story short. Practical military experience historically speaking is a see-saw; for a time the defense will have the advantage and offensive actions bare the primary costs for battles ( see feudalistic middle ages with their great stone castles, or see the machine gun in WWI ); and then everything changes. Some new technological innovation or tactic and the offense has the advantage. Now it's near suicide to be on the defense ( see introduction of cannons and how it changed castles or see the introduction of the Tank and the German Blitzkrieg). The flip side of this is most armies which fight wars, begin their war using the outdated and often suicidal tactics that would have worked well if they used them beginning their last war. ( see WWII, battle of France and the Maginot Line). > **[Cult of the Offensive][7]** The cult of the offensive refers to a strategic military dilemma, where leaders believe that offensive advantages are so great that a defending force would have no hope of repelling the attack; consequently, all states choose to attack. It is most often used in the context of explaining the causes of World War I and the subsequent heavy losses that occurred year after year, on all sides, during the fighting on the Western Front. Under the cult of offensive, military leaders believe that the attacker will be victorious (or at least cause more casualties than they receive) regardless of circumstance and so defense as a concept is almost completely discredited. This results in all strategies focusing on attacking, and the only valid defensive strategy being to counter-attack. . We are still going through this pattern today.. In 2006 the Israeli's fought Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel used the tried and true Armor attack supported by air superiority, artillery and infantry. Basically the same tactics Germans used against France and the same tactics Norman Schwarzkopf used against Saddam. Only in 2006 Hezbollah had an answer. Pre fortified tunnels, sophisticated American and Russian anti tank and anti personal missiles. First defeat in Israel's short history of overwhelming militaries victories.. or at least the first time any Israeli Army has left the enemy in the field and retired. > Haaretz **[Israel’s Second Lebanon War Remains a Resounding Failure][8]** > The Israel Defense Forces had fought Hezbollah and Palestinian groups before, but this time it faced an enemy that avoided direct clashes while tailing it at every opportunity and firing Katyusha rockets at the Galilee until the war’s last day. The fact that the IDF couldn’t bring the campaign to a decisive conclusion created great frustration in the government, among the public and in the army itself. . > Washington Post **[2006 War Called a 'Failure' for Israel][9]** > But the panel(Winograd Committee, appointed to examine Israel's conduct of the 2006 war by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert) did conclude that the war "was a big and serious failure" for Israel, Eliyahu Winograd, the retired judge who led the committee, told reporters. . >> NyTimes **[A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons][10]** Hezbollah, Mr. Goksel says, has clear tactics, trying to draw Israeli ground troops farther into Lebanon. “They can’t take the Israelis in open battle,” he said, “so they want to draw them in to well-prepared battlefields,” like Aita al Shaab, where there has been fierce fighting. He added: “They know the Israelis depend too much on armor, which is a prime target for them. And they want Israeli supply lines to lengthen, so they’re easier to hit.” Israeli tanks have been struck by huge roadside bombs planted in expectation that Israeli armor would roll across the border, said one tank lieutenant, who in keeping with military policy would only give his first name, Ohad. . > [Hezbollah’s Creative Tactical Use of Anti-Tank Weaponry][11] Among the many aspects to be investigated is the vulnerability of Israel’s powerful armored corps to small, hand-held, wire-guided anti-tank weapons. Indeed, **Hezbollah’s innovative use of anti-tank missiles was the cause of most Israeli casualties and has given the small but powerful weapons a new importance in battlefield tactics.** <hr/> **Sources:** - **[Volley Fire][1]** - **[The Bullet which changed the World][2]** - **["Minié ball"][4]** - **[Machine Guns][5]** - **[How The Machine Gun Changed Combat During World War 1][6]** - **[Cult of the Offensive][7]** - **[Israel’s Second Lebanon War Remains a Resounding Failure][8]** - **[2006 War Called a 'Failure' for Israel][9]** - **[A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons][10]** - **[Hezbollah’s Creative Tactical Use of Anti-Tank Weaponry][11]** - **[Wiki: Trench Warfare][12]** [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire [2]:https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/the-bullet-that-changed-history/ [3]: https://i.sstatic.net/moalZ.jpg [4]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minié_ball [5]:https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/the-western-front-in-world-war-one/machine-guns/ [6]:https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=n5dYW83OE_LH_QaesaqoBg&q=ww1+machine+gun+impact&oq=ww1+machine+gun+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.4.0l10.2913.12549.0.16709.16.12.0.4.4.0.75.660.12.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.16.696...0i131k1.0.MOayWeRv-cQ [7]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_offensive [8]:https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israels-second-lebanon-war-remains-a-resounding-failure-1.5407519 [9]:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013000559.html?noredirect=on [10]:https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/world/middleeast/07hezbollah.html [11]:https://jamestown.org/program/hezbollahs-creative-tactical-use-of-anti-tank-weaponry/ [12]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare