Is there a game that helps you understand WW1 era battle tactics better? I find discussion of tactics in that era confusing - like the creeping barrage.
A brief summary:
“What I want to focus on here is the disconnect between the popular conception of how trench warfare actually worked and the actual conditions that produced trench warfare. This week, we’re going to look at the problem: both the popular perception of what the problem is and what the actual problem of trench warfare is. This is both to set the groundwork for the next post, which will discuss the ways that this stalemate was and wasn’t broken, but it also serves to handily dismiss some of the ‘easy’ solutions that are often offered which don’t solve the actual problem but merely solve the imaginary one.”
> And now we have the ‘race to the parapet.’ The attacker opens with a barrage, which has two purposes: silence enemy artillery (which could utterly ruin the attack if it isn’t knocked out) and second to disable the machine guns: knock out some directly, force the crews of the rest to flee underground. But attacking infantry can’t occupy a position its own artillery is shelling, so there is some gap between when the shells stop and when the attack arrives. In that gap, the defender is going to rush to set up their machine guns while the attacker rushes to get to the lip of the trench:first one to get into position is going to inflict a terrible slaughter on the other.
I already read this before I asked.
Where was the artillery aimed? Was it aimed over the entire area between the advancing line of troops and the opposing trench? If so, then of course any opposing soldier would die if they got out of hiding; but then the shells could've been aimed only at the opposing trench, without needing to cover the area directly in front of the advancing soldiers. If on the other hand, the shells were aimed only directly in front of the advancing soldiers, and not at the opposing trench as well, then the opposing soldiers would've been in no risk of getting hit by artillery fire. Overall, it seems that the bombardment could've been aimed only at the opposing trench, which might've given the advancing soldiers enough cover to reach the opposing trench alive. But apparently, that's not how a creeping barrage worked.
I'm clearly missing something obvious.
So "the shells could've been aimed only at the opposing trench, without needing to cover the area directly in front of the advancing soldiers." is not possible because it's the same area ?
Also, I seem to remember something about it not just being two trenches, but several layers of trenches, and also various levels of enemy artillery, so each barrage would have wanted to cover the various layers of enemy defenses, but with different timings, hence "rolling barrage" ??
The creeping barrage would hide the advancing soldiers behind dust clouds. The closer to the troops the better (harder to get sight lines on them unless you were literally on top of them).
Enemy positions were not always fully known and mapped out, so firing "just" at the opposing trench would be hard to plan. There could be advance defensive positions placed further forward as well.
There were multiple layers of trenches which an advance could be expected to push through.
The shape and pace of the creeping barrage was thought to help coordinate the pace of the advance.
There were drawbacks, as of course many shells would hit empty land and so be wasteful of artillery, and creeping barrages did fall out of favour. Although not simply for this reason: later developments made it easier for infantry to call artillery down on specific positions as needed, and also new infiltrations tactics made coordinating with creeping barrages impossible.
There were essentially two problems for the attacker. First, infantry charging into fixed machine gun nests were suicide. Second, if they are able to clear out the enemy and take over a trench line, they would need re-supply. Meaning, eventually, another trench would have to be dug to connect the newly won trench with your own lines. Meanwhile, the enemy is counter-attacking.
The creeping barrage (Allied) and blitzkrieg (German) solves the first problem of how infantry can attack machine gun nests. The Allies would closely synchronize artillery a few hundred feet in advance of their attacking infantry. The creeping barrage of artillery fire suppresses the enemy so the infantry can charge. The Germans developed the first steps towards blitzkrieg tactics. Basically small squads armed with grenades were empowered to make tactical decisions. They would advance when resistance was soft. They would move laterally when resistance was stiff. The metaphor was like the ocean wave crashing against a rocky beach. The wave would advance but would bypass stiff defensive points. Eventually those defensive points would fall when they run out of ammo. Either side did not effectively solve the re-supply problem. At that time trains would bring forward supplies, trucks would then transport to communication trenches, and soldiers would have to hoof the last mile. All of which was difficult when someone was shooting at you.
How?
The attackers, meanwhile, if they got their timing right... would be on top of the trenches when this happens. Giving the attackers a chance to engage the defenders before the machine guns open up.
I feel like every explanation I'm getting now is deja vu.
Also there were always multiple layers of trenches.
To model the Battle of the Somme with even some tactical fidelity is also likely not feasible within present constraints. I would look to niche war sim board games instead.
That said, one might be wiser to read the English war poets than search for such a game. The study of Great War tactics is perforce the study of a macabre failure in human imagination and morality. Even at the tactical level the war is proof of a human inability to learn and change - even when our choices lead inexorably to mass death.
Battlefield mortality was exacerbated by commanders’ fixation on 19th century tactics. Creeping artillery barrages and over-the-top frontal assaults were finally effective only strategically, as economic and political weapons. This was not tactical innovation. It was an upscaled iteration of cannon barrages decimating bravely advancing line infantry.
This is a cliche, and it doesn't explain the tactics.
If that were the case, then surely there would've been an advantage to be gained for not "fixating on 19th century tactics". Given that they had 4 years to discover such tactics and failed, they didn't exist.
Battlefield tactics did in fact change during WWI. Quite a lot. Infiltration, use of tanks, combined arms, how artillery was used and coordinated. Some of these innovations were kept and used successfully in WWI and beyond.
However, the over-riding reason for stalemates in WWI was because static defensive firepower technology and tactics had, briefly, outpaced maneuver warfare technology and tactics. Accurate and fast-firing long distance firearms neutralized the millenia old technology of cavalry, and made mass advances extremely costly. Mechanized and air power had yet to counter this, but they were quickly developed. And armies had to learn new tactics as well. But that takes time, and losses.