To What Extent Was Trench Warfare an Effective Tactic During WW1?

Table of Contents 

Section A: Identification and Evaluation of Sources 2 

Section B: Investigation 3 

Section C: Sources and Word Limit 8 

Section A: Identification and Evaluation of Sources 

To What Extent Was Trench Warfare an Effective Tactic During WW1? 

Ashworth, Tony. Trench Warfare, 1914–1918: The Live and Let Live System . London: Macmillan, 1980 . 

A lot has been written about the human tragedy that unfolded in World War 1. Over 20 Million died or were wounded, making the conflict one of the deadliest in the history of humanity. Ashworth offers a more accurate account of the war; the trench system. Most accounts of the trench system have tended to cast the human tragedy that emerged as a product of poor military leadership. To this end, the emphasis has largely been on the role of military leadership and its impact on the battlefield. Ashworth’s book is principally concerned with the realities soldiers had to endure on an almost daily basis. He offers evidence of grim stories by those who survived trench raids as well as find hand accounts of the lives and daily routine of fighters even when not actively involved in the battle. There is thus a considerable degree of analysis of the specific effects of trench system more so fraternization and neurosis. It is this specificity and wealth of first-hand evidence presented by Ashworth that makes him a valuable source of this inquiry. The book ultimately acts as a useful accompaniment to a more general account of World War 1. 

Tom, Pendergast and Sara Pendergast. World war 1 reference Library . Farmington Hills: Cengage Gale, 2001. 

Sara and Tom offer what may be considered a comprehensive account of World War 1. The underlying causes of the war, the involvement of the axis and allies is well documented. Notable about this works is its heavy reliance on primary sources such as letters, speeches, diaries and memoirs. A detailed chronology of events before, during and after the war can easily be found in this material. The use of this source for purposes of this research is recognition of the need for a contextual understanding of the war. Put simply; this framework provides a firm grounding before delving into the details of trench warfare. 

Section B: Investigation 

Trench warfare entailed armies conducting battles at close range from a series of trenches dug in the ground. As a tactic, it became necessary to prevent loss of territory by limiting the ability to advance by either side in the battlefield. As a warfare tactic, it can be traced to the 17 th century France where it was developed by military engineer Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban (Schowalter) . As some have observed, it was not until World War 1 that the trench system was developed and used on an unprecedented scale. The method became particularly valuable in the World War I due to the high accuracy of guns and bombs in the 20 th century. The destructive power of new artillery demanded new methods of defense and cover that could only be offered by trenches (Hugh and Liddle) . This paper examines the effectiveness of the trench system as a protective tool and the long-term effects of such a strategy. 

The initial days of World War 1 were characterized by a desire by all camps to defend and aggrandize their territory. Germans initially went ahead to occupy North Eastern France and parts of Belgium. However, with the increased cooperation in the allies’ camp, Germany started being pushed back from acquired territories. Keen not to lose more ground, they dug trenches as a defensive mechanism. Unable to overcome these new barriers, the allied forces similarly dug protective trenches. Forward movement became almost impossible for either side. What emerged as a temporary defense mechanism would turn out to be one of the major features of World War 1 on the Western front (Ashworth) . 

In the initial stages, trenches began as merely shallow ditches or fox holes, meant to offer only a degree of protection in the battlefield. However, as the war stalemate continued, trenches grew in size and number. While there were few trenches at the start of the war, by the end of 1914, elaborate trenches spread across Belgium, North Sea, the Swiss frontier and Northern France (Dupuy) . 

Trenches on both sides had the same design though adjustments were made to fit the changing terrain. The front of the trench was roughly 10 feet high with sandbags lined from top to bottom. The front wall, also called parapet, was characteristically stacked with sandbags above ground level. Though meant to offer protection, in fact, they did and often obscured the views of soldiers. A ledge was constructed in the lower parts of the ditch, usually a hole through the sandbags, allowing soldiers to climb and see over the top. Mirrors and periscopes were also utilized to view over the sandbags (Tom and Pendergast) . 

Life in the trenches could only be termed as a nightmare. Soldiers faced starvation, sickness, physical exhaustion, lack of sleep and deplorable living conditions. They had to contend with anxieties of death and absorbing the shocks and pains of losing their comrades. However, life in the trenches doubled the undesirable circumstances of the soldiers, making survival even more unlikely. If soldiers have had to contend with invading armies, in the trenches, they had to combine this challenge with the rebelling forces of nature (Ashworth) . 

In the case of intensified rainfall and depending on the terrain, trenches collapsed burying some soldiers. Rifles jammed in these extreme conditions. Perhaps the greatest blow was the emergence of trench foot, a condition nearly similar to frostbite. The condition resulted from long hours, even days in some instance, standing in water. Often soldiers did not get the opportunity to remove wet boots and soaked socks. In the most extreme cases, the condition resulted in amputation. 

The exigencies of war in most cases did not allow for the removal of dead soldiers from the trenches. The rains compounded the already dire situation. They were hardly enough to wash away the foul odor and filth of decomposing bodies and human waste. These deplorable surroundings spread diseases across ally and enemy camps. The lowly rat, despised by both camps, was also attracted to these conditions. The mice turned the trenches into habitats even feeding on the remains of the dead. It is documented by survivors of the war that soldiers shot these rats out of frustration and disgust, though they kept on multiplying and thriving in these unsanitary conditions (Dupuy) . Besides the rats, other vermin like body lice, mites, scabies and flies plagued the troops (Schowalter) . 

The longevity of trench warfare also devastated the soldiers. It was near impossible for either side to overtake the other. Barbed wire slowed invading infantries and the bombed out nature of the land of no man’s land. The element of surprise was thus almost impossible. This meant soldiers had to stay in one location for extended periods of time despite the degrading human conditions. It was not until the allies invented the tank that they were successful in breaking into German lines. 

The evolving tactics of the war appeared to be tailored to the trench system. In 1915, Germans started using poisonous gas; a sinister weapon that was unprecedented in warfare, at least in scale. The deadly chlorine gas left victims dying horribly as their lungs contracted and got filled with fluid. Nowhere was this gas more lethal than in trenches where there was little ventilation. Soldiers crept out of the dugouts gasping for air. The allies, taking a cue from the Germans, added gas masks to their arsenal. It was not until 1917 that a breakthrough was made developing proper gas masks (Tom and Pendergast) . 

To this end, it may be argued that the trench system failed as a protective tool. It blinded the view of soldiers and unleashed its own form of terror owing to the living conditions. Soldiers joining the battlefield had hoped to demonstrate their valor in direct combat only to end up being stuck in trenches for months. While the success of the trench system can be seen in that it enabled various warring factions to maintain a hold on acquired territory, it came with huge casualties that many states were not ready to suffer. 

There could be little doubt that the trench system and indeed World War 1 unleashed horrors unforeseen by humanity. While these atrocities have been well documented, more so their effects on the civilian population, this paper proposes that soldiers were the most affected victims of the war. Human suffering was no doubt a common phenomenon of the war, but soldiers experienced not only physical pain but a combination of extreme emotional and physical torture as demonstrated by their responses to the realities of the trench system. 

Soldiers responded to the physical and mental strain of trench warfare in two main ways; First, aware that the enemy was facing the same hardships as they did, a sense of sympathy emerged that allowed troops from opposing sides work together for mutual survival. As some have noted, a sense of fraternization developed between people of different culture and language (Ashworth) . Proximity to each other solidified this and perhaps more importantly, a desire to outlive the war. Closeness, therefore, was born of a survival instinct. In the words of historian Ashworth, it was a live let live system; a system instituted by soldiers themselves who agreed not to fire on one another. Understanding this fraternization helps makes sense of the differences between the troops in the trench front and those in the home front. 

War neurosis also emerged as a significant emotional reaction to the trench warfare. The most traumatic form was shell shock which became a common medical diagnosis. Today, it is known as post-traumatic stress disorder. Initially, it was thought that the shells falling on the soldiers were detrimental to the nervous system. Symptoms included tremors, impaired vision, paralysis, anxiety, and insomnia amongst others. Originally, men received little attention and were thought to be cowards. The British instituted firing squads for those soldiers exhibiting these symptoms before the condition was accepted as a mental problem. Eventually the British would build mental hospitals to cater for these conditions (Eric) . 

Conclusion 

The trench system was born of a desire to enhance defensive tactics and thus reduce mass casualties in the face of growing firepower. The arguments presented makes it clear that the trench system, while helping combatants maintain a hold on territories, may have led to many more deaths putting into doubt its efficacy as a defense tool. It is also clear that the system prolonged the war due to the stalemate created in the battlefield. Finally, the paper has proposed that soldiers endured the greatest hardships in the conflict; hardships that fundamentally transformed the approaches and views of soldiers in the battlefront and home front regarding the war. 

Section C: Sources and Word Limit 

Works Cited 

Ashworth, Tony. Trench Warfare, 1914–1918: The Live and Let Live System . London: Macmillan, 1980. 

Dupuy, Trevor. The International Military and Defense Encyclopedia . Macmillan Library, 1993. 

Eric, Dean. "“War and Psychiatry: examining the diffusion theory in light of the insanity defence in post-World War I Britain." History of Psychiatry (1993): 61-80. 

Hugh, Cecil and Peter Liddle. Facing Armageddon: The First World War Experienced. London: Cooper, 1996. 

Schowalter, Denis. History of dispute . Vol. 9. Detroit: St.James Press, 2002. 

Tom, Pendergast and Sara Pendergast. World war 1 reference Library . Farmington Hills: Cengage Gale, 2001.