This discussion has been closed.
Posted by takeagoodhardlook (U9990052) on Friday, 12th October 2007
Why did the two armies want to outflank each other in the race to the sea???
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
All you need do is look at the enormous casualty lists that resulted from the frontal attacks that took place when an enfilade was impossible to find the answer to that question.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
takeagoodhardlook
In simple terms because to outflank is a better military tactic.
Full frontal attacks are costly, easier to deffend. You get behind your enemy, it's easier to attack, the enemy can't retreat as easy, it causes confusion and panic.
You do it on both sides, you have a pincer movement, which the German's loved in the second world war.
The flanking movement has been as old as war itself. Even mentioned by Sun Tzu.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Particularly in terms of WWI, at that time, the defence had advantages over attack. Dug-in troops were difficult to dislodge, artillery, machine guns and dannert wire saw to that, and logistics were heavily dependant on railways. Thus, when an attack did make progress, it became progressively easier for the defnders to reinforce, and progressively harder for the attackers to do likewise.
This is in addition to, not in contradiction of, the points made in earlies posts.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
The idea of outflanking is to attempt to surround your enemy on as many sides as possible and to compromise - and ideally cut off - their supply lines.
You can see the advantages of surrounding the enemy when you look at the sort of smaller-scale version of this that happened at Ypres. Ypres was a 'salient', which means it was a 'bulge' in the allies' frontline; as such it was surrounded to the front and left and right sides by the Germans; to make matters worse the Germans held the higher ground, so had a good view of the town, ideal for their artillery and snipers. Holding the town was very costly to the British - not for nothing was one area known as 'Hellfire Corner'.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Verdun was an even worse example of this phenomenon.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Re- Verdun
Was the original concept the blunder,or the fact that the Germans seemed to change tack and try and to take Verdun rather than the original concept of "bleeding them white (the french army)?
Vf
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
VirtualF
The problem was the entire concept!
'We can take more casualties than you can' is a short sighted policy...
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Hi Mani
I think I misunderstood the german philosophy.I got the impression that the germans initially didnt actually want to take Verdun,but to use an almighty barrage of artillery with shock troops to entice the french into,what was effectively a killing zone.Its been a few years since I read anything about Verdun,by AJP Taylor,but it gave the impression that the Germans ended up "digging in"themselves and as a result put themselves through the mincer.
You comment about
'We can take more casualties than you can' is a short sighted policy..." is of course( as usual) spot on,unfortunalty WW1 seemed to be a breeding ground for those tactics.
Vf
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
, in reply to message 9.
Posted by HO_CHI_MINSTER (U3392683) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
I agree,the attritional battle at Verdun wasnt the best idea on behalf of the German command but we have to acknowledge that it came very close to succeeding. The French army was at the point of revolt when the Somme offensive began(we all know the Somme offensive was to try and take pressure off the French at Verdun)
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Vf
The philosophy and the reality are different. all plans, are obsolete as soon as they leave the drawing board, that's why a more 'fluid' plan is necessary...
Like yourself, it's been a while since I read about Verdun, but I'm pretty sure the concept of shock troops wasn't around yet?
RE the ''We can take more casualties than you can' philosophy, I remember one Russian commander replied as to his tactics that 'We have more men than they have bullets, therefore, we will win whatever I do'.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Sounds like Zhukov, who reckoned that lifting enemy minefields was not necessary, as they would cause no more casualties than the machine guns and artillery the enemy would bring up if they noticed mine clearance activities going on - but that was WWII rather than WWI, of course.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Urnungal
I agree, it does sound like him, but this was a great war general...
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Hi Mani
I think i may have mistaken "shock troops" for storm troopers.Wasnt Verdun one of the first times that the Germans used flamethrowers?
VF
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Hi VF,
I think the German's used flamethrowers the previous summer, in 1915... They had them for a few years before the outbreak of war...
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
I believe the pincer movement was a tactic first employed against us (Britain) during the Zulu Wars. Although they called it 'The Horns of the Antilope.'
The German plan in the West, was intended to outflank the whole of the Allied Armies in its original concept of 'rounding Paris.
During the retreat from Mons, etc, as the Germans neared Paris. The French IX Army came out of the city (in taxis) to meet the German First Army. In fear of being 'outflanked' Von Molke' turned part of his First Army westwards to meet this threat. In doing so, he created a gap between the two sections of his First Army, which the B.E.F. and the French IV Army attacked.FIRST BATTLE OF THE MARNE. In fear of being outflanked on both sides (and also due to a rumour that Russian forces had been landed at Antwerp, Von Molke pulled his forces back to a line north of the Aisne River. The German Army dug in on the hights above the river, after the BATTLE OF THE AISNE, it became quite clear to Allied Command that a frontal assault on these positions would be to costly. So, it was attempted to outflank them. Fearing this very stratagy, the Germans dug trenches across that area they believed was under serious threat, likewise, the Allies dug in opposite, and so forth, both sides tried to gain an advantage by rounding the others army, but each time, the other side through up a defensive trench in readiness for that outcome. With the fall of Antwerp, and following the Bttle of the YSER, where the Belgians decided to flood a large area of their own country, The Remnants of the Belgian Army fell back to a tiny sliver of their own country. It was now that the British armie were removed from the Aisne, to plug the last gap in the line at YPRES. and so the four hundred mile front came into existance.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
"Pincer" tactics are much older than that, Hannibal used the in 216BC at Cannae.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
""Pincer" tactics are much older than that, Hannibal used the in 216BC at Cannae."
Older still, Sun Tzu mentioned them a few hundred years before.
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
Just say that the Germans had not gone with the Snieffelen?Plan in the first place and insted raced to the channel ports(say Dunkirk,Calais) what do you think the out come would have been?
(Taking all of Belgium and maybe then Holland in the process?)
VF
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
<quote userid= </quote>I believe the pincer movement was a tactic first employed against us (Britain) during the Zulu Wars. Although they called it 'The Horns of the Antilope.'</quote>
Actually, I believe they called it ''the Horns of the Buffalo''.
How's that for being picky?
Link to this forum: Why did a stalemate develop on the Western Front?
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.