Why didn't trench warfare produce a similar stalemate on the eastern front in World War I?
score:8
To frame what the OP is asking the question is "Why didn't the Eastern Front devolve into an attritional conflict like the Western Front?" we need to examine what were the tactical and operational reasons for the devolution of warfare into stalemate.
The two obvious and interrelated causes are: 1. Space and 2. Command and Control.
Space: By the beginning of 1915 warfare on the Western Front had devolved into a stalemate as a result of the Race to the Sea which meant there was no potential for maneuver to achieve the upper hand. However this was not unique to France, and we can see the same result for example in the Dardanelles Campaign. The terrain did not permit manuever so the conflict become a war of attrition. Another poster also mentioned the Italian campaign.
Command and Control:
It seems to surprise some but the ability to control large armies (one hundred thousand plus) simply didn't exist before the end of the First World War. Even with the space to maneuver, the Americans found in the Civil War that it was not easy to achieve a breakthrough when faced with significant defenses (see the Seven Days Battles).
In fact the Americans never really were able to develop sufficient ability to command large bodies of troops nor manage their logistics during that conflict, rather it being won through the far superior industrial capacity of the North rather than the evolution of the operational art. We see similar results in the excessive casualties suffered by both sides.
Another example of command and control hindering the offensive movement of an army occurred at the First Battle of Gaza. The Australian Light Horse were able to enter the city at the end of the day, but were withdrawn due to concerns regarding Turkish reinforcements and poor communications. In fact communications played a very large role in poor C&C in WW1.
the Russians slower to adopt trench warfare tactics than the Germans, British, or French?
It was less necessary. After all, what pressing reason would the Russians have for adopting trench warfare? They remained on the offensive, strategically speaking, for the duration of their involvement in the war. Simply remaining on the defensive in the East would've suited the Central Powers war aims perfectly - that is to say the Germans were seeking a decision in the West before turning to the East to fight the Russians.
The Russians had a strategic imperative to attack in the East in order to prosecute a two-front war (which is ultimately what cost the Central Powers the war). Not attacking would've played into their hands. Their alliance with the French also obligated them to take the offensive. It's also important to note that in the Galician Campaign, the number of trains that were able to available to the Russian to transport materiel to the theatre
The Russians could bring 260 trains a day to their front, compared to the Austro-Hungarian's 152.1
Another interesting point is that there were significant forces crammed into Galicia, despite the front being only 260km long, the Russians were able to achieve a decisive victory in a matter of months.
The East Prussian campaign also offers another insight into how strategic imperatives influenced the prosecution of the campaign. Due to the unique shape of East Prussia being connected to the rest of the German state by the Danzig corridor, the Germans were simply unable to conduct a passive defence and used their rail networks and superior command control to execute a devastating counter offensive that utterly annihilated Samsonov's 2nd Army.
Both the ability (or lack thereof) to control large armies and a lack of "strategic" space is what often caused a devolution to trench warfare. However, these factors alone did not drive a devolution into attritional warfare. We also know that the industrialization of warfare and Europe also presented difficult tactical and operational challenges that took officers on both sides some time to learn how to over come. The vast resources available to both the Allies and the Central Powers also ensured that the war was never going to be settled with short battles of maneuver.
A young Charles de Gaulle, already wounded twice, grimly observed in December 1914: “What is this conflict but a war of extermination? A struggle of this kind, which in its range, significance and fury goes beyond anything that Europe has ever known, cannot be waged without enormous sacrifices. It has to be won. The winner will be the side that desires it most ardently.”
Technology also played a part. Warplanners on both sides made faulty assumptions that led to miscalculation when the war started. For example:
Alfred von Schlieffen’s vision of a grand envelopment was impossible because the technologies of mobility and communication lagged far behind the destructive power of 20th-century weapons. “In the pre-motorised age, defenders proved able to redeploy and reinforce more swiftly than attackers advanced, by the exploitation of rail links. It was a disastrous collective delusion, to suppose that a formula could be identified for achieving quick victory over three of the greatest powers in Europe…Rather than a strategist of genius, Schlieffen proved to be a fantasist who brought doom upon his foolish disciples.”
This article from The Economist lays out some great texts that cover a lot of aspects of the war, and is worth perusing if you are looking for further read on the topic. 2
This article also outlines how many battles on the Eastern Front were battles of maneuver rather than attrition. Simply put, the Eastern front allowed opportunities for maneuver that the West did not. http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/slaughter-on-the-somme-the-limits-of-foresight-on-the-road-to-the-great-war/
[please not this answer is only a first draft, and it is 3am here, and I'm having a glass of wine, typing on a keyboard without a space bar - I do apolgise for what is in my mind a rather terribly written post - expect it to be revisited over the next 24 hours.]
Upvote:2
There was the same trench war on the East, too. Simply sometimes on both fronts HAPPENED something that broke that system. And after some time of manoeuvre war it returned to the same trench war. On the West it happened at the first German attack and in the end of the war. On the East it happened at the first Russian attack, at Brusilov's attack, when Romania entered the war and immediately lost, and at the end, when Russian army refused to fight after the revolution. The trench war was present even on Italian and Serbian fronts. But they happened to be broken sometimes, too.
All of contemporary soldiers and generals(but not politicians!), hated the trench war. And tried to break it from the both sides. Sometimes somebody managed to do it. But never England/France. Every their success was the result of politics and economics, but never of some clever warfare. Yes, they invented much, as all greater participants did, but every such invention was immediately answered by another one. So, some inventions broke stalemate once, some never. And E/F were not successful in that till the very end of the war.
The trench war doesn't mean there are no movements at all. There were advances and retreats. The greater movements on the Eastern front was the result of absolutely crazy politics of the Russian Czar, Nikolaj II. Several times his allies asked him for help, and he sent millions of soldiers for their death because of his playing the knight. Sometimes these offensives won, more often they lead to problems. The last such "ordered by allies" offensive attempt was in the summer of 1917. And that was one of the most important reasons of the Bolshevik's revolution. Because nobody in Russia already wanted to fight for somebody else.
Upvote:6
On the eastern front the troops where deployed over a much larger area, which meant the density of troops was lower. The lower density of railway lines meant that the troops can not be switched as easily or always as close to any attack as they were in the west, where the much easier lateral communications mean that any sector that was seriously in danger could be quickly reinforced, ts was not always the case in the east.
More post
- 📝 When did hand cannons become handguns?
- 📝 Had the French in Paris started to learn German before their liberation in 1944?
- 📝 Where, when and why did the practice of proxy marriage originate?
- 📝 Can you identify this possibly Austro-Hungarian military uniform from either WW1 or before?
- 📝 Request for ancient history video lecture references
- 📝 Did the Soviet Union's successful northern campaign have an impact on Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany?
- 📝 Was the "natural born citizen" requirement for the President inserted into the US Constitution by Alexander Hamilton's enemies?
- 📝 Why does Texas have the right to split?
- 📝 How did U-boats enter and exit the submarine pens at Brest?
- 📝 Until what time was the Ancient Roman calendar era used?
- 📝 Why was air support not provided during the Battle of Mogadishu, 1993 (Black Hawk Down)?
- 📝 How could Jews integrate into Western modern society back when Saturday was a normal working day?
- 📝 When were the first timezones established?
- 📝 Has a country gone to war to seek payment of a debt since 1900?
- 📝 A source for Gerald Goodlake's exploit during the Crimean War
- 📝 Who made those 1:50,000 maps in 1930's China
- 📝 Which is the oldest language in the World?
- 📝 Articles 3 & 5 of the Tripartite Pact are unclearly formulated. Was this standard for the period?
- 📝 What caused the 1979 Iranian revolution to become Islamic?
- 📝 Do the Federalist papers ever mention the Native Americans in any substantative way?
- 📝 Aside from Saint Francis of Assisi, were there other famous figures-(distant or near) who walked along the Camino Del Santiago in Northern Spain?
- 📝 How did cities operate in medieval times?
- 📝 Why did European writers and artists continue to depict the Moors as being black skinned, even though they were mostly Berbers and Arabs
- 📝 Why did not the Byzantines attempt to recapture the holy land from the Arabs?
- 📝 Is Himmler's memo about genocide authentic? Significant?
- 📝 Did medieval people wear collars with a castellated hem?
- 📝 Were there any pilots that declined to carry out the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- 📝 Was the Kerensky Offensive doomed from the start?
- 📝 Where is the tomb of Genghis Khan located?
- 📝 Was the last Japanese surrender after WWII in the 1970s?
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 Why didn't trench warfare produce a similar stalemate on the eastern front in World War I?
- 📝 Why didn't the British test the effects of shells on trench warfare defenses?
- 📝 Did Russian winter seriously contribute to German defeat on the Eastern Front in WWII?
- 📝 Why did the Western Roman Empire collapse but not the Eastern Roman Empire?
- 📝 Why did trench warfare accept deadlocks?
- 📝 What was the ratio of German to Soviet losses on Eastern front during different stages of the war?
- 📝 Why was the Western Front so static in World War I?
- 📝 Why did the rest of the Eastern Bloc not invade Yugoslavia?
- 📝 Did the Germans use the V1 and V2 missile system on the Eastern Front in World War 2?
- 📝 Why didn't the US produce stamped weapons like the Germans during WW2?
- 📝 Why were the Huns so successful at siege warfare but the Goths were not?
- 📝 Why did Japan not withdraw from China as its pacific front was crumbling and the threat of US invasion imminent?
- 📝 Why did the Germans wait until it was too late to reinstate their unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI?
- 📝 Why did the Sassanid and the Eastern Roman Empire fail to make a lasting peace?
- 📝 Why did the Eastern U.S. population decrease so much during WWII?
- 📝 Why was the WW2 air war over Europe fought considerably higher than the Eastern Front?
- 📝 Why were the cities of the Eastern European Plain founded much later than those elsewhere in Europe?
- 📝 Why was the 1944 surrender of 20,000 Germans on the Western Front remarkable?
- 📝 Why was Charles I not pressed by *peine forte et dure* to force him to plead to treason in front of the High Court?
- 📝 Why didn't the ancients produce purple dye via admixture?
- 📝 Can the German success on the Eastern front be largely explained by superior air power?
- 📝 How effective was the (Western) Allies bombing campaign over Germany in drawing down the Eastern Front Luftwaffe?
- 📝 Why did Sweden not fortify Swedish Livonia along its eastern frontier, including the approaches to Riga?
- 📝 Why do Eastern European countries have the greatest female-to-male ratio?
- 📝 How did Germany survive on the Eastern Front of WW2 for so long?
- 📝 Landing strip in a besieged town on the eastern front
- 📝 Why did slave dealers and buyers in the Antebellum South especially value enslaved persons with "good teeth" and "good front teeth"?
- 📝 When was the Eastern Front founded?
- 📝 Why the Black Death took longer to appear in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe
- 📝 Why was there a "workers' militia" in Eastern Europe but not in the USSR?