Wasn’t the last major European war in 1877-1878 with the Russo Turkish war? This war often gets overlooked for 1870-1871 yet it would become a key factor to the origins of ww1.
I would also have added that many soldiers is simply a gargantuan number to field over a front line that was as relatively short as it was. You can operate a far denser defense line and all the things that make such a thing work like logistics, reinforcing any weaknesses in your lines, suppressing any breakthroughs by the enemy, all sorts of things like that, with more soldiers per square kilometre, and there was nowhere to flank them or creative geography that was all that useful the way that East Prussia and Galicia create a bulge that was hard for the Russians to defend, or how few soldiers per square kilometre there were in Africa to defend their possessions even though they had modern weapons like big artillery cannons, machine guns, soldiers with modern rifles, and even some aircraft.
Hello, great materials, they are the best possible. Will we see a film about the genocide in Volhynia by the UPA and the local Ukrainian population, where over 100,000 Poles died in terrible suffering in the years 1943-1945, where Poland as a state did not exist and the Ukrainians committed genocide against Poles? I will be very grateful, there are many people who would like to know this story, but this topic is often silenced by the Ukrainian side because they do not want the truth to come to light. Thank you for the fantastic history videos.
8 месяцев назад+674
I think it is an interesting historical irony that the mobility focused picture of a future war inhibited the development of tanks before 1914, because they would have been to slow to matter in these sweeping maneuvers.
And I don't think there was a way to properly change that. Imagine a time traveler telling them to hold off on the idea of mobile warfare until we can develop more powerful and faster tanks. 😅 Guys let's hold off on naval warfare until our ships can withstand a cannon ball to the side. 😂
"Guys lets hold off on naval warfare until we can get submarines that launch guided missiles at land based targets." *canoes getting crushed by enemy galley ram fleet*
I've heard old generals being unable to adapt to modern weaponry and warfare but it's interesting hearing about factors like communications and logistics that aren't often mentioned. Great and informative video as always 👏
@thurbine2411 It was General Omar Bradley is credited with saying, "Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics". The idea that logistics are more important than strategy is not new, and can be traced back to Sun Tzu and Alexander. It became more relevant as war became more industrialized, and the success of major operations came to depend on the work of logisticians. General Dwight D. Eisenhower also said something famous about logistics: "You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won on logistics"
@thurbine2411 yeah I agree the meaning behind that saying is those he think tactics more so then logistics is an amateur.... logistics wins war tactics alone do not
Melanite was the French version of picric acid, formally 2, 4, 6-trinitrophenol. It was very popular as a shell filler at the time, because it was powerful and easy to set off, as well as because it could be poured as a liquid into the burster cavity in the shell body. It was known as Shimose powder to the Japanese, Lyddite to the British, and Ecrasite to the Austro-Hungarians. The Germans would, for greater stability and reduced shock sensitivity, use blocks of TNT stacked inside the shell body. It was the shock sensitivity, along with poor fuses, that led to the poor British shell performance at Jutland/Skagerack in 1916. Also, and with apologies to Monty Python: "No one expects the artillery shell shortage!"
It's ironic that if the Germans had been able to score a major fleet engagement in 1914, they could've badly hurt the British on account of the poor shell performance. And if Scheer had not made so many mistakes at Jutland, the battle could've been a lot worse for the Brits as well.
The late great Gen. Powell, US Army, did a thesis on the Somme and showed how lateral movement by the defenders along light railways always moved troops and equipment to the point of defense much faster than the attacking force advancing over open ground could advance.
It's a number unfathomable to me. When wars get to numbers like that sometimes my brain doesn't process it really well. I maybe know 800 people pretty well in my own life. Maybe know 1000 by name and maybe have 10,000 acquaintances if I had to guess, I might say I have met around 240,000 people in my whole life give or take. If everyone I ever met in my entire life died within 2 months that's about equal to what happened to the French population. Still can't fully imagine it.
Well the French were the least prepared army on the western front when the war started. The uniforms were something out of the 19th century. The Label was out dated 2 years after its creation by the clip fed rifles of the Germans, Austrians and so on. The french did use a clip fed rifle but early models only held 3 rounds. And as noted the French tactics at this stage in the war were not the best. the results the highest losses of all the armies on the western front in 1914.
Fun fact: the "French 75" cocktail was in fact named after the gun. Legend has it that in 1915, Harry's New York Bar in Paris was serving a new champaign cocktail recipe, which they served to some soldiers who were there on leave. The soldiers remarked that the drink had such a kick to it that it was like being shelled with a French 75 cannon!
People are so critical of World War One tactics, but the generals of the time wasn’t callous idiots. There simply was almost no way to break a deadlock without huge casualties
I know most about the Canadian involvement and, for the most part, Canadian generals were not professional soldiers and, with the exception of Arthur Currie, were incompetent.
Probably true, but the statement of Captain Billiard (granted, not a general) at 5:22 is a piece of bare-faced murderous stupidity no matter how you slice it.
The one thing that always seems to happen no matter when in modern times is the significant underestimation on how much ammo would need to be stockpiled for the war. The shell crunch was a huge unseen factor. If anyone had had a couple million shells in 1914, it's possible the early trenches would've been broken straight away and a decisive victory would've happened far more quickly.
Woodrow Wilson was actually the damning factor. Well maybe fatty McTaft too. It's at least entertained today that if Teddy Roosevelt won, he would have thrown the US into the war by 1915 stacking the odds so heavily in the favor of the entente that it could have ended years earlier and without the total collapse of the world political order. Wilson was the worst president in American history, although this is one of his forgivable mistakes since he thought he was doing the right thing.
@@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю they needed stronger calibers to punch through the tougher lines, and they slowly ran out. Ultimately strong caliber is important too
It's ironic that while trench warfare is the best remembered aspect of WW1, most casualties actually came from the mobile warfare at the beginning and end of the conflict. That said, one dedicated video to mountain warfare in the Alps and Dolomites would be amazing.
@@randomname3109 Because in the first three months they were getting introduced to Trench warfare and the last 3 months (german spring offensive, operation michael, 100 days offensive) they were breaking trench warfare.
Whenever I look at photos of either side of WW1 I just think about how great and fun so many of these guys would have been to hang out with in non War circumstance. They were guys just like anyone else. Its sad how many of them died never having a chance at a long life.
When you are fighting a war in a way that has never been fought before, losses are heavy. The technology and advancements at the time were deadly against old tactics that were not updated. Now, imagine being on of the first to face a tank.. how scary that would be in the open.
One thing not mentioned is how artillery during WWI was completely inaccurate. If an army fired 10,000 shells of artillery, about 5-10 would actually hit a trench and do damage. Armies would pound a trench for days, even weeks with thousands upon thousands of shells of artillery, and it still wouldn’t be enough to break the lines. Such a crazy war
by 1915-16 this was basically solved. Artillery learned how to parse the complex cocktails of maths and conditions that were necessary for accurate fire at the incredibly long range the guns were now capable of. I mean, creeping barrages with infantry behind were a thing fairly quickly (although they were a dangerously inexact mode of fire as everyone learned). Not So Quiet On the Western Front has an awesome artillery episode
First-time viewer here! I'm really enjoying your ability to pronounce French [edited:] and German[/edit] names, your high-quality, _referenced_ captions, and your unapologetic use of metric. 😻
I've always wondered what the extreme edges of the western front looked like. Did the trenches go all the way up to the beaches on the channel? Did the trenches simply stop at the Swiss border?
Now I’m imagining a Swiss official marking the border and telling them “Okay, okay…stop.” And then promptly got up a mountain to get as far away from the Inavitable carnage.
Fighting along the border would cause political crisis due to some shells inevitably falling inside Switzerland. Solution was to avoid any fighting few miles away from the border. Have some entrenched troops there but under strict orders not to do much.
In Ukraine, the main issues are that nobody has air superiority, and that there's a shell shortage on both sides (mostly on Ukraine's side thus far, though Russia's shortage is due to really hit in 2025).
@@robbstark8275 Russia is burning through Soviet stockpiles - which are large, but finite. Russia's also facing a labour shortage between those conscripted and those fleeing conscription. And it's easy to increase output by running your factory six days a week instead of five, but harder to run it eight days a week instead of seven.
@@alphamikeomega5728 yeah right 😄 There's no conscription in Russia (there was a limited one in September-October 2022). Now there's a constant flow of volunteers (around 1500 per day). And there are more shells and aviabombs produced in Russia than in EU and US combined. Ukraine forces are bombarded with hundreds of shells every day, that's why they are losing.
Trench Warfare began in New Zealand during the Wars between Maori and the British. Maori liked to build fortified Pa during war as it was easier to win a defensive battle if you had inferior numbers then going head to head in the field. The British brought cannons and the old style of fortified Pa with wooden Palisade were easily breached with canon fire then overun with supporting troops. To combat this the Maori dug deep trenches to shelter from the canon fire and purposely left gaps under the Palisades so they could pop up and fire at the approaching troops from cover without the British being able to return fire accurately. This new "Modern Pa" became a major problem for the British as they began to increasingly lose troops during the attacks. Usually the British would onky capture the Pa after the Maori had abandoned it.
I used to have a family Bible and there was a family tree in it. There were branches that were cut off because of both World Wars. If I'm remembering right it was 5 in the first war and 3 in the second war. It sent chills down my spine knowing that so many of my family members never got to grow up and have families of their own. I just imagine how different my family would have been if they didn't die in the wars. Crazy how life plays out.
It's honestly insane that they didn't just all sue for status quo ante bellum peace in like 1915 or something. No, gotta feed the meatgrinder for another 3 years for basically no reason
The French 75mm was akin to a huge rapid fire shotgun rather than artillery as we would know it today, it fired 290 metal balls per shell which were held together until reaching the ideal range to release them where (due to the spin rotation from the rifled barrel) spread in a cone. Each projectile depended on the kinetic energy of being shot to be deadly rather than any explosives in the shell. This was very deadly at close range of about 1km but was almost useless against troops dug into trenches or foxholes. Later they would develop a high explosive shell but this was less than ideal, the velocity was high so the walls of the shell had to be thicker, as the caliber was small this further reduced the explosive payload and as a fuse was the same size for any shell it was relatively larger propprtion of mass for a small shell. A 75mm high explosive shell made a crater about 1m wide. A shell from a German heavy Howitzer made a crater 7-9m wide! And they heavier shell was not that much more expensive to make but much more effective.
I cannot recommend the article “the cult of the offensive” enough! it explains the enormous casualties and the development of trenches in the 20th century
There is trench warfare and there is trench warfare. Fighting from earthworks is ancient. What made WW1 unique was industry being able to field an army so large as to present a continuous front for hundreds of miles. You could remove the machine gun, barbed wire or even quick firing artillery, and you would still have gotten an attritional stalemate because of the sheer numbers involved.
No, those weapons, especially the machine gun, were vital to why the stalemate occurred. The troops needed to be able to delay the other side's attack long enough for reinforcements to counterattack. Without machine guns and barbed wire, the first wave would hit the trenches too intact and quickly cause the other side to fall back. It's what happened on the eastern front where there weren't enough guns and wire to cover everything.
@@pax6833 yeah machineguns, smokeless repeating rifles, and breach loading quick fireing artillery all greatly contributed to the mountain of casualties sustained. Without these advancements, a trench line could simply be broken by concentrating enough forces. Sure the same could be done in WW1 but the numbers required to break a line with infantry alone would be simply too immense to justify.
@@pax6833 mons was essentially concentrated rifle fire which was more than enough to stop any infantry or cavalry attack in its tracks. The British knew before 1900 due to battles like oduman that concentrated rifle fire would stop most attacks. Machine gun and artillery just improved the chances of the defenders.
I think the influence of the US civil war is a big preview of the Western Front. Our Civil War was a big lesson to military commanders everywhere, as the commanders of that war were trained in Napoleonic Era tactics…and it was disastrous when those tactics met early mechanized warfare. The city of Petersburg, Virginia was once a metropolis that was like the “New York City of the South”…even moreso than Richmond or Atlanta. The city still has not recovered from the war, which took the form of Trench Warfare. The reasons for it are very similar to ancient siege warfare. But instead of walls, you build. “Hiding spots”..and then connecting trenches between those holes under the ground. In that war, the Union was able to outlast the Confederates…eventually leading to the south abandoning Petersburg and Richmond. I think a similar story could be told of the Western Front. Even though no ground was really gained on either side, the Central Powers just couldn’t sustain the war anymore. Tl;dr Trench warfare is basically a return of ancient siege warfare. The Western Front was like the Greeks sitting outside the walls of Troy for a decade.
Sometimes artillery would limit attacks, Ernst Jünger wrote about his own artillery shelling himself because the guns where ordered to shell their max distance continuously
With the speed at which technology was changing at the time, makes you wonder if WWI happened at the worst possible moment. Few years earlier and the weapons aren't as deadly, few years later and communications and tanks make trench warfare unlikely
It takes more than courage to win on the modern battlefield. A lot more. I'm currently writing a book about failed tactics of WW1 and several other wars of that era.
The title asks “why WWI turned into trench warfare” but the video focuses only on the western front. Now I have this question: Did other fronts (the Russian front, the Balkan front, the Italian front and the Ottoman front) see the same level of trench warfare? The reasons given in the video, namely the firepower technology, the difficulty of combined arms, challenges of command and control, and the logistics issues for attacking mobile forces, should also apply to other fronts. If those fronts did not see the same level of trench construction, then there must be some additional factors that made the western front so trench dominated?
We clarify in the first part of the video we are concentrating on the western front. In the east, the concentration of men and artillery was far less given the greater spaces, so there was more movement (even though also some trenches).
@@jessealexander2695 Indeed it’s clarified a bit in the video. I just think that it’d be better if the title could make it clear that it covers only the western front instead of all the theatres of the war. That said the analysis of the western front is informative and well researched. Thanks!
@@nobleman9393yeah, mostly because of the density of troops and artillery, which resulted in a much more fluid front, such extensive trench networks just weren't necessary
Its kind of horrifying to think that likely every man we see filmed in the historical footage probably died in the combat in the first world war, given the insane death toll...its less terrible to think about when you just see numbers, but seeing all of those people...they had names, unique lives, but you realize after seeimg that, that to meet the death toll of millions...youd need to line up the groups of men in the footage thousands of times over next to each other...that takes up a lot of space...almost incomprehensible that WWI didnt have the highest death toll of an event in the 20th century. Just the beginning..
Please do a video on tactics and warfare of the eastern and southern front, wasn't it trench warfare in Greece? And mabey the same for the ruso Japanese war
I greatly recommend Dr. Nicholas Murray's lecture on this topic, given as part of the Pershing Lecture Series. The density, lethal range, accuracy, and ubiquity of firepower, and the way it increased by orders of magnitude between 1860 and 1914, is just mindblowing.
how to crochet a 3d star: R1: ch2, 6sc into first ch R2: 2sc in each st ( around 12sc) R3: [2sc in next st, sc in next st] around 18sc R4: 2sc in next st, sc in next 2 st (around 24sc) R5: 2sc in next st, sc in next 3 st (around 30sc) R6: sc in next 6 st R7: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 5 st-5sc R8: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 4 st-4sc R9: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 3 st-3sc R10: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 2 st-2sc
If walkie talkies were transported back into world war one, it could have a significant impact on the outcome of the battle. With clearer and faster communication and without the risky work of setting up telephone lines, it would've been a game changer in the tactics and strategies used during the battle...
It was an informative and wonderful historical episode about reasons that converted mobilizes warfares to stubbornly trenching wayfarer....thank you 🙏( RTH) channel for sharing this magnificent historical coverage episode
I understand the benefits of the trench but I used to have a hard time grasping how you got from no trench to trench. you dig while being shot at? yes, yes they did. It was one scene in Band of Brothers where they throw themselves into ditches, any kind of hole, even shallow. whatever you can find or make. the desperation of that moment. being shot at while digging is better than sitting ducks
Hi, I have a question. At around 5:53 in the video we can see a German machine gun crew. What are the 'loops' on the guys webbing (on his right thigh) who is controlling the machine gun? Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Alan. :) Great video BTW!
Simple. Years of relative peace, very high rate of technological progress coupled with 19th century tactics and mentality, increase in population, european empires and politics, nationalism, massive nationwide conscription. Armies were largest they've ever been and weapons were deadlier than ever combined with mass production and mobilisation caused war with hige casualty number. Machine guns and high rate of fire weapons changed how warfare was conducted but tactics didn't exist at the start of the war. By the end of the war tactics and weapons to counter this threat were developed.
And, nowadays, we couldn't even imagine trenches being very effective for long. Drone warfare and long-distance rifles made those very obsolete. Pillboxes are still fantastic, tho
Trenches have been used for thousands of years. The Achaeans defended their ships against Trojans in the Iliad. BUT, trenches were normally used by besieging armies against walled cities. Was The Great War the first instance of large-scale trench vs. trench fighting? It was, if I’m not mistaken.
You think the brutality of trench warfare is gone, then you take a look at combat footage from Ukraine. Trenches. Mud. Artillery. Aside from the modern weapons and uniforms, it looks like someone took a GoPro back to 1917.
Lemme give it a shot. Trenches provided cover from WWI machine guns, which were accurate from several hundred meters, WWI rifles, which were accurate from well over 1000 meters, and WWI artillery, which could be directed from miles away. Directly exposing soldiers to any of these was often near instant death, as the Battle of The Somme amply demonstrated.
Because they weren't racing each other to the sea, they were trying to outflank each other but ran out of room. The sea was not the objective, an open flank was.
Man, what a great day. A new video from the Great War channel 💜 I needed a pick me up for this week, and even though t took til Friday, I got it :) the dopamine really hit 😊 give me all the knowledge 💜
Longer distances and less reliable supply lines kept it from developing into trench warfare for much of 1914-15, but even by 1916 trench warfare had settled across the front
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Get a NordVPN with a 2-year plan plus 4 additional months with a huge discount and 30-day money back guarantee:
nordvpn.com/thegreatwar
Will NordVPN protect us from enemy artillery fire?
Awesome video, ww1 history is so interesting
Wasn’t the last major European war in 1877-1878 with the Russo Turkish war? This war often gets overlooked for 1870-1871 yet it would become a key factor to the origins of ww1.
I would also have added that many soldiers is simply a gargantuan number to field over a front line that was as relatively short as it was. You can operate a far denser defense line and all the things that make such a thing work like logistics, reinforcing any weaknesses in your lines, suppressing any breakthroughs by the enemy, all sorts of things like that, with more soldiers per square kilometre, and there was nowhere to flank them or creative geography that was all that useful the way that East Prussia and Galicia create a bulge that was hard for the Russians to defend, or how few soldiers per square kilometre there were in Africa to defend their possessions even though they had modern weapons like big artillery cannons, machine guns, soldiers with modern rifles, and even some aircraft.
Hello, great materials, they are the best possible.
Will we see a film about the genocide in Volhynia by the UPA and the local Ukrainian population, where over 100,000 Poles died in terrible suffering in the years 1943-1945, where Poland as a state did not exist and the Ukrainians committed genocide against Poles?
I will be very grateful, there are many people who would like to know this story, but this topic is often silenced by the Ukrainian side because they do not want the truth to come to light.
Thank you for the fantastic history videos.
I think it is an interesting historical irony that the mobility focused picture of a future war inhibited the development of tanks before 1914, because they would have been to slow to matter in these sweeping maneuvers.
And I don't think there was a way to properly change that. Imagine a time traveler telling them to hold off on the idea of mobile warfare until we can develop more powerful and faster tanks. 😅
Guys let's hold off on naval warfare until our ships can withstand a cannon ball to the side. 😂
"Guys lets hold off on naval warfare until we can get submarines that launch guided missiles at land based targets."
*canoes getting crushed by enemy galley ram fleet*
And modern day tanks are losing their place to mobile warfare like drones carrying bombs
I've heard old generals being unable to adapt to modern weaponry and warfare but it's interesting hearing about factors like communications and logistics that aren't often mentioned. Great and informative video as always 👏
Amateurs think tactics professionals think logistics.
Logistics is what wins wars
@@Stevethemonkyprofessionals think both tactics and logistics amateurs think only one matters
@thurbine2411
It was General Omar Bradley is credited with saying, "Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics".
The idea that logistics are more important than strategy is not new, and can be traced back to Sun Tzu and Alexander. It became more relevant as war became more industrialized, and the success of major operations came to depend on the work of logisticians.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower also said something famous about logistics: "You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won on logistics"
@@Stevethemonky well I would more say that wars can absolutely be lost on logistics but winning a war often requires both logistics and strategy
@thurbine2411 yeah I agree the meaning behind that saying is those he think tactics more so then logistics is an amateur.... logistics wins war tactics alone do not
Melanite was the French version of picric acid, formally 2, 4, 6-trinitrophenol. It was very popular as a shell filler at the time, because it was powerful and easy to set off, as well as because it could be poured as a liquid into the burster cavity in the shell body. It was known as Shimose powder to the Japanese, Lyddite to the British, and Ecrasite to the Austro-Hungarians. The Germans would, for greater stability and reduced shock sensitivity, use blocks of TNT stacked inside the shell body. It was the shock sensitivity, along with poor fuses, that led to the poor British shell performance at Jutland/Skagerack in 1916.
Also, and with apologies to Monty Python: "No one expects the artillery shell shortage!"
It's ironic that if the Germans had been able to score a major fleet engagement in 1914, they could've badly hurt the British on account of the poor shell performance. And if Scheer had not made so many mistakes at Jutland, the battle could've been a lot worse for the Brits as well.
Those ending lines. Years later Im still here for it
The late great Gen. Powell, US Army, did a thesis on the Somme and showed how lateral movement by the defenders along light railways always moved troops and equipment to the point of defense much faster than the attacking force advancing over open ground could advance.
I guess the french could consider themselves lucky that the Germans hadn't broken their rail network in half early on
Was this general Colin Powell?
These particular railways. Yes. They were made to do exactly that.
265,000 French dead in the first two months of the war is absolutely insane
The "agressive spirit" is Likely to be blame for that.
@@lachainebackup5339Lugi Cadorna’s “morale above anything else”
It's a number unfathomable to me. When wars get to numbers like that sometimes my brain doesn't process it really well. I maybe know 800 people pretty well in my own life. Maybe know 1000 by name and maybe have 10,000 acquaintances if I had to guess, I might say I have met around 240,000 people in my whole life give or take. If everyone I ever met in my entire life died within 2 months that's about equal to what happened to the French population. Still can't fully imagine it.
Well the French were the least prepared army on the western front when the war started. The uniforms were something out of the 19th century. The Label was out dated 2 years after its creation by the clip fed rifles of the Germans, Austrians and so on. The french did use a clip fed rifle but early models only held 3 rounds. And as noted the French tactics at this stage in the war were not the best. the results the highest losses of all the armies on the western front in 1914.
male privilege
Fun fact: the "French 75" cocktail was in fact named after the gun. Legend has it that in 1915, Harry's New York Bar in Paris was serving a new champaign cocktail recipe, which they served to some soldiers who were there on leave. The soldiers remarked that the drink had such a kick to it that it was like being shelled with a French 75 cannon!
Facts are never fun
People are so critical of World War One tactics, but the generals of the time wasn’t callous idiots.
There simply was almost no way to break a deadlock without huge casualties
I know most about the Canadian involvement and, for the most part, Canadian generals were not professional soldiers and, with the exception of Arthur Currie, were incompetent.
Exactly if the Allies sat on the defensive the German army could out number them 2:1 even with heavy loses it was still in their favour
Probably true, but the statement of Captain Billiard (granted, not a general) at 5:22 is a piece of bare-faced murderous stupidity no matter how you slice it.
@@KarlBunker but; all he had to go on was the Russo-Japanese war where the attacking spirit did pay off, I’m
Sure he changed his values by 1916/17/18
I mean they were undoubtedly callous. They shot their own men for having PTSD or not charging to their doom.
One of my favorite history RUclipsrs
I agree with you.
what are the others?
@@orgenb_ World War Two, Armchair Historian, Simple History, Task & Purpose (for more modern history)
I love the sourcing and use with photos and videos.
Same
The one thing that always seems to happen no matter when in modern times is the significant underestimation on how much ammo would need to be stockpiled for the war. The shell crunch was a huge unseen factor. If anyone had had a couple million shells in 1914, it's possible the early trenches would've been broken straight away and a decisive victory would've happened far more quickly.
They have light shrapnel shells with small trajectory angles
Woodrow Wilson was actually the damning factor. Well maybe fatty McTaft too.
It's at least entertained today that if Teddy Roosevelt won, he would have thrown the US into the war by 1915 stacking the odds so heavily in the favor of the entente that it could have ended years earlier and without the total collapse of the world political order. Wilson was the worst president in American history, although this is one of his forgivable mistakes since he thought he was doing the right thing.
@@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю they needed stronger calibers to punch through the tougher lines, and they slowly ran out. Ultimately strong caliber is important too
It's ironic that while trench warfare is the best remembered aspect of WW1, most casualties actually came from the mobile warfare at the beginning and end of the conflict.
That said, one dedicated video to mountain warfare in the Alps and Dolomites would be amazing.
it was the act of trying to break trench warfare that was the deadliest.
Sabaton History has Indy Neidell talking about alpine warfare in Soldier of Heaven.
The Battles of Verdun and the Somme beg to differ.
@@Hankeshon no actually, it wasnt. the first and last three months of the war were horrifically lethal
@@randomname3109 Because in the first three months they were getting introduced to Trench warfare and the last 3 months (german spring offensive, operation michael, 100 days offensive) they were breaking trench warfare.
Whenever I look at photos of either side of WW1 I just think about how great and fun so many of these guys would have been to hang out with in non War circumstance. They were guys just like anyone else. Its sad how many of them died never having a chance at a long life.
This is true in every war. Regular people on both sides fighting each other for some distant cause...
@@drot13 For some useless cause. And to enrich a handful of people.
Glad you are back. Trenchs of the Great War saw some of the most brutal fighting in history.
When you are fighting a war in a way that has never been fought before, losses are heavy. The technology and advancements at the time were deadly against old tactics that were not updated.
Now, imagine being on of the first to face a tank.. how scary that would be in the open.
One thing not mentioned is how artillery during WWI was completely inaccurate. If an army fired 10,000 shells of artillery, about 5-10 would actually hit a trench and do damage. Armies would pound a trench for days, even weeks with thousands upon thousands of shells of artillery, and it still wouldn’t be enough to break the lines. Such a crazy war
by 1915-16 this was basically solved. Artillery learned how to parse the complex cocktails of maths and conditions that were necessary for accurate fire at the incredibly long range the guns were now capable of. I mean, creeping barrages with infantry behind were a thing fairly quickly (although they were a dangerously inexact mode of fire as everyone learned). Not So Quiet On the Western Front has an awesome artillery episode
If this video was 3 seconds longer I would be a lot happier
Hey but colt 1911 back to back world war champ pistol right there
This is the best comment I’ve seen on RUclips in YEARS
I would have settled for 7 seconds also. Lol
A totally excellent video. Probably the best short coverage of the topic I've seen or ever expect to see.
Thank you!
I appreciate you leaving your sponsor ad until the end and not interrupting the story telling
I really like how he perfectly pronounces French and German words, very few other WW content creators can do that.
60 million soldiers fought in the “war to end all wars” it ended nothing, yet changed the world forever…
Real Time History. The only channel that will issue you a real shovel, not just a folding entrenching tool, to dig your trenches.
First-time viewer here! I'm really enjoying your ability to pronounce French [edited:] and German[/edit] names, your high-quality, _referenced_ captions, and your unapologetic use of metric. 😻
I've always wondered what the extreme edges of the western front looked like. Did the trenches go all the way up to the beaches on the channel? Did the trenches simply stop at the Swiss border?
You can fin videos showing these two ends.
@@Giloup92 how can I find them? I'm trying but I just can't.
@ I don’t remember. There is a video on Belgian trenches on the channel beaches and one on Swiss trenches on the French border.
Now I’m imagining a Swiss official marking the border and telling them “Okay, okay…stop.”
And then promptly got up a mountain to get as far away from the Inavitable carnage.
Fighting along the border would cause political crisis due to some shells inevitably falling inside Switzerland.
Solution was to avoid any fighting few miles away from the border. Have some entrenched troops there but under strict orders not to do much.
The reasons why trench warfare started in WW1 sounds increasingly familiar to why it has grown rapidly in Ukraine War after initially it was not.
In Ukraine, the main issues are that nobody has air superiority, and that there's a shell shortage on both sides (mostly on Ukraine's side thus far, though Russia's shortage is due to really hit in 2025).
@@alphamikeomega5728Russia produces more and more
@@robbstark8275 Russia is burning through Soviet stockpiles - which are large, but finite.
Russia's also facing a labour shortage between those conscripted and those fleeing conscription. And it's easy to increase output by running your factory six days a week instead of five, but harder to run it eight days a week instead of seven.
@@alphamikeomega5728 yeah right 😄 There's no conscription in Russia (there was a limited one in September-October 2022). Now there's a constant flow of volunteers (around 1500 per day).
And there are more shells and aviabombs produced in Russia than in EU and US combined.
Ukraine forces are bombarded with hundreds of shells every day, that's why they are losing.
@@robbstark8275
>aviabombs
Правильно будет air bombs, ну или air launched munitions.
No other channel keeps me so engaged like this one. Thank you guys for all your hard work.
Always incredible history stories. Thank you!
This was a war of countries literally learning a whole new military and battlefield
I'm always glad to play another round of the great game of predict which line will close the new episode, what a great channel
Some damned fool gave one of 'em a shovel, and things just snowballed from there.
Like the scene in breaking bad where Jesse starts digging and the meth head takes over
Trench Warfare began in New Zealand during the Wars between Maori and the British. Maori liked to build fortified Pa during war as it was easier to win a defensive battle if you had inferior numbers then going head to head in the field. The British brought cannons and the old style of fortified Pa with wooden Palisade were easily breached with canon fire then overun with supporting troops. To combat this the Maori dug deep trenches to shelter from the canon fire and purposely left gaps under the Palisades so they could pop up and fire at the approaching troops from cover without the British being able to return fire accurately. This new "Modern Pa" became a major problem for the British as they began to increasingly lose troops during the attacks. Usually the British would onky capture the Pa after the Maori had abandoned it.
I fell asleep listening to Martin Gilbert FIRST WORLD WAR [audiobook] so I woke up in a muddy trench ( mentally).
If you like World War One History I’d really recommend “mud blood and poppycock”
The old great war episodes which was hosted by Indy Neidell heavily refenced on Martin Gilbert.
For some reason I was imagining Gilbert Gottfried. That would definitely put you into a mental state.
There is an ambiance/ sleep sound playlist on RUclips that is the “sounds of the western front trenches”. I fell asleep to it once
Yeah, I saw that a few months ago. Just for fun, I let it play while I was in bed trying to go to sleep.
C'mon do we really have to be all cute-sy about a literal open-air murder chamber?
@@cheydinal5401?
I used to have a family Bible and there was a family tree in it. There were branches that were cut off because of both World Wars. If I'm remembering right it was 5 in the first war and 3 in the second war. It sent chills down my spine knowing that so many of my family members never got to grow up and have families of their own. I just imagine how different my family would have been if they didn't die in the wars. Crazy how life plays out.
It's honestly insane that they didn't just all sue for status quo ante bellum peace in like 1915 or something. No, gotta feed the meatgrinder for another 3 years for basically no reason
Once again this is a well done production.. big fan of the channel
Much appreciated!
The French 75mm was akin to a huge rapid fire shotgun rather than artillery as we would know it today, it fired 290 metal balls per shell which were held together until reaching the ideal range to release them where (due to the spin rotation from the rifled barrel) spread in a cone. Each projectile depended on the kinetic energy of being shot to be deadly rather than any explosives in the shell.
This was very deadly at close range of about 1km but was almost useless against troops dug into trenches or foxholes.
Later they would develop a high explosive shell but this was less than ideal, the velocity was high so the walls of the shell had to be thicker, as the caliber was small this further reduced the explosive payload and as a fuse was the same size for any shell it was relatively larger propprtion of mass for a small shell.
A 75mm high explosive shell made a crater about 1m wide. A shell from a German heavy Howitzer made a crater 7-9m wide! And they heavier shell was not that much more expensive to make but much more effective.
I cannot recommend the article “the cult of the offensive” enough! it explains the enormous casualties and the development of trenches in the 20th century
There is trench warfare and there is trench warfare. Fighting from earthworks is ancient. What made WW1 unique was industry being able to field an army so large as to present a continuous front for hundreds of miles. You could remove the machine gun, barbed wire or even quick firing artillery, and you would still have gotten an attritional stalemate because of the sheer numbers involved.
No, those weapons, especially the machine gun, were vital to why the stalemate occurred. The troops needed to be able to delay the other side's attack long enough for reinforcements to counterattack.
Without machine guns and barbed wire, the first wave would hit the trenches too intact and quickly cause the other side to fall back. It's what happened on the eastern front where there weren't enough guns and wire to cover everything.
@@pax6833 yeah machineguns, smokeless repeating rifles, and breach loading quick fireing artillery all greatly contributed to the mountain of casualties sustained.
Without these advancements, a trench line could simply be broken by concentrating enough forces. Sure the same could be done in WW1 but the numbers required to break a line with infantry alone would be simply too immense to justify.
@@pax6833 mons was essentially concentrated rifle fire which was more than enough to stop any infantry or cavalry attack in its tracks. The British knew before 1900 due to battles like oduman that concentrated rifle fire would stop most attacks. Machine gun and artillery just improved the chances of the defenders.
I think the influence of the US civil war is a big preview of the Western Front.
Our Civil War was a big lesson to military commanders everywhere, as the commanders of that war were trained in Napoleonic Era tactics…and it was disastrous when those tactics met early mechanized warfare.
The city of Petersburg, Virginia was once a metropolis that was like the “New York City of the South”…even moreso than Richmond or Atlanta. The city still has not recovered from the war, which took the form of Trench Warfare.
The reasons for it are very similar to ancient siege warfare. But instead of walls, you build. “Hiding spots”..and then connecting trenches between those holes under the ground.
In that war, the Union was able to outlast the Confederates…eventually leading to the south abandoning Petersburg and Richmond.
I think a similar story could be told of the Western Front. Even though no ground was really gained on either side, the Central Powers just couldn’t sustain the war anymore.
Tl;dr
Trench warfare is basically a return of ancient siege warfare. The Western Front was like the Greeks sitting outside the walls of Troy for a decade.
Crimean war says hello as well
Sometimes artillery would limit attacks, Ernst Jünger wrote about his own artillery shelling himself because the guns where ordered to shell their max distance continuously
With the speed at which technology was changing at the time, makes you wonder if WWI happened at the worst possible moment. Few years earlier and the weapons aren't as deadly, few years later and communications and tanks make trench warfare unlikely
Tanks wouldn't of been invented if it wasn't for trench warfare, it was the stalemate that created the innovation.
It takes more than courage to win on the modern battlefield. A lot more. I'm currently writing a book about failed tactics of WW1 and several other wars of that era.
The title asks “why WWI turned into trench warfare” but the video focuses only on the western front. Now I have this question: Did other fronts (the Russian front, the Balkan front, the Italian front and the Ottoman front) see the same level of trench warfare? The reasons given in the video, namely the firepower technology, the difficulty of combined arms, challenges of command and control, and the logistics issues for attacking mobile forces, should also apply to other fronts. If those fronts did not see the same level of trench construction, then there must be some additional factors that made the western front so trench dominated?
We clarify in the first part of the video we are concentrating on the western front. In the east, the concentration of men and artillery was far less given the greater spaces, so there was more movement (even though also some trenches).
@@jessealexander2695 Indeed it’s clarified a bit in the video. I just think that it’d be better if the title could make it clear that it covers only the western front instead of all the theatres of the war. That said the analysis of the western front is informative and well researched. Thanks!
The eastern front was so vast that it was impossible to have the same level of trenches.
@@nobleman9393yeah, mostly because of the density of troops and artillery, which resulted in a much more fluid front, such extensive trench networks just weren't necessary
From mud, through blood, to the green fields beyond...
Its kind of horrifying to think that likely every man we see filmed in the historical footage probably died in the combat in the first world war, given the insane death toll...its less terrible to think about when you just see numbers, but seeing all of those people...they had names, unique lives, but you realize after seeimg that, that to meet the death toll of millions...youd need to line up the groups of men in the footage thousands of times over next to each other...that takes up a lot of space...almost incomprehensible that WWI didnt have the highest death toll of an event in the 20th century. Just the beginning..
Reasons why they used trenches.
1- There was a war
2- They didn't want to die
Trenches were the safest place to be. Mobile warfare is extremely unforgiving if your unit is caught in the open
thank you great war team for continuing your work, makes learning and teaching history more entertaining!
i always enjoy your work
First time seeing a video from you man and I loved it ! So Informative, so structured . Going to see more content now ! :)
The video time being 19:11 is almost perfect 🥺
Just 7 seconds off
Please do a video on tactics and warfare of the eastern and southern front, wasn't it trench warfare in Greece?
And mabey the same for the ruso Japanese war
I greatly recommend Dr. Nicholas Murray's lecture on this topic, given as part of the Pershing Lecture Series. The density, lethal range, accuracy, and ubiquity of firepower, and the way it increased by orders of magnitude between 1860 and 1914, is just mindblowing.
I haven't seen Great War in a while, but this looks great! Solid content and awesome visuals/effects.
This is a real documentary Simply brilliant.
Great video Jesse and team!
Really excellent video. I like the detail for both the tactical and strategic aspects.
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
excellent video! like always! well explained, well illustrated, and very well-researched!
im surprised there weren't more covert operations attempted in WW1 once the lines hardened; anyone know of any worth looking into?
incredible video. subscribed! I look forward to more!
Quick, transfer more élans!
Transferring more élans sir!
how to crochet a 3d star:
R1: ch2, 6sc into first ch
R2: 2sc in each st ( around 12sc)
R3: [2sc in next st, sc in next st] around 18sc
R4: 2sc in next st, sc in next 2 st (around 24sc)
R5: 2sc in next st, sc in next 3 st (around 30sc)
R6: sc in next 6 st
R7: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 5 st-5sc
R8: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 4 st-4sc
R9: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 3 st-3sc
R10: ch1, turn, skip first sc, sc in next 2 st-2sc
11:25 combined arms warfare wins battles, communication and logistics wins wars.
Great video, always been curious about the battles before they dig in 👍
If walkie talkies were transported back into world war one, it could have a significant impact on the outcome of the battle. With clearer and faster communication and without the risky work of setting up telephone lines, it would've been a game changer in the tactics and strategies used during the battle...
It was an informative and wonderful historical episode about reasons that converted mobilizes warfares to stubbornly trenching wayfarer....thank you 🙏( RTH) channel for sharing this magnificent historical coverage episode
00:45 …………Ian?
Trench Jesus!
Lmao from forgotten weapons?
Captain Disillusion?!
ive always wondered how both sides built the trenches at first like was it done at night? or did it evolve from the first fox holes?
Great analysis!!
I understand the benefits of the trench but I used to have a hard time grasping how you got from no trench to trench. you dig while being shot at? yes, yes they did. It was one scene in Band of Brothers where they throw themselves into ditches, any kind of hole, even shallow. whatever you can find or make. the desperation of that moment. being shot at while digging is better than sitting ducks
or formations fall back to prepare positions
The resupply situation and railways resp. railheads being a big factor is an interesting new thought (to me). Thank you for that.
Tactics a win battle, logistics win the war
I don't think anyone is wondering WHY. But it's still a great topic and a great video, as always.
I dont think we realize how crazy how casualties were compared to wars fought today ..
4:07 boys be boys
Hi, I have a question.
At around 5:53 in the video we can see a German machine gun crew. What are the 'loops' on the guys webbing (on his right thigh) who is controlling the machine gun?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Alan. :)
Great video BTW!
this looks like a sort of leather strap used for carrying something. maybe parts of the machine gun or ammunition?
@@TheGreatWar Cheers 🍻
@@TheGreatWarit was for moving the mg mounted on its carriage (i don't know how to call a tripod with 4 legs).
Simple. Years of relative peace, very high rate of technological progress coupled with 19th century tactics and mentality, increase in population, european empires and politics, nationalism, massive nationwide conscription. Armies were largest they've ever been and weapons were deadlier than ever combined with mass production and mobilisation caused war with hige casualty number.
Machine guns and high rate of fire weapons changed how warfare was conducted but tactics didn't exist at the start of the war. By the end of the war tactics and weapons to counter this threat were developed.
07:42 I’m sure the poilu with the pipe in his mouth *while loading the powder charge*
has to be against *all* safety regulations…even in 1914.
i love this channel so much man
I was just thinking about this channel
Can you do a video on what the trench networks right on the Swiss border looked like? Thanks!
4:07 this made me laugh, that dude at the end
Can't wait for the 110th Anniversary coverage of the Great War :^)
Total WW1 casualties (low estimate): ~9 million
2022 NY City population: ~8.3 million
Enjoyed that. Been too long since I watched.
And, nowadays, we couldn't even imagine trenches being very effective for long. Drone warfare and long-distance rifles made those very obsolete.
Pillboxes are still fantastic, tho
Fantastic video! It would be awesome if you could cover the mobile warfare at the end of WWI
Can you guys do a video on how conscription affected the economy and soldiers' morale?
Trenches have been used for thousands of years. The Achaeans defended their ships against Trojans in the Iliad. BUT, trenches were normally used by besieging armies against walled cities. Was The Great War the first instance of large-scale trench vs. trench fighting? It was, if I’m not mistaken.
The video ending at 1911 is brilliant
I prefer to think of it as a siege, where both sides are besieging each other. It starts to make some sense then.
You think the brutality of trench warfare is gone, then you take a look at combat footage from Ukraine.
Trenches. Mud. Artillery.
Aside from the modern weapons and uniforms, it looks like someone took a GoPro back to 1917.
13:06 he had WHAT in his rear?! 😱
Lemme give it a shot. Trenches provided cover from WWI machine guns, which were accurate from several hundred meters, WWI rifles, which were accurate from well over 1000 meters, and WWI artillery, which could be directed from miles away. Directly exposing soldiers to any of these was often near instant death, as the Battle of The Somme amply demonstrated.
2:40 why is it misleading?
Because they weren't racing each other to the sea, they were trying to outflank each other but ran out of room. The sea was not the objective, an open flank was.
@@jessealexander2695 i thought thats its known to be just phrase, but thx
Are there any games like this?
Man, what a great day. A new video from the Great War channel 💜 I needed a pick me up for this week, and even though t took til Friday, I got it :) the dopamine really hit 😊 give me all the knowledge 💜
I recommend you to make a video on Lord Kitchener because of his role for the British in WW1
given all the factors that you mention in the video, why did not the eastern front also become trench warfare?
Longer distances and less reliable supply lines kept it from developing into trench warfare for much of 1914-15, but even by 1916 trench warfare had settled across the front