You'd think the European powers would have learned from the American Civil War that trench warfare is terrible and tends to stagnate, was it out of necessity that they fought a trench warfare despite this?
Trench warfare was a nessesary evil. It was the worst tactic for the western front in WWI except all the other ones.
>>1415611
Because the doctrines of the worlds powers hadent changed, and that alot of military theorists didnt see the civil war as represenative of wars that would be fought in europe
Nobody expected or wanted trench warfare when the war began, most military experts thought that the speed of both the mobilization and movement of the troops would mean that the faster side would win, and fairly quickly... but then everyone was too fast, nobody got the upper hand, and so trench warfare it was.
>>1415611
>American ""Civil war"" had trenchs xd.
No, the American civil war was the last napoleonic war fought by retards.
>>1415611
Nobody took ACW seriously.
It was a war where state militias fought other state militias. Gigantic clusterfuck organisational wise and the only thing that reminded trench warfare a little was siege of Richmond and several other situations like that(which happened during Crimean war before as well).
In WW1 either professional or drafted, centrally organised and equipped armies fought each other on a grand scale, there really was a huge difference.
They believed that the next big war will remind Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. If there are wars that were indicative that it won't be a case and they've ignored them all together it were:
>Balkan wars(especially the second one)
>Russo-Japanese war
Which have shown hints that with higher troop density, the armies will get bogged down in trenches as well as a methods to deal with entrenched defensive positions(use of creeping barrage during 2nd Balkan war).
But still - Balkan wars were fought between... not exactly well-developed industrial powers(quite the opposite) and for Russo-Japanese war, the fighting took place far from the supply lines so they've decided that it's in no way indicative of what will happen.
>>1415656
what the fuck are you talking about
>>1415656
those henry rifles and proto gatling guns sure are napoleonic right?
>>1415611
Learn what exactly?
The Civil War used Trenches as they were traditionally used....in sieges.
Not to mention the American armies were fucking antiquated in the Civil War contemporaneous to the European Powers of the time.
>Muzzle loaders
>Wooden steamers
>Line fucking infantry tactics straight out of the early 1800s.
>Shit cavalry (0 specialization. We just have some nebulous term called "US/Confederate cavalry," which are merely mounted infantrymen. No Dragoons, No Hussars, No flying artillery, nada).
>Miniscule professional standing armies while highly reliant on grab-a-gun volunteers and private armies forming state militias with shoddy training and non-standard equipment.
Literally the only modern thing to come up from that whole war was the Gatling Gun. Everything else was moot.
>>1415836
Gatling guns were not used like HMGs
>>1415855
>Muzzle loaders
All standard issue rifles used during WW1 were muzzle loaders and on top of it - they were smoothbore muskets - I mean the lowest rank in German Army was musketeer for a good reason.
>Wooden steamers
USS Monitor would single-handedly win the battle of Jutland.
>Line fucking infantry tactics straight out of the early 1800s.
Just like during WW1.
>Shit cavalry (0 specialization. We just have some nebulous term called "US/Confederate cavalry," which are merely mounted infantrymen. No Dragoons, No Hussars, No flying artillery, nada).
That's because they've had armoured trains and tanks. Who the fuck needs cavalry when you have those?
>Miniscule professional standing armies while highly reliant on grab-a-gun volunteers and private armies forming state militias with shoddy training and non-standard equipment.
If the nation can't protect itself with militias alone it doesn't deserve to exist.
>>1415855
>Muzzle loaders
>muh needle gun
We had also had sharps rifles and the first serious successes of brass cartridges.
>Wooden steamers
>what is literally the first submarine kill in history
>>Line fucking infantry tactics straight out of the early 1800s
Got me there. But war has a long history of technology outpacing tactics.
>>Shit Cavalry
And what would have a Hussar company accomplished? American cavalry's primary job was recon.
>highly reliant on grab-a-gun volunteers and private armies forming state militias with shoddy training and non-standard equipment
Yeah, the Confederates didn't have shit to work with. This ain't news.
>>1415885
Really REALLY good post.
>>1415887
>Yeah, the Confederates didn't have shit to work with.
This applies for both sides.
The reason why the US has dropped the idea of volunteer militias was because they were a fucking mess during ACW. You've had units fighting on the same side using different uniforms, weapons, being led by the most popular man in town or the biggest donator, instead of being led by professional officer and other fucking bullshit.
Union had resources to move out of this shit as the war progressed but they've reformed the army's organisation right after the war for a very, very good reason.
>>1415611
It creates a catch 22 and teach ware fare is the dominant startergy
>>1415885
>All standard issue rifles used during WW1 were muzzle loaders and on top of it - they were smoothbore muskets - I mean the lowest rank in German Army was musketeer for a good reason.
Whats the fuck are you tallin about
>>1415656
Parts of it was napoleonic, parts of it not so much.
