Why was Trench Warfare only utilized in WW1, specifically the

>>1538990
It was a natural response to machine gun fire and artillery. Soldiers couldn't press forwards because they'd get pinned by machine gun placements and then they were made vulnerable to artillery which was a huge part of the war. So they just starting digging holes in the ground and it slowly evolved into trenches, networked trenches, underground bunkers and then fortified underground bunkers networked with rooms and passages etc. They were an extremely effective defensive structure until the invention of tanks which is why they didn't have a role in WW2 and the successful style of warfare changed again.

>>1538990
I'll also add that trenches had been used in previous battles. I think the first person to utilize them significantly was Nader Shah of Persia. He developed a new military doctrine focused on firepower rather than musketmen drilled to fire in sequence. I think the Austrians eventually adopted some of this in their battles against the Ottomans. But the trench warfare was toyed around with before, however it was WW1 where it was utilized the most and became more redundant as tanks took a more significant role in military. We have diaries of German soldiers around Stalingrad talking about tanks running over hundreds of fleeing Germans and then stopping over trenches and just driving over them to squash everyone inside.

>>1539049
Wow, that was a good answer. Open and shut case I guess.

Though why didn't the Germans utilize Mobile warfare after the first tanks were invented?

>>1539063
It wasn't them to pioneer in it, it was the other side :P. They're called 'tanks' because they were a secret project and their code name was 'tank' so anyone decrypting would assume they're talking about tanks holding fuel etc. 'Tanks' ended up sticking though. Also when they were first introduced nobody really knew how they'd go. They ended up being pretty successful but they weren't able to take advantage of it because it was a surprise. It took them awhile to figure out their potential.

File: Russ-trench-Sep41.jpg~original.jpg (159KB, 700x1020px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 700x1020px

>>1539049
>which is why they didn't have a role in WW2 and the successful style of warfare changed again.
Except armies dig trenches every time they have free time to do it. WW2 or later. And btw. during Iraq-Iran war both sides had sizable armoured forces which didn't change the fact it was all about trench warfare.

You may say it's just to make your soldiers busy but the reality is that trench is cool fucking thing, tanks or not. Oh, you can also entrench tanks btw.

The point of the trenches is to protect from artillery, shrapnel and long-range small arms(as there were in early 20th century, nowadays it's little bit different) AND - what's very important - conceal your movements, numbers etc.

The problems WW1 militaries on west faced was that trench system, with its multiple defensive lines connected with communication trenches etc. etc. is a decent enough "highway" for troops ammunition etc. etc. while no man's land is anything but it. Add gigantic problem with coordination throughout the war, reliance on central planning, insufficient NCO and lower rank CO training(which resulted in them lacking in initiative) and well built trench system becomes something impossible to break through.

As evidenced by Brusilov offensive, Spring offensive and 100 Day offensive though you didn't actually need that many tanks to break through. In those 3 offensive only in one you've had sizeable amount of tanks on the attacking side. There were other ways to break them through - creeping barrage, infiltration(throwing small, well trained independent units before the real thing starts to create routes for the main assault), wide-front tactics. Tanks are also very good tools for breaking the stalemate as they allow for clearing barbed wire(and other obstacles) very quickly and very safely but they aren't really "trench killers" which becomes obvious once you read about field fortifications Soviets used during the battle of Kursk.

File: the-iran-iraq-war-troops-in-trenches-on-the-iran-iraq-border.jpg (87KB, 700x462px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 700x462px

>>1539237

File: koreanwar_1.jpg (254KB, 1000x860px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1000x860px

>>1539252

File: 1412692718705_wps_21_DONETSK_UKRAINE_OCTOBER_6.jpg (120KB, 634x420px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 634x420px

>>1539260
There's the recent example - during early months of civil war in Ukraine jamming equipment and SAM's grounded airforces of both sides which limit themselves to using drones and guided missiles and artillery turned armoured vehicles that didn't use the newest active armour systems(or didn't had enough armour to protect from big artillery shell) into burning wrecks.

And what's the result? Static, trench warfare.

(I know 25 years rule but I'm proving a point, please don't let the thread devolve into shitposting about Ukraine).

File: 216.jpg (122KB, 640x433px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x433px

>>1539268
Here's War of Attrition 1968-1970, Israeli entrenched observation post.