Posted on 04/02/2015 9:32:50 AM PDT by servo1969
Most of the armies eventually developed assault, shock or storm troops using infiltration tactics that were capable of breaking through trench lines. Artillery didn’t play an enormous role, certainly not the utterly decisive one people expected it to in the early years of the war.
The other factor that broke up trench warfare was the tank.
My point was simply that those who criticize WWI generals usually don’t provide much in the way of alternatives. It’s easy to criticize generals for not knowing how to break a stalemate. It’s harder to actually figure out how to do it yourself.
Recently read a good bit about Emory Upton, a Union soldier who developed a massed assault method that worked remarkably well, as at Spotsylvania, but as with most Army of the Potomac sucesses failed due to a weird inability to follow up success.
Of course, Upton didn’t have to face machine guns, or much in the way of mines, either of which would have pretty well put paid to his idea. Or even barbed wire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_Upton
“Shall I encourage him to stay the course or give up? How are changes ever going to be made without true patriots?”
As long as he remembers who *not* to point the gun at.
He has read the transcript of that video.
Thanks for posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.