How were allied trenches in the somme different from german trenches?

Answer 1

‘shane c’ is right. In 1916 the German defenses on the Somme sector – and indeed on most other sectors of the Western Front – were sited and built for permanency, not for temporary occupation in preparation for an advance. The only sector of the Western Front in which the Germans had any immediate ambition to advance was at Verdun, and even there the objective was less a matter of territorial gain than of grinding up the French army in a battle of attrition. In essence, German strategy at that juncture of the war was simply to hold the line in the West (while inflicting maximum casualties on Allied attacks); and to put most offensive effort into the Eastern Front against the Russian armies.

This broad German strategy meant that, on the Somme, they built their trench systems with the simple objective of offering maximum resistance to any Allied attacks. The topography of the Somme battlefield was highly favorable to the intelligent defensive system constructed by the Germans. To the east of Amiens, the Somme was a turgid, muddy stream with much boggy ground. The Germans saw no benefit from camping out in a swamp. Instead, they had pulled their front line back, uphill, to the crests of the low chalk ridges above the valley bottom.

Here they dug in to the easily worked and well-drained chalk. And they dug deep. The trenches themselves (3 main defensive lines of them, plus outposts and communications trenches) could not be dug so deep as to hinder defending troops from climbing up onto the firing step when needed there. But beneath the German trenches they continued to dig much deeper into the chalk, preparing dugout shelters at depths between 30 and 40 feet below the surface, in which the defending soldiers could shelter in almost complete safety from Allied artillery barrages. Moreover, they reinforced many of these dugouts with concrete.

Only long, intense and highly accurate artillery fire with very heavy caliber shells could penetrate such dugouts. And, as the Germans knew very well, the Allied artillery on the Somme in 1916 lacked that level of capability. The French, who were good artillerists, had been forced to move almost all of their heavy pieces to the Verdun sector. The British had a number of heavy guns (though nowhere near the numbers they would muster later in the war), but lacked the expertise to use them well; and a high proportion of their shells were defective. With rare exceptions, the Allied artillery barrage was not capable of smashing the German dugouts: the defending troops would survive to man their trenches.

The barbed wire entanglements in front of the German trenches were, in places, up to 30 yards deep. Again, Allied artillery was to prove far less than fully effective in blowing gaps in the wire. Why? Because although the Allies had ample supplies of shrapnel shells, shrapnel was rarely capable of destroying barbed wire: high explosive shells were needed for that; and the Allies were short of HE.

The Germans had built further refinements into their Somme defenses. The area between Albert and Peronne is thickly infested with villages and hamlets. In 1916, their original French inhabitants had been removed, and the Germans had converted them into strongpoints, reinforcing houses with concrete and digging deep beneath the cellars to create shell-proof dugouts. The British would find that they were expected to fight their way through between 20 and 30 of these death traps to breach the German defense.

Then there were the woods. The area was thick with woods in those days, and the Germans had converted these too into strongpoints with concealed defenses.

And, as a final nasty surprise to greet any attackers, the Germans had equipped the hundreds of machine gun nests along their front lines with armored metal shields and roofs, proof against small caliber shells. Once the Allied barrage lifted, German machine gunners were able to emerge unscathed from their dugouts; reoccupy their armored emplacements; and – within a minute or two – be ready to open fire on the attacking infantry.


By contrast, the Allied trench systems along the Somme were never intended to be much more than sheltered jumping-off points from which to launch attacks. The trenches themselves were not greatly different in construction to those of the Germans, although their location on lower, often swampy ground made them far less pleasant to inhabit. But there were none of the deep, secure dugouts; no fortified hamlets; no armored machine gun nests.

The Allies weren’t lined up on the Somme to defend their positions. They were there to attack and break through the German line. Given the often-inferior weapons at their disposal; their inferior training; their faulty tactics; and the refusal of their commanders to accept the accuracy of reports about the strength of the German defenses … it isn’t too surprising that the Allies failed in such a pitiful way.

Answer 2

The differences would largely have been minor details of construction. Both sides used the same tactics for defense and attack, so the trench systems would have generally been similar.

Often the lay out of a trench system is determined by terrain, and the position of the enemy.

Answer 3

i thought the trenches were pretty similar the allied trenches had good drainage as they fitted them with corrigation on the sides.The trenches were shaped like a v so that they could place large bits of wood in them creating a walkway that had maybe 2 ft underneath it so the rain had somewhere to go.The trenches were not like this at first but after spending more than 2 years in them they learn't quickly how to make them as comfortable as possible.sorry i haven't answered the question but would like to know the difference too if there was one.

Answer 4

German trenches were made to be more permanent,where as British trenches(as decreed by British generals,because if the British soldier becomes comfortable,they may not be as mobile as they should be)were not.Also as for better drainage,the Germans were on higher ground,thus better drainage.LIONS led by donkeys eh.

Answer 5

I don't know about this particular battlefield but I do know that in general the German trenches were better. They were deeper, were more extensive, and I believe had better drainage, a critical factor in reducing the stress brought about from living in mud.