why did stalemate develope on the Western Front?

Answer 1

When they dug in, the confrontation transformed into trench warefare.

No one could make enroads until the tank came onto the scene.



g-day!

Answer 2

Hmmmm! The effectiveness of modern weaponry versus the use of old outdated offensive tactics.

The stalemate actually developed due to two interelated causes. The failure of the Schlieffen Plan, a strategy that required movement and the swift attainment of objectives, and as a result of this failure the movement of German Divisions to the Eastern Front to counter the mobilization of the Russian Army, thus leaving the German Army in the West short of some 12 Divisions and at parity in terms of man power with the French and British Armies.

Trench war may be used when both sides have the symmetry of approximately equal force and in particular where the defense system of each is stronger than the attack force of the other.

The stalemate that this causes means that soldiers need semi-permanent shelter from opposing gunfire, particularly when they are in open countryside. These entrenched positions then become places of relative safety that, paradoxically, dissuade the soldiers from moving elsewhere.

That wasn't to long was it?

Answer 3

All the above are reliable answers.
I would add that you could look at the stalemates in the American Civil War, for example the long seige of Petersburg, to see the same factors at work.
Gallipoli was an example of WW1 stalemate on another front, for similar reasons: a limited frontage, failure by the attacker to make a fast initial breakthrough, technology (no mobile light machine guns or tanks) and strong troop morale on both sides.

Answer 4

Apart from the technology favouring defense, there was something else needed: a stable frontline wich allows for enough time to put up 600 km of trenches and other fortifications. The first trenches were all overrun....the war was still in movement.
How come it stopped? A glitch in the german plans.
1) The Russians decided to attack before they were completely mobilised. This took the Germans by surprise. Still, the victory of Tannenberg took care of that.
2) More important: the original Schlieffenplan only provided with enough men to create a breakthrough. However, it did not provide with enough men to exploit this breakthrough effectively. In one of the latter versions, the germans recognised this flaw and added more men. But, they got the logistics part wrong and most of these additional men would not have railway-tracks to get them to the front.
3) Furthermore, the generals did not exploit the situation after the breakthrough to its full extent.

2) and 3) lead to the battle at the Marne, wich was the starting point of the trench war (allthough the british had used trenches before). The technology did the rest.

Answer 5

the trench systems on both sides were extensive and well dug and defended. There was a lack of enought armour to breach and exploit enemy lines. Aircraft were only good for observation and minor harassment of enemy troops. The British used tactics from the page on my 360. Tactics from the Napoleonic era - tactics that failed Lee in Pickets Charge in July 1863 - tactics that certainly failed against German Machine Gun Crews. Marching in perfect formation - dressing the lines as good as parade. Lord Kitchener beleived in them -that there would be a big breakthrough. By marching in order slowly- not by night attack - not concentrating on one small area - but a general attack during daylight. Lots of British and Commonwealth soldiers were felled to the german bullet because of this. So a stalemate developed because of this strategy. The cost became too high to break a stalemate after the first few years so one developed for alot of World War One. Neither side could afford the losses in man power. There were no armoured personel carriers to take soldiers to the hot spot with protection. Any further details just ask

Answer 6

You may receive some very long and detailed answers to a good question like this. My simple explanation is that the weapons of the day heavily favored the defense. Rapid fire machine guns were new, and explosive artillery shells had become extremely effective against massed attacks. In contrast, mobility was still limited. The advance of the infantry depended on their marching as it had for centuries. Much of the movement of weapons and supplies was still achieved with horse drawn wagons. The was no mobile firepower as we would see in World War II with the development of tanks and self propelled artillery. Also, the sides were fairly evenly matched in numbers of men and firepower.

Answer 7

Not only rapid fire guns and artillery....but trench warfare...all meant stalemate on the Western Front. and the strategy to beat trench warfare....mobility & massed armour at the point of attack (which the Wehrmact used in the next war)

Answer 8

It was a combination of out of date tactics and new technology. Also WW1 was the first industrialised war, with each national able to throw as much firepower at each other as they could muster. It became a war of attrition - the side that lost the most men would simply, eventually, lose.

Answer 9

A war was being fought between two large armies with limited mobility. Both sides were powerful enough to avoid losing quickly but were not strong enough to overcome the other quickly.

Answer 10

Simplest answer is machine guns and other modern weapons made attack more difficult and railways made reinforcements easir to concentrate at a threatened point. inability to attack coupled with improved ability to defend made it a counting match