Think trench warfare is a relic of the past?

[Missourian]

Think again.

WWI style trench warfare tactics have made a comeback in the Russo-Ukraine war.

Trench Warfare In Ukraine Casts Old School Army Training In Different Light

The Army's trench warfare training may have seemed archaic in the past, but the war in Ukraine is serving as the latest reminder otherwise.

www.thedrive.com

 

[lennypartiv]

There will be lessons learned from the current war. The same lessons that were learned from World War One.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Dig trenches, shoot at each other for six days to gain three feet of land? I sure hope not.

 

[Thunk]

That's why the tank was invented...to get past trenches.

If ya ain't gots no tanks...trench warfare comes back in a hurry.

 

[1srelluc]

LOL.....Good luck with all that.

 

[Manonthestreet]

It's called landing craft.

 

[1srelluc]

That's why the tank was invented...to get past trenches.

If ya ain't gots no tanks...trench warfare comes back in a hurry.

The Orgs have taken 800-1000 T-62 main battle tanks , first introduced in 1961, out of storage and are refurbing them for ground support.

Upgrades to the armor will make them survivable enough to assault trench positions.

They are also refurbing/up armoring about the same number of 60s era BMP (of various marks) infantry fighting vehicles.

I bet the Ukes wished they had not surplused-off most of their old shit.

 

[lennypartiv]

That's why the tank was invented...to get past trenches.

Trivia:

---Tanks first appeared on the battlefield as a solution to trench warfare... The British Army was the first to use them, who built them in secret to begin with. To keep the enemy from finding out about this new solution, the public were informed that the vehicles were large water carriers, or tanks, and the name stuck.---

Tanks in the British Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Manonthestreet]

You know how deep the minefields are? It's ridiculous

 

[Donald H]

Think again.

WWI style trench warfare tactics have made a comeback in the Russo-Ukraine war.

Trench Warfare In Ukraine Casts Old School Army Training In Different Light

The Army's trench warfare training may have seemed archaic in the past, but the war in Ukraine is serving as the latest reminder otherwise.

www.thedrive.com

No, because this is not a war. Russia is so far only threatening war so far. If it becomes a real war then it will be against America officially.

 

[luiza]

Think trench warfare is a relic of the past? Which is why the US-Ukey Nazis have been pulverised by Dear Uncle Ps boys. A 10-1 artillery advantage is quite useful , rofl .​

 

[DudleySmith]

bet the Ukes wished they had not surplused-off most of their old shit.

Yes. The US bullshitted them into beleiving we would support them if they gave up their arms, then welshed on the deal. It was stupid of them to trust the word of a banana republic where even the right wing has taken to licking Jane Fonda's ankles and hiding under their beds.

 

[DudleySmith]

Trivia:

---Tanks first appeared on the battlefield as a solution to trench warfare... The British Army was the first to use them, who built them in secret to begin with. To keep the enemy from finding out about this new solution, the public were informed that the vehicles were large water carriers, or tanks, and the name stuck.---

Tanks in the British Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the Soviets figured out how to stop armor; they used minefield that were 15-25 miles deep.

 

[1srelluc]

Yes. The US bullshitted them into beleiving we would support them if they gave up their arms, then welshed on the deal. It was stupid of them to trust the word of a banana republic where even the right wing has taken to licking Jane Fonda's ankles and hiding under their beds.

Most of the glut of Soviet surplus small arms/ammo we saw come into the US in the mid-late 1990s came from the huge stores the former Soviets abandoned in Ukeland. Very little, in comparison, came from the Russian Republic itself.

The Ukes sold a shit-ton of heavy small arms/fighting vehicles to old Soviet client states like N. Korea, Cuba, and the emerging commie African countries that were run by little more than warlords. The whole country was a huge arms bazaar with buyers/arms dealers from all over the world making bank.

 

[DudleySmith]

Most of the glut of Soviet surplus small arms/ammo we saw come into the US in the mid-late 1990s came from the huge stores the former Soviets abandoned in Ukeland. Very little, in comparison, came from the Russian Republic itself.

The Ukes sold a shit-ton of heavy small arms/fighting vehicles to old Soviet client states like N. Korea, Cuba, and the emerging commie African countries that were run by little more than warlords. The whole country was a huge arms bazaar with buyers/arms dealers from all over the world making bank.

And again, they were asked to sell all that by the U.S., in return for a defense agreement. Nothing has changed.

 

[Mushroom]

That's why the tank was invented...to get past trenches.

If ya ain't gots no tanks...trench warfare comes back in a hurry.

Or if you are on the defense.

Trenches have been common since the US Civil War, and is still the default defensive position. But what is changed however is that two opposing sides will rarely sit on the edge of rifle range of each other then stagnate there. Mobility has become the standard tactic when used on the offense. Remaining out of range until it is time to conduct the attack.

 

[Mushroom]

WWI style trench warfare tactics have made a comeback in the Russo-Ukraine war.

That is largely because the Russian tank offensives have largely been complete failures. They have lost most of their capabilities in mobility, so have largely returned to WWII era tactics.

 

[Mushroom]

Dig trenches, shoot at each other for six days to gain three feet of land? I sure hope not.

That is not what they are doing. It would be a complete failure to assume they are attempting WWI era tactics. In reality, it is largely the proto-Warsaw Pact doctrine of WWII.

Where you move to the limit of effective range of the enemy, then dig in. This both is a great defensive posture in the event the other side conducts an attack, and is a base from which you mass your own strength. Then at the proper time you surge out and assault the other side. It may sound like WWI, but it really is not.

In WWI, most such advances were massive, often division sized units or larger advancing across a massive front. And with artillery that was much slower, shorter range, and less accurate than what is used in the modern era. In the modern doctrine, the assault will be kicked off with a massive artillery barrage. And the barrage will be across a wide front, both to reduce the enemy as well as maskirovka. But at least one key location in that barrage will be getting special attention and even even more thorough pounding. Generally a fairly small area, an area of the front that is covered by a Battalion, normally never more than a Regiment.

That is going to be the point of attack. Instead of advancing as a massive assault covering a mile or more of front, it will be a very small area that is attacked. With the intent being to break that location, then expand it so that the following units can break join and either roll up the flanks, or punch through to the rear and sweep behind other units. That was very different from WWI, where most engagements were Division or larger units, trying to route similar sized forces as an entire force.

The closest we had to that kind of fighting I can think of in the last half century was the Iran-Iraq War. In that war neither side had a very capable military, nor very much modern equipment. So they did indeed largely devolve to WWI era tactics. With human wave attacks being the standard by both sides. And almost laughingly, Iraq tried the same thing in 1991 and 2003, and was thoroughly trounced by coalition forces both times.