Hi, I have a few questions about trenches I'm hoping someone here could help answer

I already have searched. That's why I'm asking here.

What is this board for if not for discussing history?

However will i live?

>What is this board for if not for discussing history?
This is /rel/ not Veeky Forums

>I already have searched.
not hard enough, evidently.

>>If trenches were long lines in no man's land, how did supply reach them? They'd have to cross over further no man's land to reach the trench surely?
They had trenches leading to the trenches, a Grid system with the front trench being the frontline. How is this not obvious?
>>How long were trenches? did they just abruptly stop?
Hundreds of miles, from the sea to the alps
>>Why did Trench Warfare begin when its tactics could be employed equally in wars in the years prior?
The only previous wars of the same technological enemies were small and took place on huge expanses of land where it was all about giant outflanking maneuvers, not digging in.
>>Did soldiers have little bunkers inside the trenches they slept in? How did they get shelter?
They did, call dug outs, the officers and sometimes men slept in them, most men slept in little holes dug into the sides of the trenches, it was quite awful.

If you're simply interested in what it was like for the Soldiers there's two memoirs you should read. Harry Drinkwaters, a British soldier who gives great descriptions and explanations of life on the frontline, and then second read Ernst Junger, a german soldier who was an absolute madman, seemed to love war and couldn't be killed. He used to sunbath in fields taking artillery fire.

I have. This isn't even the first place I've asked. If you don't want to answer, you don't have to.

Oh and while Jungers account is written after the war so from a more relaxed perspective, Harry's is literally his day by day diary compiled into a book, you can really feel the emotion and events in the words.

>They had trenches leading to the trenches, a Grid system with the front trench being the frontline. How is this not obvious?

Thank you, this answers my question. The reason why I didn't assume this was that would mean if the enemy were to capture the trench, they would be connected to various other supply lines.

>Hundreds of miles, from the sea to the alps
I mean the individual trenches, not the network itself.

Thanks for answering.

>they would be connected to various other supply lines.
Yes that would happen but there was really no alternative. They made all Trenches a ZigZag line, not straight, so that a man couldn't simply shoot down the entire length of the trench taking everyone out.
The supply and communication trenches tended to be quite shallow, you may need to crouch to be hidden. Also the frontline trenches were built to be defensive facing forward but lacking defences facing backwards, which meant it was easier to retake from behind.

WW1 wasn't such a stalemate because no one ever captured trenches and/or all died in no mans land, trench captures happened a lot, it was a stalemate because they were constantly retaken again in counter attacks.

>I mean the individual trenches, not the network itself.
There would be no cut off point, no "end" where it becomes a new trench. Only an imaginary line where it transitions from control of one battalion, regiment or whatever to another.

If you are really curious just watch The Great War channel on youtube
youtube.com/watch?v=P92guhd7d-8

Thanks, 2 more questions.

Once in the trench, did the attacking soldiers try to take all those trenchs in your image, or only in the first line?

Secondly, why didn't artillery fire completely and utterly destroy the networks? surely a single well aimed shell will split the trench in half.

they were all connected from the alps to the sea, as open spaces between the trench could be exploited. And the trench works would go back miles to proved support such as reinforcements and supplies to covering fire.

>>If trenches were long lines in no man's land, how did supply reach them?

kek, this is dumb

> Trench full of men
> no man's land
Choose one, and only one.

No man's land is the area outside the trench, retard.

>Once in the trench, did the attacking soldiers try to take all those trenchs in your image, or only in the first line?
Depends on their orders, in the spring offensive the Germans were told to not stop advancing, and they advanced so far they ran out of supplies which couldn't keep up. Other times they may be ordered to take the trench, the hold and wait for reinforcements. In one book i read the British were often ordered to kill any who surrendered while they held an enemy trench as they couldn't afford the men to watch them. I forget the book, but theres a horrible account of a german man waving a picture of his family around desperately jumping about while the british take shots at him, eventually he got bayoneted.
>Secondly, why didn't artillery fire completely and utterly destroy the networks? surely a single well aimed shell will split the trench in half.
You'd be amazed how much of a shock absorber earth is, but a direct hit would collapse a section of trench, the trouble is the men would simply rebuild it, they got very, very good at doing this quickly and efficiently. Even an absolutely annihilated trench line could be held by resolute men hiding in the shell craters.

usually they only took one or two lines as it took large amount of planning and supplies to due so. As well as enemy trench lines proving covering fire. In regards to the trenches not being cut in half, it has to due with size and how it was built. Since it zigzags this prevents shrapnel from going its full distance causing more damage to more men. Also trenches were deep and wide. Usually men could not jump right over them, and multiple men could stand back to back in a trench. This was to help station alot of men in the first trench to launch an attack, or wide enough to have flow of supplies and wounded going in different directions if needed. Also you dont want to destroy the enemies trench as when they counter attack you need it to defend yourself. Look at the Somme and how different the British assault was to the French. French did a short bombardment to kill and pin enemy troops below the trench. So they were able to take and hold their goals as they had the trenches intact to defend from counter attacks. While the British destroyed much the trench system and thus had a large time keeping positions. Concrete bunkers covered in dirt is large to destroy as the dirt absorb much of the impact and concrete provides strong support.

Thank you both very much, I understand it now.

>1. and 2.
Think trench system, not just trenches. But also no mans land was only between the two opposition front

>3.
They were, The Great War wasn't the first war to have them. they just became a necessity because of where technology was at the time.

>4.
Sometimes bunkers, sometimes mud holes

Even if you don't wanna watch the hundreds of week by week episodes
Atleast watch the special episode playlists of The Great War. Absolutely based channel

>If trenches were long lines in no man's land, how did supply reach them?

from their own sides are you actually retarded

>I have a few questions that literally the most cursory google would answer immediately

Yeah, god forbid a discussion about history begins on Veeky Forums

honestly these are some retarded ass questions

>>If trenches were long lines in no man's land, how did supply reach them? They'd have to cross over further no man's land to reach the trench surely?

Mistaken premise. No Man's Land was the area between your side's frontal trench and the other side's frontal trench. Supplies reached in through the back and filtered their way up, they didn't go through no man's land.

>How long were trenches? did they just abruptly stop?

They were zigzagging patterns pretty much the entire length of the front, which was about 450 miles for most of the war.

>Why did Trench Warfare begin when its tactics could be employed equally in wars in the years prior?

The sort of fortification en masse was only a sensible strategy when army sizes grew to the point that you couldn't just maneuver around the field fortifications as opposed to having to attack them head on. WW1 was when armies ballooned big enough that you could man a trenchwork from the sea to the alps.

>Did soldiers have little bunkers inside the trenches they slept in? How did they get shelter?

Pretty much. Trenches tended to zigzag, and you usually had dugouts and other shelters in the "corners" of the lines.

>I mean how long were the individual trenches. Not the trench network in its entirety.
There were no "individual trenches". The entire network was continuous.`

it's not a discussion if it's ridiculously simple questions that even the average non-enthusiast pleb would have learned the answers in grade school, or from the most basic research or even from fucking films.

this is like claiming you're "starting a discussion" about gourmet cooking by asking if you can eat food