|
Edited on Mon Aug-16-10 03:49 PM by happyslug
At Petersburg, the trenches were built by the South to keep the larger Northern Army out of Richmond and its railhead at Petersburg. Once any point of that trench system was breeched, the entire trench system collapsed. Thus leading to the rapid withdraw of Lee's army from Richmond and his surrender at Appomattox courthouse, 90 miles away a week later and 90 miles away.
The problem of WWI, was it was NOT the weaker side using Trenches to keep the Stronger side out, but the Stronger side deciding any attack was NOT worth the effort given they had better places to send troops and win more. Thus Germany (The strongest country in 1914) preferred to send its troops to Romania, the Near East and Russia rather then against the French Trenches. The French Trenches were designed to keep the Germans out, but rarely called to perform that duty (One of the exception is The Battle of Verdun).
While the Germans decided NOT to attack, the British and French decided they had to attack for the Germans were not. Thus you hear of British and French Offensives, and those offensives being "successful" but the territory taken being retaken by the Germans on a counter attack. The reason for this was simple, the stronger side, the Germans, could match anything thrown against it till 1918 (when America Entered the war providing Fresh Troops which the Western Allies needed, at a time when Germany had no fresh troops to send into combat).
In fact the German 1918 Spring Offensive saw the ending of the stalemate of the previous four years and a return to the war of movement of August 1914. The Germans were only defeated by the introduction of American Troops, and the exhaustion of Germany at that stage of WWI (Which may have been affected by the 1918 Spanish flu, the deadliest flu in history and it hit the Germany Army as it started the 1918 Offensive).
Other incidents of "Trench Warfare" since 1918 follows similar lines of 1914-1918, the stronger side decided it was NOT worthwhile to attack. For example, in Korea, the North Koreans almost took all of Korea, then the US launched its attacks and drove them to the Red Chinese Border. At that point the Red Chinese Intervened and drove US Forces South of Seoul. At that point the US Pushed back north, re-taking Seoul and then deciding to draw a line at roughly the 39th Parallel (the Border was adjusted to make it more defend able). The reason for this was any push further north meant facing more and more Chinese Forces. As you went North sooner or later you ended up in Manchuria, which would require a huge input of men and material to take from China and to hold. The Russian were just licking their chops at the US pulling troops out of Europe to fight and die in Northern China. In the words of General Bradly "The Wrong War, with the Wrong Enemy at the Wrong Time".
To avoid the "The Wrong War, with the Wrong Enemy at the Wrong Time", the US decided to draw the line at the 39th parallel. A trench warfare situation came into being, because the stronger side, the US, saw no advantages to taking the Offensive. This continued till Stalin died, when do to his death and the in fighting in the Kremlin, the main focus of the Kremlin was elsewhere (i.e. the Kremlin itself). This permitted the Red Chinese and North Koreans to agree to end the bloodshed which both sides had come to see as useless.
My point is the Trench Warfare of Petersburg, was a different type of Trench Warfare then WWI or Korea. The later two were places were the stronger side decided it was better to use its resources elsewhere, thus the weaker side was rarely attacked and when the weaker side attack any advantage was quickly undone. In Petersburg all the North was doing was looking for a weak point so it could pour in troops. Once such a weak point gave way, the whole trench system collapsed. That difference is the difference between the Petersburg Campaign and the Western Front of 1914-1918. Trenches were used in both battles, but the purpose of the Trenches were different. In Western Europe, German Trenches were NOT to stop any allied offensive, but as trip wires to activate reserves held in the rear. In Petersburg, the trenches were the defense, if breeched nothing was available to stop the Northern onslaught. When the Trenches were breeched, Lee's Army was doomed.
Most Trench warfare follows something like Petersburg more then WWI. Trench Warfare happened even in Ancient times, but mostly in trenches around a besieged city. Such Sieges continued till today. With the adoption of Cannon, Trenches had to start much further away then in Ancient time, but Trenches were built. Trench warfare only exists in these two circumstances, trenches by a weaker side to keep out a stronger side (and a victory at any point by the stronger side ends the war) or Trenches by a stronger side to keep the weaker side contained while the stronger side sends it troops elsewhere (Germany in WWI, the US in Korea).
My point is Trench Warfare predates Petersburg and the WWI Trench warfare was for fundamental reasons different from traditional, Petersburg, type trench warfare.
There are four situation in war:
1: Tactical Offensive, Strategic Offensive
2: Tactical Defensive, Strategic Offensive
3: Tactical Defensive, Strategic Defensive
4: Tactical Offensive, Strategic Defensive
1 and 3 are easy to understand, one is on the attack in 1 to take something, and in Number 3, one is trying to hold onto something that someone else wants. Lee was doing #3 while Grant was doing #1 in Petersburg. n both cases tactical operations are important to the Strategic operation. The Trench holds or gives way.
# 2 is also easy to understand. That is when you march your army to a location that forces someone else to attack you. You are on the Defensive tactically, but on the Strategic level you want to gain something. Most often this occurs when you are on the attack, but need to regroup and leave your supplies catch up with you. You hold a location to be used for further offensive action. This is the Germans in WWII, holding on to what they gained in France, but do little actual attacks. Again, the role of tactics is important, it leads to either further Strategic gains or defeat of the Strategic plan.
#4 is the hardest to understand. You are trying to hold onto something, but the enemy is NOT attacking. They often are just waiting for you to go on your way. Tactical operations are meaningless. If the attack succeeds, who cares, it has no affect on the Strategic situation. Guerrilla operations operate at this level and one of the reasons they are so hard to stop, defeating them in combat at the tactical level means nothing. One has to undermine the Strategic situation and often in such situation is trying to get the people to STOP supporting the guerrillas. It what we were doing in Vietnam and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. We "Won" Iraq NOT by our Tactical actions, but by bribing the people to no longer support the guerrillas. Sinking of wells, opening of Schools, roads, ports, providing jobs are all ways to defeat the Strategic goals of the guerrillas. In many ways these are more important then fighting the guerrillas. Another area of operations is to cut off supplies to the guerrillas, even if such movement lead to tactical defeat. i.e. just being in the area hinders the supply line, thus even if defeated any force that hindered or cut off the supply lines is a victory over the guerrillas. a more important "Victory" then an actual defeat of the guerrillas themselves. In Afghanistan we are fighting a #4 type war, the military operations are meaningless, unless such operations cut off supplies.
I could go on but we are comparing the Siege of Petersburg with the Trenches of WWI. The trenches were set up for two different reasons in both battles and why Petersburg lasted less then a year, while WWII lasted for four years.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
