Good points! The idea of rifling is ancient, I believe the first illustration of it is from Leonardo Da Vinci. But one problem with your alternative storyline: Wouldn't they discover the enemy are using weird balls when they are extracting them from their own men the infirmary?
It’s an interesting point. From what I’ve read, bullets of the period would often disintegrate or deform on impact so perhaps not. Frankly, though, I think there’s a more fundamental problem with the whole concept: that I just don’t believe a secret weapon issued to every single soldier could possibly stay secret.
I enjoyed this article! I too am bothered by nonsensical depictions in writing and other media, especially in military and history matters - this frequently annoys my wife!
Machine guns played some role in creating the stalemate on the Western front. I think a larger contributor, though, was artillery advancements (which were the primary cause of trench digging), as well as something else you mentioned - new methods of mass conscription and the stress it put on stronger but still not sufficient logistics systems. Continent-sized armies were able to absorb massive losses without being beaten but also lacked the organization to penetrate into hostile territory then hold it.
The stalemate was unique to the Western front and was ended in part by the USA joining and building a massive rail system and engaging in maneuver warfare. Tanks also gave commanders, especially UK commanders, new avenues of assault that artillery used to suppress with ease, adding a chaos factor to formerly stable lines.
Machine guns, and other continuously advancing infantry weapons past that area (shoulder launched rockets, fpv drones) are capable of incredible destruction. But paradoxically these technologies still inflict the smallest portion of casualties - artillery is still king, with them inflicting 75-90% of battlefield casualties in wars. Infantry's main role, including machineguns, is still mostly suppression of the enemy and being a layer in the complex "onion of defense" at the center is which is a battery of big long range guns
If someone had brought more trench axes and wwi-era strategy to the US Civil war, and nothing else changed, i think it possible that war would have never ended, or possibly lasted twice as long.
Thanks for your comment. I definitely simplified to the point of distortion in that explanation (and only intended to refer to the Western Front, rather than, say, the Eastern or Mesopotamian) but if I had to pick a single factor, I would indeed pick the machine gun. Specifically, the fact that the machine gun of that era could put down so much more fire than a rifle (compared to modern rifles that only really differ from LMGs in their size and lack of certain features like a bipod and rear grip) but weren't very maneuverable, and thereby favoured defence.
Artillery was a factor, absolutely, and causes entrenchments to be built to protect against shrapnel. But once you have trenches, why are they so hard to take? Because the defender, with access to machine guns, can put out so much more firepower than the attacker, who lacks them. Later technologies of course changed this, from the tank to the submachine gun, but again I'm really only talking about why trench warfare began in the first place.
I also don't think doctrine or mass conscription can really be the answer, at least early in the war. German and French doctrine preferred attack. Meanwhile, mass conscription if anything helps attack more than defence in my opinion. (As attackers tend to take more casualties.)
Casualty rates by weapon system can, in my opinion, be misleading. Artillery absolutely always accounts for a large majority of casualties. But is that what caused trench warfare? And does it make machine guns ineffective? No, it's just that it's much harder to protect against artillery. Machine guns are effective precisely because they're so good at suppression, which prevents movement and thereby attack. They suppress so well because they have so much potential to be deadly, but are also simple to protect against by just going to ground or building entrenchments.
To use another example of this from the era I'm more comfortable with, bayonets account for a vanishingly small number of casualties in the period of linear warfare. Were they ineffective? No, quite the opposite. They were so effective that one side would quickly break when engaged in melee, or even flee to avoid melee entirely. So they didn't account for many casualties, but were hugely effective for taking and holding ground. Machine guns didn't kill many people, but they suppressed so effectively that they stopped attacks that would otherwise have succeeded.
We agree on the paradox of infantry weapons like the machinegun being deadly yet low in dealing death because they are easier to avoid than artillery.
And machineguns contributed to the stalemate in the west, I don't discount that. The lack of stalemated trench warfare elsewhere is what I think tempers it, though. Russia and the Ottomans didn't lack for machineguns, but artillery was outdated and used in smaller numbers (shrinking the vicious cycle of bombardment and entrenchment).
The absurdly high casualty rates of the US Civil war is strong evidence that earthworks were key to winning battles - Grant's access to engineers who's tactics were ahead of the game on trench and artillery contributed to his success.
Good points! The idea of rifling is ancient, I believe the first illustration of it is from Leonardo Da Vinci. But one problem with your alternative storyline: Wouldn't they discover the enemy are using weird balls when they are extracting them from their own men the infirmary?
It’s an interesting point. From what I’ve read, bullets of the period would often disintegrate or deform on impact so perhaps not. Frankly, though, I think there’s a more fundamental problem with the whole concept: that I just don’t believe a secret weapon issued to every single soldier could possibly stay secret.
I enjoyed this article! I too am bothered by nonsensical depictions in writing and other media, especially in military and history matters - this frequently annoys my wife!
Machine guns played some role in creating the stalemate on the Western front. I think a larger contributor, though, was artillery advancements (which were the primary cause of trench digging), as well as something else you mentioned - new methods of mass conscription and the stress it put on stronger but still not sufficient logistics systems. Continent-sized armies were able to absorb massive losses without being beaten but also lacked the organization to penetrate into hostile territory then hold it.
The stalemate was unique to the Western front and was ended in part by the USA joining and building a massive rail system and engaging in maneuver warfare. Tanks also gave commanders, especially UK commanders, new avenues of assault that artillery used to suppress with ease, adding a chaos factor to formerly stable lines.
Machine guns, and other continuously advancing infantry weapons past that area (shoulder launched rockets, fpv drones) are capable of incredible destruction. But paradoxically these technologies still inflict the smallest portion of casualties - artillery is still king, with them inflicting 75-90% of battlefield casualties in wars. Infantry's main role, including machineguns, is still mostly suppression of the enemy and being a layer in the complex "onion of defense" at the center is which is a battery of big long range guns
If someone had brought more trench axes and wwi-era strategy to the US Civil war, and nothing else changed, i think it possible that war would have never ended, or possibly lasted twice as long.
Thanks for your comment. I definitely simplified to the point of distortion in that explanation (and only intended to refer to the Western Front, rather than, say, the Eastern or Mesopotamian) but if I had to pick a single factor, I would indeed pick the machine gun. Specifically, the fact that the machine gun of that era could put down so much more fire than a rifle (compared to modern rifles that only really differ from LMGs in their size and lack of certain features like a bipod and rear grip) but weren't very maneuverable, and thereby favoured defence.
Artillery was a factor, absolutely, and causes entrenchments to be built to protect against shrapnel. But once you have trenches, why are they so hard to take? Because the defender, with access to machine guns, can put out so much more firepower than the attacker, who lacks them. Later technologies of course changed this, from the tank to the submachine gun, but again I'm really only talking about why trench warfare began in the first place.
I also don't think doctrine or mass conscription can really be the answer, at least early in the war. German and French doctrine preferred attack. Meanwhile, mass conscription if anything helps attack more than defence in my opinion. (As attackers tend to take more casualties.)
Casualty rates by weapon system can, in my opinion, be misleading. Artillery absolutely always accounts for a large majority of casualties. But is that what caused trench warfare? And does it make machine guns ineffective? No, it's just that it's much harder to protect against artillery. Machine guns are effective precisely because they're so good at suppression, which prevents movement and thereby attack. They suppress so well because they have so much potential to be deadly, but are also simple to protect against by just going to ground or building entrenchments.
To use another example of this from the era I'm more comfortable with, bayonets account for a vanishingly small number of casualties in the period of linear warfare. Were they ineffective? No, quite the opposite. They were so effective that one side would quickly break when engaged in melee, or even flee to avoid melee entirely. So they didn't account for many casualties, but were hugely effective for taking and holding ground. Machine guns didn't kill many people, but they suppressed so effectively that they stopped attacks that would otherwise have succeeded.
We agree on the paradox of infantry weapons like the machinegun being deadly yet low in dealing death because they are easier to avoid than artillery.
And machineguns contributed to the stalemate in the west, I don't discount that. The lack of stalemated trench warfare elsewhere is what I think tempers it, though. Russia and the Ottomans didn't lack for machineguns, but artillery was outdated and used in smaller numbers (shrinking the vicious cycle of bombardment and entrenchment).
The absurdly high casualty rates of the US Civil war is strong evidence that earthworks were key to winning battles - Grant's access to engineers who's tactics were ahead of the game on trench and artillery contributed to his success.
Such an interesting post! I always love a good historical/worldbuilding deep dive!