Quote Originally Posted by fusilier View Post
At anyrate, I do think that the weapons, and tactics, did encourage trench warfare. However, I think that aerial reconnaissance was a major factor in strategic "stalemate." Assuming that stalemate at the strategic level doesn't necessarily imply trench warfare.

I also think that there are other factors that need to be looked at. The Eastern Front was more mobile than the Western. Why? They dug trenches there too. I've wondered if it was simply a matter of the ratio of men per unit-length of front lines being lower. If there weren't enough aircraft to prevent the occasional strategic surprise. Did a lack of infrastructure have an effect?

--EDIT--
Wikipedia claims it was the length of the front, and a lack of communications that made defensive lines weaker, and prevented the defender from quickly containing a breakthrough.
After their failure in the initial attack on France, the Germans went on the defensive in the West, and tried to knock Russia out first as they realised they were the weaker power, and this would free up Austrian and German troops for use in the West.

On the western front they prepared formidable defensive positions along a line specifically chosen for defence, fell back to it and basically sat there until 1918. Militarily this was sensible, as the front was short and easier to hold than in the east. Unfortunately they didn't knock out the Russians early enough for their plan, and America joining the war finished any chance they had. In general terms the German defences in the west were therefore more formidable because they were deliberately sited and constructed due to this policy. The French and British on the other hand were therefore taking the offensive, and so while they did construct defences, they did not devote the effort to the extent the Germans did. They hardly ever fell back to a more defensible position. The British in particular were noted for occupying dreadfully exposed (militarily and in terms of conditions) forward positions that the Germans would never have done.

On the Eastern front there was no way the fortifications or manpower could be so concentrated as in the west due to the length of front - this lead to a more mobile form of warfare.

Rather than battering at these western defences, the British and French should've used their control of the seas to greater effect. Gallipoli was a decent idea, from that point of view, but poorly exectuted.