How Effective Were Weapons in Breaking Stalemate?

1764 Words8 Pages
How effective were the weapons used in World War I in breaking stalemate? With the collapse of the Schlieffen Plan and the Battle of the Marne soon after cemented the obliteration of thought that a swift and decisive victory from either Allied or Central powers could be achieved and that a war of movement has virtually come to an end. The development of trench warfare and the completely foreign concept of a war of attrition played a significant role in the path the Great War took. The development and utilisation of modern weaponry was thought to break stalemate but due to the nature of said weapons, it ensured the prolonging of a ‘static war’. Despite being crucial to the war effort, Rifles and machine guns did very little to break stalemate during World War I. Their primary function was that of a defensive one and thus, only served to slow advancement and only further cement stalemate. Out of the two, the machine gun best represents this notion. Its range of 500-1000 metres makes it a prime defensive weapon for combating against enemy troops advancing upon the recipient’s trench. Although highly accurate, the machine gun had very little tactical advantage for its own soldiers due mainly to its cumbersome and heavy design; consequently, it was used mainly for holding troops back. Despite the machine guns lack of an offensive edge, its use and reliance grew experientially as the war progressed; only holding back advancing troops as opposed to punching a line through opposing lines. Dependence upon the machine gun grew on both German and British lines, this increased reliance lead to approximately one third of the total casualties during World War I. To compensate for the issue of manoeuvrability of the heavy machine gun, the development of a lighter, smaller handheld machine guns were introduced, allowing for a more offensive assault upon the enemy lines.
Open Document