Disease-infested, plagued with rats, and a haven for bombs, trenches proved impractical in World War I. Thousands of soldiers lost their lives to disease, rats, and air raids due to the antiquity of trench warfare strategy. Of course, World War I is looked at as an odd war, juxtaposed with horses and tanks, trench warfare and air warfare and swords and artillery. The question remains: why was trench warfare used as a strategy in World War I? Obviously, the strategy was chosen for a reason and had its aims and purposes. Did this type of strategy achieve its aim?.
Due to improved mechanisms of warring, the path to trenches seemed inevitable. The invention of magazine rifles, increased range and accuracy of rifled artillery, and the power weapons to destroy things more and from a farther distance led to the strategy of hiding from the enemy. The invention of smokeless guns especially added to the need of trenches because the enemy could not be seen, and thus camouflage and secure cover was required in order to defend oneself from invisible guns. Also, since the enemy could not see any smoke coming from guns, this added to the benefit of the trenches by further hiding the army from view.
In the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905, trench warfare was first seen in large scale. The Germans and the rest of Europe observed the benefits of the trenches, but were unable to notice the "if-and-only-if" relationship of that particular strategy. The strategy required rapid movement, thus little time was spent in the deep trenches. As the Central Powers realized that they did not have the manpower or the technological advances to combat the allies, they began to prepare for a long, drawn-out, and arduous war. What they did not do was take into account that too much time spent in trenches led to a spread of diseases, an invitation to pests, and a demoralization of its troops.
With the hope of a short war now lost, the fighting on the Western Front settled down to trench warfare.
