On the Western Front the two sides were fairly evenly matched. The war became a 'war of attrition'. It was very much a conflict of numbers and of the industrial resources of the two sides. Obviously, this tended to favour the Entente as the war dragged on. Worst of all, perhaps, the machine-gun turned almost every battle into a massacre. The generals on both sides were incompetent and of the lowest calibre that one can imagine. It wasn't till 1918 that the tank was used intelligently.
During World War I, casualties were high on the Western Front (as well as on the various other fronts) due to the superiority of defensive tactics and technology. Defenders were well-equipped to counter anything thrown at them by attackers; however, the prevailing military wisdom of the times favored offensive operations. Hence, time and time again, attacks were made against formidable positions, thereby causing high casualties.
There are a number of causes and reasons for the high rate of casualties. The easiest way to answer this question, without getting into huge detail, would be to list them: 1) disease: disease was one of, if not the, highest cause of casualties during the war. Sickness caused by rats in the trenches; trench foot (caused by the soldiers constantly being in trenches filled with water, and not being able to dry their boots and socks); malnutrition, as the soldiers did not have access to fresh fruit or meat; infections which came from wounds (penicillin was not discovered until well after the war); 2) advances in technology: the machine-gun became more prevalent on the battlefield, principally as a defensive weapon (early forms were otherwise too heavy to easily carry into battle, like today's machine-guns) at literally mowing down advancing infantry; artillery also became more advanced, as flash spotting of enemy artillery grew; 3) barbed wire was simply nasty; 4) old tactics were constantly used: massed infantry advances, into strongly defended enemy positions. Just look up the Battle of the Somme as an example. Also, look up "war of attrition" ideology; 5) chemical warfare. While not a huge casualty-causing invention, in nonetheless killed and "maimed" many. Mustard gas and chlorine gas were the two main gases used during the war.
louise...? :s xxxxxxxx
The exploding shell.
Casualties caused by tanks in WW1 were counted with the infantry and artillery casualties.
Yes. The major part of fighting on the Western Front during World War 1 took place on French soil. Since France contributed more soldiers than the British, Belgians, or Americans on that front, they suffered a high casualty rate.
The British and French had some 250,000 casualties, the Turkish lost about the same number of men.
German soldiers who were high in morale after defeating Russia flooded the Western Front. Had America not sent troops when they did, France, England and Italy would have been overwhelmed and defeated.
The First Battle of the Marne was composed of 3 major actions: the Battle of ... the area that morning and was stopped short of high ground north of Meaux. .... No future battle on the Western Front would average so many casualties per day.
The exploding shell.
No. The number of casualties was very high, but that doesn't make World War 1 genocide.
it caused high civilian casualties but did not result in surrender
There was no turning point because the Germans inflicted high casualties on the Russians who most of the time had 1 rifle between 4 people so then they ran into machine fire. They did this until they pulled out of the war in 1917
Fats and Carbohydrates are often too high in a "western diet" That's why people in Western world often has a heart attack(carbohydrates containing sugar)
A war of attrition, in general, is a war with high casualities but little territorial gain. The most famous war of attrition is the conflict on the Western Front in France during World War I.
Casualties caused by tanks in WW1 were counted with the infantry and artillery casualties.
usually you just ask the front office for a map of the school
Living extravagantly while his people were poor and suffering and not pulling out of World War I despite the high casualties.
it would prevent high casualties that would be caused by an invasion of mainland japan
Russia backed out because they had more to lose during the war than win. their people were starving and casualties were high