The Origins and Effects of Trench Stalemate - Nicholas Murray

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

This was a great lecture.

[@robertgresham3603]

Excellent presentation and lecture. Very interesting, entertaining and well done.

[@Dav1Gv]

Fascinating and excellent talk although perhaps he understated the communications problem which meant that once an attsack was launched no commander on the attacking side knew what the hell was going on (it did get better - read about Messines in1917).

[@whazzat8015]

Great thinking. Tactical proficiency can not consistently overwhelm poor strategic thinking. Consistency wins, if you survive the first round.

[@expansivegymnast1020]

Awesome lecture!

[@Chiller01]

I know this is like 3 years late but there are only 24 comments so I’ll interject. I really like this lecturer but I don’t think he’s served in combat nor has he done much hunting. I think he overestimates the effectiveness of rifle fire. To hit a man sized target at 300 yards with iron sights is an achievement. I know folks at Camp Perry hit targets at 600 yards using iron sighted M1’s or 1903 Springfield’s but remember the men attacking you are moving in open order and you’re dealing with all the stress, smoke, wind and other adversities of the battlefield. Opposing front line trenches in WW1 on the Western Front were on average 100 to 300 meters apart as I recall. Barbed wire caused more delays in reaching the enemy trenches than the actual distances in most cases. I’ve read that artillery followed by machine guns caused the greatest number of WW1 casualties. Shoulder arms had definitely improved since the days of rifled muzzle loaders but that improvement was less a factor in the slaughter than other weapon systems.

[@Vegas_Des]

So true!

[@mikecimerian6913]

Great coroner type sense of humor. : )

[@WildBillCox13]

Very canny. Liked and shared. Was already subscribed.

[@tboneproductions2453]

Adding to remote viewers comment, when after battle clean up took place during the American Civil War ; a majority of the weapons picked up had a musket ball at the ready. Many rifles were double loaded. The Army figured out later that human beings have a difficult time shooting other human beings. That’s why they began using human silhouettes during range practice to desensitize soldiers to lethal fire.

[@kraigthorne]

45:28 this was the plot of an episode of Blackadder Goes Fourth

[@johnhopkins6658]

My great uncle died on the first day of the Somme at Redan Ridge.

[@ernesttownsend3825]

Excellent exploration of the pluses of trench welfare. Loved it.

[@billolsen4360]

The speaker made a boring subject rather exciting. You're in the trench as a infantryman.

[@johnfleming7879]

Artillery caused most combat casualties in WWI

[@brotherjongrey9375]

Disease caused more casualties than combat

[@AlbertoPaoloRimoldi]

interesting to listen the analysis of the nature of trench warfare (as a materiel warfare) in the light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Russia trying to mobilize men, Ukraine relying on supplies (ie technology) from its allies

[@user-qm7nw7vd5s]

Who would have thought, trench warfare of 1914 would make a comeback in 2024?

[@RasheedahNizam]

At 52:00 is he saying that the conservatives (people who did not want change, as opposed to the way the word is used today) were supportive or against the war? What were their ideas and solutions if they wanted to keep women from the vital workforce, at least during the war?

[@ceciljohnrhodes4987]

The rest of the English speaking world still understand what conservative means, in this case they were against the change caused by the war but were still supportive of the war.

[@fenzelian]

He’s saying conservatives will want political compensation for the concessions they make for the sake of the war - which they have to make because of the economic and material demands of trench warfare - and that this is going to foul up the peace process and make ending the war in a way that doesn’t lead to a worse war later more difficult. If you’re on the winning side, and the cost for you is your whole way of life is different and your political future ar home is ruined - you’re really going to want to stick it to the losers of the war so that it feels like this wasn’t all for nothing - get territory from them, get money from them, humiliate them. But you only get that compensation if you win. If you lose you not only get nothing but now you also get a lot of social change, which you don’t want. So it puts the bargaining parties who might be trying to stop the war farther apart and is part of why the Paris peace talks and the various treaties failed so badly.

[@jezalb2710]

Interesting

[@iloMiloMiloM97]

This guy was good 👍

[@Nonukes2024]

2:15 start time

[@bobbowie5334]

Nice of *Ricky Gervais* to give *Karl* a day off to do this

[@0ldb1ll]

Prior to WW1 there were pictures of trenches filled with bodies starting from the American Civil War through to the Boer War. The thing that stopped static trench warfare was initially the tank and then aircraft.

[@RemoteViewr1]

Shooting is a skill. The ability of the soldier, highly dependent on the type of training, severely limits not the range of fire, after all, pulling a trigger initiates the physics of projecting the bullet, but limits the practical accuracy of the rifle. I give you a modern day bolt action rifle, scoped, you can't hit what you can't see, and you are a very good shot to hit with any kind of consistency at 700 yards. Hunters who desire ethical clean kills, mostly kill at the 150 yards max. Yes, the standard issue mark 1 eyeball is part of the issue. But accurate fire is a skill. Massed volley fire, deadly out to 3,000, sure. But if you ever go real world, 100 yards is a distance. 200 yards, a difficult shot for Joe Average. At 300 yards, you can't recognize your own mother. 300 yards, green uniform, in front of green foliage, you are lucky to see someone. So this range business is quite true, I love this lecture. But you and your aimed rifle are not sharpshooting beyond 700 yards, less a lot of specialized training. You certainly aren't issuing guaranteed death to anyone, soldier to soldier at 700 yards plus. Yes, there are some changes over time. The other factor I wished he explored is the lack of desire to shoot and kill other soldiers. Look into it. It is shocking how many soldiers, despite being in the field and under lethal force attack, NEVER pulled a trigger. Shot into the sky, shot into the dirt, shot left and right intentionally of the attack. So the mechanical ability of the rifle is purely moot. Look up the percentages, it is shocking and ought be calculated into battle actuals.

[@ridingtime5884]

Many training regimens nowadays have shooters aiming at targets 500 yards away with iron sights, and most shooters perform well enough to hit the target a good majority of the time. You're right about the other thing, though. I've heard up to 90% of soldiers weren't shooting to kill with their rifles.

[@CJ87317]

There is a lot of writing on this, from both sides. Because so few bullets hit their targets, a many academics believe most people don't shoot to kill. Others point out suppressing fire isn't necessarily a shoot to kill type of thing, but is needed in fire fights. Also that people in stressful combat situations (even if they've trained for them), often shoot high, at least initially until they make adjustments. I doubt up to 90% aren't actually trying to shoot the enemy, but it is a good academic debate.

[@steves1015]

Remote Viewer 1 soldiers not wanting to kill the enemy was a big surprise and massive problem for military commanders after the world wars. After a lot of in-depth analysis, they have managed to change their training methods to drastically reduce the percentage of soldiers who cannot shoot to kill. Lindybeige did a great video about this.

[@andrewallen9993]

Ten years earlier it wasn't a problem? I suggest this military historian researches the history of the Boer war!

[@AntelJM]

Good topic but the Okay knocked me out after ten minutes.

[@dughallhalliday1713]

The Morning Hate - that is a British cartoon ridiculing the Prussians, NOT a German cartoon.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

It seems he's applying the term to the reading of the casualty lists in the morning as well as propaganda that went with it regardless of country.

[@busTedOaS]

"Morning hate" also referred to the practice of shooting mashine gun fire and shells at dawn to blunt potential attacks, and well, do anything except just waiting.

[@ColonelAckerson117]

Oakey

[@mikechrister2736]

Trenches were not a good place. Even if you weren't actively fighting a trench poses many problems. Filth being one of the biggest.

[@Ben-mx3oi]

Ooooh ookay

[@jrooney58]

I’ve seen two Murray lectures on close to the same topic where he insists that the bolt action rifle rate of fire is close to 20 rounds a minute. The British mad minute stats bear that out to some extent. However, that’s taking the marksmanship records of highly trained soldiers and applying it to every one on the battlefield with a rifle. You just don’t achieve that rate of fire with conscripts who don’t get the same range time as professional soldiers. Not to mention the mad minute numbers are for the rate of sustained fire for a minute. You simply can’t expect soldiers to keep that rate up for several minutes, much less 15 minutes to a half hour. Additionally, while the range of WWI rifles were over 1000 yards, engagements that began at over 500 yards were rare, and most were fought at no greater than 200 yards. Hence the adoption of the sub machine gun at the end of WWI and throughout WWII. Most WWI casualties were caused by artillery. Murray still hits the essential problem of the generals though.

[@DreadedEgg]

The irony of a pacifist having anything whatever to say about the conducting of war.

[@randyhavard6084]

Okay okay okay okay okay okay

[@jayfedorisin4479]

ok

[@No_0neTruly]

okaay