While trenches might conjure visions of the First World War, they are increasingly common in Russia’s war against Ukraine.
Trench warfare is something troops will likely face in the coming years, say NATO.
“A well-dug trench can be your greatest friend – or your worst enemy. That is why two NATO Allies Estonia and France trained in the demanding art of moving and fighting through trench networks.
French Army paratroopers and members of the Estonian Defence League put their close-quarters combat skills to the test during a multi-day exercise aimed at introducing themselves to the rigors of trench warfare. In the cold, wet mud, the soldiers spent hours learning how to quickly clear corners, root defenders out of entrenched bunkers and make fighting positions safe for follow-on forces.”
Trenches offer advantages for defenders, and significant hazards for attacking forces. For Allied forces to deter aggression – and, if necessary, defend Allied territory – they must be fully prepared to effectively defend or neutralise trench networks.
The training was run by soldiers from the French Army’s 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment, which arrived in Estonia in early September to train Estonian reservists in military operations in built-up areas.
A Cunning plan. Wait till the Russian are in their trenches and then send in the airforce and bomb their trenches to bits!
This explains why sometime last year i had read about British Army Top Brass raiding Archives and studying Maps and reports of WW1 Trench systems.
Trench warfare is quite the science from what I have read. Not only do you have to think about lines of fire, for example, but you also need to consider how blast wave behave in constraint spaces. The there is the need for supply trenches people and supplies around, bunkers for sleeping and cooking as well has storing supplies and fighting positions etc. It’s a very complex mode of combat that has largely been overlooked for decades.
The thing is a well placed and design defensive position can allow a smaller force hold up a much large force for a considerable time.
Not surprised the British Army is dusting off old data and reports. Despite the justified terrible reputation British Generals had with regards to their awful efforts at attacking the German lines, they actually got their logistics very well organised.
One word of caution though look solely at British trench systems, they were only ever considered as a temporary position as the next big push would end the war. The German trenches on the other hand were designed to hold come what may…
Cheers CR
“Despite the justified terrible reputation British Generals had with regards to their awful efforts at attacking the German lines, they actually got their logistics very well organised.”
I always found it quite off that about 10 years about various bods were trying to say it wasn’t that bad as the R&R, supply and logistics were OK.
Two very different things.
Hence why things like the big explosive mines were so important to try and create and opening without wasting huge numbers of men and materiel on ‘the next big push’.
Hi SB,
I agree that they are two very different things requiring very different skills and abilities.
From what I have read and viewed on historical programs the problem they had was initially they couldn’t get into the enemy positions until the advent of the tank or with as you point out, considerable pre-attack effort to undermine the enemy stroung points. I have actually seem one of the holes created by those mines on the Somme back in the ’90’s, and bloody big hole it is too.
The problem with the early tanks was that they proved rather unreliable, as we know, so at best they were able to break in to the enemy positions but usually broke down before they could push on through the trench systems – hence they never really achieved a break through… at least not until the Germans had had enough and started to throw the towel in. (Although, to be fair to the British Army they had, by 1918, invented an early form of combined arms along with the equipment.)
Cheers CR
When I was at Chatham, we used to teach Combat Engineering to Assault Pioneers and we been Sappers would say when digging a battle trench it will be so and so wide , so and so long and so and so deep (As per the REPB (Royal Engineers Pocket Book) . Often we would be informed, that was not how they dug trenches and their SOP was trench size would accommodate their fattest man with his webbing on.
On many a big exercise, I found myself part of a team who prepared trench’s for retreating troops (NATO exercises were always retreat ,retreat, holdfast and advance) a LMD (light mobile digger) would dig trenches and we would revet them, dig in Mexe shelters and lay low wire entanglements in front of such positions , as well as anti helicopter areas (usually pickets hammered in with a monkey upside down near sensitive areas) as well as dig in minefields
On that note during WW1 Rothchild allowed the army to construct a Trench warfare training centre on his land at Halton (Now RAF Halton) and the area was renovated a few years back and it is open to the public to visit. google:
First World War Trenches at RAF Halton come alive 15.07.11
for a video on YT
Thanks farouk,
That was an interesting read.
Cheers CR
A Northern university professor, wrote extensively on the subject in WW1, when adjutant and then Colonel of his regiment. Numbers of the men were from mining backgrounds, which ultimately helped their survival.
Seems to me that modern warfare has all the tools to avoid trench warfare. Gain air superiority, use armour & air mobile troops to punch through/deploy behind enemy defences, etc. What creates stagnant trench warare is lack of resources.
In UKRs case they need much more support & European states to intervene to drive Russia out of UKR territory. If Putin threatens to nuke us we remind him we’d do likewise, that’s how MAD works. Timidly restraining UKR & minimising our already weak forces just enables Putin to carry on regardless.
That assumes the USA would turn up, which doesn’t seem a given in future.
It’s gaining air suppremecy in the era of cheap air defences and drones where the issue lies. I suspect if the US and China did slog it out it would rapidly become a similar war to Ukraine as neither would be able to get complete air suppremecy.
I disagree Steve, the US would kick seven bells of hell out of the Chinese Airforce, the biggest headache would be running low on missiles!
The J-20 really isn’t all that, it’s primarily an attack asset and long range interceptor. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to go up against an F35 or F22.
The bulk of the Airforce is made up of J-15’s, knock off Flankers.
The Russian airforce would wipe the floor of the Ukraine one even today, they still have hundreds of jets. The issue is they can’t use them due to cheap highly mobile land based air defences that make it too risky. For sure the stealthy nature of the f35 / f22 would help but they aren’t invisible.
Uh?
It is 50/50 they bomb the wrong country.
The Russian airforce is totally incompetent. Sure they have more frames but their pilots are hopeless. The electronics in the planes are pretty hopeless too.
They have no proper integrated command and control and it appears to be less sophisticated than UK efforts in WWII.
Nope – we wouldn’t need USA to take out the Russian Airforce. RAF + Norwegians + Swedes + Italians + Dane’s would do a good job. I’m assuming the Germans will just dither, the French look after their own interests and the Spanish will have a long Siesta.
Nato realistically isn’t going to war with Russia. The next war the UK gets involved in is either going to be in the middle East or a proxy with China.
NATO won’t cross into Russia for sure.
What Mad Vlad does is anyone’s guess.
He doesn’t have the forces to do it. I agree i won’t put it past him if he did, but he rolled with the dice with Ukraine and lost and with it wiped out most of his professional trained soldiers. Will take decades to rebuild
That’s a dumb comment, especially the ending. You’re surely better than that
We, and Nato do not have the mass for trench warfare. End of. Look at any map and the length of any future front line proves it. If, just if war breaks out? It needs to be made clear to Putin that will involve Nato entering Russia, not stopping at borders. The doctrine must be mobile, fast and destructive with overwhelming air power. Creating choke points is not beyond the skills of Nato countries, and should be a civil engineering priority.
Seriously, if Nato thinks todays questioning, recalcitrant generation will be conscripted en-masse to enter trenches? They are dumb.
Trenches don’t just exist in long, unbroken lines John. They are a key feature of most defencive positions. Wherever you face a determined enemy in the defence, there will be entrenched positions – it’s a key skill that needs to be practiced (both construction of and fighting through entrenched positions.
On my first tour of Afghanistan, we found ourselves fighting through old Russian trench systems that were being put to use by the “Taleban” (in quotation marks because they were speaking Baloch)
BobA wrote:
“”On my first tour of Afghanistan, we found ourselves fighting through old Russian trench systems that were being put to use by the “Taleban” “
The Americans deployed the XM25 (Punisher) CDTE Smart grenade launcher in which to combat that issue, ( it could be programed to air burst over the tops of dug in troops) The troops issued with it, loved it, after a few teething issues were sorted out the army had plans to purchase 10K of them, but the Senate Armed Services Committee ended that procurement in 2013 citing the above teething issues. Funny enough the Chinese thought it was a fantastic idea, developed their own version (QTS-1) issued it out to the army in 2015, with around 50K in service . The Israelis also knocked out something similar, but theirs was a lot cheaper than the US version google
MPRS (Multi-Purpose Rifle System)
for the video from 12 years ago
Seems the US Senate are the kiss of death to much that is good.
My mantras have always been ‘never say never’ and ‘expect the unexpected’.
All other things being equal, manouevre warfare trumps static attritional warfare of course, but we should not ignore the merits of fighting from trenches, especially for a numerically smaller army, if forced to adopt a defensive posture for part of a future conflict. Fighting from trenches is not just for a conscript army.
Hello Graham, I thought you might find this interesting.
IAV 2024: British Army only has confirmed funding for 18% of equipment plan26 January 2024
“The British Army only has confirmed funding for 18% of its GBP44 billion (USD55.9 billion) Equipment Plan 2023–33, British Army’s Chief of the General Staff General Patrick Sanders told Defence iQ’s International Armoured Vehicle (IAV) 2024 conference held in London from 22 to 25 January.
He also spoke of the need for the British Army to have a strength of 120,000 personnel, comprising regular soldiers, reservists, and strategic reserves (previously trained predominantly ex-regular service personnel held at low readiness).
A UK Ministry of Defence spokesperson told Janes on 25 January that GBP9.3 billion of the British Army’s GBP42.4 billion 10-year equipment plan budget is committed.
She went on to state that it is common practice for the equipment plan to have both “committed” and “uncommitted” spending to ensure substantial uncommitted headroom is maintained over the period of the plan, with on average 25% currently committed.”
Hi Nigel,
On the face of it, this very low figure of 18% is very alarming, and I have trouble understanding the reason for it. Of course you should not commit all funds to all programmes in the EP at any given moment in time, in case things change. But 18% is very, very low.
There seems to be some scuttlebut that the army is probably not going to get the required 1,018 Boxers and will just get 623 (the 523 of Tranche 1 and the 100 of Tr2). Up to now no-one knew the mix of variants in Tr2 but Shepherd media of 24/1/24 (‘UK fleshes out Boxer programme’ now have some info:
‘The 623 Boxers comprise 146 infantry carrier vehicles (01), 212 command and control (02), 200 specialist vehicle (03) and 65 ambulance (04). The latest common drive module, the A3, will feature a number of enhancements when compared to earlier production vehicles…’
Still waiting to see confirmation that the main equipment will just only have a MG in its Kongsberg RS4 PROTECTOR RWS that has been ordered for the 523 vehs. Supposedly army staff have been working since March 2023 to see how lethality of Boxers can be improved! That’s a flipping long study! Should have bought the larger RS6 and fitted a cannon (preferably 40mm stabilised!) within it.
I am sure Daniele as ‘the Orbat King’ will be interested!
Options for Change reduced the army to 120,000 Regs as a reset for the post Cold War world. Funny thing, I see that precise figure is still ‘out there’, only now it is a mix of Regs, AR and Regular Reservists (now apparently branded as strategic reserves!)
Nato isn’t at war. If it did then the mass would be produced by conscription, like Ukraine and Russia have done.
Yeah the British could afford the heavy losses in World War 1 because they had an colonial maritime empire worth of manpower, we do not have that now, Britian really cannot afford trench warfare but training for it is a good idea either way
The UK wouldn’t be alone. If its in the Asia pacific then we would be fighting along with US, most western aligned Asian countries and probably Australia and New Zealand. Between them there are probably a billion people population.
European theatre is less likely but the EU has a population of 500m, so again a huge pool for trench warfare.
Crazy. Why would NATO resolve to trench warfare? That seems to me to be a massive failing of strategy, tactics, equipment and the result of inadequate piss poor planning and preparation.
There is no way our children should Be sent to fight and die in trenches fighting against Russia, China, Iran or North Korea.
Here’s a better plan. Build a military with enough resources and smart munitions to avoid such an eventuality.
A static trench line should be bypassed cut off and starved of resources until it’s defenders have no choice but to either die trying to break out or starve to death. Or better yet blow it to pieces from the air.
The combined arms tactics NATO is good at should be strengthened and our air superiority guaranteed. How do we guarentee air superiority. Make sure the RAF has enough Eurofighter typhoons and F35s and Tempest aircraft and effective multi layered GBAD.
I agree with the current chief of the general staff the British army needs to be back upto +125,000 personnel (including reserves) within the next 2-3 years. But to equip that force surely we need the C3 order to be back upto 200 available C2 tanks. More and better equipped Boxer and Ares series vehicles and more Archer and MLRS sets. Land Ceptor needs to be procured for the army and RAF regiment in large numbers and the UK needs a sub branch of the military assigned to guard UK territory and key facilities equipped with GBAD including sea ceptor, land based Bofors 40mm guns and phalanx systems as well as Aster 30NTs for a limited ballistic missile defence capability.
All is possible and should be being done right now. Instead this government are choosing to ignore the warnings, and that of our allies, and blindly lead us forward as Ethel the Unready.
It’s not a case of resorting to Trench Warfare, it’s a recognition that trenches are a key of defencive positions. And if you are NATO, the obvious observation of RUSSIAN doctrine is a rapid manoeuvre followed by a consolidation (ie digging in).
So if you want to regain the initiative and move to offensive operations, you have no option but to operate in trench systems until you have a brake-out. To break out, you have to break-in.
So a key infantry skill is and has always been, trench clearing.
CGS is talking about that 120k army including a volunteer citizen army (he did not mention conscripts – an idiotic No.10 spokesman thought he had said that and slapped him down). It’s bizarre that Shapps says the world is very dangerous and that we are in a pre-war situation – and then there is no political support for CGS whose military advice is that we need to have a larger army within 3 years and suggests a low cost way of achieving it.
I certainly agree that we need more than two regiments of CR2 in our armoured division (3 Div). Boxer must have potent, stabilised cannons to take on enemy IFVs and other light/medium armour, not puny MGs. We need far more artillery and sufficient CSS for all units and formations.
I agree that the UK needs some GBAD to defend static Key Points – it has none at all at the moment.
Spot on re last paragraph.
And yes, the hypocrisy is getting tiresome with HMG talking tough while doing the opposite regards conventional forces.
And the £20billion needed to do this comes from where?
Its there if you look for it and need it. A war against Russia in 10 years time would be an existential business if they continue with their 1930’s doctrines. Best to push them back now.
As you know the Germans recovered from WW1 in 21 years building their army from 100K in 1933 to over 2M in 1939.
I recall digging 2-man fire trenches with 18″ of overhead cover many, many times at Sandhurst in the defence exercise ‘Longstop Hill’ in 1975, and for many years thereafter. Fighting when in defence, from trenches, has never gone away.
What is news, hence the article, is the British Army in future fighting from complex interlinked networks of long trenches.
Bugger that for a game of Soldiers….
Hi folks hope all is well.
Gosh, what an article I thought I was reading a piece from an old vintage magazine.
I can see the concept of the trench, and obviously dig in where to hold ground.
But the idea of the French being involved made me chuckle for a while. I’m surprised they did not offer to advise on construction of a new Maginot Line (that worked well didn’t it)!
Here we are again talking about an ancient form of defence in this age of A.I and auto-mechanised equipment entering the military service.
Cheers
George
It sent a shiver down my spine when I thought of all the WW1 trench imagery and that it might return to Europe. Like there isn’t enough horror in modern urban warfare.
Couldn’t we challenge the Russians to a joust of champions and have done?
Yes, the problem with the Maginot line is that the French forgot that the enemy can just go around the end of it.
Probably because Belgium refused to let them build the rest of it
One thing that should be noted: When NATO generals and suchlike are talking about trench warfare they aren’t exactly talking about an unbroken line of fortifications from the North Sea to the Alps. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have the resources to man a continuous trench line that long, so they don’t. They fortify key positions on high ground, logistics nodes, terrain features, and towns- and areas immediately surrounding. These locations are wrapped with minefields, AT ditches and obstacles, trenches and bunkers. These are the trenches that the Ukrainians are fighting over.
It will be worth the British Army doing the same, as we’ll need to get into the habit of rapidly constructing, defending, and attacking trench and bunker systems; these kinds of defences are required to protect positions from both UAV surveillance and strike, as well as artillery, so they’re going to exist in any peer conflict (Russian manuals on defence have prescribed this kind of setup since they had the hammer and sickle on the front cover).
I’ve seen Ukrainian companies come up with essentially modular prefabricated bunker sections, that can be dropped into an excavated hole, covered and used in relatively short order; it’s things like this that British engineering companies could excel and designing and providing as stock for the British Army (and ramp up production in the event of conflict). And they don’t need to rot in storage either- they could be used outside of conflict forward deployed and on exercise without being buried- much better than tents!
Superior Airpower will negate such measures….. Ukraine has performed remarkably with such few aircraft or technically advanced weapons….. Russia will wither in the face of a war with the West.
Yes, they’ve done very well- true enough.
But I think we’ll still need to brush up on trench warfare to an extent. we should probably bear in mind that Russian AAD is not bad- just not as good as they claim it to be. We need to be able to hold a line in an initial assault, where air power may not have complete superiority and may even have to avoid certain areas. Same in the assault- we may not be in a position where we can wait for air supremacy before we push back…
Better get some defence firms to come up with tech digging vehicles. The army used to have something to dig trenches out quickly. A vehicle with some rotating drums that are lowered in to the ground or something like that.
I imagine today they can make tunnel digging machines and all sorts of equipment to make quick safe trenches.
Monkey wrote
“”The army used to have something to dig trenches out quickly. “”
Thornycroft 4×4 LMD (Light Mobile Digger)
Something called a Nubian I found looking around the internet.
The Soviet’s had a BTM-3 I think it was called
JCB do digging stuff.
Was the LMD ever replaced? If not, why not?
I know that some did not like that there were few of them – I never saw one in action on exercise in my 34 years – and that they threw the spoil over a wide area which was time consuming to ‘clear up’ and cam over.
Like so much useful equipment probably sold off.
The RAF have a cunning plan, we disperse to 5 star hotels and leave the dirty nasty stuff to the Rock Apes
Obviously some expertise in trench warfare would be good to have, but if the situation was ever devolved to that it’s game over. Long slogging matches will exhaust any country/countries and bankrupt most, not to say sap the will.of modern people to fight. Ukraine is not quite the same as it is being supplied by other countries not actually at war….
Lessons learnt in the various “,desert” wars show that air power is the thing. We have it, the Russians apparently don’t…Ukraine doesn’t have it and although the Russians SHOULD have it. They also don’t there either?
Sorry but would sooner see a twice size RAF over a twice size army…however more serious ground hardware would not go amiss. AA
Timely article given the scenes from Ukraine. My recollection is that in WW1, the rule of thumb for a quiet sector on the c.475 mile long Western Front was one (usually under strength) infantry battalion of 400-600 men per mile of front. How many battalions does the British Army/TA currently have in total, 40?