Mixing
WW1 tunneling - bypassing the front line?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
During the first world war both sides engaged in tunnel warfare, the primary purpose of which (as far as I can tell) was to place large amounts of explosives under enemy lines and then detonate them immediately prior to ground attack.
Was there ever any attempt to use a tunnel to bypass the front line to get soldiers directly behind enemy lines?
My understanding is that in a conventional attack, by the time any of the attacking soldiers reached the enemy front line, they were likely to be wounded, shell shocked, possibly alone, separated from his unit, low on ammunition and likely to be seriously demoralised! and that was before they'd actually got to engage the enemy themselves!
With so much tunneling going on (Wikipedia quotes 2km of tunnel for every 1km of front line) couldn't a tunnel be dug that could surface at or behind the enemy front line and allow groups of fresh, uninjured, well rested soldiers still in battle formation to quickly deploy having bypassed the majority of the barbed wire, trenches and machine guns?
world-war-one tactics
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
During the first world war both sides engaged in tunnel warfare, the primary purpose of which (as far as I can tell) was to place large amounts of explosives under enemy lines and then detonate them immediately prior to ground attack.
Was there ever any attempt to use a tunnel to bypass the front line to get soldiers directly behind enemy lines?
My understanding is that in a conventional attack, by the time any of the attacking soldiers reached the enemy front line, they were likely to be wounded, shell shocked, possibly alone, separated from his unit, low on ammunition and likely to be seriously demoralised! and that was before they'd actually got to engage the enemy themselves!
With so much tunneling going on (Wikipedia quotes 2km of tunnel for every 1km of front line) couldn't a tunnel be dug that could surface at or behind the enemy front line and allow groups of fresh, uninjured, well rested soldiers still in battle formation to quickly deploy having bypassed the majority of the barbed wire, trenches and machine guns?
world-war-one tactics
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
5
One problem would be getting enough soldiers through the tunnel quickly enough to launch a worthwhile attack. If they were spotted before a sufficient number of troops got through, it would have been a massacre.
– Lars Bosteen
1 hour ago
1
@Lars Bosteen - You are right, but a conventional head-on attack would involve a massacre anyway - could easily loose 50% of the first wave.
– Hemel
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
During the first world war both sides engaged in tunnel warfare, the primary purpose of which (as far as I can tell) was to place large amounts of explosives under enemy lines and then detonate them immediately prior to ground attack.
Was there ever any attempt to use a tunnel to bypass the front line to get soldiers directly behind enemy lines?
My understanding is that in a conventional attack, by the time any of the attacking soldiers reached the enemy front line, they were likely to be wounded, shell shocked, possibly alone, separated from his unit, low on ammunition and likely to be seriously demoralised! and that was before they'd actually got to engage the enemy themselves!
With so much tunneling going on (Wikipedia quotes 2km of tunnel for every 1km of front line) couldn't a tunnel be dug that could surface at or behind the enemy front line and allow groups of fresh, uninjured, well rested soldiers still in battle formation to quickly deploy having bypassed the majority of the barbed wire, trenches and machine guns?
world-war-one tactics
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
During the first world war both sides engaged in tunnel warfare, the primary purpose of which (as far as I can tell) was to place large amounts of explosives under enemy lines and then detonate them immediately prior to ground attack.
Was there ever any attempt to use a tunnel to bypass the front line to get soldiers directly behind enemy lines?
My understanding is that in a conventional attack, by the time any of the attacking soldiers reached the enemy front line, they were likely to be wounded, shell shocked, possibly alone, separated from his unit, low on ammunition and likely to be seriously demoralised! and that was before they'd actually got to engage the enemy themselves!
With so much tunneling going on (Wikipedia quotes 2km of tunnel for every 1km of front line) couldn't a tunnel be dug that could surface at or behind the enemy front line and allow groups of fresh, uninjured, well rested soldiers still in battle formation to quickly deploy having bypassed the majority of the barbed wire, trenches and machine guns?
world-war-one tactics
world-war-one tactics
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
asked 2 hours ago
Hemel
1201
1201
5
One problem would be getting enough soldiers through the tunnel quickly enough to launch a worthwhile attack. If they were spotted before a sufficient number of troops got through, it would have been a massacre.
– Lars Bosteen
1 hour ago
1
@Lars Bosteen - You are right, but a conventional head-on attack would involve a massacre anyway - could easily loose 50% of the first wave.
– Hemel
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
5
One problem would be getting enough soldiers through the tunnel quickly enough to launch a worthwhile attack. If they were spotted before a sufficient number of troops got through, it would have been a massacre.
– Lars Bosteen
1 hour ago
1
@Lars Bosteen - You are right, but a conventional head-on attack would involve a massacre anyway - could easily loose 50% of the first wave.
– Hemel
1 hour ago
5
5
One problem would be getting enough soldiers through the tunnel quickly enough to launch a worthwhile attack. If they were spotted before a sufficient number of troops got through, it would have been a massacre.
– Lars Bosteen
1 hour ago
One problem would be getting enough soldiers through the tunnel quickly enough to launch a worthwhile attack. If they were spotted before a sufficient number of troops got through, it would have been a massacre.
– Lars Bosteen
1 hour ago
1
1
@Lars Bosteen - You are right, but a conventional head-on attack would involve a massacre anyway - could easily loose 50% of the first wave.
– Hemel
1 hour ago
@Lars Bosteen - You are right, but a conventional head-on attack would involve a massacre anyway - could easily loose 50% of the first wave.
– Hemel
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
While I like your thinking there are a few issues with such a plan:
Emerging behind enemy lines means there may well have been other enemy troops (just as fresh) in the general area.
With WWI technology it would be extremely difficult to reliably pick (and hit) a suitable exit point. Tunneling to the lines was comparitively much easier in terms of judging the distances etc. Also if you were slightly off the explosions still stand a decent chance of doing at least some damage to the enemy forces, and the distraction element (thus allowing your forces to close the distance overland) would still be largely intact.
Digging a tunnel large enough for moving substantial numbers of men in a reasonable timeframe would be difficult - especially with WWI technology and battlefield conditions.
If you did manage to dig a wide enough tunnel to move enough men to make it worthwhile the tunnel exit point would need to be wide as well - otherwise they are just coming out single file and one enemy soldier with a decent firing-rate rifle/gun and suitable piles of ammo could hold such an exit for as long as they want to really.
In order to dig a tunnel exit sufficiently far back that it wouldn't be noticed (and either wide enough to allow troops out more than one at a time or in a quiet enough location to give you room to form up before attacking from behind) the accuracy in digging and positioning simply wasn't there in that era - not into territory controlled by the enemy certainly.
Also if you built a wide enough tunnel (as above) you'd have the problem of keeping it stable - wide tunnels need matching amounts of structural re-enforcement to keep them from caving in under their own weight (technology would have been one of the limiting factors again as would time). And that's even before you take into account that the ground above will likely be receiving hits from mortar shells, tanks and other vehicles rolling across them and so on. Losing a substantial number of troops to cave ins would have been very probable, especially when you consider that digging such a large tunnel would have been difficult to keep covert, so if the enemy knew one was being dug it would be trivial to collapse it.
Conventional "over the top" charges weren't a good solution either (as you correctly point out) but considering the above it's difficult to see tunneling being any better - and quite possibly worse. Much of the "advantage" of such a plan relies on the enemy not knowing you were coming - you may be able to pull it off once or twice but after that it would be easy enough to prepare for it and there goes the element of surprise.
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
All valid points. The technique I had been thinking of was to build a single-soldier-wide tunnel from your side to the enemy front line, fanning out into a set of staging tunnels with one exit for each group of soldiers. The soldiers could be moved through to the staging tunnels before a final break out would be made using a pneumatic ram - something like was used to raise the Livens flame projector.
– Hemel
47 mins ago
3
"Wide enough": you need not only soldiers, but equipment, supplies, artillery. Then large tunnels were routinely detected… For a small incursion: maybe good? For an offensive, not viable at all. Could you add some references for WWI tunnel warfare?
– LangLangC
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
While I like your thinking there are a few issues with such a plan:
Emerging behind enemy lines means there may well have been other enemy troops (just as fresh) in the general area.
With WWI technology it would be extremely difficult to reliably pick (and hit) a suitable exit point. Tunneling to the lines was comparitively much easier in terms of judging the distances etc. Also if you were slightly off the explosions still stand a decent chance of doing at least some damage to the enemy forces, and the distraction element (thus allowing your forces to close the distance overland) would still be largely intact.
Digging a tunnel large enough for moving substantial numbers of men in a reasonable timeframe would be difficult - especially with WWI technology and battlefield conditions.
If you did manage to dig a wide enough tunnel to move enough men to make it worthwhile the tunnel exit point would need to be wide as well - otherwise they are just coming out single file and one enemy soldier with a decent firing-rate rifle/gun and suitable piles of ammo could hold such an exit for as long as they want to really.
In order to dig a tunnel exit sufficiently far back that it wouldn't be noticed (and either wide enough to allow troops out more than one at a time or in a quiet enough location to give you room to form up before attacking from behind) the accuracy in digging and positioning simply wasn't there in that era - not into territory controlled by the enemy certainly.
Also if you built a wide enough tunnel (as above) you'd have the problem of keeping it stable - wide tunnels need matching amounts of structural re-enforcement to keep them from caving in under their own weight (technology would have been one of the limiting factors again as would time). And that's even before you take into account that the ground above will likely be receiving hits from mortar shells, tanks and other vehicles rolling across them and so on. Losing a substantial number of troops to cave ins would have been very probable, especially when you consider that digging such a large tunnel would have been difficult to keep covert, so if the enemy knew one was being dug it would be trivial to collapse it.
Conventional "over the top" charges weren't a good solution either (as you correctly point out) but considering the above it's difficult to see tunneling being any better - and quite possibly worse. Much of the "advantage" of such a plan relies on the enemy not knowing you were coming - you may be able to pull it off once or twice but after that it would be easy enough to prepare for it and there goes the element of surprise.
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
All valid points. The technique I had been thinking of was to build a single-soldier-wide tunnel from your side to the enemy front line, fanning out into a set of staging tunnels with one exit for each group of soldiers. The soldiers could be moved through to the staging tunnels before a final break out would be made using a pneumatic ram - something like was used to raise the Livens flame projector.
– Hemel
47 mins ago
3
"Wide enough": you need not only soldiers, but equipment, supplies, artillery. Then large tunnels were routinely detected… For a small incursion: maybe good? For an offensive, not viable at all. Could you add some references for WWI tunnel warfare?
– LangLangC
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
While I like your thinking there are a few issues with such a plan:
Emerging behind enemy lines means there may well have been other enemy troops (just as fresh) in the general area.
With WWI technology it would be extremely difficult to reliably pick (and hit) a suitable exit point. Tunneling to the lines was comparitively much easier in terms of judging the distances etc. Also if you were slightly off the explosions still stand a decent chance of doing at least some damage to the enemy forces, and the distraction element (thus allowing your forces to close the distance overland) would still be largely intact.
Digging a tunnel large enough for moving substantial numbers of men in a reasonable timeframe would be difficult - especially with WWI technology and battlefield conditions.
If you did manage to dig a wide enough tunnel to move enough men to make it worthwhile the tunnel exit point would need to be wide as well - otherwise they are just coming out single file and one enemy soldier with a decent firing-rate rifle/gun and suitable piles of ammo could hold such an exit for as long as they want to really.
In order to dig a tunnel exit sufficiently far back that it wouldn't be noticed (and either wide enough to allow troops out more than one at a time or in a quiet enough location to give you room to form up before attacking from behind) the accuracy in digging and positioning simply wasn't there in that era - not into territory controlled by the enemy certainly.
Also if you built a wide enough tunnel (as above) you'd have the problem of keeping it stable - wide tunnels need matching amounts of structural re-enforcement to keep them from caving in under their own weight (technology would have been one of the limiting factors again as would time). And that's even before you take into account that the ground above will likely be receiving hits from mortar shells, tanks and other vehicles rolling across them and so on. Losing a substantial number of troops to cave ins would have been very probable, especially when you consider that digging such a large tunnel would have been difficult to keep covert, so if the enemy knew one was being dug it would be trivial to collapse it.
Conventional "over the top" charges weren't a good solution either (as you correctly point out) but considering the above it's difficult to see tunneling being any better - and quite possibly worse. Much of the "advantage" of such a plan relies on the enemy not knowing you were coming - you may be able to pull it off once or twice but after that it would be easy enough to prepare for it and there goes the element of surprise.
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
All valid points. The technique I had been thinking of was to build a single-soldier-wide tunnel from your side to the enemy front line, fanning out into a set of staging tunnels with one exit for each group of soldiers. The soldiers could be moved through to the staging tunnels before a final break out would be made using a pneumatic ram - something like was used to raise the Livens flame projector.
– Hemel
47 mins ago
3
"Wide enough": you need not only soldiers, but equipment, supplies, artillery. Then large tunnels were routinely detected… For a small incursion: maybe good? For an offensive, not viable at all. Could you add some references for WWI tunnel warfare?
– LangLangC
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
While I like your thinking there are a few issues with such a plan:
Emerging behind enemy lines means there may well have been other enemy troops (just as fresh) in the general area.
With WWI technology it would be extremely difficult to reliably pick (and hit) a suitable exit point. Tunneling to the lines was comparitively much easier in terms of judging the distances etc. Also if you were slightly off the explosions still stand a decent chance of doing at least some damage to the enemy forces, and the distraction element (thus allowing your forces to close the distance overland) would still be largely intact.
Digging a tunnel large enough for moving substantial numbers of men in a reasonable timeframe would be difficult - especially with WWI technology and battlefield conditions.
If you did manage to dig a wide enough tunnel to move enough men to make it worthwhile the tunnel exit point would need to be wide as well - otherwise they are just coming out single file and one enemy soldier with a decent firing-rate rifle/gun and suitable piles of ammo could hold such an exit for as long as they want to really.
In order to dig a tunnel exit sufficiently far back that it wouldn't be noticed (and either wide enough to allow troops out more than one at a time or in a quiet enough location to give you room to form up before attacking from behind) the accuracy in digging and positioning simply wasn't there in that era - not into territory controlled by the enemy certainly.
Also if you built a wide enough tunnel (as above) you'd have the problem of keeping it stable - wide tunnels need matching amounts of structural re-enforcement to keep them from caving in under their own weight (technology would have been one of the limiting factors again as would time). And that's even before you take into account that the ground above will likely be receiving hits from mortar shells, tanks and other vehicles rolling across them and so on. Losing a substantial number of troops to cave ins would have been very probable, especially when you consider that digging such a large tunnel would have been difficult to keep covert, so if the enemy knew one was being dug it would be trivial to collapse it.
Conventional "over the top" charges weren't a good solution either (as you correctly point out) but considering the above it's difficult to see tunneling being any better - and quite possibly worse. Much of the "advantage" of such a plan relies on the enemy not knowing you were coming - you may be able to pull it off once or twice but after that it would be easy enough to prepare for it and there goes the element of surprise.
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
While I like your thinking there are a few issues with such a plan:
Emerging behind enemy lines means there may well have been other enemy troops (just as fresh) in the general area.
With WWI technology it would be extremely difficult to reliably pick (and hit) a suitable exit point. Tunneling to the lines was comparitively much easier in terms of judging the distances etc. Also if you were slightly off the explosions still stand a decent chance of doing at least some damage to the enemy forces, and the distraction element (thus allowing your forces to close the distance overland) would still be largely intact.
Digging a tunnel large enough for moving substantial numbers of men in a reasonable timeframe would be difficult - especially with WWI technology and battlefield conditions.
If you did manage to dig a wide enough tunnel to move enough men to make it worthwhile the tunnel exit point would need to be wide as well - otherwise they are just coming out single file and one enemy soldier with a decent firing-rate rifle/gun and suitable piles of ammo could hold such an exit for as long as they want to really.
In order to dig a tunnel exit sufficiently far back that it wouldn't be noticed (and either wide enough to allow troops out more than one at a time or in a quiet enough location to give you room to form up before attacking from behind) the accuracy in digging and positioning simply wasn't there in that era - not into territory controlled by the enemy certainly.
Also if you built a wide enough tunnel (as above) you'd have the problem of keeping it stable - wide tunnels need matching amounts of structural re-enforcement to keep them from caving in under their own weight (technology would have been one of the limiting factors again as would time). And that's even before you take into account that the ground above will likely be receiving hits from mortar shells, tanks and other vehicles rolling across them and so on. Losing a substantial number of troops to cave ins would have been very probable, especially when you consider that digging such a large tunnel would have been difficult to keep covert, so if the enemy knew one was being dug it would be trivial to collapse it.
Conventional "over the top" charges weren't a good solution either (as you correctly point out) but considering the above it's difficult to see tunneling being any better - and quite possibly worse. Much of the "advantage" of such a plan relies on the enemy not knowing you were coming - you may be able to pull it off once or twice but after that it would be easy enough to prepare for it and there goes the element of surprise.
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
answered 1 hour ago
motosubatsu
1913
1913
All valid points. The technique I had been thinking of was to build a single-soldier-wide tunnel from your side to the enemy front line, fanning out into a set of staging tunnels with one exit for each group of soldiers. The soldiers could be moved through to the staging tunnels before a final break out would be made using a pneumatic ram - something like was used to raise the Livens flame projector.
– Hemel
47 mins ago
3
"Wide enough": you need not only soldiers, but equipment, supplies, artillery. Then large tunnels were routinely detected… For a small incursion: maybe good? For an offensive, not viable at all. Could you add some references for WWI tunnel warfare?
– LangLangC
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
All valid points. The technique I had been thinking of was to build a single-soldier-wide tunnel from your side to the enemy front line, fanning out into a set of staging tunnels with one exit for each group of soldiers. The soldiers could be moved through to the staging tunnels before a final break out would be made using a pneumatic ram - something like was used to raise the Livens flame projector.
– Hemel
47 mins ago
3
"Wide enough": you need not only soldiers, but equipment, supplies, artillery. Then large tunnels were routinely detected… For a small incursion: maybe good? For an offensive, not viable at all. Could you add some references for WWI tunnel warfare?
– LangLangC
34 mins ago
All valid points. The technique I had been thinking of was to build a single-soldier-wide tunnel from your side to the enemy front line, fanning out into a set of staging tunnels with one exit for each group of soldiers. The soldiers could be moved through to the staging tunnels before a final break out would be made using a pneumatic ram - something like was used to raise the Livens flame projector.
– Hemel
47 mins ago
All valid points. The technique I had been thinking of was to build a single-soldier-wide tunnel from your side to the enemy front line, fanning out into a set of staging tunnels with one exit for each group of soldiers. The soldiers could be moved through to the staging tunnels before a final break out would be made using a pneumatic ram - something like was used to raise the Livens flame projector.
– Hemel
47 mins ago
3
3
"Wide enough": you need not only soldiers, but equipment, supplies, artillery. Then large tunnels were routinely detected… For a small incursion: maybe good? For an offensive, not viable at all. Could you add some references for WWI tunnel warfare?
– LangLangC
34 mins ago
"Wide enough": you need not only soldiers, but equipment, supplies, artillery. Then large tunnels were routinely detected… For a small incursion: maybe good? For an offensive, not viable at all. Could you add some references for WWI tunnel warfare?
– LangLangC
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48771%2fww1-tunneling-bypassing-the-front-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
5
One problem would be getting enough soldiers through the tunnel quickly enough to launch a worthwhile attack. If they were spotted before a sufficient number of troops got through, it would have been a massacre.
– Lars Bosteen
1 hour ago
1
@Lars Bosteen - You are right, but a conventional head-on attack would involve a massacre anyway - could easily loose 50% of the first wave.
– Hemel
1 hour ago