Not sure precisely what to say, it's /r/history and therefore full of default-types who have an opinion on everything from that documentary they saw half of three years ago. /u/tach has a pretty good understanding of what he's talking about but every single person in there trying to say 1914 France or Germany or anyone were using "Napoleonic tactics" either don't know what Napoleonic tactics and operations entailed or don't know what WWI tactics and operations entailed or both.

The comments are filled with people who don't have a clue or lack any context on things. 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme? Haig didn't see the value of tanks in 1925? The French used 75mm guns? Must have been a bunch of idiots amirite? Absolutely no logical reason for any of that happening.

I particularly want to call our /u/merv243 for crimes against history with his bullshit about how both sides apparently used massed tactics because of the supposed belief that "if they just tried hard enough it would work." No, they used mass tactics because they were using largely conscript based armies with absolutely no combat experience and they had to be kept in relatively close order as to make sure they listen to orders and keep moving. It would take years of building an experienced veteran base of NCO's and Officers before either side could experiment with the smaller squad based infiltration tactics we see in 1918.

Particularly this part though only shows me how little he knows:

assaults were much more rare

What does that even mean? I'm pretty sure most of WWI involved one side attacking another at some point.

The first statement is completely right. The majority of the war for the average soldier was not going on some massive offensive. That was one or two, at most three days out of the year for most people with of course great exception of cases like at Verdun where some German companies were on the front trenches for weeks. However, especially for the French who cycled their men laterally (ie: moved them to a loud sector for a few weeks, then a quiet, etc.), men would spend a majority of their time in the war just sitting around. What little offensive operations they would do would be offensive patrols or night time raids on enemy trenches with a small group of men; these raids would be crucial into building the experience those small unit tactics we see later on in the war. Then when a major battle happened you'd be cycled there, used for a few days, and then cycled out as new reserves took your place.

Anyone who has read a lick of WWI writing should know this basic fact and know precisely what /u/macinneb meant in that statement.

However, "Napoleonic" (or a better word would simply be "outdated") theories - both tactical as well as cultural - were a big contribution. Offensive tactics never really caught up with the weaponry. And culturally, mass frontal assaults and certain death in battle were heroic, so it was somewhat acceptable.

Like seriously, what? Thankfully /u/tach steps all over his bullshit in a pretty comprehensive smackdown. He also has the same reaction to mine in regards to that last sentence though as that's all that can really be said; WTF?