This will be brief as I am on my phone but I just feel obligated to give at least a generalized responses to this question as you are making some wilf assumptions and accusations.

Firstly I must address your claim that these tactics were stupid. This is something many, including myself at times, do. The thing I remind myself and what you should as well is that these were not stupid people. They had very good reasons for doing what they did. if you find yourself wondering "why did they do THAT? Are they stupid" the answer is likely no youre just missing some critical information.

Now to the point at hand, the tactics. The tactics were not "bayonet charge into a hail of bullets". Not only were flat out bayonet attacks rare this statement again very accusational. Men would not march shoulder to shoulder in trench assaults. They never, ever, ever did so. They did march however. Why? Because you cant sprint across up to 500-800 meters uphill. So you need to march until you are close to the trench. Were they relatively close? Yes because it was a largely conscripted army on both sides. Inexperienced conscripts can not be trusted to not wander off across such a great distance. When the actual trench assault began however they would spread out and take cover and duck and dive and so forth.

Further battles were not just bayonet charges. All types of weaponry were developed for trenches. There were designated grenadiers, men with flamethrowers, shotguns and more compact weaponry for close quarter trench fighting. On top of all of this both sides were keen on digging massive underground tunnel systems and to literally blow the ground out from under the enemy trench.

The generals had the belief that mass artillery bombardments would neutralize the enemy. It worked against the forts in 1914 so why not trenches? And they were right in some respects! Nearly three quarters of all war deaths would be from artillery. Its just artillery did not much to barbed wire and didnt render a trench completely useless which was the issue.

Taking trenches was actually pretty easy. It was holding them that was the issue and lead to the stalemate. Youd almost always get the first one or two lines but the enemy had such a deep reservoir of reserves they would just take it back. Thus your accusation that these tactics were totally ineffective is based on misinformation. These 'ineffective tactics' nearly won the war for the Germans at Verdun. They gave the British a smashing success at the Somme which gained the most land in the war bar the 1918 offensives. These generals knew precisely what they were doing; they were fighting a war of attrition and these tactics were working.

Lastly and briefly most combat a soldier would see was not a mass trench assault. That was one or three days out of the whole year. The rest of combat was offensive patrols to disrupt worker parties, protecting worker parties laying barbed wire from enemy patrols, reconaissaince, and trench raids where a small group of men would raid a trench in the dead of night for prisoners. Even that was a rarity though. Most of a soldiers time on the front was repairing trenchworks like sandbags and being bombarded by artillery and snipers. Not going on 'glorious' assaults on the enemy. A soldiers life was defined by boredome and repetition, not attacking.

Anyway I hope that cleared some things up.

---

The First Day on the Somme, Martin Middlebrook

Life in the British Trenches in the First World War, Andy Simpson.

Pyrhhic Victory: French Strategy and Operations in the First World War, Robert Doughty.