Why was World War 2 more mobile than World War 1?

by CommanderSection

We always hear about the grueling trench warfare that has come to define World War 1 in popular media. Why was World War 2 more fast paced then it's predecessor.

DuxBelisarius

We always hear about the grueling trench warfare that has come to define World War 1 in popular media.

This is because the portrayal of WWI in Anglophone (British & Commonwealth, American) media is influenced by the Western Front experience, the only real front where Trench Warfare was the norm. Fighting on the Eastern Front, in the Balkans and the middle east was quite mobile, while the trenches at Gallipoli, Salonika and in Italy were largely imposed by the terrain and other factors. Moreover, Trench Warfare was really only a reality from 1915-16; 1914 was mobile, the stalemate was breaking down in 1917, and 1918 saw a return to mobile fighting.

Why was World War 2 more fast paced then it's predecessor.

Simply put, the technology was much more advanced. Wireless, man portable radios allowed commanders to control their units at long distances, and facilitate quick decision making, and thus decisive action. Trucks, cars, halftracks, APCs and tanks had all progressed greatly since 1914-18, allowing for combat and campaigning to be more mobile and fluid. More modern aircraft also enabled for the interception/interdiction of enemy reserves, preventing gaps in lines from being plugged, and a stalemate re-asserted.

It's also worth noting that there were periods of stalemate in WWII: the fighting in Tunisia from winter 1942 into 1943; the fighting around Cassino and the Gothic & Winter Lines in Italy; The fighting in Normandy in June-July 1944; the fighting on the Siegfried Line in autumn 1944.

If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer; here are some answers I've given in the past: