How is it that both sides of WWI decided to use the same gruesome and ineffective battle strategy at the same time? What was the supposed appeal and strategy of it, and did one side start digging trenches and the other side thought "Well, we might as well dig some, too"?
^ these answers I've given should be pertinent
How is it that both sides of WWI decided to use the same gruesome and ineffective battle strategy at the same time? What was the supposed appeal and strategy of it, and did one side start digging trenches and the other side thought "Well, we might as well dig some, too"?
First of all, it was not "strategy." The construction of field fortifications to protect troops and defend territory dates back to the 17th century and earlier, and had been a common tactical (ie battlefield) response to the increased firepower of modern armies in the Russo-Turkish, Second Anglo-Boer, Russo-Japanese and Balkan Wars. Secondly 'both sides' only applies to the Western Front. On the Eastern Front, trenches were dug but as temporary positions; fighting here was quite mobile due to low force concentrations.
In the West, trenches developed gradually, starting in the south with the end of the Battle of the Frontiers in August 1914, and working up to the Yser River in November. Again, this was a sensible response to modern firepower, and in fact produced fighting that was comparatively less 'gruesome' than the mobile fighting in the East. The Issue was that force concentrations in the West were so great (2.5-3 rifles per yard, 15 000 men per 1000 yards) that German tactical reserves, fighting in excellent German positions since they were the defender, could snuff out almost any tactical success or "break in" by the British and French, and prevent them from achieving a breakthrough. It was only from 1916 onwards, with increased firepower and with greater available forces that this would change.
Others have linked exceptional sources and I'd wholeheartedly recommend reading them, I just am hoping to add a bit more context as I know it can be one thing to read a document and another for it to sink in.
The main thing to keep in mind is the ongoing battle of technologies throughout military history, in this case that of maneuverability versus firepower. The Great War, especially in the case of the Western Front (due to the terrain and the number of troops involved), represents a unique time in history where the firepower capabilities of militaries so outpaced their ability to maneuver that the defensive was now an easier undertaking than the offensive. Though all armies in the war had cavalry units, the main force of all nations was infantry, owing in part to horses being much more vulnerable targets than humans, who have the ability to quickly lay down and hide.
So in effect, your armies on the defensive have the ability to, in the cases of artillery, reach out and strike with accuracy from miles away, at incredible rates of fire, coming from incredible numbers of big guns, with incredible stocks of ammunition reserves being produced at home. And meanwhile, the armies on the attack have the offensive speed of...a walking, occasionally running, human being. And the closer they get, the obstacles just get tougher; rifles at hundreds of yards, machine guns at closer range to inflict greater losses, and then when you're nearly on top of the enemy, hand grenades to dodge and barbed wire to get through. The sheer amount of lead and metal in the air is nearly incomprehensible, and it proved how deadly it was in the first month of the war, August 1914, where one million of the eventual eleven million corpses of the war were produced in the 20th century meatgrinder.
So if the air is dangerous, well, you dig into the ground. And it was actually much less bloody that way.