Why is the Kaiserslacht when people consider “open warfare” to return to the western front? I understand open warfare compared to trench warfare.
Is saying open warfare returned kind of an exaggeration? Was the fighting actually that much different in the battles of 1918 compared to previous years? Or is this just something documentaries say to simplify the situation?
Additionally, why were the 1917 offensives by the allies not capable of starting “open warfare” and didn’t break through the German lines as effectively as the kaiserslacht broke through allied lines?
Was it simply just that Germany was reckless and through so many man into the offensive leaving them weak once they had ultimately failed? Or did they introduce substantially new tactics? Storm troops had been used previously in the war by both sides, was Germany’s use of them in the 1918 offensives really that much more skilled than previously?
There may be some debate on whether the 1918 offensive was measurably more effective than prior offensives. While the offensive did score some notable successes early, it outran its supply lines and ended up being a wasted effort for the same reason so many WW I offensives were wasted efforts. Even when initially successful, there was an inability to exploit breakthroughs before the enemy could shore up their lines.
The casualty counts for the Germans v. the French/Brits were roughly the same by the end of it (roughly 250,000 each), and while the Germans gained some territory (more than in prior offensives), it did not in any way change the strategic situation to their benefit. They finished the offensive in a much worse position than prior to it, as the Allies could much more easily replace their casualties than the Germans.
That being said, there were some thing the Germans did during this offensive that worked very well. The wide use of "Stormtroopers" is the most notable example. Some will argue about who really pioneered this concept, but I think the historical consensus is that it was during this offensive that the Germans really brought the tactic into its own. In the 1918 offensive stormtroopers were the best troops remaining in the army. They were heavily armed and they generally were to go around strongpoints, not to attack them. This combined with brief but very intense rolling barrages of artillery (to maintain surprise) led to some very promising initial success. Other than that, I would argue it really wasn't all that different from prior offensives. I'd rate the combined arms offensive at Cambrai as more of a step forward in military tactics and technology than the Kaiser's Offensive.
Two other things that the Germans had going for them: The offensive focused on a hinge between the British and French armies, such points being traditional weak points with multinational forces, and that was an issue here as well. There was also a sense of desperation on the German side. On some level they knew that this was their last throw, a make or break moment, that arguably instilled a go for broke mentality.
Someone else maybe can talk about the problems the Allies has with 1917 offensives. I will just say that by 1917 the Germans were masters of defensive trench warfare, and for the most part they were defending ground that they had held and built up for years. While the Allied trenchworks were impressive, they hardly compare to the level of engineering and resources the Germans poured into their multiple lines of defense. The Germans also largely picked what ground they would defend to make use of natural terrain, there was a reason why they were fighting where they were. Much of the entire German strategy in the West in 1917 was to play defense.
The Kaiser's Battle, by Middlebrook, is a book I would recommend.