Disease-infested, rat-infested and a shelter for bombs, the trenches proved impractical during the First World War. Thousands of soldiers lost their lives to disease, rats and air raids due to the antiquity of the trench warfare strategy. Of course, World War I is seen as a strange war, juxtaposed with horses and tanks, trench warfare and air warfare, swords and artillery. The question remains: why was trench warfare used as a strategy in World War I? Obviously, the strategy was chosen for a reason and had its own goals and objectives. Has this type of strategy achieved its goal? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Due to the improvement of the mechanisms of warfare, the path to the trenches seemed inevitable. The invention of magazine rifles, the greater range and accuracy of rifled artillery, and upgraded weapons to destroy more and from a greater distance led to the strategy of hiding from the enemy. The invention of smokeless weapons especially added to the need for trenches because the enemy could not be seen, and therefore camouflage and safe cover were needed to defend against invisible weapons. Additionally, since the enemy could not see the smoke coming from the cannons, this added to the benefits of the trenches by further hiding the army from view. In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, trench warfare was seen on a large scale for the first time. The Germans and the rest of Europe observed the advantages of the trenches, but failed to notice the “if and only if” relationship of that particular strategy. The strategy required rapid movement, so little time was spent in the deep trenches. When the Central Powers realized that they did not have the manpower or technological advances to fight the Allies, they began preparing for a long, drawn-out, arduous war. What they failed to do was take into account the fact that too much time spent in the trenches led to the spread of disease, infestation of parasites and demoralization of the troops. Having lost hope of a short war, the fighting on the Western Front turned into trench warfare. Battlefield victories were soon measured in yards. The soldiers spent four years in the trenches, contracting diseases, fighting rats and struggling with their morale. There were three types of trenches that formed the strategy. The three types were: fire (front line), cover (reserve troops supporting the front line), and communication. Overall, the trenches of the Western Front were very similar to those in Petersburg, Russia (Russian-Japanese War) in shape and purpose. Why world powers did not study Petersburg and trench warfare tactics more closely is a matter of debate. It is likely that the powers felt they had nothing to learn from Petersburg, since by 1914 standards it was fought with antiquated weapons. Clearly, although Europe encountered the same type of weapons and tactics in World War I as in the Russo-Japanese conflict, no one saw the effect these would have if used in a large-scale war between European armies at a time prolonged. decade. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Ultimately, trench warfare proved futile to military observers who overestimated its effectiveness and became a symbol of the Great War. Just like war, trench warfare achieved very little, leading to a situation of.