Lessons of World War One

Everybody learned the wrong lessons of WW1. In drawing on its experience the Germans tried to create an army that could win the battle of the Marne. The British and French on the other hand were more interested in winning the battle of the Somme. Because of fundamental changes in the underlying mechanics of warfare those battles would not re-occur.

As a bit of background: There are three basic types of warfare. The first is raid and counter-raid. This is the type of warfare that tribes usually use. The idea is essentially to wear your opponent down by killing him or destroying his means to make war. This is attrition warfare.
The next type of warfare is line warfare. You form a battle line of irresistible power and grind your enemies to dust and go right through them. You might get fancy with your skirmish line or how you present your line for advantages but the basic idea is just to power your way through your enemies. Once you crush your opponents’ army you can dictate terms. This originated amongst city-states.
The third sort is maneuver warfare. Here the idea is to attack your opponent where he is least prepared to receive the attack (such as the rear of the line or other targets.) Essential to this type of warfare is either taking advantage of the fog of war or being much faster than your opponent.
Fourth there is a special case which is siege or blockade. I call this a special case and not a type because it will be carried out by a line, or by raid or by seizing objectives before your opponent can react.

In World War 1 some say machine guns created the stalemate. Not true, artillery supplied by rails was always the dominant factor on the western front. More soldiers were killed by artillery than ever were by machine guns.

In practices lines could be broken; the Germans perfected the technique of rolling artillery barrages first gas and then explosives to break through lines. The Allies also broke lines on occasion.
In practice breaking a line didn’t change the stalemate because a new one would re/form just behind it. Logistical reasons made continuing the assault increasingly disadvantageous because artillery needs tons of ammunition to break lines. As you penetrate your line is in disorder, running out of ammunition as you get further away from the railhead. Your opponent rushes in reinforcements on his rails. Result: new line forms, repeat, until you can’t break their line anymore. Essentially, attempting to create maneuver warfare in this fashion is a failure because the enemy knows exactly where you are sending your maneuver troops (through the breakthrough) and they are able to send more men and material there faster than you are.
In fact, for this reason the Schlieffen plan was not maneuver warfare, it was line warfare. The allies knew about it and were prepared. The only maneuver that took place in that campaign came from the allies at the Marne winning them that battle. Since the Germans almost won through pure might, they would have been better off just going straight for Paris like von Moltke.