Trench Warefare and Blitzekeg in WWI and WWII
Comparing and Constrating Trench Warefare and Blitzekeg in WWI and WWII
I want this paper to mainly talk about how the tactic of Trench warfare and Blizekreg changed the pace of fighting in wars. Use only WWI and WWII resources
as that’s what I want to compare and contrast. I wrote my introduction to help you out to see what I want to talk about in my research paper. I will also put the
requirement down in the file. The first five sources cannot be internet based and he doesn’t want blogs or Wikipedia. Don’t mind the due dates because he
changed it. You can also change the whole introduction from the pdf that I provided but it can give you an idea of what I want. Text me at 5188150398 if you
have any questions
Sample Solution
Trench warfare and blitzkrieg are two distinct military tactics which have been used in numerous conflicts throughout history . Both of these tactics involve the use of coordinated infantry or mechanized forces in order to achieve strategic objectives. However, despite having some similarities in their approach, there are also a number of important differences between them which can be seen when comparing their application during World War I and II.
During WWI, trench warfare was the primary tactic used by both Allied and Central Powers on the Western Front . This form of fighting relied heavily upon static defensive positions such as fox holes or trenches (Lanning et al., 2014). In contrast, Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland during WWII saw the introduction of blitzkrieg style tactics which focused on rapid advancement through enemy lines with little regard for traditional battle formations (Frieser et al., 2015). This enabled them to quickly seize enemy territory while reducing casualties amongst their own forces.
Therefore it is clear that trench warfare and blitzkrieg were two very different forms of combat which had an immense impact upon their respective wars. While one focused on strong defensive strategies, the other favored rapid offense ; leading to drastically different outcomes in terms of casualties suffered and land seized.
