The Ludendorff Offensive used new strategies and tactics based on rapid advancement and surprise to help break the stalemate. It was only effective up to the Fifth.
The stalemate was already firmly established before poison gas was ever used. The leaders turned to using gas in an effort to break the stalemate. They hoped to wipe out all defenders of a section of the enemy lines, allowing them to break through over the gassed area and possibly begin to roll up the enemy lines to either side of the gassed area, and ultimately to break out of the trenches and resume a war of movement.
During World War I, the war's Western Front turned into a stalemate after initial advances by the German forces for primarily one reason. That reason is this: defensive technologies and tactics in the early 20th century were more advanced than offensive technologies; thus, offensive breakthroughs were either not possible or, where achieved, could not be sustained at length. Significant victories could only be achieved where some external element (e.g., egregious leadership mistake, troop demoralization, lack of supply) occurred, but these did not occur on the Western Front until 1918.
The Schlieffen Plan itself did not lead to stalemate; indeed, if the French were unprepared, the plan might have worked. The stalemate was caused by: very efficent railways quickly getting troops to the front; advanced (for their time) machine-guns causing soldiers to dig in to escape enemy fire; armies on both sides with comparable resources and numbers; and old-style battle tactics (e.g. charge the enemy lines--what, didn't that work?--well, charge again...) which were not flexible enough to cope with the new style of war. This is just a brief overview. Others may have more to offer.
During WWI, there were long periods where neither side gained any ground. While this was happening, the soldiers spent their time in the trenches with not much to do.
The Confederacy needed British official recognition as a nation to help break the Union blockade.
No.
They did help break the stalemate.
The stalemate was already firmly established before poison gas was ever used. The leaders turned to using gas in an effort to break the stalemate. They hoped to wipe out all defenders of a section of the enemy lines, allowing them to break through over the gassed area and possibly begin to roll up the enemy lines to either side of the gassed area, and ultimately to break out of the trenches and resume a war of movement.
in my opinion, what really broke the stalemate was when the US joined. fresh new troops for the Allies gave them an advantage over the tired Central Powers.
During World War I, the war's Western Front turned into a stalemate after initial advances by the German forces for primarily one reason. That reason is this: defensive technologies and tactics in the early 20th century were more advanced than offensive technologies; thus, offensive breakthroughs were either not possible or, where achieved, could not be sustained at length. Significant victories could only be achieved where some external element (e.g., egregious leadership mistake, troop demoralization, lack of supply) occurred, but these did not occur on the Western Front until 1918.
a person who isn't defending. offensive players help score goals.
The tank pretty much put in end to the trench warfare stalemate of WWI. Just as the A-Bomb ended WWII
Trench warfare was mainly promoted, where soldiers on both sides would dig trench lines hundreds of miles long, and make bayonet charges, generally a war of attrition. Numerous weapons were introduced to help break the stalemate, like the tank, chemical weapons, etc.
why won't the police help me after my landlord sent someone to break into my home
nutritents
Antibodies are not used to break down food.
no