How was trench warfare different in World War 1 compared to the American Civil War?

Answer 1

It was! Except for the fact that the trenches surrounded towns in the Civil War. Rather than out in the middle of nowhere, in WWI. Also, you can't fire as far with Springfield Muskets.

I would like to improve the answer as follows.

During the Civil War the entrenchment systems have always left, to both attackers and defenders, an opportunity to bypass the stalemate in being represented by the two opposing entrenchments, without uniquely resorting to frontal assaults and exhausting warfare.

In other words, the army which would have "permitted" the adversary to completely surround itself into his entrenchments by maneuvering was inevitably condemned to surrender or to be destroyed. Therefore the Civil War generals of both sides had always reserved to themselves a way out, a leeway of movement, which allowed to escape and restart the match.

Bright negative example: the Vicksburg Campaign, where gen. Pemberton "allowed" Grant to get him bolt within Vicksburg entrenchments.

Bright positive example: the Overland Campaign, where both Grant an Lee were always been able to develop the opportunity to repeatedly get out from the stalemate of trench's warfare.

During the WWI, the entrenchments' network didn't allow any "leeway of maneuvering" to both of armies because it was endless covering the whole front.

Therefore both, Allied and Germans could but only to resort to a frontal assaults and exhausting warfare in order to reach their goals, so all the stuff was, no more no less, a huge and extremely costly stalemate which lasted until the year

1918.