As a side note - notice that the Iran-Iraq war basically degenerated into the same sort of 10-year stalemate once the two sides used up their advanced weapons. They degenerated to a WWI level of technology, what they could both sustain, and the open frontier between them became a trench warfare zone. Simple artillery and mass troop (??) attacks could not dislodge dug-in troops.
Actually the Germans were following the plan they had made. The plan was to fortify the western front and go on the defensive there. Then take the extra troops that freed up and send them to the eastern front and knock Russia out of the war. Then bring those troops back and launch a big offense on the western front to knock France and Britain out and win the war.
The first couple of steps worked and they almost got the third one too. But they didn’t have quite enough resources left to win in the west.
Britain also had a long-term strategy. Put a blockade on German trade and contain them on the battlefield. Then wait until their economy collapsed under the cost of the war. It was a slow strategy but it did work in the end.
They moved too many troops to be ready for the Russians that weren’t needed.
This exacerbated the stalemate because the Germans wanted to just sit on defense in France until Russia was out of the fight. So when they saw the Schlieffen plan was not going to work, they isentified the best ground in their possession for strong defense. Then they built a very VERY strong defensive line on terrain that was already in their favor and pulled their troops back to that line. At the Somme, for example, the German lines were on the high ground east of the Somme River overlooking the allied terrain. So to attack, the brits first had to cross over marshy ground that was already chewed up by artillery. Then they had to attack uphill. And because the German side was higher, they couldn’t see what was beyond the initial lines except by aerial recon, which is no use in the heat of an assault.
This was the general situation all along the western front. The Germans sat in strong positions and simply held off attacks. The most notable exception, Verdun, shows how when the Germans were attacking strong French positions, it was just as pointless.
I’m reminded of a line from The Lighthorsemen about the Australian light horse cavalry charge at Be’er Sheva in 1917 where a British cavalry officer scoffed at the idea, derisively stating something to the effect that they were mounted rifles, not ‘proper’ cavalry. It was just a line in a movie and could well be apocryphal, but is indicative of the idea.
Poland’s use of a large number of cavalry brigades in 1939 is often shown as a sign of how backwards and obsolete they were militarily. In fact they were slowly in the process of being upgraded to mechanized brigades as much as the limited budget would allow, they had a large allotment of anti-tank guns relative to their size as compared to infantry divisions, and were often able to disengage from the advancing Germans in situations where the infantry was either surrounded or overrun.
That’s one of the best, most concise statements about the difference between the two world wars in W. Europe that I’ve ever read. Thanks!