This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Changed caption of Civil War image; often misidenified as Petersburg, this image has in fact been shown to capture an image of soldiers of VI Corps prior to the 2nd Battle of Fredericksburg, wherein Marye's Heights were finally successfully carried; VI Corps' advance was latter stalled in fighing at the Battle of Salem Church.
Why does this article only talk about trench warfare in WWI, and no mention of its history or development? It seems like this will mislead a lot of people into thinking trench warfare only occured in WWI. Only lightly touches on the Korean war. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
To answer this, yet again... The page isn't History of entrenchment (which WP appears to need, since this keeps coming up here...), it's Trench Warfare. This is limited to WW1, because no other war has used it so extensively. The U.S. Civil War used entrenchment. So did WW2. So did the Iran-Iraq War. They aren't examples of trench warfare, either. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 16:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup, it's time for someone to write the article about the history of trenches in warfare. Certainly, the only war which involved the specific concept of "trench warfare" was the Great War. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Except, trench warfare DID occur beforehand. Most sources I have consulted have considered the Siege of Petersburg to be an early example. If you are not familiar with it, basically, it was a nine month battle/campaign that consisted of two lines of opposing heavy trench complexes that gradually stretched roughly some 20-30 miles long on each side of a no-man's land of varying widths (often more than one mile), with "bombproofs" (heavy bunkers) and forts all along the way; one side even had a purpose-built railroad to shuttle troops and supplies along their trench front (as well as railroad artillery). One of the most infamous actions in the campaign was an attempt to mine and detonate a tunnel under the lines (what became known as "the Crater"). Scholars have even compared the psychological effects between the soldiers at Petersburg and in WWI (see, e.g., this thesis). Yes, it was on a much smaller scale than World War I, but as it also appears to meet the definition given in the article, either sources need to be provided that claim that it wasn't trench warfare to counter the reliable sources that it was, and the definition needs changing/clarifying, or it should rightfully be included as part of the history. (I don't have many history books with me at the moment, but a a quick Google search reveals quite a number of results. Cheers.Morgan Riley (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Further examples of trench warfare would include the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, the Crimean war and the siege of Sevastopol, and as I think has been remarked the Korean war. I'm not sure how any one else thinks of the phrase 'trench warfare' but the better histories of the warfare of the period 1914-1918 take time to explain that trench warfare wasn't new and the best comparison I have read describes it in terms of the use of siege warfare practices that have been around longer than firearms. Most of the terminology - trenches, saps, bunkers etc pre-exists 1914.
Accounts of other conflicts eg in WWII will describe periods of trench warfare where both sides assume static positions either as a result of defensive strategy or the inability of the attacker to make a break through. Therefore I can't really see an issue with expanding this article beyond 1914-1918. Nomisnotlaw (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems some are saying trench warfare means WWI only, and not other wars, because the other wars may have had notable trench lines for notable times, but it wasn't inclusive of the entire war. But such "trench warfare" wasn't entirely inclusive of WWI; the Eastern front of WWI didn't involve such a strict "trench warfare", or at least involved it less than some of the other wars mentioned. I don't see any source that says "Trench warfare=WWI, and no other". Besides, it's "trench warfare", not "war" --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The problematic content has to be pinpointed and discussed; issues with an article aren't solved by hit-and-run tagging. 184.108.40.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@3family6 on 8 August 2015 you placed an NPOV notice on the top of this article with the comment "a lot of opinion worked into this article, far from neutral" (diff). Please give what you think is the worst example so it can be discussed and fix if others agree with you. -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It's mostly the first few sections where I picked up the point-of-view issues. For example: "It is easy to find examples of backward and inflexible generals early in World War I. There were failures such as Passchendaele, and Sir Douglas Haig is criticised for allowing his battles to continue long after they had lost any purpose other than attrition." There are other highly opinionated statements like that. While they are mostly sourced with a direct citation, these sentences need to be re-written to indicate that the opinions expressed are those of the authors. Another, less obvious example: "At the infamous "Quinn's Post" in the cramped confines of the Anzac battlefield at Gallipoli, the opposing trenches were only 15 metres (16 yd) apart and the soldiers in the trenches constantly threw hand grenades at each other" (emphasis added). "Infamous" should either be put in quotes and attributed to an author, or else replaced with a more neutral word (such as "notable"). The main problem I saw with this article is that it is written like an essay. I considered placing that tag on the top of the article instead. I hope that helps. I'll try and clean up this article a bit myself, though I don't think I have access to some of the sources used.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Much of the commentary on tactics derives from Firepower; this source is good on WW2 artillery but the brief account of the development of mechanised warfare is a weak source for the tactical doctrines in WW1. Martinlc (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)