Alternate Russian strategies- WWI

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Russia was awfully inclined to go on the offensive to meet the needs of its Allied partners in WWI, a little bit more than the other way around even. For instance France after the Nivelle offensive opted out of major offensives for almost a year. What if the Russians were a little more selfish in their WWI strategies.

First one: 1917 - The Provisional Government does not promise a big summer offensive against Germany, but supports a grand siege strategy for the Allies, relying on reequipping its army and maintaining it in the field while gearing up for a major effort in 1918 when the Americans should be on the continent. Arguably, such a decision by Russia, while very vexing to the western allies, would probably not put France in existential danger. After all, the Germans had very few reserves until the last quarter of 1917, and in February 1917 had to give up substantial territory in the west. So, what political and military consequences would flow from Russia maintaining a flexible defensive strategy throughout 1917 in Europe, with possibly only major offensives against the Turks, who are far from significant German succor?

Second one: 1916 - WI the Russians don't do the Brusilov offensive but try to build up for a big effort in 1917, having witnessed their total ass-kicking in 1915. To take some of the edge off of this and do somethign, they do stay on the offensive against Turkey, maybe even resulting in forcing the Ottomans to leave Kut alone. Still, this is a bit more dangerous than doing the same thing in 1917. Could this lead to answer to my WI challenge of France falling but Russia winning in WWI?

Third one: Is there anyway the Russians could have extricated themselves from the German storm in 1915 with more skill and fewer losses than in OTL?
 

ShawnEndresen

The first one pretty much requires No Bolshies. No Bolshies has been done, but we can examine it again if you like.

The second looks interesting. I do think it's possible, as German logistics aren't nearly as good as the Germans think they are. I honestly don't think France would fall, although its losses would be even more punishing than OTL. The older generation remembers the Franco-Prussian war and will not accept a repeat, and even if the soldiers are inclined to mutiny they'll defend, which is all that is required of them here.

Third: Certainly none leap out at me. But I'll hit the books.
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
I don't think offensives against the OTTOMAN EMPIRE (NOT TURKEY!!!) are possible - defending the homeland is one thing, but there was little enthusiasm for offensives in an alien land. In OTL, the Caucasian armies just up and went home. I think the state of morale would lead to disaster if an attempt was made at offense.

raharris1973 said:
Russia was awfully inclined to go on the offensive to meet the needs of its Allied partners in WWI, a little bit more than the other way around even. For instance France after the Nivelle offensive opted out of major offensives for almost a year. What if the Russians were a little more selfish in their WWI strategies.

First one: 1917 - The Provisional Government does not promise a big summer offensive against Germany, but supports a grand siege strategy for the Allies, relying on reequipping its army and maintaining it in the field while gearing up for a major effort in 1918 when the Americans should be on the continent. Arguably, such a decision by Russia, while very vexing to the western allies, would probably not put France in existential danger. After all, the Germans had very few reserves until the last quarter of 1917, and in February 1917 had to give up substantial territory in the west. So, what political and military consequences would flow from Russia maintaining a flexible defensive strategy throughout 1917 in Europe, with possibly only major offensives against the Turks, who are far from significant German succor?

Second one: 1916 - WI the Russians don't do the Brusilov offensive but try to build up for a big effort in 1917, having witnessed their total ass-kicking in 1915. To take some of the edge off of this and do somethign, they do stay on the offensive against Turkey, maybe even resulting in forcing the Ottomans to leave Kut alone. Still, this is a bit more dangerous than doing the same thing in 1917. Could this lead to answer to my WI challenge of France falling but Russia winning in WWI?

Third one: Is there anyway the Russians could have extricated themselves from the German storm in 1915 with more skill and fewer losses than in OTL?
Click to expand...
 

Tom_B

Actually #2 is bad news for Italy. The Trentino offensive continues and it may knock Italy out of the war. Even if it doesn't it gives AustroHungary a big boost in morale instead of the shattering of morale caused by the Brusilov offensive. AustroHungary was starting to get its military act together when Brusilov attacked. Assuming Karl still sacks Conrad they could be quite formidable in 1917.

So don't see this helping your TL.


#3: A better Russian General at Third Army would help. Brusilov is the obvious choice but Plehve or even Evert (as long as he remains on defense) would be an improvement. Get rid of Ivanov at SW Front is also helpful. Mackensen is not completely stopped but he progresses slower and takes more casulaties. At the Pless conference the idea of continuing to attack in the East is abandoned. Instead Falkenhayn attacks in France--not at Verdun but towards Amiens and succeeds. This effectively splits the British and French.

Tom
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
Oops, didn't see that that #2 was in 1916. I don't think this would make much difference for Kut. The Ottomans were limited in deployement by the transportation network, i.e. there were only so many troops they could send to any given place - to reroute troops would cause a huge delay, cause 25% attrition, etc. Troops en route to Mesopotamia could not be readily recalled. It would make a difference down the line, however, perhaps leaving fewer troops to defend against the British in Syria, or force recall of the five divisions operating in the Balkans.

Also, to have enough troops to make a difference, the Russians pull would have to pull them from somewhere else, which doesn't seem like a good idea - and really, the Caucasian front was really a pretty unimportant sideshow.

#3 would be your best bet, and could make a significant difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top