'Over by Christmas'

[stateless_englishman]

This is something I've been turning over in my head for a few months now, and I thought I would throw the question open for discussion on here.

The board is often flush with discussion of how the Germans could achieve fast victory on the Western Front in the First World War, but I don't remember seeing the reverse done. Is there any possibility of the Allies achieving a quick victory (i.e. before the end of 1915 at the latest) over the Germans? I've tried to come up with scenarios were it might have happened, but I've struggled, barring a combination of unlikely outcomes, so I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else has something to suggest.

[Thespitron 6000]

Extremely short answer: no. Barring some kind of ASB, the Allies lacked the kind of technology necessary to beat the Germans quickly. Essentially, without the tactics developed by the end of the war, and without tanks and light machine guns, it's impossible.

[Historian2011]

Best way for the Allies in WW1: (my opinion + scenario)

Instead of costly attacks on the Western front the Allies go on the defensive there and go through the south - Russia as well.

French/British armies conquer Iraq and press against the Ottomans from south while Russia attacks from the Caucasus.

by late 1915 Constantinopel falls, Italy enters the war against the
Austro Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria doesnt join the Central powers and Romania stays in the war.

Meanwhile the Germans loose many soldiers in their offensives but gain little ground while British/French/Russian casualties are much less than in OTL.

By late 1916 the Austro Hungarian Empire has collapsed and Germany is encircled from all sides. If they surrender the war will be over by christmas 1916. If they fight on, much later.

[the sad mafioso]

I honestly can't think of any scenario that would lead to an outright allied victory in that time frame, it might of helped speed things up if the French had fortified the Belgian border and prevented the Germans from advancing so far into France.

Perhaps if France and Britain stepped up their support for The Russian Empire, something like this would of emerged though. The Russian military was well trained and largely well equipped at the start of the war, and western Russia was developed enough to facilitate quick troop movement. They were actually able to win quite a few early battles against the Germans and Austrians, the only issue was that after these victories their supply routes would collapse and they would be forced into retreat. So perhaps if the allies had foresaw the logistical failings of the potent Russian Army, when combined with a more resolute and prepared defensive line on the western front, a quickened victory may of been a possibility.

[Thespitron 6000]

Actually, sad, I think the opposite might work. If the Anglo-French front had stood on the defensive, and the Russians simply retreated back into the steppes, perhaps the Germans might have taken the bait, gone east, and overextended themselves the way Napoleon (and later Hitler) did. Maybe that would bring about an early victory.

[the sad mafioso]

Originally Posted by Historian2011

Best way for the Allies in WW1: (my opinion + scenario)

Instead of costly attacks on the Western front the Allies go on the defensive there and go through the south - Russia as well.

French/British armies conquer Iraq and press against the Ottomans from south while Russia attacks from the Caucasus.

by late 1915 Constantinopel falls, Italy enters the war against the
Austro Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria doesnt join the Central powers and Romania stays in the war.

Meanwhile the Germans loose many soldiers in their offensives but gain little ground while British/French/Russian casualties are much less than in OTL.

By late 1916 the Austro Hungarian Empire has collapsed and Germany is encircled from all sides. If they surrender the war will be over by christmas 1916. If they fight on, much later.

How exactly would the allies maintain the viability a desert invasion in the early 20th century? I can't help imagine that such an audacious move would be crippled by environmental factors before even reaching combat.

[the sad mafioso]

Originally Posted by Thespitron 6000

Actually, sad, I think the opposite might work. If the Anglo-French front had stood on the defensive, and the Russians simply retreated back into the steppes, perhaps the Germans might have taken the bait, gone east, and overextended themselves the way Napoleon (and later Hitler) did. Maybe that would bring about an early victory.

Russia would of lost the heart of its agricultural and industrial base by doing so. I am certainly not refuting the potency of a total war style retreat through Russia, but I think that my route would be better suited to bringing about a quick victory, as that is the subject of this topic. If you recall from both of your chosen examples, Russia did not exactly triumph in a timely or cost efficient manner.

[Historian2011]

Originally Posted by the sad mafioso

How exactly would the allies maintain the viability a desert invasion in the early 20th century? I can't help imagine that such an audacious move would be crippled by environmental factors before even reaching combat.

They managed it in OTL - they got from Suez to Antiochia (or nearly) and from Kuwait to Baghdad and the Russians did press from the Caucasus some 200 miles into Ottoman territory.

And that was with a fraction of the troops.

They had Lawrence of Arabia
And they had their colonies to supply them. And the Ottomans were much easier enemies than the Germans or the Austro-Hungarians.

So go south, get the Ottomans. Keep the Balkans get the Austrians, and then Germany is encircled.

[Thespitron 6000]

Keep the Ottomans neutral. Or better yet, get them in the Allied camp. Then you go up through Romania or the Balkans, nail Austria-Hungary, bob's your uncle, we're home in time for tea.

[the sad mafioso]

Originally Posted by Historian2011

They managed it in OTL - they got from Suez to Antiochia (or nearly) and from Kuwait to Baghdad and the Russians did press from the Caucasus some 200 miles into Ottoman territory.

And that was with a fraction of the troops.

They had Lawrence of Arabia
And they had their colonies to supply them. And the Ottomans were much easier enemies than the Germans or the Austro-Hungarians.

So go south, get the Ottomans. Keep the Balkans get the Austrians, and then Germany is encircled.

When you increase the number of soldiers operating in a theater you also increase the demands upon your supply routes. So when you take into account the fact that a deeper invasion into the brunt of the Ottoman Empire would demand longer logistical routes and more soldiers, you really begin to push the capacity of the era's technology.

[Historian2011]

Originally Posted by Thespitron 6000

Keep the Ottomans neutral. Or better yet, get them in the Allied camp. Then you go up through Romania or the Balkans, nail Austria-Hungary, bob's your uncle, we're home in time for tea.

The Ottomans neutral is not going to happen they tried in OTL and it didnt work. And this ATL pod would be somewhere in late 1914 where after the Germany offensive was stopped the Allies would decide to go through the south.

So Christman 1915 - impossible
Christman 1916 - if the Germans surrender- possible

[Historian2011]

Originally Posted by the sad mafioso

When you increase the number of soldiers operating in a theater you also increase the demands upon your supply routes. So when you take into account the fact that a deeper invasion into the brunt of the Ottoman Empire would demand longer logistical routes and more soldiers, you really begin to push the capacity of the era's technology.

Britain could supply a war against a rebellion in North America for 8 years. And that was 1775-1783.

So with French and Russian help and a train system - whats the problem?

[Easterling]

A few points for your consideration:

- What if the Russians won at Tannenberg? Would this doom Germany?

- With or without a victory against Germany, is it possible for Russia + Serbia to knock Austro-Hungaria out of the war in 1914? If this happens, I think the allies would be crtain of victory, even if Germany can hold on for a few more months.

[Thespitron 6000]

Originally Posted by Historian2011

The Ottomans neutral is not going to happen they tried in OTL and it didnt work.

The Goeben/Breslau incident certainly didn't help. Avoid that, and the Osman I/Reshadieh incident, maybe the Turks don't enter the war at all.

[the sad mafioso]

Originally Posted by Historian2011

Britain could supply a war against a rebellion in North America for 8 years. And that was 1775-1783.

So with French and Russian help and a train system - whats the problem?

The amount of soldiers that this operation would call for would likely need to outmatch the number being used in the Revolutionary War. The British also were already strongly established in the colonies and had many sympathizers to work in conjunction with. There is also the matter of climate and access to developed ports. You also need to factor in the evolving demands of warfare, as more advanced technology in war demands greater access to supplies.

As for Russia, they were certainly not in any position to help supply an invasion of this scale. They could hardly keep their own elite units supplied to an acceptable degree of combat readiness, let alone finance a sweeping assault into the Ottoman Empire. France was hardly in a position to help in this undertaking as well, only furthering the degree of present implausibility here.

[Historian2011]

Originally Posted by the sad mafioso

The amount of soldiers that this operation would call for would likely need to outmatch the number being used in the Revolutionary War. The British also were already strongly established in the colonies and had many sympathizers to work in conjunction with. There is also the matter of climate and access to developed ports. You also need to factor in the evolving demands of warfare, as more advanced technology in war demands greater access to supplies.

As for Russia, they were certainly not in any position to help supply an invasion of this scale. They could hardly keep their own elite units supplied to an acceptable degree of combat readiness, let alone finance a sweeping assault into the Ottoman Empire. France was hardly in a position to help in this undertaking as well, only furthering the degree of present implausibility here.

Yes yes so everyone was simply incapable of such an operation......
Thats why in OTL the Brits and French - without the Russians - kicked the Ottomans out of Iraq and Palestine and were able to supply their troops without much difficulty. It just took longer.

Were not talking about millions of troops here, like on the Western and eastern fronts - perhaps some 500 000 or 600 000. That number would be possible to supply and defeat the Ottomans.

In Mesopotamia there was a pretty good train system and the Russians could ship in supplies across the Black Sea. There would be no operations against Germany so the whole supply system would be used in the Medditeranean and the Mid East.

[the sad mafioso]

Originally Posted by Historian2011

Yes yes so everyone was simply incapable of such an operation......
Thats why in OTL the Brits and French - without the Russians - kicked the Ottomans out of Iraq and Palestine and were able to supply their troops without much difficulty. It just took longer.

Were not talking about millions of troops here, like on the Western and eastern fronts - perhaps some 500 000 or 600 000. That number would be possible to supply and defeat the Ottomans.

In Mesopotamia there was a pretty good train system and the Russians could ship in supplies across the Black Sea. There would be no operations against Germany so the whole supply system would be used in the Medditeranean and the Mid East.

The Russians could hardly supply their own troops, why would they bother focusing on assisting an allied invasion of the Ottoman Empire again?

And the numbers which you mention are still large enough to overwhelm the logistical capacity of that region. Especially when you account for the caveat that you plan is basically designed to capture the entire Anatolian peninsula. That is a tremendous amount of land to cover, and inland supply route would have to be absolutely sprawling in order to maintain a solid pace of advancement. And even if it did eventually succeed in dropping the Ottomans out of the war, it would not likely be possible to do so quickly enough to dramatically quicken the war. It would simply be an incredible waste of effort on the behalf of the allies that could be better spent combating the Germans or the Austrians.

[Historian2011]

Originally Posted by the sad mafioso

The Russians could hardly supply their own troops, why would they bother focusing on assisting an allied invasion of the Ottoman Empire again?

And the numbers which you mention are still large enough to overwhelm the logistical capacity of that region. Especially when you account for the caveat that you plan is basically designed to capture the entire Anatolian peninsula. That is a tremendous amount of land to cover, and inland supply route would have to be absolutely sprawling in order to maintain a solid pace of advancement. And even if it did eventually succeed in dropping the Ottomans out of the war, it would not likely be possible to do so quickly enough to dramatically quicken the war. It would simply be an incredible waste of effort on the behalf of the allies that could be better spent combating the Germans or the Austrians.

They would supply their own troops - invading the Ottoman Empire.
Some 200 000 Russians would attack from the Caucasus - those could be supplied by shipments across the Black Sea.

And the 400 000 French/British troops in Mesopotamia could be supplied across the Medditeranean or from India.

The Ottomans managed to supply their 300 000 to 400 000 troops fighting in the Mid East. So it sure as hell wouldnt have been a problem for the combined forces of the British, Russian and French Empire.

[the sad mafioso]

Originally Posted by Historian2011

They would supply their own troops - invading the Ottoman Empire.
Some 200 000 Russians would attack from the Caucasus - those could be supplied by shipments across the Black Sea.

And the 400 000 French/British troops in Mesopotamia could be supplied across the Medditeranean or from India.

The Ottomans managed to supply their 300 000 to 400 000 troops fighting in the Mid East. So it sure as hell wouldnt have been a problem for the combined forces of the British, Russian and French Empire.

The Ottomans had far more experience operating in that theater of operations and did not have to deal with the numerous difficulties caused by distance.

And as I have already mentioned, the Russians could not supply their armies operating in the well developed and environmentally non demanding context of Eastern Europe. What makes you think that they would manage in an invasion through the caucuses while still engaging in combat operations on the eastern front? There is simply no way that the British navy would of been able to navigate regular convoys through the Black Sea at a rate capable of sustaining such a massive force.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by stateless_englishman

This is something I've been turning over in my head for a few months now, and I thought I would throw the question open for discussion on here.

The board is often flush with discussion of how the Germans could achieve fast victory on the Western Front in the First World War, but I don't remember seeing the reverse done. Is there any possibility of the Allies achieving a quick victory (i.e. before the end of 1915 at the latest) over the Germans? I've tried to come up with scenarios were it might have happened, but I've struggled, barring a combination of unlikely outcomes, so I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else has something to suggest.

I should think it depends how many variables one is prepared to alter. Is it too much to alter the strategic war plans of the Austro-Hungarians? Is it too much to provide the French with an intelligence edge or a technological advantage over the Germans? Would it be too much to flick ignite several light-bulbs over the heads of Entente commanders and inventors while leaving their opposite numbers in either darkness or merely their OTL lighting? Can one ditch Les pantalons rouges and replace them with something else? If doing so requires a stronger French dye industry during the later nineteenth century, has one gone back rather too far in one's desire to adulterate Clotho's thread? Setting aside matters of technology or plans or intelligence, and simply sitting down at the dinner table with "Plans", one can make German casualties during the initial phase of the war much heavier, if one assumes a greater stockpiling of ammunition by the French during the war. They burned through it rather quickly IOTL, as did everyone. One might venture in the direction of requesting heavier artillery for French divisional commanders, but that arguably becomes a technological question. One can decrease French offensive casualties by cancelling their southern offensives. But one must bear in mind the knock-on effects this will have on the German left.

Meanwhile, given the historical deployment of the French armies, nobody would say that it would not have been of benefit to the French to have placed their left flank in a more northerly position. Were a longer war being considered, I should point out the strategic importance of the Briey Basin to France's industrial output, but in thinking about a war occurring between August and the end of December, it doesn't seem worth dwelling on. So what about offensive a l'outrance? Well, that's a reaction to German manpower and tactics. Knowing that the Germans would have a tactical superiority in numbers, and that they would exploit this by attempting flanking manoeuvres, the historical suggestion was to launch a concerted frontal assault, splitting the attackers in twain. They could then be dealt with in turn. This turned out not to be terribly practical. So one could come up with a reason to alter French military thought. One might suggest that a series of fighting retreats, trading land slowly for German casualties, would be helpful.

So far I've suggested giving the artillery more shells (one might add that high explosive ones are more handy for trench warfare), moving the flank of the armies to the north, not attacking in the south and changing French tactical doctrine to be less inclined toward aggression and more focused on the defensive. None of these is the sort of thing to make one harrumph with disgust at the originator's Francophilic bias, I hope! These changes impact strengthen the French military, but I doubt that they alone would lead to a cessation of hostilities by Christmas. Changes to the Belgians (improved defences? Fewer shakos? ) will slow down the Germans. Changes to the Central Powers' arsenals will make a difference (much has been said about the power of Austro-Hungarian artillery). A stonking Russian victory over the Germans, as has been mentioned above, would be rather a horrifying thing to the Generalstab. Given how the Germans underestimated the Russians, I have sometimes thought that from the East is probably the simplest way to Berlin. After all, if one smashes the existing divisions, then any secondary line of defence has to come from units assigned to the West. IOTL the French and Russians intended to catch the Germans between their combined armies. A dash more luck could well have seen it happen.

But I'm rambling. I've laid out a few possibilities for French military improvement, as France strikes me as particularly interesting. However, I fluttered merrily across a field of other nations, and a few of the possibilities for alterations to each of them, before coming to land on Russia. Objections are raised about Russia, but some are rather more mythical than historical or which, at any rate, project later events further back. They were as well-supplied with artillery shells as anyone else at first. The supposed Rennenkampf-Samsonov feud seems to have been a German invention. Although were it not, one would have no difficulty as an alt-historian in transposing one Russian army commander with another. I hope that despite my rambling I have been of some help!