AHC: Russians capture Berlin in 1915

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Agreed. It is just too many steps, and butterflies.

1) Russia first would have to have a plan to attack Germany first not A-H.

2) The plan would take years to develop, and the Germans would learn of it, and change their War Plan, maybe increase army size.

3) Even if you skip #2, the Russians don't have the logistics. The Germans will just bring troops from the West and stall the advance east of Berlin.

4) Even if you skip #2 and #3, the Austrians are in a lot better shape, and the Russians will have to deal with a major counter attack into their flanks.

You can write a TL that does this, but not a simple POD.

You'd need PODs all the way back in the time of Alexander III to make this potentially plausible, but that far back you're talking any number of other PODs as well. I think at the most it's plausible Russia might spend WWI fighting on German soil more than Russian, but getting to Berlin with its WWI logistical system is out of the question, logistics doom Russia no matter what it does politically or militarily to be a crucial element in terms of winning WWI as a coalition war but nowhere near able to press a decisive victory on the offensive by itself.

[BlairWitch749]

Jalinsky coordinating the armies prevents the encirclement, but it doesn't change how utterly fucked up their supply net was from the whole general mobilization/cancel/partial mobilization/general mobilization scheme they went through prior to war being declare

The whole marching without boots and field kitchens thing made any sort of sustained advance beyond where they got asb, getting as far as they did, as fast as they did under those circumstances was near asb in and of itself

[Enigmajones]

So in order to facilitate a Russian capture of Berlin, the POD would need to be earlier? I was thinking that, but I assumed that butterflies from a 1905 POD might do away with the Great War altogether.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

Jalinsky coordinating the armies prevents the encirclement, but it doesn't change how utterly fucked up their supply net was from the whole general mobilization/cancel/partial mobilization/general mobilization scheme they went through prior to war being declare

The whole marching without boots and field kitchens thing made any sort of sustained advance beyond where they got asb, getting as far as they did, as fast as they did under those circumstances was near asb in and of itself

Well, sure, but I mean that's kind of what I was noting: if Russia better co-ordinates there won't be a Tannenberg. However any victory they do get is not going to be an elegant tactical masterpiece so much as brutal inelegant slugging. And even then the victory will not remotely rival Tannenberg in terms of Germans destroyed as opposed to the Russian Second Army's fate.

If nothing else the problems of terrain and poor reconaissance argue that a Russian victory would be bloody, inelegant, and primarily a matter of using numbers properly.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

So in order to facilitate a Russian capture of Berlin, the POD would need to be earlier? I was thinking that, but I assumed that butterflies from a 1905 POD might do away with the Great War altogether.

That's the nature of the beast, yes. The Russia of WWI is not in a good position to wage a sustained general war. The moreso when it's required to assume a two-front offensive as a starting point and decided to further complicate matters by seeking a three-point offensive. Now, if the OTL Russia decides to avert the Silesian silliness and focuses somewhat more power on Prussia, it might avert Tannenberg for a bloody advance in the direction of Konigsberg, but that fighting would be some nasty slugfests right out of the Port Arthur type of war, not what the Germans pulled off there.

[Killer300]

Okay, is it not possible for Russia to have good logistics? Because, it sounds like if it did, it could basically steamroll Europe.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

That's the nature of the beast, yes. The Russia of WWI is not in a good position to wage a sustained general war. The moreso when it's required to assume a two-front offensive as a starting point and decided to further complicate matters by seeking a three-point offensive. Now, if the OTL Russia decides to avert the Silesian silliness and focuses somewhat more power on Prussia, it might avert Tannenberg for a bloody advance in the direction of Konigsberg, but that fighting would be some nasty slugfests right out of the Port Arthur type of war, not what the Germans pulled off there.

Well I was thinking, what if Russia mobilized a little bit later? Would that have helped or hurt their position. I can see them occupying East Prussia at their luckiest in 1914.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Well, sure, but I mean that's kind of what I was noting: if Russia better co-ordinates there won't be a Tannenberg. However any victory they do get is not going to be an elegant tactical masterpiece so much as brutal inelegant slugging. And even then the victory will not remotely rival Tannenberg in terms of Germans destroyed as opposed to the Russian Second Army's fate.

If nothing else the problems of terrain and poor reconaissance argue that a Russian victory would be bloody, inelegant, and primarily a matter of using numbers properly.

better for them might only be being stopped cold just inside the border.

there are no tactical masterpieces to be had there, the terrain as you point out sucks (and canalizes the Russians into tight spaces limiting their numerical advantage)... that and the germans from the 8th army LIVED in east prussia, and thus were defending their homes and could be counted on to defend fanatically to the last man

this was an area the russian's didn't even do well in, during the next war with unlimited logistical support (their whole campaign in east prussia in 44 and 45 was a series of boondoggles, and assaults that ended up in the super heavy casualty for little result column)

[Gannt the chartist]

Tannenberg has to not happen, which is easyish, slightly better Russian performance over a few days or slower reaction by Moltke or German generals obeying orders and there could be a junction of 1st and 2nd army west of the lakes and with half decent command and control as much of a steamroller as was possible in ww1.

If the Germans drilled the Russians they did so at a cost of more casualties suffered than inflicted (and that does not include A-H) it took 3 years and only ended when the Russians revolted against the Russian govt.

Getting to Berlin is another matter. It either has to involve destruction of 8th army or A-H. Both are low probability but feasible, just.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Okay, is it not possible for Russia to have good logistics? Because, it sounds like if it did, it could basically steamroll Europe.

Russia had intense problems in the middle and upper ranks of it's officer corps and their entire society was teetering before the war even started

better logistics just stops them from losing battles BEFORE they start, they still had every opportunity to get their asses handed to them due to tactical and strategic blundering

[caspian88]

The Russians will need more rail lines in Poland that go towards the border, rather than the historical state of having very few rail lines in Poland which didn't reach the border (in order to prevent an easy German-Austrian invasion of Poland). This will allow much improved logistics and allow Russian troops to walk a little bit less.

A Russian emphasis on defeating Germany first, rather than Austria, would also help. Russia put only two armies into fighting Germany, with an additional one in Poland and four fighting Austria. Breaking past the Carpathians probably wasn't going to happen in the winter of 1914-1915, so a simple invasion of Galacia with three armies, with three armies invading East Prussia and an army in reserve in Poland would greatly help matters. I'd put that third army against East Prussia along the Vistula, with its objective Danzig - with luck and some skill, the Russians can take and hold the western bank of the Vistula. Hopefully, this will also allow the two Russian armies west of the Masurian lakes to occupy shorter frontages and help them support each other.

The Russians also need some changes in their forces. They need fewer cavalry, which required insane levels of supplies. They need fewer fortresses, which cost a lot of money and held a lot of shells and artillery needed by the combat divisions. Changes in leadership might help, but just putting Brusilov in charge isn't a salve - he isn't going to use the same tactics in 1914 as he did in 1916, because he hasn't had the time and experience to develop them.

With these changes, I think the Russians could force a withdrawal of German Eighth Army across the Vistula, or if they're lucky, destroy it, and occupy Austrian Galacia and the western bank of the Vistula, and hold the line against the German counterattack at Lodz.

[jkay]

Another problem with a fast military win is that, like our ACW, it was a slow military era because guns fired fast enough to regularly stop charges by killing them ALL, bwahaha. And, there was no tank yet. Well, German guns fired fast enough; Russians ones didn't have enough ammo to do that, which' why Germany COULD advance so much faster against them than against France.

And, Snake's also right about terrible Russian leadership, mostly because it chosen by whom was your daddy rather than if you were any good at your job.

Actually Russia's bullet factories were doing rather well by 1916-7, enough to supply the Red Army for the entirety of the RCW. Russia made the huge mistake of embarking on a war where it was logistically outmatched only nine years after a very destabilizing revolution, which meant that perfectly ordinary military factors would become far more crippling when the Russian government's own legitimacy was rather narrower.

Are you sure? Then why were the Germans able to advance so trivially against the Red Army, later, postrevolution? One key reason is that the Germans had enough bullets to fire at the higher rate enabled by modern firearms and machine guns, and the Russians and then Soviets.

[caspian88]

Originally Posted by jkay

Are you sure? Then why were the Germans able to advance so trivially against the Red Army, later, postrevolution? One key reason is that the Germans had enough bullets to fire at the higher rate enabled by modern firearms and machine guns, and the Russians and then Soviets.

Are you referring to the advance in late 1917 prior to Brest-Litovsk? That was largely the result of the total collapse of the Russian Army, leaving the Germans with almost literally no resistance. It wasn't bullets, it was men.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

Well I was thinking, what if Russia mobilized a little bit later? Would that have helped or hurt their position. I can see them occupying East Prussia at their luckiest in 1914.

I don't think all of East Prussia is feasible in 1914, the terrain for one thing is a major logistical problem no matter what happens with the fighting from a logistical viewpoint. In 1915, sure, and it'd be either one very long campaign or a two-stage offensive. But East Prussia is not the same as a drive to Berlin.

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

better for them might only be being stopped cold just inside the border.

there are no tactical masterpieces to be had there, the terrain as you point out sucks (and canalizes the Russians into tight spaces limiting their numerical advantage)... that and the germans from the 8th army LIVED in east prussia, and thus were defending their homes and could be counted on to defend fanatically to the last man

this was an area the russian's didn't even do well in, during the next war with unlimited logistical support (their whole campaign in east prussia in 44 and 45 was a series of boondoggles, and assaults that ended up in the super heavy casualty for little result column)

Well, the USSR in general tended to have as many problems in terrains not conducive to the mobility and firepower war as the Western Allies did in those same timeframes. The East Prussian Campaign was the Soviet version of the Siegfried Line battles and determined by the same kinds of realities.

Originally Posted by Gannt the chartist

Tannenberg has to not happen, which is easyish, slightly better Russian performance over a few days or slower reaction by Moltke or German generals obeying orders and there could be a junction of 1st and 2nd army west of the lakes and with half decent command and control as much of a steamroller as was possible in ww1.

If the Germans drilled the Russians they did so at a cost of more casualties suffered than inflicted (and that does not include A-H) it took 3 years and only ended when the Russians revolted against the Russian govt.

Getting to Berlin is another matter. It either has to involve destruction of 8th army or A-H. Both are low probability but feasible, just.

It's easy-ish, but no-Tannenberg will not see a Russian inversion. The terrain does not permit the Russians to accomplish an inversion of the OTL battle, nor does their logistical issues. The Russians have major logistical issues in WWI no amount of tactical successes against Germany can overcome. Even if their leadership is superior, they will be a crucial element of the Allied coalition victory, but they have no more power to drive in a major way on their own in WWI than they did in WWII, less so in some ways.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

Russia had intense problems in the middle and upper ranks of it's officer corps and their entire society was teetering before the war even started

better logistics just stops them from losing battles BEFORE they start, they still had every opportunity to get their asses handed to them due to tactical and strategic blundering

Exactly. The 1905 Revolution was the critical weakness of Nicholas II's regime. If we want to see the roots of the two 1917 collapses, we need to look there, as the Tsar attempted to have his cake and eat it to in regard to limiting the aftershocks of that revolution. Russia's weaknesses in WWI were political and strategic, not, technically speaking, military. There were other Allied powers in WWI that did rather less well than Russia did in terms of advancing and retreating and outlasted the war with regime and society intact. So it's not, strictly speaking, a military factor here but a political one.

What really helped Germany, however, was that it was pursuing aims within its means to achieve and building off of one set of advances to strengthen others. It's the direct inversion of WWII Germany's approach in this regard.

Originally Posted by jkay

Another problem with a fast military win is that, like our ACW, it was a slow military era because guns fired fast enough to regularly stop charges by killing them ALL, bwahaha. And, there was no tank yet. Well, German guns fired fast enough; Russians ones didn't have enough ammo to do that, which' why Germany COULD advance so much faster against them than against France.

Except that as in 1941 the very impoverished nature of Russian logistics was actually a key factor in limiting both Germany and Russia. Stalin's regime survived the loss of Minsk, Smolensk, and Kiev, the besieging of Leningrad, Germans within eyeglass range of the Kremlin, and the Germans on the Volga and in the Caucasus to crush Germany in a victory so lopsided it tends to be forgotten that the curbstomp expected in 1941 was a German one of the Soviets, not the other way around. 1812 Russia lost every single battle but thanks to Generals June, July, August, and December, January, and February was able to destroy Napoleon by him winning himself to death. WWI Russia thus did not lose the war because it lost battles, there were other reasons for that defeat than military ones. Otherwise both 1812 and WWII Russia would have shattered under much worse military performances.

Originally Posted by jkay

And, Snake's also right about terrible Russian leadership, mostly because it chosen by whom was your daddy rather than if you were any good at your job.

There were other, more prosaic reasons than that. The 1905 Revolution had sorely discredited Nicholas II, as did losing the Russo-Japanese War. Nicholas II blundering the period 1905-1913 further weakened his government, while the military had made major mistakes in allocation of forces before WWI. That Nicholas II was a terrible autocrat just meant that perfectly ordinary and expected weaknesses were near-insuperable problems to deal with. Russia's problems were....formidable, but poor leadership (and often in practice the total absence of leadership) made resolving those issues all but impossible.

Originally Posted by jkay

Are you sure? Then why were the Germans able to advance so trivially against the Red Army, later, postrevolution? One key reason is that the Germans had enough bullets to fire at the higher rate enabled by modern firearms and machine guns, and the Russians and then Soviets.

At least partially because the Red Army was suited to defeat far smaller White Armies but was not to conduct combat against serious, determined resistance by non-Russian forces. The Red Army lost to the Czechoslovaks and the Poles, too, so it wasn't just the Germans.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

I don't think all of East Prussia is feasible in 1914, the terrain for one thing is a major logistical problem no matter what happens with the fighting from a logistical viewpoint. In 1915, sure, and it'd be either one very long campaign or a two-stage offensive. But East Prussia is not the same as a drive to Berlin.

Either way, capturing East Prussia would leave Russia in a much better position then OTL. Really all I wanted to see was Russian Imperial forces capturing Berlin in WW1. If East Prussia is captured by 1915, how long would it take to make a drive on Berlin?

[caspian88]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

Either way, capturing East Prussia would leave Russia in a much better position then OTL. Really all I wanted to see was Russian Imperial forces capturing Berlin in WW1. If East Prussia is captured by 1915, how long would it take to make a drive on Berlin?

I don't think a drive on Berlin is really possible. Let's assume the Russians are across the Vistula and the front line is along the line Danzig-Lodz-Krakow, then along the Carpathians to the Romanian border, with Krakow being about where the German and Austrian armies meet. We've now significantly shortened the German front lines compared to how it actually was by maybe 100 miles. If we also assume that the Russians forced Eighth Army to retreat across the Vistula but did not destroy it and that Germany did not suffer significantly more losses than they actually did (about 350,000 in 1914), Germany now just has as many troops on a smaller front, in a war characterized by very strong defenses. Russia also will not use tactics similar to the Brusilov Offensive in this new 1915 - they'll probably spend themselves trying in vain to attack Berlin and lose hundreds of thousands of men in failure, maybe as many as a million.

I'm not sure how Germany will react to this - will they stay on the defensive in both the East and West, or will they launch an offensive to capture Poland or retake East Prussia?

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

Either way, capturing East Prussia would leave Russia in a much better position then OTL. Really all I wanted to see was Russian Imperial forces capturing Berlin in WW1. If East Prussia is captured by 1915, how long would it take to make a drive on Berlin?

A very long time. To get to Berlin from East Prussia is no simple matter, strategically, though the psychological impact for the Germans of Slavs overunning the home town and bases of many of the Junkers that ran the Imperial German army would outweigh much of the practical results and evolution of the fighting.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by caspian88

I don't think a drive on Berlin is really possible. Let's assume the Russians are across the Vistula and the front line is along the line Danzig-Lodz-Krakow, then along the Carpathians to the Romanian border, with Krakow being about where the German and Austrian armies meet. We've now significantly shortened the German front lines compared to how it actually was by maybe 100 miles. If we also assume that the Russians forced Eighth Army to retreat across the Vistula but did not destroy it and that Germany did not suffer significantly more losses than they actually did (about 350,000 in 1914), Germany now just has as many troops on a smaller front, in a war characterized by very strong defenses. Russia also will not use tactics similar to the Brusilov Offensive in this new 1915 - they'll probably spend themselves trying in vain to attack Berlin and lose hundreds of thousands of men in failure, maybe as many as a million.

I'm not sure how Germany will react to this - will they stay on the defensive in both the East and West, or will they launch an offensive to capture Poland or retake East Prussia?

I think East Prussia would be their biggest objective, given that it is a part of Prussia.

[Tongera]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

I think East Prussia would be their biggest objective, given that it is a part of Prussia.

Especially Konigsberg and Danzig in East Prussia. Then advance into West Prussia, Pommerania and eventually Brandenburg (City of Berlin). Come to think of it, Russia is fighting the Ottomans in the Caucuses and Austria-Hungary in Galicia, they got to sort Austria Hungary out first though.