WI: BEF draws up at Amiens?

Evening all I'm currently in the process of writing up a alternative WW1 (linked into my current ASB TL) Now I've read that Field Marshals John French and Herbert Kitchener had differing ideas on where the Army should concentrate French wanted Belgium and Maubeuge where Kitchener and Haig wanted Amiens. It appears that Kitchener wanted Amiens as it was in a good position to counter any German advancements and that he didnt trust the fort systems in Belgium. My question is if the BEF drew up at Amiens what would be different? (I've used the Search but came up with a blank) In my TL I have the French atm pursuing a more conservative approach in relalitation to the schlieffen plan. Would we see a vastly different race to the sea? would it be better to replace French as the CO of the BEF but who would of done a better job?

Any imput would be grateful

ScottM said:

Evening all I'm currently in the process of writing up a alternative WW1 (linked into my current ASB TL) Now I've read that Field Marshals John French and Herbert Kitchener had differing ideas on where the Army should concentrate French wanted Belgium and Mons where Kitchener and Haig wanted Amiens. It appears that Kitchener wanted Amiens as it was in a good position to counter any German advancements and that he didnt trust the fort systems in Belgium. My question is if the BEF drew up at Amiens what would be different? (I've used the Search but came up with a blank) In my TL I have the French atm pursuing a more conservative approach in relalitation to the schlieffen plan. Would we see a vastly different race to the sea? would it be better to replace French as the CO of the BEF but who would of done a better job?

Any imput would be grateful

Click to expand...

Well, it seems to me that the French 5th army would be smashed up pretty badly without the BEF. Potentially though it doesn't even try and stand and fight and just runs at the first sign of Germans, but that would require knowledge of the extent of German deployments that they didn't have IOTL.

I think the French would get beaten up and the BEF would launch an attack on the German 1st army's flank during the retreat to stop them, only to find out what the Germans did at Mons: attacking in WW1 against defenders is costly. It would looks like some of the later BEF offensives in 1914 that badly depleted their numbers and leave the BEF caught in the retreat when the larger numbers of Germans counterattack. Depending on what happens thereafter, the 1st army could chase them, while a weaker French 5th army is unable to hold back the 2nd army at the Marne.
Ultimately its more costly for the French and I don't think they win at the Marne. The Entente will split their forces and launch piecemeal assaults instead of holding together and forcing the Germans to attack. Net loss IMHO.

Hmm so pretty much if Amiens was choosen the French 5th Army would be beaten up bad and the same for the BEF. So really its Maubeuge or lose the war before its even started proper?

ScottM said:

Hmm so pretty much if Amiens was choosen the French 5th Army would be beaten up bad and the same for the BEF. So really its Maubeuge or lose the war before its even started proper?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but that is the most likely outcome from the scenario you are proposing. Fighting against a much larger force is not a good idea especially when that force is fresh; ideally they would such the Germans in and fight them after they were exhausted, but politically that's impossible for France. I don't know if the BEF could form up separate from the French forces politically speaking, as it would be tacitly admitting that the French were the speed bump for the Brits, so they could ride in and save the day after the two sides beat each other to a pulp. The only problem was that the French were too outnumbered at that point to fight alone, so the BEF has to be there for the French to survive the initial clashes.

As it was the 1914 battles alone cost France more dead (300k+) than they suffered in all of WW2 (220k+), so every man was needed in the initial battles just to prevent France from bleeding to death.

While I agree that this scenario would be worse for France I don't think they would lose the war that quickly, the France of 1914 isn't going to quit like the France of 1940 and there was a pretty clear logistical limit to what the Germans could capture. Paris is safe no matter what.

Thoresby said:

While I agree that this scenario would be worse for France I don't think they would lose the war that quickly, the France of 1914 isn't going to quit like the France of 1940 and there was a pretty clear logistical limit to what the Germans could capture. Paris is safe no matter what.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it would play out as the German plans of 1914 suggested: the French beaten in the field, the BEF smashed up, France still in the war, but on the defensive, and German troops transfered en masse to the Eastern Front for a decisive campaign there and then peace negotiations in 1915 after as many additional campaigns as needed. So in the sense of 'winning' and 'losing' Germany would achieve its strategic goals according to Moltke's pre-war plans, which means the Entente is in for a harder time in 1914-5, which may mean the war is over in 18 months with a CP favorable victory and no Italian front.

wiking said:

Not necessarily, but that is the most likely outcome from the scenario you are proposing. Fighting against a much larger force is not a good idea especially when that force is fresh; ideally they would such the Germans in and fight them after they were exhausted, but politically that's impossible for France. I don't know if the BEF could form up separate from the French forces politically speaking, as it would be tacitly admitting that the French were the speed bump for the Brits, so they could ride in and save the day after the two sides beat each other to a pulp. The only problem was that the French were too outnumbered at that point to fight alone, so the BEF has to be there for the French to survive the initial clashes.

As it was the 1914 battles alone cost France more dead (300k+) than they suffered in all of WW2 (220k+), so every man was needed in the initial battles just to prevent France from bleeding to death.

Click to expand...

Interesting, WW1 isnt my strongest area (that being the napoleonic wars) lets say the French abandon the plan XVII and as such do not lose the men and equipment on the foolhardy assaults on the frontiers in august, I believe Plan XVI placed greater emphasis on the risk of a German attack through Belgium, so the 5th Army would be where it was OTL and the gap which the BEF filled could of been plugged with a '6th Army' as I believe i read some where that 2.9 million men were mobilized in the summer of 1914 in France.

I found this for the order of battle for france in 1914

In general terms, the five armies covered the following parts of the frontier with Germany:
5th Army- faced Ardennes from Hirson to Sedan with 240,000 men
4th Army- faced Luxemburg from Sedan to Longwy with 160,000 men
3rd Army- faced Thionville and Metz in Lorraine with 200,000 men
2nd Army-faced eastern Lorraine, in front of Nancy with 180,000 men
1st Army- faced northern Alsace between Luneville and Epinal with extra
responsibility for the Belfort ‘gap’ near the Swiss frontier, with
280,000 men.

could moving 80,000 men from the 1st Army and 20,000 from the 3rd to make a 100,000 6th Army be possible? which would then allow the BEF to act in the mobile reserve role?

ScottM said:

Interesting, WW1 isnt my strongest area (that being the napoleonic wars) lets say the French abandon the plan XVII and as such do not lose the men and equipment on the foolhardy assaults on the frontiers in august, I believe Plan XVI placed greater emphasis on the risk of a German attack through Belgium, so the 5th Army would be where it was OTL and the gap which the BEF filled could of been plugged with a '6th Army' as I believe i read some where that 2.9 million men were mobilized in the summer of 1914 in France.

I found this for the order of battle for france in 1914

In general terms, the five armies covered the following parts of the frontier with Germany:
5th Army- faced Ardennes from Hirson to Sedan with 240,000 men
4th Army- faced Luxemburg from Sedan to Longwy with 160,000 men
3rd Army- faced Thionville and Metz in Lorraine with 200,000 men
2nd Army-faced eastern Lorraine, in front of Nancy with 180,000 men
1st Army- faced northern Alsace between Luneville and Epinal with extra
responsibility for the Belfort ‘gap’ near the Swiss frontier, with
280,000 men.

could moving 80,000 men from the 1st Army and 20,000 from the 3rd to make a 100,000 6th Army be possible? which would then allow the BEF to act in the mobile reserve role?

Click to expand...

It would, but it would be a-historical, as the French were offensively inclined because of their tactical doctrine, offensive a outrance. They were taught not to be passive strategically either, which is why their artillery was so mobile and did not have many howitzers. The advantage the French had was their quick mobilization, mobile forces, and very strong offensive doctrine, which they wanted to exploit by taking the fight to the larger and stronger German enemy before it could mass against them and use its superior firepower and numbers to steamroll France.

Plan XVII was a mobilization plan only, but was understood to be concentrating French forces for the offensive into either Belgium (politically unacceptable) or Lorraine. Eventually an Alsatian component was added once war was declared and France realized that her pre-mobilization mobilization on the Alsatian border gave them a serious, though evaporating, numerical advantage.

You had better have a pretty good reason for why France abandons the offensive, as it went against everything the French military thought about war at the time AND it was against the political treaty it had with Russia, which demanded that both France and Russia engage the German army as quickly as possible once war was declared. Also France had no idea it doctrine was badly flawed and thought they were going to win the quicker they acted, so it would require some serious hindsight to abandon their offensive plans by 1914.

French intelligence also had no idea that the Germans were massing so far north into Belgium, as they didn't think the Germans would try and take down Belgian forts (the German siege train was not official active yet and actually wasn't delivered until the war started, requiring Krupp factory personnel to operate it, because the German army hadn't yet been trained on the big guns...the project was also super secret and not really known outside German upper echelons), as neither the French nor British thought there were mobile artillery pieces big enough for the job. They were wrong.

The French thought the Germans then could only move through the Ardennes, which meant that a 6th army was not needed and the 5th army was big enough. They also thought because the Germans wouldn't be flanking the 5th army or the French border forts, that they could contain the German advance in a specified area and their superior mobile artillery would chop le Boche to pieces while their big howitzers were lagging behind. Again lots of incorrect assumptions that were only understandable in hindsight.

Edit:
If you look at French planning in the context of the Schlieffen Plan being unknown, with the Ardennes the furthest north the German advance would reach, with the BEF planned to flank the 5th army up to Maubeuge, the last French fortress the Germans were expected to contact, then their deployment makes perfect sense and a French 6th army in reserve or taking the BEF's place is pointless. Also understand too that it was very important politically for the BEF to be engaged in the earliest battles for the French and British public; supposedly it was said by Joffre that if the British sent him even one soldier, he would make sure that soldier died in combat. That way the British public would a rallying point for the war, as they had shed blood in the conflict, therefore couldn't skip out if things got too hairy. It was also important for French morale that the British were fighting and dying alongside the French army:

wiking said:

Yes, but it would play out as the German plans of 1914 suggested: the French beaten in the field, the BEF smashed up, France still in the war, but on the defensive, and German troops transfered en masse to the Eastern Front for a decisive campaign there and then peace negotiations in 1915 after as many additional campaigns as needed. So in the sense of 'winning' and 'losing' Germany would achieve its strategic goals according to Moltke's pre-war plans, which means the Entente is in for a harder time in 1914-5, which may mean the war is over in 18 months with a CP favorable victory and no Italian front.

Click to expand...

Why 18 months?

wiking said:

Yes, but it would play out as the German plans of 1914 suggested: the French beaten in the field, the BEF smashed up, France still in the war, but on the defensive, and German troops transfered en masse to the Eastern Front for a decisive campaign there and then peace negotiations in 1915 after as many additional campaigns as needed. So in the sense of 'winning' and 'losing' Germany would achieve its strategic goals according to Moltke's pre-war plans, which means the Entente is in for a harder time in 1914-5, which may mean the war is over in 18 months with a CP favorable victory and no Italian front.

Click to expand...

Wasn't the Italy more drawn in by the Galacia fiasco for A-H? While your idea is easily possible, I would go more with the BEF suffering more due to better German logistics in the area. And the French Army will be mauled, perhaps captured. But I don't see this ending the war so soon. The German supply situation was challenging in the Marne area, and will take time to improve. So lets say the Germans win and hold the Marne. They BEF will get maimed heavier, but starts farther North potential to hold more are near the sea. And making this decision not to go with helping the French more directly, means UK is more channel focused. And IOTL, the Germans got a regiment into Ameins if memory servers right. So ITTL, the race to the sea is starting farther east. We get the Germans with more net gain of land, but a bigger bulge into France.

I agree it gives huge political issue to the Entente. And either higher Entente or lower German losses in the West. And a stronger attack east around May 1915. Then we get the main question of the attack in the east. Lets say the Germans get about another 100 miles to the east. Do you say this is fair? You still role into the winter of 1915/16. Then bloody 1916. The at least a bloody 1917 before we can look at CP win.

machine3589 said:

Why 18 months?

Click to expand...

French army is smashed up in about 6-8 weeks, then the Germans turn to the East with ~2-3 additional armies over OTL. Winter comes and stops the campaign short in December. By February there are some winter battles and Germany resumes the full offensive by Spring. After the Summer offensive is over the CPs offer a peace deal, especially as the French and Brits are recovering and launching offensives, while the Russians are bashed up worse than IOTL and potentially reeling. Germany sits on stronger defensive territory than IOTL, Italy isn't in the war. AH isn't as badly smashed as IOTL. Serbia gets knocked out earlier than IOTL. The Ottomans are in the war. By the end of 1915 the Entente can either cut a deal that won't be nice, or let the stronger CPs keep winning battles. I think that by the end of 1915, which will be the 18 month mark, the Entente will have to cut a deal if Russia is feeling ganged up on without a chance of relief from the West.

If they don't drop out, then we have a 1916 Eastern Front offensive by the CPs. Remember Moltke doesn't have his breakdown, so is in change still. He was an Easterner IOTL. I don't think he will die on time without the stress of failure in 1914, but he probably will die some time in late 1916 early 1917. That would probably mean Falkenhayn gets the job then IMHO, as Ludendorff would be just as hated as IOTL and Moltke would get the credit that Hindenburg and Ludendorff did IOTL with an Eastern Front focus.

Russia is very badly handled in 1916, even as the Western Entente bashes away brutally in the West, with a bigger Somme offensive (sans Verdun France was supposed to contribute much more), which is more costly to the French without the Verdun battle to learn lessons from.
I expect Russia is driven from the war in 1916 and Italy still doesn't join in, especially as there will be no Brusilov offensive to break the A-Hs, nor with there be an Italian front to wear them down further. Plus an earlier turn to the East by the Germans in 1914 means that the A-Hs get off lighter in the very costly fighting in late 1914-5.

So by 1917 the Entente is left with the unencumbered Germans, plus some A-Hs holding down the quiet sectors. A-H demobilizes enough to start shifting their economy into repair mode and support for the German economy/war effort. By this point Falkenhayn is in charge and without the Verdun stain on his record. No Uboats and no US entry into the war. Entente is broke and Germany is much stronger than IOTL. Bad news for the French.

BlondieBC said:

Wasn't the Italy more drawn in by the Galacia fiasco for A-H? While your idea is easily possible, I would go more with the BEF suffering more due to better German logistics in the area. And the French Army will be mauled, perhaps captured. But I don't see this ending the war so soon. The German supply situation was challenging in the Marne area, and will take time to improve. So lets say the Germans win and hold the Marne. They BEF will get maimed heavier, but starts farther North potential to hold more are near the sea. And making this decision not to go with helping the French more directly, means UK is more channel focused. And IOTL, the Germans got a regiment into Ameins if memory servers right. So ITTL, the race to the sea is starting farther east. We get the Germans with more net gain of land, but a bigger bulge into France.

Click to expand...

The biggest butterfly is no Falkenhayn. Moltke doesn't have a breakdown, so retains command and becomes and 'Easterner' on time. So we see a shift to the East in Fall 1914.

Let's say without the BEF the French 5th army get badly smashed up by the Germans around Mons. This leaves the BEF to flank attack the German 1st later, which doesn't end well. The German 1st chases the BEF, while the rest of the right wing heads south after the French 5th army. The Groupe D'amade and BEF form the Entente left, with a French 6th army not forming, but rather reinforcing the smashed up 5th army and the historical 9th army appearing to plug the gap between the 5th and 4th French armies. This means there is no force to force the gap between the German 1st and 2nd armies, so the Race to the Sea is basically the BEF and Groupe D'amade being chased by the von Kluck. The Germans get beyond the Marne, but can't move much further south than that after defeating the French forces in the area, which use their reserves to check the Germans. Because there is no flank attack and the line settles down south of the Marne, the Germans cut off Verdun and part of the French 3rd army. This results in a bad situation for the French, as their fortress system is breached and the Germans can't be pushed out. Verdun probably falls then in 1915 with tens of thousands of French soldiers, plus all of the weapons used from the Verdun forts IOTL lost to France.


The Race to the Sea is weaker because of French losses in August and September, including those cut off near Verdun, which takes precedent to flanking the Germans. I'd say we'd end up closer to the situation in Marne Without Moltke v2.0. The Somme is the front line, the Belgians break out of Antwerp, but have to leave the continent as the Germans peal off forces to chase them down. They ultimately end up alongside the BEF on the Somme, but heavily demoralized. Joffre may well lose his job over all of this, and Sarrail is gone thanks to his mishandling of Verdun. Perhaps I was a bit overeager to suggest that two-three full German armies head east by October-November, but once the short front line is held, more German troops can head that direction.

BlondieBC said:

I agree it gives huge political issue to the Entente. And either higher Entente or lower German losses in the West. And a stronger attack east around May 1915. Then we get the main question of the attack in the east. Lets say the Germans get about another 100 miles to the east. Do you say this is fair? You still role into the winter of 1915/16. Then bloody 1916. The at least a bloody 1917 before we can look at CP win.

Click to expand...

The East is probably going to be worse for the Russians if the Italians don't enter the war in 1915, because the A-Hs can keep more men on the offensive and prevent a recovery like what happened in Fall 1915 that got the 'Black-Yellow' offensive fuck up. 100 miles seems fair.
With Verdun gone, the Somme as the Front line in the West (i.e. department Calais-Nord falls) and the German navy is operating in the Channel, plus the Russians are worse off and Italy is not in the war, then the Entente has a heavy reason to cut a deal. Sure they can be pig headed and stay in, but its only going to get worse from there on out and Russia will be knocked out in 1916 if the CPs focus on Russia, which is what Moltke wanted IOTL. Plus with France weaker there is less reason to attack them again if the German defenses are so strong in the West.

wiking said:

Snip.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Since he died a few years later, I have Moltke as short for this world. But with an eastern in control and the supply issues in the West, attacking east works. It is actually the smarter move.

I grant you that with an Eastern in charge, more men for Germany, and no Italy, it will end by end of 1916 at latest. It is largely what I had in my TL, but with Falkenhayn in charge, I could not turn east with being unrealistic, so it drug into early 1917. If i did this one unrealistic butterfly for Falkenhayn, Russia breaks in 1916. If you get A-H and Germany with a full spring/summer/fall to head east, the break the Entente. We just see the odds of the butterflies a bit different. I see Italy coming in, which generally speaking cost the CP a good year of effort.

Here's a thought I just had: Would the greater CP success that seems to come from this POD lead to Italy actually coming through on its commitments in the CP? Would we see the Italians trying to seize Nice from the French in a attempt to capitalize on the military situation?

General Greene said:

Here's a thought I just had: Would the greater CP success that seems to come from this POD lead to Italy actually coming through on its commitments in the CP? Would we see the Italians trying to seize Nice from the French in a attempt to capitalize on the military situation?

Click to expand...

Only if it looks like Paris is about to fall to Germany and you do this before Galacia turns into a fiasco. Very tight window. The problem for Germany is that it was low on supplies. The Entente did a nice job blowing bridges and damaging railroads. You can only supply about 100 miles by wagon, and Germany was bringing a lot of its supplies into western Belgium, then using a Wagon to bring them down. Fixing the RR gives the French time to get Paris ready, which had garrison troops in any case. And the Germans were low on nitrate so low on shells. And the east begins to fall apart and winter sets in before these issue can be addressed.

wiking said:

French army is smashed up in about 6-8 weeks, then the Germans turn to the East with ~2-3 additional armies over OTL. Winter comes and stops the campaign short in December. By February there are some winter battles and Germany resumes the full offensive by Spring. After the Summer offensive is over the CPs offer a peace deal, especially as the French and Brits are recovering and launching offensives, while the Russians are bashed up worse than IOTL and potentially reeling. Germany sits on stronger defensive territory than IOTL, Italy isn't in the war. AH isn't as badly smashed as IOTL. Serbia gets knocked out earlier than IOTL. The Ottomans are in the war. By the end of 1915 the Entente can either cut a deal that won't be nice, or let the stronger CPs keep winning battles. I think that by the end of 1915, which will be the 18 month mark, the Entente will have to cut a deal if Russia is feeling ganged up on without a chance of relief from the West.

If they don't drop out, then we have a 1916 Eastern Front offensive by the CPs. Remember Moltke doesn't have his breakdown, so is in change still. He was an Easterner IOTL. I don't think he will die on time without the stress of failure in 1914, but he probably will die some time in late 1916 early 1917. That would probably mean Falkenhayn gets the job then IMHO, as Ludendorff would be just as hated as IOTL and Moltke would get the credit that Hindenburg and Ludendorff did IOTL with an Eastern Front focus.

Russia is very badly handled in 1916, even as the Western Entente bashes away brutally in the West, with a bigger Somme offensive (sans Verdun France was supposed to contribute much more), which is more costly to the French without the Verdun battle to learn lessons from.
I expect Russia is driven from the war in 1916 and Italy still doesn't join in, especially as there will be no Brusilov offensive to break the A-Hs, nor with there be an Italian front to wear them down further. Plus an earlier turn to the East by the Germans in 1914 means that the A-Hs get off lighter in the very costly fighting in late 1914-5.

So by 1917 the Entente is left with the unencumbered Germans, plus some A-Hs holding down the quiet sectors. A-H demobilizes enough to start shifting their economy into repair mode and support for the German economy/war effort. By this point Falkenhayn is in charge and without the Verdun stain on his record. No Uboats and no US entry into the war. Entente is broke and Germany is much stronger than IOTL. Bad news for the French.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I think the end of the war in 1915.-scenario would benefit basically everyone, even the losing Entente - even though they might not see it that way (millions of Frenchmen will still be alive, for starters). Though I can`t imagine what peace terms such a short war would entail. Especially considering German war aims in both the East and the West were in a constant state of flux...

General Greene said:

Here's a thought I just had: Would the greater CP success that seems to come from this POD lead to Italy actually coming through on its commitments in the CP? Would we see the Italians trying to seize Nice from the French in a attempt to capitalize on the military situation?

Click to expand...

I think it has been argued that due to the fact Britain supplied Italy with most of it`s coal, Italy would only ever be neutral or Entente-friendly in the Great War.

machine3589 said:

I think it has been argued that due to the fact Britain supplied Italy with most of it`s coal, Italy would only ever be neutral or Entente-friendly in the Great War.

Click to expand...

Couldn't the Italians use Rhineland Coal?

machine3589 said:

Hmmm. I think the end of the war in 1915.-scenario would benefit basically everyone, even the losing Entente - even though they might not see it that way (millions of Frenchmen will still be alive, for starters). Though I can`t imagine what peace terms such a short war would entail. Especially considering German war aims in both the East and the West were in a constant state of flux...

Click to expand...

Italy was militarily irrelevant. In both wars really.

But unless the Germans can roll up the French or send them reeling sufficiently, then the war may play out very similarly. Although if it does mean that Germany ends up with more men to throw East, it might very well accelerate Eastern rains and turn it into a strategic rout. That might mean Russia seeks peace several months to even a year sooner which would have stack on effects such as Ukrainian territories being able to actually contribute to feeding Germany.

Or the Czar may end the war with minor concessions and end up feeding Germany to a degree.

Thoresby said:

Couldn't the Italians use Rhineland Coal?

Click to expand...

Not really because there wasn't enough for Germany and Germany already had to supply Austria-Hungary too. Plus the Alpine passes weren't as developed in WW1 to allow for the volume of traffic necessary for enough coal to reach Italy. Also Italy contributed very little compared to the amount of raw materials it would take away from Germany and A-H. It was much better if Italy just stayed neutral and sold to A-H and Germany.