Flat, with very good infrastructure, you can supply the invading army by ship on the Danube, it's part of the industrial heartland, and it's only 250 km until the palace in Vienna.
[WW1 AH] - Would a Central Powers Russia have risked an OTL collapse?
- Thread starter Droman
- Start date
RodentRevolution
Banned
I take it you have never tried carrying 30kgs in kit across muddy ground? Or even just uneven ground for an extended distance?
The first defensive blockage is funnily enough at Salzburg, given we can assume Germany and Austria have not been friends for a while in this scenario we can expect there to be a fortress or even several to guard the road passage through the city, which is yes a city and experience has taught us that urban terrain even without formal fortification is eminently defensible, then you have the triangle of Weitz, Linz and Steyr which strikes me as at least one good location for a stop line prior to Vienna. I mean I am only glancing at the maps but in fact I can see plenty of places that an army with modern artillery and yes the Skoda works did turn out some pretty notable artillery and machine guns can severely discommode an invading army. There is of course a turning movement around that line but it takes you off the most direct march and rapidly runs into, oh yes, high ground.
A thrust from Germany is indeed a concern for the Habsburgs but the idea that it is indefensible is rather overturned by the fact that it has in the past been defended and as we know from bitter experience the technological balance in early 20th century strongly favoured the defence.
Deleted member 94680
So the British who fielded a million men from India OTL in WWI can’t find any extra to defend India, yet the Russians can conjure entire armies to throw into a renewed Great Game? Ok.
Of course, the Austrians (ruler of the ‘Danube Monarchy’) will never think to defend the Danube! It’s an obvious invasion route for any attacker, but not an obvious place to locate defences?
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that whatever the A-H army does... the German one can do it simply better, rapid advances against badly led and equipped enemy troops are nothing unusual for the WW1 German army. A-H also has the problem that the rest of its neighbors want a piece of it so they'll need troops either guarding borders or fighting everywhere else as well.
Now with some decades of diplomatic head butting before the war you of course get fortifications on the border but IOTL there's really nothing there.
The mighty Danubian navy... 2 or 3 little river monitors, you can effectively fight them off with artillery and mortars if needed.
RodentRevolution
Banned
The thing is that actually we have a fairly good idea of where the German Heer did well and where like everyone else they found themselves getting a lot of men maimed trying to charge through sleets of artillery and machine gun fire. The terrain constrains the opportunity for the German to engage in a battle of manoeuvre.
So this is the classic of keeping the bits of OTL you want but ignoring the bits that would actually transfer over. The issue with a Teuto-Russo Alliance is that it becomes precisely the threat about which the Dual-Monarchy would base its defence policy. So you have to assume fortifications on the frontiers with Germany just as there were with Russia, the difference being the avenues of advance are more constrained in the west than they are in the east.
Which is even more of an issue for German supply barges trying to force their way down river, a river further more that is likely also to find itself mined and marred with other obstacles in the event of invasion.
The thing you seem to fail to grasp is that while it might prove possible for the Germans to grind their way to Vienna they are going to have to do it the slow way, the same as everyone else in OTL's Great War. They certainly won't do it before the leaves fall from the trees and probably would see a fair few Christmases in trenches to boot.
RousseauX
Donor
How many can the British logistically support on the modern Pakistan/Afghanistan border?
And yes, without fighting Germany Russia can definitely muster armies to go south, it's just a matter of whether they can supply them
I'd think the very threat of this happening would be enough to push England to make peace once she's lost France and AH. Because if she loses India to the Russians and Germans, she is NOT getting it back.
Deleted member 94680
But this isn’t OTL so we would need to look at what the Austrians could do not did do...
Really? Ok. Where do these artillery and mortars on Austrian territory come from? Dragged along by the invading army? Sounds optimal conditions for the assault on a nations capaital. Also, IIRC, the “mighty Danubian navy” held control of the Danube pretty well OTL, so with some ATL augmentation it should have a say.
Well, they’ll be fighting from home territory, supplied by a supportive local population, and defending their homes. Historically, they are all pluses for a defender.
Agreed. Historically, the Russian supply work sucked. Historically, the Russians weren’t good at getting local rulers on their side in Central Asia (the Great Game - viewed as the protection of India - was largely propaganda and paranoia). Historically, the British were better at both these things. Whether this translates ATL to British “political officers” stirring up Tribes in Russian Central Asia, I can’t say - but they’ve got a good chance.
That's not the only place they'd be fighting though, there's also Galicia, which leads into the Hungarian plains if not properly held and defended and A-H simply does not have the numbers to hold both, Galicia and Oberösterreich. There's also the possibility of using Bismarcks old invasion route through Bohemia.
Chaning OTL changes the strategies as well, Germany would go from France-first to A-H first together with Russia, The German-French border is tiny, 250 km or so while the A-H border with Germany and Russia is some 2000 km long, with all A-H enemies put together it's 5000 km long. There's vital things everywhere - Tirol would connect Germany to Italy (if italy is in the German camp), Prague has the most armaments industry in A-H, Galicia has the oil and horses, Hungary has the food supply, Trieste has the navy base and shipyards etc. You can defend some but not all becaue A-H is far too weak to go even against one of the two with any hope of prevailing against the enemy and once you lose a few of the vital parts the rest is going to follow soon enough. Obviously A-H would try to defend everything at the same time in the beginning so you end up with the German fist hitting only a part of the A-H army instead of its full strength.
If you change the OTL for A-H you also change it for Germany, which gives them some armed river barges on the Danube as well and i'd bet that theirs are a whole lot better, more numerous and more capable.
Deleted member 94680
Yes, but not only Germany. A-H won’t sit still with just it’s 2-3 gunboats (which in actuality was up to 10 monitors - at least 2 were launched in 1915, so might be discounted; 2 60t, 4 133t, 2 140t and 4 under 40t river patrol boats) they will build more too. If they don’t, it’s no great problem as where is Germany magically getting their Riverine Navy from? They could barely fund the High Sea Fleet and now they need to build, trial, crew and drill a riverine force as well? Doubtful, until exigencies of war force them to. You can handwave German dominance of the Danube all you want, but my money is on the Austrians having a fairly good time of it for the first few years.
Oh, and another thing, Italy is in no way joining the German-Russian Alliance here. Italy will sit it out and jump eventually whichever way Britain is going, as OTL. That’s with France and Austria, by the way.
RousseauX
Donor
Also keep in mind that in OTL Russia came close to knocking out Austria-Hungary during the Brusilov offensive in 1916: and this is while the Russian army was fighting Germany at the same time
A German backed Russian army breaks Austria-Hungary regardless of how many gunboats the Austria have or don't have on the Danube
A German backed Russian army breaks Austria-Hungary regardless of how many gunboats the Austria have or don't have on the Danube
There's a big difference between a 35.000 ton high seas battleship and a 50 ton gunboat for a river though, in price as well, and keep in mind that among the European Great powers A-H traditionally spends the least amount of money (% of GDP) on the military.
Italy would be waiting for a good chance to chose either camp, they always do that... a chance which will never come as Germany and Russia (and potentially Serbia and Romania as well) smash A-H and place troops on their border just to be sure. In the end Italy wins the war by staying neutral.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Except that was because they were allied to the Germans who had cash enough to get some pretty awesome stuff for themselves but not a lot to spare elsewhere, here it is likely that the kind of French investment that went to Tsarist Russia OTL goes instead to the Dual-Monarchy. The French have centuries of spare cash but are poor in certain resources relatively speaking (mainly manpower) so it makes sense to build up their allies economically and incidentally militarily. There were clear advantages in peace and war to being allied to the French which is why Russia leapt that way OTL.
Italy is going to be very careful about going against much larger naval powers when it has a long coastline to defend, overseas colonies and a strong reliance on imports. The British and French could here offer large financial inducements rather than territorial ones. Plus for Italy the gamble is lower if its armies are fighting in AH and lose then they get driven back to the Alps rather than risking the valley of the Po say.
Romania's army is not exactly brilliant and Romania picking Russia again is a strong inducement to Bulgaria who like some of its land back to joining the other side and their army is a lot tougher, they are also not so keen on the Serbs assuming the anti-butterflies keep the 2nd Balkan War on track...which they always seem to when it suits TTL's Germany according to you.
RousseauX
Donor
Yeah I think a big game changer was that the French did fund a lot of rail infrastructure in Russia in the 1890s-1900s, the Germans might not do the same because they don't need the Russian army as much and also they might be scared their ally is getting too strong. That could mean the Russian army is a lot weaker ttl than otl.
That being said they are still fighting the Austrian-Hungarians instead of the germans so they would still do a lot better
That being said they are still fighting the Austrian-Hungarians instead of the germans so they would still do a lot better
Deleted member 94680
Correct. But who was the HSF built to counter? Not the Russians or the Italians. It was the RN. Even in this scenario, the RN will exist as a threat to Germany as it did OTL. Therefore all the “35.000 ton high seas battleship” that were built OTL will need to be built ATL, surely. After that, OTL the Germans spent all they could on the Army, one could even say OTL they should have spent more on the Army. This, of course, doesn’t take the investment ATL into Russia the Germans will have to do which will replace OTL French loans (as @RodentRevolution pointed out already). On top of this the Germans are going to fund a riverine Navy from scratch in the period from POD to war?
Italy would do as OTL baring ASB or a further POD.
Personally, I don't think either side would be able to attack the other convincingly in this theater. Habbibulah Khan was very much of the play everyone against each other for personal benefit thinking, but couldn't control anti-British tribes on his borders, so anyone who tried to march through would surely get sniped at relentlessly, and then face much better-supplied enemies when (if) they reached their destinations.
I think that underestimates the complexity of internal Italian politics. If the momentum for war were so inexorable, then Salandra wouldn't have had to make fishwrap out of Parliamentary procedure to get his DOW. Anyways, "as OTL" almost certainly means Italia Irredenta above all else, and the two countries with Rightful Italian Clay are conveniently on the same side here.
To return to the OP, though, even if Russia were better off siding with Germany, I have to question whether that would be enough to paper over the deep political contradictions that the country suffered from. They might avoid "an OTL collapse", as in one with war as the proximate cause, but a revolution or upheaval of some sort is probably inevitable regardless.
Honestly, I'm thinking it almost doesn't matter if Russia can invade India or not. The Question should be "Does Britain believe it's worth that risk to their crown jewel to continue the war after their allies surrender and they're left on their own? Or would they rather just shaft France and AH in a peace treaty and await a better opportunity."
trajen777
Banned
War starts .. Like the original sch plan several Italian armies were to move to AL to allow more germans to invade through Belgium. Here Russian 1st 2nd and 4th armies are transported to german ah border.
1 ah hit from north and east
2 russian 10th and german 8th army invade thru Netherlands and northern Belgium .. A total of 9 armies vs 7.
3 german speed of attack does not have to quite as frantic
4. The extra 2 corps pre battle of Marne are not pulled back
5 wether german capture pairis .. Crush french or not .. Most likely british and french 6th are not in front of paris and their is no counterattack.. They are fighting the german 8th and rus 10th maybe at aimes.
6 I think at least half or more of France is taken ... British pushed out of France .. I can't see how France survives
7. Romania .. Jumps in on cp side .. Russia pounds ah like in otl.
8. Italy sees France falling apart and might come in as germany offers big slice of ah Balkans or stays neutral
9. Not sure if this war stared with Serbia . If so they are on rus side.
10. In 1915 most likely France out. German has 7 armies plus 2 to 4 rus armies attacking ah from north. Romania w 500 k Serbia w200 k and rus w 8 to 10 armies from east .. Ah screwed
1 ah hit from north and east
2 russian 10th and german 8th army invade thru Netherlands and northern Belgium .. A total of 9 armies vs 7.
3 german speed of attack does not have to quite as frantic
4. The extra 2 corps pre battle of Marne are not pulled back
5 wether german capture pairis .. Crush french or not .. Most likely british and french 6th are not in front of paris and their is no counterattack.. They are fighting the german 8th and rus 10th maybe at aimes.
6 I think at least half or more of France is taken ... British pushed out of France .. I can't see how France survives
7. Romania .. Jumps in on cp side .. Russia pounds ah like in otl.
8. Italy sees France falling apart and might come in as germany offers big slice of ah Balkans or stays neutral
9. Not sure if this war stared with Serbia . If so they are on rus side.
10. In 1915 most likely France out. German has 7 armies plus 2 to 4 rus armies attacking ah from north. Romania w 500 k Serbia w200 k and rus w 8 to 10 armies from east .. Ah screwed
That's an issue? The river warships are cheap and need few men, build three torpedo boats less for the HSF and you have more freed up funds and tonnage for river barges than you could possibly use on the Danube.
If the Germans do the investment in Russia they're obviously not doing any in A-H which will in turn boost Russias industry while retarding the development of A-H industry as Germany is (in this case would have been) traditionally the top destination for A-H exports due to geography and simplicity of logistics.