1914 Battle for East Prussian Lost

(and a hug boom for the French)

History needs more hug booms.

As to the PoD, I think if it keeps the Ottomans out of the war, an East Prussian victory would ensure that Tsarist Russia survives the war.

And if more of the Russian effort is focused on Germany, it may be that Austria Hungary could also survive the war.

I also agree that in the short to medium term, the Germans are liable to push the Russians out of Germany proper.

fasquardon
 
Whatever happens, the interpretation fo 1914 will be the Russian saved Paris. However skillfully people try to argue otherwise it will stick like glue to the narrative.
 

Anchises

Banned
A rout of the 8th Army, or near rout, will lead to a different tone to the arguments about German tactical and operational ability.

Given OTLs Russian performance this whole POD is really unlikely.

Pushing back the 8th seems possible but routing/nearly routing imho requires a whole string of natural 20s.

And if France happens like OTL people would probably assume that the 8th was the weak German army.
 

Deleted member 94680

As to the PoD, I think if it keeps the Ottomans out of the war, an East Prussian victory would ensure that Tsarist Russia survives the war.

I really think it was more than losing at Tannenberg that doomed the Tsar. By all means, a TL with a (at least initially) successful East Prussian Campaign may create a different WWI, but it's the course of the whole conflict that doomed the Tsar, not the initial battles in 1914.

Whatever happens, the interpretation of 1914 will be the Russian saved Paris. However skilfully people try to argue otherwise it will stick like glue to the narrative.

Pushing back the 8th seems possible but routing/nearly routing imho requires a whole string of natural 20s.

And if France happens like OTL people would probably assume that the 8th was the weak German army.

And I can see this very argument being repeated ad infinitum on forums all over the ATL...
 

Anchises

Banned
I really think it was more than losing at Tannenberg that doomed the Tsar. By all means, a TL with a (at least initially) successful East Prussian Campaign may create a different WWI, but it's the course of the whole conflict that doomed the Tsar, not the initial battles in 1914.

And I can see this very argument being repeated ad infinitum on forums all over the ATL...

1) Agreed. Imho Tsarist Russia was in a dire situation as soon as it entered a conflict of this magnitude.

In this ATL Russia might even be worse off, when the invasion force that has been outrunning its supply is routed somwhere deep in Eastern Prussia.

2) Another classical hit would be:

The initial Russian victory shows that the Tsarist Army lost because of equipment. Following 14 pages of statistics showing that this not true.

I would reeeaally love to get a peak in other TLs alternate history communities.
 
'Could the Germans Have Saved East Prussia in 1914'

Out numbered 2-1

Not just flanked, enemy with a open road to the German rear.

Pessimistic commander.

Russian army reformed after combat experience.

Last German combat experience 43 years obsolete.
 
Ehh, Russian experiences from 1905 'reformed' their army is extremely debatable. Or you are being sarcastic, I couldn't tell.

He is rehearsing the arguments from a 'Could the Germans Have Saved East Prussia in 1914' timeline. One of the problems, perennial questions and reasons for ongoing research for historians is that assumed causes of a particular event may in fact not be. It would be easy in light of a Russian victory to assume that Russian reforms were effective and many people can be relied on to go for easy.
 
Ehh, Russian experiences from 1905 'reformed' their army is extremely debatable. Or you are being sarcastic, I couldn't tell.

Two items would be:

Adequate trenches. The Germans were not digging deeply or often enough in the early months of 1914. most rifle battalions went to war thinking shallow rifle pits, or shallow trenches were good enough. ...and they did not have the veterans habit of digging the instant packs dropped and a defense line deployed. They learned fast and hard, but in the opening months they suffered unnecessarily from enemy artillery fire from this poor habit. Conversely the Russian infantry started digging sooner and dug deeper. Continual slit trenches in a hour or two after the the battalion spread out into a defense. The Brits had the same disciplined habit & dug like rabbits.

Better masking artillery. The German heavy or foot artillery understood and habitually used masking terrain and indirect fire techniques. The light artillery of the infantry and cavalry divisions, specifically the 77mm caliber cannon batteries deployed to fire exposed and aggressively close. They were much like the French in this respect. This overly aggressive exposure of the division artillery for both the Germans and French got them heavy losses in the first months of the war, in cannon crews and horses. I've found cases for both side where entire cannon regiments of 30-50 guns were massacred when attempting to deploy on forward slopes & open fields when exposed to enemy MG or cannon already emplaced. While not completely consistent the British and Russians were habitually using masking terrain and depending on indirect observation with their division light artillery.

In both cases of the Brits and Russians the two items use can be traced to their relatively recent experience in other 20th Century wars. Conversely the French and Germans lacked recent experience, and failed to learn from the Balkan wars or their colonial policing. I could dig out old notes, and some books and spend several hours cataloging Russian army improvements on the experience of 1905. Probably with better leaders at the top & making the officer corps a true meritocracy, vs a privilege of the men of the right families, the Russian army could have benefitted even more from its 1905 experience.
 

Deleted member 94680

I could dig out old notes, and some books and spend several hours cataloging Russian army improvements on the experience of 1905.

It would be fascinating if you could, as some good information on the Imperial Russian army would be a valuable resource.


Probably with better leaders at the top & making the officer corps a true meritocracy, vs a privilege of the men of the right families, the Russian army could have benefitted even more from its 1905 experience.

I, for one, believe it was the Russian’s experience in 1905 that was part of their problem, as opposed to the beginning of their salvation. It reinforced the impression that the “human wave” attack was the best use of massed infantry such as theirs. As for a widespread reform of the officer cadre, the Russians “doubled down” on their existing system due to the fact an “inferior” power had defeated them. After all, the Germans utilised a priveledged class to make up the vast majority of their officer corps - it was their superior training and tutelage via the General Staff that gave them better officers.
 
I, for one, believe it was the Russian’s experience in 1905 that was part of their problem, as opposed to the beginning of their salvation. It reinforced the impression that the “human wave” attack was the best use of massed infantry such as theirs. As for a widespread reform of the officer cadre, the Russians “doubled down” on their existing system due to the fact an “inferior” power had defeated them. After all, the Germans utilised a priveledged class to make up the vast majority of their officer corps - it was their superior training and tutelage via the General Staff that gave them better officers.

Wasn't much of the Russian "human wave" useage forced on them because their officers suffered disproportionate casualties early in the war?

I really think it was more than losing at Tannenberg that doomed the Tsar. By all means, a TL with a (at least initially) successful East Prussian Campaign may create a different WWI, but it's the course of the whole conflict that doomed the Tsar, not the initial battles in 1914.

That's why I say IF it keeps the Ottomans out. IMO the two big disasters for Russia were the Tsar taking command of army and the entrance of the Ottomans into the war, closing the straits meaning Russia couldn't export food or import shells in anything like sufficient quantities.

I don't think a victory in E. Prussia is a sure way to keep the Ottomans out - if the Russians lose badly enough on their planned assault on Germany following up that initial success, it could go badly enough that the Ottomans decide Russia is weak enough to risk joining the war, and the straits close as OTL, just a few months later.

fasquardon
 
Looks like the consensus here is this is not decisive in the grand scheme. No suprise. Still there are some suggestions about the Ottoman empire & events in the Balkans, or in the west.
 

Driftless

Donor
IF the Russians achieve initial success, even with flawed logistics and leadership, does that leave them open to a later defeat, when their supply lines are longer and more dependent on solid staff work? Conversely, for the Germans, their supply lines would be shorter and their staff work remains solid. Let the Russians get themselves in trouble - or is that overstating the case?
 
Top