A better ottoman military post-1878

I know that the PoD could be placed before 1900, but i chose placing this thread in the "after 1900" forum since most ottoman military disasters occured in the span of ten years between 1911 and 1921.
I was reading a wikipedia article on the First Balkan War and stumbled upon the "reasons for turkish defeat" sub-section. As stated:
  • Under the tyrannical and paranoid regime of Sultan Abdulhamid II, the Ottoman Army had been forbidden to engage in war games or maneuvers out of the fear that this might be the cover for a coup d’etat.[95] The four years since the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 had not been enough time for the Ottoman Army to learn how to conduct large-scale maneuvers.[95] War games in 1909 and 1910 had shown that many Ottoman officers did not know how to efficiently move large bodies of troops such as divisions and corps, a deficiency that General Baron Colmar von der Goltz stated after watching the 1909 war games would take at least five years of training to address.[96]
  • The Ottoman army was divided into two classes; Nizamiye troops who were conscripted for five years; and Redif who were reservists who served for seven years.[97] Training of the Redif troops had been neglected for decades, and the 50,000 Rediftroops in the Balkans in 1912 had received extremely rudimentary training at best.[98] One German officer, Major Otto von Lossow serving with the Ottomans complained some of the Redif troops did not know how to handle or fire a rifle.[99]
  • Support services in the Ottoman army such as logistics and medical services were extremely poor.[99] There was a major shortage of doctors, no ambulances, few stretchers and the few medical faculties were entirely inadequate for treating the large numbers of wounded.[99] Most of the wounded died as a result, which damaged morale. In particular, the badly organized transport corps was so inefficient that it had been unable to supply the troops in the field with food, who were forced to resort to requisitioning food from the local villages.[99] Even so, Ottoman soldiers lived below the subsistence level with a daily diet of 90 grammes of cheese and 150 grammes of meat while having to march all day long, leaving much of the army sickly and exhausted.[99] The heavy rainfall in the fall of 1912 had turned the mud roads of the Balkans into quagmires which made it extremely difficult to supply the army in the field with ammunition, which led to constant ammunition shortages at the front.[100]
  • After the 1908 Revolution, the Ottoman officer corps had become politicized with many officers devoting themselves to politics at the expense of studying war.[101] Furthermore, the politicization of the Army had led to the Army being divided into factions, most notably between those who were members of the Committee of Union and Progress and those opposed to the CUP.[101] Additionally, the Ottoman officer corps had been divided between Alayli (“ranker”) officers who had been promoted up from NCOs and privates and the Mektepli (“college-trained”) officers who had graduated from the War College.[102] After the 1909 counter-revolution attempt, many of the Alayli officers had been purged.[102] The bulk of the Ottoman Army, comprising peasant conscripts from Anatolia were much more comfortable with the Alayli officers than with the Mektepli officers who came from a different social milieu.[102] Furthermore, the decision to conscript non-Muslims for the first time meant that jihad, the traditional motivating force for the Ottoman Army was not employed in 1912, something that the officers of the German military mission advising the Ottomans believed was bad for Muslim morale.[102]
So, my question is: what is the best PoD for the ottoman leadership to focus on eradicating the above military problems, preventing the disasters at Libya and the balkans?
Yesterday, i postulated on sultan Abdul Hamid II being assassinated in 1905, but i doubt that the time frame would be enough.
 

Germaniac

Donor
This is gonna take a while.

Libya was actually not a disaster, in fact considering the obstacles facing them the Ottomans and the native population did quite well against the Italians. In fact they had several opportunities to defeat the Italians on land, and had the war continued could have ended with the Ottomans at least partially in control.

The reason for the defeat was two fold. First, and i don't see any Pod for decades which would change it, the Ottman navy was atrocious. Second, as soon as the Ottomans were facing an outside power the Balkan league would pounce.

The first Balkan war is a different story though. In my opinion the only reason the Ottomans failed so miserably was that at nearly every opportunity they chose the worst possible solution. I would lay that responsiblity on Nazim Pasha, the minister of was at the time.

The military decided that their best option was to attack on all fronts as soon as the war began, completely disregarding the fact that the army and its commanders had been preparing strong defensive positions and utterly lacked the mobility and logistics to carry out even the simplest offensive strategy.

Holding key positions in thrace adrianople sarantopo and Kirk Kilisse... while going on small offensives when the opportunity struck could have allowed more time to both supply and reinforce their armies and also allow the greater powers time to intervene.
 
Defeating Italy would require a massive POD with too many butterflies to make sense Italy was a great power and held the balance of power in Europe. No one could cross her for the Ottomans. It would mean general European War and defeat for whoever fought the Italians- at least that is the thinking in Europe at the time

The Balkan League is much easier to deal with and doesn't need much. A few years would be more than enough. More money, better pay, better equipment Its always the same- wars are lost by the finance minister

A big weakness is the Ottoman Navy. Getting it big enough to beat Italy isn't going to happen. The Greek Navy is a different matter. Its small and mostly obsolete. A departure like Hamid's assassination would be recent enough. The Greek Navy had been a joke and was just beginning its modernization. The only real ship they had was the Georgios Averof and 8 destroyers built in 1906-7. They had another six on order for delivery in 1912

Building a fleet to stop the Greeks wouldn't be hard. Just outspend them and drill drill drill. Without the Greek Navy, the Turks will win easily. First, they can blockade Greece and more importantly land their Asian troops. The Turks had 400,000 men cut off from the war. Once Greece is beaten, the other powers will fall in turn

Another option would have been to persuade Romania to intervene against Bulgaria as happened in the Second War. Getting rid of Bulgaria wins the war
 

Germaniac

Donor
Getting Greece out is important, and doable, but its not going to lead to Bulgaria and Serbia leaving the war. Bulgaria wont be gone till it's defeated or gets its pound and a half of flesh. If the Ottomans knock out Greece their hope would be that Serbia and Bulgaria turn on themselves over Macedonia. Romania joining early wpuld certainly help knock Bulgaria out.
 
Getting Greece out is important, and doable, but its not going to lead to Bulgaria and Serbia leaving the war. Bulgaria wont be gone till it's defeated or gets its pound and a half of flesh. If the Ottomans knock out Greece their hope would be that Serbia and Bulgaria turn on themselves over Macedonia. Romania joining early wpuld certainly help knock Bulgaria out.

Knocking Greece out lets the Turks bring in their reinforcements and concentrate on the others. For the Turks to win, they will need to beat their enemies one by one. Greece is probably the best first target. Defeating them might be enough to get the Romanians into the fight
 

Germaniac

Donor
Knocking Greece out lets the Turks bring in their reinforcements and concentrate on the others. For the Turks to win, they will need to beat their enemies one by one. Greece is probably the best first target. Defeating them might be enough to get the Romanians into the fight

The Romanians are not going to enter until the Bulgarians look weak. The only twain they joined was the dogpile that was happening to them. Greece and Serbia head beaten back bulgarian offensives and were invading Bulgaria itself. It was on the verge of capitulation and the Romanians wanted to get what they could.

Romania isn't going to get itself into a war with Bulgaria AND Serbia (especially with Russia backing Serbia) without Austrian support. At that point the war is going to be ended quickly as the other Great powers are going to step in and stop things from spiralling... otherwise ww1 just started a year early.
 
I'm not so sure the Russians are going to mind Serbo-Bulgarian disappointment at least officially. The Russians threaten the Bulgarians with war if they move on Constantinople OTl so they are looking for the straits for themselves. They use the situation to reconcile with the Romanians The Romanians are a big prize in Balkan affairs. If you want to fight Turkey, Bulgaria would be your choice; if you want t fight Austria, Romania is

But meanderings the inner working of Great Power Balkan policy is difficult beyond imagination. The Russians might see a strong Turkey in their interests. Let the Turks beat the allies down so when we attack everyone rallies to us? Possible But so is OTL- back Romania as a future ally against Austria

The games played in the Balkans are mindboggling
 
Top