A Tannenberg in Alsace-Lorraine?

Anderman

Donor
AFAIK the french invaded Alsace-Lorraine in 1914 with two armies was there any chance that the Germans could pull a Tannenberg in AL and destroy one or both Armies ? And what would be the consequences of it, with a invasion of Belgium and without ?
 
AFAIK the french invaded Alsace-Lorraine in 1914 with two armies was there any chance that the Germans could pull a Tannenberg in AL and destroy one or both Armies ? And what would be the consequences of it, with a invasion of Belgium and without ?

The Germans effectively destroyed the armies anyway... the difference was that at Tannenberg they took a lot of prisoners, wheras in Alsace-Lorraine they inflicted a shit load of kia's and wias (over 100k)

The Germans inflicted roughly the same number of casualties in the battle of frontiers that they did at Tannenberg... so your question doesn't change much except the Germans have more prisoners to feed instead of bodies to bury

edit: the lovely people at wikipedia somehow label the battle of the frontiers as a "german victory" but Tannenberg was a "decisive German victory"... I fail to see how effectively eliminating 15 percent of the entire French army with little or no less to your self isn't decisive but hey they are a "trusted source"
 
Last edited:
The Germans effectively destroyed the armies anyway... the difference was that at Tannenberg they took a lot of prisoners, wheras in Alsace-Lorraine they inflicted a shit load of kia's and wias (over 100k)

The Germans inflicted roughly the same number of casualties in the battle of frontiers that they did at Tannenberg... so your question doesn't change much except the Germans have more prisoners to feed instead of bodies to bury

edit: the lovely people at wikipedia somehow label the battle of the frontiers as a "german victory" but Tannenberg was a "decisive German victory"... I fail to see how effectively eliminating 15 percent of the entire French army with little or no less to your self isn't decisive but hey they are a "trusted source"

I have two Thesis:

1) Nobody give a penny to France and was 'rationaly' to think who that invasion gonna fail, for that is a regular victory. besides russias was invading 'true prussian territory'(konisberg) and a victory in Tanneberg humillated the Russian.

2) Russia was considered the main threat(historically was true) and when Russia was more close to german territory.. the pro russian historicician that was the main humillation from russia and the causes of all their defeats.
 
I have two Thesis:

1) Nobody give a penny to France and was 'rationaly' to think who that invasion gonna fail, for that is a regular victory. besides russias was invading 'true prussian territory'(konisberg) and a victory in Tanneberg humillated the Russian.

2) Russia was considered the main threat(historically was true) and when Russia was more close to german territory.. the pro russian historicician that was the main humillation from russia and the causes of all their defeats.

The Battle of the Frontiers effectively eliminated France's ability to conduct offensive warfare on a multi army scale for the rest of the year and allowed Germany the strategic freedom to concentrate additional forces on the eastern front to drive the russians out of german territory

Considering the body counts in those two battles where nearly identicle, the nationalist trolling is overwhelming

edit: They also label the Somme as a British tactical and strategic effects positive to the entente (I don't see how losing 50 percent more men than the enemy and not gaining any vital ground could be defined as victory but hey wiki says it so it must be true)

They also claim the Somme forced the Germans to retire to the Hindenberg line... when even an idiot can see this was done to free up reserves AND to brace themselves to curb stomp the nivelle offensive

what a great victory the somme was huh?

Verdun is listed as a French tactical victory... umm is wiki aware of how much territory they lost and that they lost more men?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The Battle of the Frontiers effectively eliminated France's ability to conduct offensive warfare on a multi army scale for the rest of the year and allowed Germany the strategic freedom to concentrate additional forces on the eastern front to drive the russians out of german territory

Considering the body counts in those two battles where nearly identicle, the nationalist trolling is overwhelming

edit: They also label the Somme as a British tactical and strategic effects positive to the entente (I don't see how losing 50 percent more men than the enemy and not gaining any vital ground could be defined as victory but hey wiki says it so it must be true)

They also claim the Somme forced the Germans to retire to the Hindenberg line... when even an idiot can see this was done to free up reserves AND to brace themselves to curb stomp the nivelle offensive

what a great victory the somme was huh?

Verdun is listed as a French tactical victory... umm is wiki aware of how much territory they lost and that they lost more men?

The difference was that the Russians lost whole corps in mass and had to write off these formations. I.E. no cadres left.
The French had lost vast amounts of infantry from 4 armies, but had plenty more half trained reservists to toss into the meat grinder. The cadres remained, so more flesh could be hung on those bones. The Russians had to recreate theirs from scratch. Also remember that the battle of the frontiers extended into the Ardennes and included 4 French armies.
 
The difference was that the Russians lost whole corps in mass and had to write off these formations. I.E. no cadres left.
The French had lost vast amounts of infantry from 4 armies, but had plenty more half trained reservists to toss into the meat grinder. The cadres remained, so more flesh could be hung on those bones. The Russians had to recreate theirs from scratch. Also remember that the battle of the frontiers extended into the Ardennes and included 4 French armies.

When a regiment loses 1/3 of its men (let alone the 2/3 or 3/4 a lot of the french regiments lost in the battle of the frontiers) it requires complete reformation, not just replacements

Hence you didn't see the formations involved capable of mass offensive action for a year

The practical difference between Tannenberg and the battle of the frontiers is very small

reforming a division with 25 percent survivors versus making a new division isn't that materially different; both will have the ovwhelming majority of their rank and file, nco's, junior and senior officers having little experience
 
The difference has been pointed. In the East the Germans destroyed entire Corps, there were mass surrenders, lots of captured guns and everyone agreed it was a crushing defeat.

France was driven back and suffered heavy losses but there were no other tangible signs of a large defeat. No surrenders of entire units, large numbers of captured guns, etc.

People perceived the two differently at the time and rightly so. If you had the same number of losses for the French but had the Germans pocket the units and get a mass surrender like they got in the East it would have had big effects in terms of moral for both sides.

Michael
 
The difference has been pointed. In the East the Germans destroyed entire Corps, there were mass surrenders, lots of captured guns and everyone agreed it was a crushing defeat.

France was driven back and suffered heavy losses but there were no other tangible signs of a large defeat. No surrenders of entire units, large numbers of captured guns, etc.

People perceived the two differently at the time and rightly so. If you had the same number of losses for the French but had the Germans pocket the units and get a mass surrender like they got in the East it would have had big effects in terms of moral for both sides.

Michael

its hard to have mass surrender when you have already killed everyone with artillery strikes and machine gun fire

just because the french where not as inclined to surrender as the Russians (the Russians had no warm food or boots, plus the French where imbued with Japanese ww2esque doctrine) doesn't make Germany's destruction of 15 percent of their available forces for the entire front in a single battle less decisive

This would be the ww1 equivilent of operation mars
 
The problem with a Tannenberg style victory, is that it requires room for manevoure which you don't have on the western front near some of the strongest fortifications in the world. The Battle of the Frontiers was the result of a different kind of warfare because of geography and a marginally more organised enemy than Tannenberg.
 
The problem with a Tannenberg style victory, is that it requires room for manevoure which you don't have on the western front near some of the strongest fortifications in the world. The Battle of the Frontiers was the result of a different kind of warfare because of geography and a marginally more organised enemy than Tannenberg.

The battle of the frontiers was an enemy beating his head in against a brick wall until everyone was dead then retreating with the survivors and wounded to avoid being cut off

the parallels to operation mars are obvious

and most here would consider operation mars a decisive German victory
 
its hard to have mass surrender when you have already killed everyone with artillery strikes and machine gun fire

just because the french where not as inclined to surrender as the Russians (the Russians had no warm food or boots, plus the French where imbued with Japanese ww2esque doctrine) doesn't make Germany's destruction of 15 percent of their available forces for the entire front in a single battle less decisive

This would be the ww1 equivilent of operation mars

It does change again how things are perceived though, it does effect both sides moral.


Having the Xth Division shot to bit does suck, but having the Xth Division surrender and march into captivity sucks even more. Much of warfare is about moral and will. A Tannenburg style victory has a bigger impact on this.

Michael
 
It does change again how things are perceived though, it does effect both sides moral.

In the present case it's more about organization IMHO. You can shoot a division to bit, it keeps the ability to integrate fresh recruits and rebuild battalions. You lose it entirely, you have to build it from scratch.

To get back to the OP, an Alsace-Lorraine Tannenberg sounds a more modest objective than the original German plan, which aimed to bag the entire French Army facing them.
 
In the present case it's more about organization IMHO. You can shoot a division to bit, it keeps the ability to integrate fresh recruits and rebuild battalions. You lose it entirely, you have to build it from scratch.

To get back to the OP, an Alsace-Lorraine Tannenberg sounds a more modest objective than the original German plan, which aimed to bag the entire French Army facing them.

If the regiment of 3000 men loses 2250 in a battle, it has to be completely rebuilt anyway... the lead time between that formation being ready for battle (after accepting 75 percent replacements) and a new regiment being raised would be about the same... would the blooded regiment be more effective than the new one? the answer is only a little bit, you would have 5 or 8 guys per company who had been in battle before... a battle they lost and had all their squadmates killed or wounded in... i would rate the difference in effectiveness at less than 10 percent (especially due to the obscenely high junior officer casualties that the French took in WW1)
 
In the present case it's more about organization IMHO. You can shoot a division to bit, it keeps the ability to integrate fresh recruits and rebuild battalions. You lose it entirely, you have to build it from scratch.

Except that, as other posters have already pointed out, once a division has lost the vast majority of its trained personnel any attempt to rebuild it with fresh recruits would essentially involve essentially rebuilding it from scratch anyway.

miketr has a good point when it comes to morale; combat deaths are a generally accepted hazard of military life and can often be mitigated by good wartime propaganda; "Despite taking heavy losses, the Xth Division valiantly continued to hold the line" and such. Surrenders can't really be perceived as anything other than a major defeat, and tend to encourage further surrenders; psychologically, it's much easier to be the second person to surrender than it is to be the first.
 
A decimated regiment always leaves you a cadre of trained (and experienced) officers and soldiers, IMHO. A surrounded regiment that goes into captivity leaves you a big, gaping hole.
 
A decimated regiment always leaves you a cadre of trained (and experienced) officers and soldiers, IMHO. A surrounded regiment that goes into captivity leaves you a big, gaping hole.

If you look at the French NCO and Junior officer casualty returns this is not the case.

You would have some front line soldiers who survived, but leadership, not really.

French junior officer's lead from the front, and took even higher casualty rates than the enlisted men (proportionally). So whilst you might have had 700 men in the regiment survive the battle of the frontiers, nearly all their officers below major and NCO's will be new

Also, given the fairly rigid nature of french command structure, I fail to see how having no more than a dozen men with some combat experience per company from that battle materially changes anything versus a new formation

think about it... private frenchman x who was at the battle of the frontiers and survived or was wounded and evac'ed, learned that the regiment will get torn to bits frontally attacking German machine gun nests without proper artillery support

how much does this help him when Joffre sends his rebuilt regiment to frontally attack German machine gun nests without proper artillery support in the artois or champagne the following year; and 10 of the 12 guys in his squad are new and likely be killed within the first 48 hours of battle
 
Top