AHC: Competent Austro-Hungarian Army in WWI

The light pieces are the important ones, and not only did Russia have more,

But most of their artillery was on the German front so overall numbers hardly matter.

but the Austrian ones lacked spades and steel barrels, which drastically lowered their rate of fire, further degrading the total volume of fire they could bring to bear in an artillery exchange. It was only in 1917 that a modern field gun was finally introduced.

Production of 8 cm FK M.5 started in 1907 and of the Russian 76mm in 1903 so Austrian field artillery had to be more "modern" and Russian artillery suffered from a severe shortage of the shells all the way to at least 1916.
 
The French suffered from red panties but the Austrians may have been even worse off. First, they choose pike grey. Its a great color if you're fighting the Italians in the Alps but isn't very good if you're fighting the Russians in the forest. Second, while the active army had switched over many reserve units hadn't. This meant that not only were they exposed, they had a sign over their heads saying "reservists" so the Russians could always attack the weakest link



While heavy artillery is useful against troops out in the open, its overrated against an entrenched enemy. See British experience Battle of the Somme

OTOH, AFAIK, to a great degree success of the German was attributed (at least by the Russians) to an overwhelming advantage in heavy artillery: it was just destroying the defensive lines altogether.

Experience of the Western Front is not quite applicable because on the Eastern front (German-Russian sector) (a) there was no relative parity in heavy artillery and (b) the defensive lines had a much lesser depth than those of the Western Front.
 
Production of 8 cm FK M.5 started in 1907 and of the Russian 76mm in 1903.
And the 8 cm FK M.5 had a bronze barrel, where as its Russian counterpart was of all steel construction. This mean that the Austrian gun had a far shorter barrel life than the Russian one. Additionally the M.5 wasn't the only gun in Austrian service, they were supplemented by the M.99 and the M.75/96 which not only were made of Bronze, but also had neither recoil buffers or spades to prevent them from rolling when fired.
 
And the 8 cm FK M.5 had a bronze barrel, where as its Russian counterpart was of all steel construction. This mean that the Austrian gun had a far shorter barrel life than the Russian one.

Which perfectly fits the subject "Competent Austro-Hungarian army": adopting an inferior model with the experience of the RJW available hardly falls into the "competent" category.

Not that this played a noticeable role in the Russian capture of Galicia in 1914 or Brusilov offensive of 1916 (Russian breakthrough happened after only few hours of barrage so the Austrian field guns simply would not have time to get out of order :)).
 
Which perfectly fits the subject "Competent Austro-Hungarian army": adopting an inferior model with the experience of the RJW available hardly falls into the "competent" category.
Yeah, the M.5 was adopted when the Austrians weren't yet confident in their steel making capabilities, it should have deffinately been replaced before 1914 though.

Not that this played a noticeable role in the Russian capture of Galicia in 1914 or Brusilov offensive of 1916
I think it actually did play a role in Galicia, though not Brusilov. Anyways, the second part of my post (I guess I edited it in too late for you to see, sorry about that) certainly did play a role.
"Additionally the M.5 wasn't the only gun in Austrian service, they were supplemented by the M.99 and the M.75/96 which not only were made of bronze, but also had neither recoil buffers or spades to prevent them from rolling when fired."
 
Yeah, the M.5 was adopted when the Austrians weren't yet confident in their steel making capabilities, it should have deffinately been replaced before 1914 though.

I think it actually did play a role in Galicia, though not Brusilov. Anyways, the second part of my post (I guess I edited it in too late for you to see, sorry about that) certainly did play a role.
"Additionally the M.5 wasn't the only gun in Austrian service, they were supplemented by the M.99 and the M.75/96 which not only were made of bronze, but also had neither recoil buffers or spades to prevent them from rolling when fired."

Well, it seems that we agree on the "competence" part. :)

Rather silly, IMO, because at least A-H had well-developed heavy industry in Czechoslovakia (which, AFAIK, after WWI became one of the big weapon producers in Europe) while Russian Empire had been handicapped before and during WWI in this specific area.
 
Rather silly, IMO, because at least A-H had well-developed heavy industry in Czechoslovakia (which, AFAIK, after WWI became one of the big weapon producers in Europe) while Russian Empire had been handicapped before and during WWI in this specific area.
FJ was in every way a modern Charles VI, "I don't need to fund the army, I have the pragmatic sanction Germany."
 
FJ was in every way a modern Charles VI, "I don't need to fund the army, I have the pragmatic sanction Germany."

Well, quite a few things had been said about incompetence of the Russian government and military establishment as well and the same, to one degree or another, probably goes for everybody else involved. With enough competence on the top the whole WWI could be relatively easily avoided.
 

BooNZ

Banned
To be precise, the late 1880's (like 9 cm Feldkanone M 75/96 - 1898) which did not make them obsolete and there were newer models of the light and heavy guns. For example, Skoda 7.5 cm had been used all the way to 1945. Production of 8 cm FK M.5 started in 1907. Production of Škoda 100-mm houfnice vz. 14 started in 1914.

Production of the Russian 120 mm howitzer started in 1901 and of their main 76 mm field gun in 1903.
It's not about the guns, but the recoil system. In context, if modern guns are mounted on chassis that enables 25-30% of the firepower of a modern artillery piece, is significantly less accurate, has to be deployed to vulnerable positions and affords limited protection to its crews, when compared to its contemporaries - then sorry, that artillery piece is 'obsolete'.

Their superiority in a number of the heavy artillery pieces is well-known (Russian army simply did not have heavy artillery on division level) so let's not change the subject to "overall" superiority which is, again, a big question mark taking into an account the shortage of the shells plaguing Russian army all the way to at least 1916 and the fact that most of their artillery was used against Germany. The idea of the Russian ongoing military reform was to get on the same level as Germany and A-H in the heavy artillery.
The OP asked for ways to pimp the A-H military, not a comparison of the military qualities of the Russian and A-H forces. I was pointing out that aside from the qualitative improvements, modern A-H artillery in 1914 would have increased firepower of at least 300% of OTL.

You can read Brusilov's memoirs on the problems his front was facing in preparation to the offensive of 1916: shortage of artillery (especially heavy), shortage of the shells (hence rather unique for WWI short artillery barrage before offensive), formidable Austrian defense line. "Overall superiority" had been achieved by skillful deployment against the planned breakthrough points not by the overall numbers or quality advantages, modern artillery would have at least trebled the A-H fitepower.
What happened two years later, after both Russia and A-H were down to the dregs in manpower is scarcely relevant. If A-H had started with modern medium and heavy artillery it would not have suffered the same debilitating losses as OTL and Italy would have likely remained neutral.

Well, then you probably have to read from the different sources. They had 3 defensive lines and in Lutsk sector (where initial breakthrough happened) they even had a noticeable numeric advantage of 200,000 men against 150,000.
No, I'm focusing on the situation in 1914, which is relevant to the OP's question of improving the A-H military efforts. You are referencing 1915 and Brusilov's later efforts.

BTW, the A-H troops had been beaten early during WWI with the loss of Galicia so the excuses that in 1916 they were losing just because of the Italian theater are hardly convincing. :)
Again, if A-H enjoyed 300% increase on OTL artillery firepower (among other things) the result in 1914 would have been very different, which was my original premise. I don't need an "excuses" to respond to your off topic debate.
 
Presumably overrated by every decent battlefield commander and reputable historian since 1914?

No but by amateur historians afterwards. Battlefield commanders understood that heavy artillery had its uses especially against exposed troops. It also provided good counterbattery fire as well but that once the troops dug trenches, it would take a direct hit to do much damage. The British fired far more heavy artillery at the Somme than anybody used on the Eastern front and it did them little good


No. Ordinary light artillery lacks trajectory to get into trenches and the weight of shell to displace trenches. On an individual basis most artillery is useless, but massed heavy howitzers was ultimately recognized as the preferred method to breakdown entrenched positions. Near misses from heavy howitzers could be effective in breaking down a trench network.

I'm surprised that your still repeating this. The low trajectory was a feature of the French 75s. German 77s had an over the horizon capability. Of course, this refers to taking the gun from an unlimbered position. the French 75s were capable of firing over the horizon once you dug a pit. In open warfare that was a drawback. Once trench warfare developed it wasn't

A four gun battery of 75s would put 15-20,000 shrapnel balls in under a minute- they were effectively machine guns against exposed troops. The 75s high explosive shells were used to blast away barbed wire entanglements and the 75s were the preferred means of delivering gas. The French alone made over 17,000 75s during the war and fired over 200 million shells from them. That's a lot for an "ineffective" weapon.

Troops in trenches were pretty immune from artillery which is why they dug trenches. Most of the killing was done when the men were out of the trenches

Does Skoda ring any bells? A-H actually had a skilled arms industry capable of meeting most of A-H's military needs, but military spending was generally not an A-H priority before the war and the war effort was mismanaged during the war - A-H had it's own version of the Silent Dictatorship from day 1.


Skoda vs. Krupp- do you really want to go there? And how much of the optical equipment, telephone and radio, poison gas and a host of other important stuff did the Austrians produce?

I believe in 1914 A-H was equipped with modern light artillery, but those were only important until people started to dig holes.
They had some not many by other power standards. They also had a shell reserve of only 500 rounds about half of the Russians
 

BooNZ

Banned
No but by amateur historians afterwards. Battlefield commanders understood that heavy artillery had its uses especially against exposed troops. It also provided good counterbattery fire as well but that once the troops dug trenches, it would take a direct hit to do much damage. The British fired far more heavy artillery at the Somme than anybody used on the Eastern front and it did them little good
Your "knowledge" of history is rivaled only by you "knowledge" of elementary physics - a heavy weight of shell used for plunging fire on open ground merely creates bigger holes. How is British use of artillery relevant to the use of artillery on the Eastern Front - you are comparing apples to oranges. One of the recognized advantages the Germans had in the opening years of the war was an abundance of a heavy/howitzer artillery. Joffre is on record as acknowledging the shortfalls of French artillery capabilities (heavy and indirect fire) and attempting to explain away why he had blocked earlier attempts to remedy those shortfalls.

I'm surprised that your still repeating this. The low trajectory was a feature of the French 75s. German 77s had an over the horizon capability. Of course, this refers to taking the gun from an unlimbered position. the French 75s were capable of firing over the horizon once you dug a pit. In open warfare that was a drawback. Once trench warfare developed it wasn't
Again, you are exposing you ignorance of elementary physics. In open warfare a flat trajectory is perfectly functional, but not when trenches come into play. The French were so obsessed with light artillery they designed/developed light artillery shells to provide plunging fire - those failed in practice, but illustrate the French recognized the limitations of the artillery they had available.

A four gun battery of 75s would put 15-20,000 shrapnel balls in under a minute- they were effectively machine guns against exposed troops. The 75s high explosive shells were used to blast away barbed wire entanglements and the 75s were the preferred means of delivering gas. The French alone made over 17,000 75s during the war and fired over 200 million shells from them. That's a lot for an "ineffective" weapon.
All this was very impressive when the French 75mm was introduced in circa 1896, not so much in 1914. Again, elementary physics holds a heavier weight of high explosive shell is more effective at displacing entrenched defenders that a higher volume of lighter shells. The French obsession with light artillery is one of the reasons the Germans are recognized to have been a more effective fighting force.

Troops in trenches were pretty immune from artillery which is why they dug trenches. Most of the killing was done when the men were out of the trenches
FYI - it was customary for defenders to remain in trenches in the face of enemy artillery. The aforementioned light weight of shell and low trajectory meant light artillery were of limited value in displacing entrenched defenders. The inferior range of light artillery means limited utility in repulsing counter attacks by defenders, but I assume/speculate light artillery could be used by defenders against ill conceived offensives across open ground.

Skoda vs. Krupp- do you really want to go there? And how much of the optical equipment, telephone and radio, poison gas and a host of other important stuff did the Austrians produce?
I never mentioned Krupp. Did Krupp build the siege howitzers the Germans borrowed from A-H in 1914 (hint = no). Was Krupp or any other German arms the manufacturer responsible for the design or manufacture of the Mannlicher M1895, which equipped the majority of A-H forces (hint = no). As I previously stated, military spending was generally not an A-H priority before the war and the war effort was mismanaged during the war. Why do you believe the A-H arms industry need to surpass Imperial Germany to be considered substantially self efficient?

They had some not many by other power standards. They also had a shell reserve of only 500 rounds about half of the Russians
Are you suggesting those shortfalls would not be remedied by an increased military budget?
 
Your "knowledge" of history is rivaled only by you "knowledge" of elementary physics - a heavy weight of shell used for plunging fire on open ground merely creates bigger holes. How is British use of artillery relevant to the use of artillery on the Eastern Front - you are comparing apples to oranges. One of the recognized advantages the Germans had in the opening years of the war was an abundance of a heavy/howitzer artillery. Joffre is on record as acknowledging the shortfalls of French artillery capabilities (heavy and indirect fire) and attempting to explain away why he had blocked earlier attempts to remedy those shortfalls.

Your equating "overrated" with no use. Heavy artillery had its uses but its not the be all, end all of WWI. France suffered greatly for its lack of heavy mobile field artillery during the war of manuever. Once the battle settled to trench warfare, the French wheeled out their fortress artillery. These pieces lacked a recoil mechanism but gave the French sufficient heavy artillery for the war from then on. Despite any heavy artillery advantage, the Germans were unable to break through the lines. It had uses but its not going to win. AH failure during the Brusilov Offensive shouldn't surprise us even though they had an advantage in heavy artillery

Again, you are exposing you ignorance of elementary physics. In open warfare a flat trajectory is perfectly functional, but not when trenches come into play. The French were so obsessed with light artillery they designed/developed light artillery shells to provide plunging fire - those failed in practice, but illustrate the French recognized the limitations of the artillery they had available.

You are displaying an ignorance of the most basic features of trench warfare. Light artillery was the killer of WWI. It's not just the French- everyone builds lots and lots of light artillery. The troops died when they went over the top or were sent to repair a breach. The casualty rate while in the trench is very low

FYI - it was customary for defenders to remain in trenches in the face of enemy artillery. The aforementioned light weight of shell and low trajectory meant light artillery were of limited value in displacing entrenched defenders. The inferior range of light artillery means limited utility in repulsing counter attacks by defenders, but I assume/speculate light artillery could be used by defenders against ill conceived offensives across open ground.


Really do you think this is true?? During World War I the attackers would launch assaults. The "defenders" would immediately send reinforcements to the threaten sector
to keep the enemy from exploiting any breaches. They would also launch diversionary attacks to keep the 'attackers' from thining out sectors and exploit any gaps that did emerge The defenders spend as much time out of the trenches as the attackers

I never mentioned Krupp. Did Krupp build the siege howitzers the Germans borrowed from A-H in 1914 (hint = no). Was Krupp or any other German arms the manufacturer responsible for the design or manufacture of the Mannlicher M1895, which equipped the majority of A-H forces (hint = no). As I previously stated, military spending was generally not an A-H priority before the war and the war effort was mismanaged during the war. Why do you believe the A-H arms industry need to surpass Imperial Germany to be considered substantially self efficient?
Are you suggesting those shortfalls would not be remedied by an increased military budget?

No you didn't mention Krupp which is why you missed the whole point of the post. The question was why didn't the Austrians get better during the war. The answer to that is that Austria was depended on Germany throughout the war for much of its war material. The Germans gave priority to their own needs leaving the Austrians underequipped

As stated in my first post: The Austrians would have benefited greatly from modest increases in their defense budget if they could get away with it without the neighbors noticing. Any arms race is unwinnable for Austria- she can't match Russia let alone Italy and Serbia as well
 
Top