Alternate Theatres and Fronts in ATL WWI

In a WWI where the OTL belligerents are fought in different sides, thus resulted into alternate theatres and fronts, which side that you think is more likely to win...?

Some thoughts:

1. European Theatre
Britain vs. France: Could Britain invade French northern coast? Would it invade directly or maybe through Belgium?
Germany vs. Austria-Hungary: Where would be the most likely region their armies meet each other? Who would win?
Austria-Hungary vs. Ottoman Empire: Same with above, where would be the most likely region their armies meet each other? And again, who would win?
France vs. Italy: Would Italy be able to take Nice and Savoy? Would France be able to cross the Alps?

2. Middle-Eastern Theatre
Britain vs. Russia: Who would be able to take all of Persia?

3. African Theatre
Britain vs. France: Would France be able to take British colonies? Or vice versa?
Britain/France vs. Italy: Would Italy be able to defend Libya and Somalia from Britain/France?

4. Asian Theatre
Britain vs. Russia: Would Russia be able to invade India? Would Britain successfully defend it?
Britain vs. France: Who would be able to take the colonies of the other in this theatre?
Britain vs. Japan: Whose navy is more superior here? Would Britain be able to take Japan's possessions in China, or vice versa?
Russia vs. Japan: Who would be able to win this time?

5. Pacific Theatre
United States vs. Japan: Who would get the upper hand here?

6. American Theatre
United States vs. Britain: So...who would invade who? And where? Canada or Caribbeans?
United States vs. Mexico: Could United States take all of Mexico this time? Could Mexico defend themselves?
United States vs. Brazil: Could United States invade Brazil, at all?
United States vs. Russia: Could Russia invade Alaska? Could United States invade Russian Far East?

7. Atlantic Theatre
United States vs. Britain: Who would get naval superiority here?

8. Mediterranean Theatre
Britain vs. Italy: Would Italy be able to take Malta? Would Britain be able to invade Italy amphibiously via Mediterranean?
 
Last edited:
Hmm, no opinions whatsoever...?
Hmm...
1. European Theatre
Britain vs. France: Could Britain invade French northern coast? Would it invade directly or maybe through Belgium? Even if they do invade, I don't see them being able to beat France...
Germany vs. Austria-Hungary: Where would be the most likely region their armies meet each other? Who would win? Germany. TOTALLY Germany.
Austria-Hungary vs. Ottoman Empire: Same with above, where would be the most likely region their armies meet each other? And again, who would win?
France vs. Italy: Hmm..Italy might pose a threat to France, just by itself but I see this ending up being a draw.

2. Middle-Eastern Theatre
Britain vs. Russia: Who would be able to take all of Persia? IDK..How come the Ottoman Empire isn't involved into this?

3. African Theatre
Britain vs. France: Would France be able to take British colonies? Or vice versa? IDK...
Britain/France vs. Italy: Britain AND France. Italy would put up a hell of a fight, but I don't see this ending in ANY way well for them...

4. Asian Theatre
Britain vs. Russia: Trust me, I think those Indians would
Britain vs. France: Hmm...I think Britian would be able to take minor colonies, but ones like Indo-China will probably be kept in French hands.
Britain vs. Japan: Whose navy is more superior here? Would Britain be able to take Japan's possessions in China, or vice versa?
Russia vs. Japan: Japan.

5. Pacific Theatre
United States vs. Japan: Who would get the upper hand here?

6. American Theatre
United States vs. Britain: So...who would invade who? And where? Canada or Caribbeans?
United States vs. Mexico: Mexico could hold up some troops for other important theaters and MUCH bigger threats like Russia and Britain, but eventually Mexico will probably be the first to fall.
United States vs. Brazil: I don't know about this one..
United States vs. Russia: We would have to get through Canada to get to Alaska, to get to Russia. Soo, by the time we beat the canucks, the Russkies will probably already have invaded us through Alaska.

7. Atlantic Theatre
United States vs. Britain: Britain.

8. Mediterranean Theatre
Britain vs. Italy: 1: Probably not. 2: They probably COULD, but I don't see them beating Italy all by themsleves.
 
In a WWI where the OTL belligerents are fought in different sides, thus resulted into alternate theatres and fronts, which side that you think is more likely to win...?

Some thoughts:

1. European Theatre
Britain vs. France: In Europe itself it would be a stalemate. The UK would not be able to do much but secure a few beachheads in France even if they swing through Belgium.
Germany vs. Austria-Hungary: Germany hands down. Austria could barely defeat the Russians in WWI. The Imperial German army would make mincemeat of them.
Austria-Hungary vs. Ottoman Empire: Now this one isn't as clear cut. I'd say even fight, with an edge to the slightly more industrialized Austria-Hungary. Also, there fleet would dominate the Ottomans.
France vs. Italy: Not sure. At sea Italy would be dominate I'd imagine. On land, I would imagine it would be a war of chance. France seems superior to me, but the Italian Alpini were elite at mountain warfare and would be great both on the offense or defense.

2. Middle-Eastern Theatre
Britain vs. Russia: Hmm...I might say the UK because with the RN support to bring in troops along with Indian manpower nearby they would have a better logistics route then the Russians through the early 20th century Caucasus. I'd imagine the infrastructure there was less then complete.

3. African Theatre
Britain vs. France: I'd give it to France for any possessions in West Africa. However, I think Sudan and Egypt might be safe. The long march would be hard on an attacking force.
Britain/France vs. Italy: Italy losses. Badly.

4. Asian Theatre
Britain vs. Russia: UK. Barring a Indian 5th column, I think the UK could hold India well, especially with good defenses along the Hindu Kush. Plus the Russians will have to attack through either Persia or Afghanistan, lengthen their supply chain. Afghanistan inst called the graveyard of empires for nothing.
Britain vs. France: British naval superiority gives them this I'm pretty sure.
Britain vs. Japan: It would be the teacher vs the learner. Would be studied by naval strategists for ages I bet. I'd give it to Japan if they pull a Port Arthur/Pearl Harbor sort of attack and manage to break the RN early in the Pacific, especially if they are distracted. If their demands arent to extreme, Japan could win. The important thing for Japan is that they can never have a war lasting more then I'd say a year and a half with a industrialized Western Power. Japan would be better off against Germany in this.
Russia vs. Japan: Round two goes to Japan again.

5. Pacific Theatre
United States vs. Japan: It depends. If the US is at war with the UK as well, as would be likely in this time frame if the US was at war with Japan (naval treaty), then if they get their blows in early then I could the US giving up the Philippines and other islands. Also, the US public opinion towards such a war and the president matter. A weak president would be more likely to make peace. But a strong willed president, with the public behind him would never give in, especially if the US homeland isn't threatened, which it wouldn't be. See the WWII Pacific theater 20 years earlier.

6. American Theatre
United States vs. Britain: In America itself? A surprise attack would take some land, but i doubt with 1910's tech and doctrine a major amphibious assault could hit the US East coast, meaning the main theater is from Canada with some fighting in the Caribbean as well. Canada would fight, but the RN would need to keep the lines open to bring in reinforcements and supplies to keep Canada in the game and to have any hope of pushing into America proper.
United States vs. Mexico: The terrain would be the biggest obstacle. However, it wouldn't be a pushover. Poncho Villa and the other leaders could launch a very effective guerrilla war.
United States vs. Brazil: I'd imagine the US would win.
United States vs. Russia: Stalemate.

7. Atlantic Theatre
United States vs. Britain: UK has two-three years to win a decisive victory, or have the American public elect a party who will push for peace. After that, and America Industry is running full, I think America has it. By 1916/1917 if I am not mistaken, the UK was dependent on imports from the Americas for food (such as Argentina and the like) along with loans from the US. So, after two/three years, the US will only be getting stronger, and the UK weaker.

8. Mediterranean Theatre
Britain vs. Italy: As a stand alone conflict, the UK. They would not budge on there hegemony in the Med. If the Uk is distraced and being hammered from multiple sides, then Italy has a chance

Answer in red. Most of these depend if they are happening along with other conflicts.
 
For France v. Britain in Africa, I see it as going roughly like this:

1. Djibouti and Madagascar: Fall to Britain pretty easily.
2. Gambia, Sierra Leone: Fall to France pretty easily
3. Ghana, Benin, Nigeria, French Congo, Gabon: Something of a toss up between the two.
4. Everything else: Pretty safe.
 
With the same belligerants:

Algeria: Germans actually tried to spark an Arab uprising there. Maybe amplified if the Germans get Morocco.
Albania, if William of Wied is formally installed.
Finland, if Sweden is engaged with the Allies?
 
In my Up With the Star timeline WWI is fought between at first Imperial Japan, Imperial Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire against the French Empire, Austria, Serbia, Greece, and Russia. The addition of the USA and Italy add further fronts so the totality of fronts includes the Indochinese Front, the Pacific Front, the Caucasian Front, the Suez Front, the Isonzo Front, the Western Front, the Prussian Front, the Balkans Front, and the Silesian Front.

Japan, which has gone into military rebuilding overdrive during the period up to WWI attacks French Indochina and defeats an isolated French force which has no real help forthcoming from Paris, particularly as the Germans control more of French industry than they did IOTL and France has to fight the Germans and the British and ultimately the USA, too. French resistance starts sharply but due to this logistics factor withers and shrivels up.

Japan then attacks Russia's easternmost provinces but Russia is too strong for it to make significant gains.

The Italians find themselves bogged down against an Austrian defensive front that is rather stronger than IOTL due to Austria fighting on fewer Fronts at first, but make significant gains later on.

The Ottomans, with an overall stronger military overwhelm Serbia and Greece, who didn't have equivalents to the OTL Balkan Wars and thus have both smaller and more inexperienced militaries in fairly rapid campaigns again to the OTL Central Powers conquests of Serbia and Montenegro but this is because the Ottomans have larger armies and ones that are relatively better-equipped.

On the Suez Front terrain and the tactical problems of the theater lead to two French victories, the Ottoman decision to launch a joint amphibious strike leads to a successful third attempt aimed at the Suez Canal.

On the Caucasian Front both the Ottomans and Russians have fewer and smaller fronts to fight on and so neither can really budge the other, not for lack of trying. Fighting here is as vicious as the ATL and OTL Italian theaters and the larger number of troops means neither can achieve decisive advantage over the other and the front remains primarily one of brute attrition, again not for want of attempts at other alternatives.

In the case of Russia v. Germany the Russians make bigger gains than IOTL but have no logistical capability before the emergence of true combined-arms force to both take the casualties necessary to win battles *and* sustain offensives. They put up a much better showing than IOTL and most of the war is fought on German, not Russian soil.

The Western Front ITTL sees France initially secure stalemate for similar logistical factors to OTL but the loss of so much of its industrial capacity and facing the larger military might of Germany in addition to that of the UK and the USA pretty much breaks France in a two year process by virtue of being unable on its own to sustain the attrition war.

On the whole the ATL Allies have in the form of Russia and Austria two of the largest, most populous states in Europe but collectively have much more numbers than they do staying power, while the ATL Central Powers have both of Europe's biggest economies and ultimately the largest economy in the world and thus have smaller numbers but much greater staying power and economic potential and thus the war as a whole is a shorter one due to the Central Powers having the potential to avoid both the economic traps that led to the Great Depression and having an ultimately impossible to overcome economic imbalance in their favor.
 
In WW1 Brazil is military and industrialy non relevant,Brazil almost only had natural ressources at that time,the main problem for the US would the logistical aspect of conquering and ocupying a continental but parsely populated nation.
 
Top