Aredennes offensive in WW1 by the Germans.

Pointless, if you're aiming for a WW1 version of the 1940 offensive. The bulk of French forces would not be cut off, and the Gemans would end up with a long exposed flank.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How practical or unrealistic is this idea?


OTL German plan was much more practical. The Germans needed the main Belgium rail network, and lacked the trucks to supply a big push through the forested area like WW2. Also, the French army is in another location in WW1 than WW2. And even if you give the German army many more trucks to increase mobility, it is no the way they would operate. You would see OTL attacks, just with some of the corps moving much faster.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Well. In my opinion look at one of the forgotten campaigns of WWI. Russian offensive in 1914/15 in Carpathians.


Oh yeah, what a mess that was. Conrad squandered the last of the trained AH soldiers there.

Yeah, with no trucks, and no army to cut off, it is a no go.
 
If you are looking for something similar to the WWII 1940 sickle cut, it's not possible in 1914. First, the Ardennes was considered impassable by tanks, but not infantry. France would not keep it lightly guarded relative to other points in the line so there is no strategic opportunity there. Second, the entire point of the Ardennes offensive was for quick moving panzer units to cut off the bulk of French and British forces moving into Belgium. In 1914, the British and French were not moving their forces into Belgium quickly. And high speed movement to cut those troops off did not exist for Germany (or anyone else).
 
If you are looking for something similar to the WWII 1940 sickle cut, it's not possible in 1914. First, the Ardennes was considered impassable by tanks, but not infantry. France would not keep it lightly guarded relative to other points in the line so there is no strategic opportunity there. Second, the entire point of the Ardennes offensive was for quick moving panzer units to cut off the bulk of French and British forces moving into Belgium. In 1914, the British and French were not moving their forces into Belgium quickly. And high speed movement to cut those troops off did not exist for Germany (or anyone else).

In point of fact the French had allowed for a German attack through the Ardennes; their 5th Army, numerically the strongest of the five, was placed to cover that area. If the Germans make their push through the Ardennes they'll run headlong into a slugging match, which is precisely what they do not want. Their OTL advance through Belgium outflanked the French, forcing them to retreat, and was, in hindsight, probably the best strategy they could have employed once they decided to make their main effort against the French.

The Ardennes attack succeeded in 1940 precisely because the Allies expected a repeat of 1914 and placed the bulk of their forces in the Belgian plain and failed to adequately cover the Ardennes or to maintain sufficient strategic reserves to respond to unexpected crises or opportunities. Those conditions did not exist in 1914 and therefore a similar attack to that of 1940 would not achieve the same level of success.
 
Most of the above points cover it pretty well; I think it's worth throwing in that consensus is that the best German strategy would have been Russia first.
 
The Ardennes attack succeeded in 1940 precisely because the Allies expected a repeat of 1914 and placed the bulk of their forces in the Belgian plain and failed to adequately cover the Ardennes or to maintain sufficient strategic reserves to respond to unexpected crises or opportunities.

Invaders have been traveling that route since the days of Julius Caesar, at least. And yet, defender after defender gets surprised. It baffles me, and makes me doubt whether Homo Sapiens is, in fact, an intelligent species. Doesn't ANYONE read history? :confused:
 
Invaders have been traveling that route since the days of Julius Caesar, at least. And yet, defender after defender gets surprised. It baffles me, and makes me doubt whether Homo Sapiens is, in fact, an intelligent species. Doesn't ANYONE read history? :confused:

Anyone who reads history would be justified in concluding that humans are not, in fact, intelligent. Oh, a few demonstrate some capacity for reasoning, but the majority? Sadly not. That's why people of no more than moderate intelligence are able to assume positions of influence; the bar is set very low. Cynical? Yes, but the facts seem to bear me out.
 
Top