Battle of Loos, 1915

Recently, I've been reading up a bit on my WWI history (mostly in "A History of the Great War," by C.R.M.F. Cruttwell), and I've had no shortage of interesting PODs tumbling about my head. Here's one of the most appealing, though I'm sure it's been thought of before. I'm thinking of turning it into a TL, though I'm not sure.

In OTL, the Allies launched a series of offensives in along the Western Front in Artois in September, 1915. One of these, the Battle of Loos, was plagued by a number of poor strategic decisions and accidents. Firstly, the British forces lacked artillery ammunition, and could not properly bombard the German lines before their assault. Secondly, the British commander, Douglas Haig, refused to attack without a gas attack. Thirdly, the French commander, Foch, refused to coordinate the French offensive with the British one, wishing to wait for a few hours of daylight before attacking. Finally, Sir John French, Haig's superior, jealously kept his infantry reserves from Haig, keeping them under his own direct command sixteen miles from the battle.

And, in OTL, the battle was joined and still was somewhat successful in the beginning; the British captured the town of Loos and sent the Germans into a high state of alarm; however, this success was not followed up on, as no proper reserves were available (there were some cavalry prepared, as the British wanted them to be able to take advantage of a breakthrough; but, as this never happened, the cavalry were wasted). The British were smashed by a counterattack but were still in a good position; in the words of Haig, "If there had been even one division in reserve up close we could have walked right through." The British outnumbered the Germans and reached their last trench in places; the German commanders were panicking, unsure of what to do.

Still in OTL, both Haig and Foch protested French's decision to hold onto the reserves so far behind. So here's an obvious Point of Divergence; let's have a British infantry division in reserve, being deployed about midday. Haig's prayers are answered and the British are able to completely overcome the German trenches in Artois, smashing through with superior numbers. Now, the British are in a position to deploy their cavalry and cause the Great War to become mobile once again, though not at all in the way the German Empire expected. Even if the expedition is ultimately a failure, it would provide evidence that trenches could be overcome, and perhaps, following the example provided at Loos, Entente (or particularly canny German) forces could achieve similar breakthroughs.

What happens next? I have a few ideas, but I want to see if there's anything glaring I'm missing before I dedicate myself to a TL.
 
From what I've read, the shell shortage was more critical than lack of reserves, both for cutting the wire to begin with and later preventing German counter-attacks. Though it's easy to imagine additional troops being made available, it's not so easy to solve the failure of British industry to supply the necessary shells in 1915.

Not wanting to be a wet blanket, but even supposing a total break in the German defence system at that point, I question the ability of the Army to fully exploit it in the face of the type of counter-attack for which the Heer was famous. IMO the New Armies simply lacked the trained soldiers to even contemplate strategic success at this point in time on the Western front.
 
A lack of artillery ammo was a constant problem for British forces in the first few years of the war. Also, since conscription in Britain didn't start until '16, and in late '15 most of the Anzac forces were still being thrown away in Gallipoli, the British don't have the forces to exploit any breakthrough in a real way. The French wouldn't have been much help, either, since they'd just spend the campaign season throwing away their best troops in previous offensives in Champagne and Artois.

A more successful Loos would probably see a harder push by OKH to stiffen defensive works. Perhaps the Verdun offensive is cancelled, and emphasis shifts to the Eastern Front, with the Germans hoping to knock out Russia in 1916. On the other hand, perhaps the Germans take the lessons of a more successful Loos into account and make changes to their offensive plans against Verdun? The lack of heavy artillery preparation in front of the British lines was probably a boon to the attacking forces. By 1918, both sides had realised that heavy artillery bombardment over several days was actually self-defeating, as it not only alerted to enemy to the sector of battle but made the terrain in front of the lines almost impossible to advance across.
 
I and another poster have asked this question before. The idea of a massive Entente push pre-American entry generally leads to a paucity of comments, since no knows what it would look like, having never happened in OTL.
 
Well there were several pre-US entry Entente pushes. My grandfather was in one of them just 92 years ago, then there was another in Flanders in 1917, plus the successful one in July/August 1918 around Amiens that broke the Heer.

I mean no disrespect to our US friends by that last comment, but the truth is that it was September 1918 before the US were ready to launch an offensive of their own, even though it was then 15 months since they entered the war.
 
I think I asked something similar a while ago about Neuve Chappelle. These early offensives seem to have some thought put into them, the aim of the NC offensive was to make the supply lines to the area untennable and cause the Germans to pull back.

I think people get straightjacketed thinking about WW1.
 
Weaver,

Though many Americans in the "we saved their asses in both wars" camp might be offended by that comment, I've spent a good deal of time explaining to people I know that American forces had little impact in the way WWI ended OTL. Besides the threat of an eventual American build-up of forces, the German troops freed up for transfer to the West would have happened no matter what, as the collapse of the Russian Army began pre-OTL US DoW. Also, US in the war or not, the objective of splitting the French and the Brits, and then rolling up the Brits to the Channel ports would have been the obvious goal of OKH in 1918. On top of that, the AEF had little role in stopping the push of the Germans in the Spring offensives.

Even if there had been no Americans in France in early 1918, the Spring offensives wouldn't have succeeded in their goals, and after that, Germany was on the ropes. The people on the homefront were facing starvation, and revolution was simmering. Would they have lasted longer in the fight? Perhaps. I sincerely doubt that this would have resulted in a good outcome for Germany, though. A WWI that ended in 1919 would probably be even worse for them that a war ending in 1918...
 
Top