Battle of the Piave What If

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Historically the Austro-Hungarians split their forces between two armies, one attacking from Tyrol the other across the Piave. This led to neither being decisive and both being defeated in detail. The Piave thrust was the most successful and inflicted the heaviest losses on the Italians, so what if this thrust was given the proper support? Could it have been more effective and driven the Italians back, perhaps shaping a different post-war peace deal?

The situation was strategically and logistically hopeless for the AHs, which means the Italians will win eventually, but at what cost? Will they be too badly ground up to grab so many AH troops in November 24 hrs before the armistice?
 
Heh, I've been researching this very issue for my TL. I had a small discussion with Douglas, I believe that's who it was. We came to the conclusion that the Austrians would win pretty well, but it wouldn't be a war ender, and that more battles were ahead. If the duel attack had worked, it would have been a war ender.
 

Deleted member 1487

Heh, I've been researching this very issue for my TL. I had a small discussion with Douglas, I believe that's who it was. We came to the conclusion that the Austrians would win pretty well, but it wouldn't be a war ender, and that more battles were ahead. If the duel attack had worked, it would have been a war ender.

Really?! How did you come to that conclusion? Italian defenses were pretty solid and based on an elastic defense the reinforcements motorized for zonal defense. They even knew the time and places for the offensives OTL, which enabled them to open artillery 15 min before the attack was to jump off inflicting terrible losses on assault troops packed in trenches. Diaz was no Cadorna and had developed a decent defense system. That and logistics and weather were against the Austrians.

That said, the Tyrol detachment wouldn't be weakened enough to allow the Italians to breakthrough, and there is always the Brenner pass to stop them at if worse comes to worse. Having studied in Vienna, I know it is very far for a WW1 army, even in 1918. Especially given the brutal terrain that would have to be fought through and the tough Tyrolean troops fighting for their homes.
 
Really?! How did you come to that conclusion? Italian defenses were pretty solid and based on an elastic defense the reinforcements motorized for zonal defense. They even knew the time and places for the offensives OTL, which enabled them to open artillery 15 min before the attack was to jump off inflicting terrible losses on assault troops packed in trenches. Diaz was no Cadorna and had developed a decent defense system. That and logistics and weather were against the Austrians.

That said, the Tyrol detachment wouldn't be weakened enough to allow the Italians to breakthrough, and there is always the Brenner pass to stop them at if worse comes to worse. Having studied in Vienna, I know it is very far for a WW1 army, even in 1918. Especially given the brutal terrain that would have to be fought through and the tough Tyrolean troops fighting for their homes.

Should probably change that would to a could in my previous post, actually.

The point being, while changing the plan might make the attack more successfull, the benfits of the duel assualt were that it could be a war ender.
 
Top