Better Schleiffen Plan

So I read yesterday that during war games concerning the Schleiffen Plan one scenario led to the German armies sweeping east of Paris and cutting the French armies off from their capital. So WI this exercise has a bigger impact than OTL and the Germans do their best to make the plan full proof by withdrawing during the Battle of the Frontiers and drawing the French deeper into the bag. Is this anyway plausible?
 

Cook

Banned
Just remember that there is no such thing as a “Fool Proof” plan. No plan survives contact with the enemy and it’s a poor plan that cannot be changed.
Also remember that the French and British, and the Russians for that matter may not be inclined to play the game the way you hope. There is always the unforseen and unexpected.

Something about Paris taxi cabs springs to mind.
 
I will stick with Schlieffen on this and say "Keep the Right strong" The whole problem with the execution by Moltke was he kept on pulling away divisions from the right to reinforce the left and therefore weaken the hammer blow.

Yes, there are issues with timetable, troop movement speed, etc that really fouled things up. I think if the German General Staff wargamed the logistical side better they would have caught it. I am not an expert and have surely started a firestorm :D
 
So I read yesterday that during war games concerning the Schleiffen Plan one scenario led to the German armies sweeping east of Paris and cutting the French armies off from their capital. So WI this exercise has a bigger impact than OTL and the Germans do their best to make the plan full proof by withdrawing during the Battle of the Frontiers and drawing the French deeper into the bag. Is this anyway plausible?

To be honest, I can see no way on how the Schleiffen Plan could be any better or worse, it's an average plan at best and was screwed over by circumstances. The basic basic premise of the plan is for the Germans to take down the French quickly and turn their attention the the Russians on the east. Remember that Germany in WWI was fighting a two-front war, France and Britain in the West and Russia in the East. Withdrawing against the French would defeat the purpose of the plan because what the plan is basically 'blitzkrieg' without aircraft and tanks and was screwed over by Belgian unwillingness to cooperate coupled with British intervention. In short, there's no conceivable way for Schleiffen Plan to be 'better' without defeat its entire purpose in the first place.
 
So I read yesterday that during war games concerning the Schleiffen Plan one scenario led to the German armies sweeping east of Paris and cutting the French armies off from their capital. So WI this exercise has a bigger impact than OTL and the Germans do their best to make the plan full proof by withdrawing during the Battle of the Frontiers and drawing the French deeper into the bag. Is this anyway plausible?

The Germans didn't need to withdraw during the battle of the frontiers... they won the battle and slaughtered the french attacking uphill without artillery support in their bright red pants
 
You were the bloke who fucked it as I recall.
Not even Holger Herwig thinks that, these days, and he's one of the people who still thinks that the "Plan" existed! It's as if you guys learned about this from reading Gerhard Ritter and Barbara Tuchman. ;) It's hardly my fault Hermann von Kuhl et al. scapegoated me.
 
As I recall it was Hentsch, as intel officer, who decided on the 20th Aug 1914 that the British were disembarking at Boulogne with an advance gaurd at Lille when in reality they were ready for battle at Mauberge. No wonder Kluck could defeat the BEF with that sort of top-notch intel appreciation to work with.
 
As I recall it was Hentsch, as intel officer, who decided on the 20th Aug 1914 that the British were disembarking at Boulogne with an advance gaurd at Lille when in reality they were ready for battle at Mauberge. No wonder Kluck could defeat the BEF with that sort of top-notch intel appreciation to work with.
If Kluck and Kuhl were relying on General Staff intelligence, it's their own damned fault for blundering into the BEF. They had one of the largest cavalry detachments in the German Army, and airplanes for further reconnaissance. It was not the Staff's job to be the eyes and ears of its field commanders.
 
If Kluck and Kuhl were relying on General Staff intelligence, it's their own damned fault for blundering into the BEF. They had one of the largest cavalry detachments in the German Army, and airplanes for further reconnaissance. It was not the Staff's job to be the eyes and ears of its field commanders.

Yea but you could have done a better job convincing your master Moltke that the threat in the east didn't require you to transfer two corps who would arrive AFTER tannenberg anyway... know your people, Hoffman was running the show there and he knew how to get shit done
 
Moltke had placed Kluck under the command of Bulow, and Bulow had taken 1st Army's cavalry for his own purposes.

That brings me to the biggest lost opportunity of the campaign, the lack of a command level between Moltke and the left wing armies. Moltke and co had forseen this to be a problem and addressed it to an extent by placing 1st Army under the command of 2nd Army, but this is a poor arrangement. What would have been better is if Moltke had appointed an Army group commander to control 1st, 2nd and 3rd Armies. Such a commander could have operated close to the front and directed these 3 armies to coordinate against Lanzeracs 5th Army and the BEF. Remove these 2 forces and the whole campaign looks different.
 
Top