Central Powers joint high command?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if the Central Powers, specifically just Austria and Germany, formed a joint high command in wartime with a pre-war planning committee to coordinate war plans. How would it impact the war for both sides to be on the same page from the very beginning, rather than running separate, uncoordinated plans? Say the joint command has an Austrian royal as the titular head with a German Chief of Staff to do the work; IIRC that was proposed IOTL.
 
Is the German Navy included in this joint command? Is the Navy command structure rearranged to accommodate this new joint command?

IOTL Oberbefehlshaber der Küstenverteidigung was created in April 1916 as an army command on the condition that a Navy officer was part of OHL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Is the German Navy included in this joint command? Is the Navy command structure rearranged to accommodate this new joint command?

IOTL Oberbefehlshaber der Küstenverteidigung was created in April 1916 as an army command on the condition that a Navy officer was part of OHL.
Theoretically it is a high command on top of existing commands that passes down joint strategy to both militaries. So any flaws within the German system in terms of coordinating naval and army missions would still be there.
 
From reading @BlondieBC's stuff, I gathered that German naval planning was seriously deficient before the war, as in close to non-existent. I don't know whether having this set up some years beforehand might be an impetus to fix that, but it's something to think about.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What if the Central Powers, specifically just Austria and Germany, formed a joint high command in wartime with a pre-war planning committee to coordinate war plans. How would it impact the war for both sides to be on the same page from the very beginning, rather than running separate, uncoordinated plans? Say the joint command has an Austrian royal as the titular head with a German Chief of Staff to do the work; IIRC that was proposed IOTL.

IMO you get either a Central powers win or avoid the war. So start back before the war. We have to sync the German French first plan with the Austrian Balkans first plan and the Austrian Russia first plan. The politics of this would be fascinating, and it could go many ways, but I think the most likely choices are a Russia first plan with a defensive against France. I just can't see the Germans optimizing the plan to take the Balkans, and I have trouble see the Austrians agreeing to a French first plan. If the Germans win the debate and get a French first plan, the Germans will be under a lot of pressure to add an army or two so there can be a supporting attack out of East Prussia into Poland to support the Austrians.

But for discussion, lets say we get OTL forces. With a joint planning HQ, it will be clear to the Germans that the Austrians will start a war regardless of the Russian diplomatic actions. The steps done in the run up to the war will be a dead give away. So we have a situation where the Kaiser understands that by supporting the Austrians ultimatum, he is agreeing to a near certainty of war. And this could have a lot of butterflies.

Now lets say the war starts of time with a Russia only plan. We get a totally different war. We have had lots of threads on this topic, and it seems like the most common view is that the Russians fall back to their fortresses. Poland falls to the Central Powers. France is bloodied attacking into western Germany, but this is largely compensated by keeping more territory. Good chance Italy does not enter the war, but this would be debated a lot in a thread. War goes into year two in 1915. It is not clear who and how Central Powers will knock out either France or Russia. France has a much better positions that OTL. Russia has depth. UK is in the war and has strategic freedom now since saving France will not be so urgent.

Now if we go with the idea of OTL forces and War Plans, the we have OTL German plans and the Austrians do the Russia first defensive plans. I would presume the Germans would have to agree to continue the war long enough to force concessions in the Balkans after France falls. You have an ATL with these types of plans.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
From reading @BlondieBC's stuff, I gathered that German naval planning was seriously deficient before the war, as in close to non-existent. I don't know whether having this set up some years beforehand might be an impetus to fix that, but it's something to think about.

Yes, it was pretty bad. When I did my first ATL, I just focused on the submarines until the war started. I had found the British fleet movements for the early weeks of the war. And I just assumed the German Navy had plans, so I would do one of the more aggressive ones. Then I looked at what the German surface navy actually did. The sat in port waiting for the British Fleet to arrive off the German Coast. The Germans did even have things like good plans to lay the minefields. It took them weeks and weeks to get things organized. The British had the same issues at Scapa Flow, but they were building a base from scratch. The Germans were operating out of base that they had built over decades.

In some way the Germans and British are mirror images of each other. German spent a huge amount of time developing complex war plans for the land war. The Royal Navy spent a huge amount of time doing the same for the naval plans. The German Navy war plans were basically non-existent to incomplete. The British Army war plans were incomplete.

Now we get one more interesting event. The Germans executed their War Plans on Land. The British Navy was unable to exercise their war plans since the British Army sent its troops to Belgium/France. It is interesting that in a case of a major war, the British Army won the internal political struggle over the Admirals. So we see a war where both navies were trying to make up a strategy as the war went along. And this is also the reason we respect the German Army so much. The Germans actually got the benefit of their years of planning. The Royal Navy squander its planning, and the cadre of the British Army was slaughter due to being put into a war it was not designed to fight. To give you a size and depth of Royal Navy planning, the summary runs into a few hundred pages. They had detailed plans where each squadron had pre-written orders for each variant of the plan and ships were assigned to squadrons based on which plan was used. If the Admirals had been able to gain control of the British Army divisions and integrate them into the plans, we might well see the British attack the German coastline almost as fast as the German army attacked Belgium.

And we get interesting side effects. Many of the ships (destroyers) that were so useful in the U-boat war were not built to fight U-boats. They were designed to be the front line of the close blockade operating in the German Blight. They would basically never leave the German coastline. And some British ships were designed to fight their way up German rivers with amphibious support. It just happens that a ship that is designed to fight and destroy German torpedo boats also can handle a U-boat on the surface.
 
Theoretically it is a high command on top of existing commands that passes down joint strategy to both militaries. So any flaws within the German system in terms of coordinating naval and army missions would still be there.

With Austria asking awkward questions maybe Germany will have to make changes to answer them.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Yes, it was pretty bad. When I did my first ATL, I just focused on the submarines until the war started. I had found the British fleet movements for the early weeks of the war. And I just assumed the German Navy had plans, so I would do one of the more aggressive ones. Then I looked at what the German surface navy actually did. The sat in port waiting for the British Fleet to arrive off the German Coast. The Germans did even have things like good plans to lay the minefields. It took them weeks and weeks to get things organized. The British had the same issues at Scapa Flow, but they were building a base from scratch. The Germans were operating out of base that they had built over decades.

In some way the Germans and British are mirror images of each other. German spent a huge amount of time developing complex war plans for the land war. The Royal Navy spent a huge amount of time doing the same for the naval plans. The German Navy war plans were basically non-existent to incomplete. The British Army war plans were incomplete.

I thought that, certainly up to about 1912, the opposite was true of British war planning. The Army had a thoroughly prepared plan to send the BEF to join the right wing of the French, even down to train timetables allowing 10 minute stops for a brew-up. Think Henry Wilson did the Army plan and Arthur Wilson the RN plan, which basically did not exist except for a vague plan to land British troops somewhere that might embarrass the Kaiser - or more likley lead to a swift British defeat and evacuation.

I don't have my sources at the moment, but acknowledge that you have far more knowledge & experience in this theatre, so could you please set me straight?

And Merry Christmas
 
Given that from 1913/14 the Germans only had a single, western, plan and there were no eastern plans like 1912/13 would the only thing a joint command do is inform AH to conduct their mobilisation with that in mind? Or would Moltke rig up an eastern plan for 1914 if he was in joint consultation with Conrad?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I thought that, certainly up to about 1912, the opposite was true of British war planning. The Army had a thoroughly prepared plan to send the BEF to join the right wing of the French, even down to train timetables allowing 10 minute stops for a brew-up. Think Henry Wilson did the Army plan and Arthur Wilson the RN plan, which basically did not exist except for a vague plan to land British troops somewhere that might embarrass the Kaiser - or more likley lead to a swift British defeat and evacuation.

I don't have my sources at the moment, but acknowledge that you have far more knowledge & experience in this theatre, so could you please set me straight?

And Merry Christmas

There are two totally separate planning process. I was describing the Royal Navy planning, which went through War Plans A, A1, B, B1, C, C1, D, D1, and the finally the W1 to W-6 series. The W series had orders for every squadron of ships, so these are the full plans the RN plans to fight with. What you are describing is the British Army war plans which was a separate planning track. And the Army plans is what was executed because if the RN did not get control of the army, the RN lacked the forces need to execute its warplans.

If you want to see a 300 page summary, you can to to the Kings College. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ War planning and strategic development in the Royal Navy, 1887-1918 by Grimes Shaw

I am working on the assumption that you prefer summaries, so here is some of the details. ;) The Royal Navy focused on being able to dominate the Baltic Sea. This domination allowed them to apply pressure to either Germany or Russia.

  • 1880's. Planning to blockade France.
  • By the 1890's, the RN is starting to deal with technology issues making a close blockade tough (torpedo, etc). Still mostly anti-French planning.
  • 1902 Exercises practice attacking mouth of Elbe and Kiel Canal Western exit.
  • 1903 exercises focused on taking Kiel Canal
  • Other plans had main British Fleet within 30 miles of Skaw Denmark or near Laeso Denmark. Basically seizing island of neutrals to use as a base. The plans against France also had the UK violating neutrality by seizing Spanish Islands.
  • 1905 Events shift focus. Options include offensive, inshore, and observational blockade of German North Sea and Baltic coasts. Targets switch to Kiel, Kiel Canal, Schleswig Holstein, Helgioland, Wilhemshaven, Cuxhaven, and Baltic entrances. 11 naval division in Baltic, 21 on German North Sea coast.

I can go on for pages like this, but I hope you see the gist. If the Royal Navy plans had been followed, the BEF most likely landing place is Jutland. To keep the Baltic open, then the Royal Navy would be doing offensive operations all up and down the German coast. The Germans knew of these plans, and it is why the expected the Royal Navy to close to the German coast line. It explains why the Germans did not need long ranges on ships. Or good sleeping quarters. They were going to fight the Royal Navy within a half day sail of the German naval bases, maybe much closer. Now when the British Army executed its plan by landing in Flanders, the more popular Royal Navy plans were all invalidated. There were not enough land units to hold either Northern Jutland or to seize islands near the German coast.

And here is where planning matters. The British had also planned a lot of other scenarios. One of these was the distant blockade. This plan was used. Scapa Flow was a base in several intermediate plans, so this portion was used. The Germans, well, they barely had a primary plan, so they did not know what to do with the fleet.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
There are two totally separate planning process. I was describing the Royal Navy planning, which went through War Plans A, A1, B, B1, C, C1, D, D1, and the finally the W1 to W-6 series. The W series had orders for every squadron of ships, so these are the full plans the RN plans to fight with. What you are describing is the British Army war plans which was a separate planning track. And the Army plans is what was executed because if the RN did not get control of the army, the RN lacked the forces need to execute its warplans......
And here is where planning matters. The British had also planned a lot of other scenarios. One of these was the distant blockade. This plan was used. Scapa Flow was a base in several intermediate plans, so this portion was used. The Germans, well, they barely had a primary plan, so they did not know what to do with the fleet.

Thanks. I was aware of the Navy seeing the Army as a projectile to be fired by the Navy, but not the more detailed Navy plans. I may well take up your direction to the fuller docs.;)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What if the Central Powers, specifically just Austria and Germany, formed a joint high command in wartime with a pre-war planning committee to coordinate war plans. How would it impact the war for both sides to be on the same page from the very beginning, rather than running separate, uncoordinated plans? Say the joint command has an Austrian royal as the titular head with a German Chief of Staff to do the work; IIRC that was proposed IOTL.
Apologies for my amateur knowledge of this, but if what Indy Nidell said in his WWI videos is accurate, this might have been a difference in battles such as Verdun.
 

Deleted member 1487

Apologies for my amateur knowledge of this, but if what Indy Nidell said in his WWI videos is accurate, this might have been a difference in battles such as Verdun.
Who? It wouldn't have likely effected Verdun at all...but could have had a major impact on Austrian operations in 1916, perhaps preventing the 'Strafexpedition' and leaving forces in the East, which would have precluded Brusilov's breakthrough. There was a thread done a while back about Brusilov's offensive in 1916, where I pointed out that if you do some reading about Austrian operations in 1916, they stripped out the Eastern Front to attack Italy, which gave the Russians a free ride in Galicia, which shocked everyone, including Brusiolv, when they broke through. The Austrians pulled out so much equipment, artillery, and men that trenches weren't built in most areas or there was only one line of continguous trenches, rather than 3 lines deep as demanded by regulations. Had the Austrians held and then not required massive Germans support that would have had a major impact on operations all over the place.
 

CaliGuy

Banned

The guy who makes these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcyEsEjhPEDf69RRVhRh4A

It wouldn't have likely effected Verdun at all...but could have had a major impact on Austrian operations in 1916, perhaps preventing the 'Strafexpedition' and leaving forces in the East, which would have precluded Brusilov's breakthrough. There was a thread done a while back about Brusilov's offensive in 1916, where I pointed out that if you do some reading about Austrian operations in 1916, they stripped out the Eastern Front to attack Italy, which gave the Russians a free ride in Galicia, which shocked everyone, including Brusiolv, when they broke through. The Austrians pulled out so much equipment, artillery, and men that trenches weren't built in most areas or there was only one line of continguous trenches, rather than 3 lines deep as demanded by regulations. Had the Austrians held and then not required massive Germans support that would have had a major impact on operations all over the place.

I'll have to check the relevant video again; however, this might be what Indy was talking about. Specifically, had German and A-H coordinated their moves, A-H would have been told not to attack Italy. That way, the front in the East would have been secured and Germany wouldn't have needed to send some of its troops from the West to the East in 1916 in order to save A-H from the Russians during the Brusilov Offensive.
 
Top