Conrad's War, 1917

[wkwillis]

In 1917 Conrad, an important AustroHungarian general, advocated an Eastern Strategy. Instead of knocking France out of the war before the Americans got there, he suggested taking out the new Russian government. What if he got his way?
The Germans build successive defence lines back to the Rhine and send a third of their divisions to Russia and drive essentially all the way to the Urals in 1918. Siberia is still Bolshevik, but that's about it. Baku is in German hands and so is the entire Black Sea. Bulgarian troops are relieved at the Salonika front and Bulgaria stays in the war. German aircraft are sent down to Turkey and the Palestine front, so Turkey is also successfull and stays in the war.
With a defensive strategy in the West the war is less successful for the Americans.
Meanwhile the war lasts until 1919. The Flu shuts down offensive operations in the winter on both sides.
Germany does five things.
1. It demobilizes the AustroHungarian army except for volunteers. The harvest is much better in 1918 (and 1919) than in OTL. So is the coal supply.
2. It captures great quantities of horses from the Russians. These are crucial in keeping the war going. There was an epizootic horse encephalitis or something back then which was like an OPEC embargo in the effect it had on the economy.
3. It sends all the Easternfront prisoners back home and frees up lots of guards for the trench lines and other purposes.
4. It sends all the submarines no longer usefull in attacking ships (because the British adopted convoys) into the Mediterranean and starves the Salonika front of supplies.
5. It sends the Easternfront troops to the Westernfront when they are no longer needed in Russia. The second line troops are sufficient to keep the peace in Russia.
The Allies do five things.
1. America has twice as many troops in Europe in 1919 as in 1918. Britain and France bring in huge numbers of colonial troops, using their previous colonial troops as a cadre.
2. America has ramped up it's munitions production in 1918 and 1919, more ammunition, more armor, more aircraft, more artillary.
3. America has a trained army. They have discovered which doctrines work and know how to use them in different situations in combined arms operations. They tested them in 1918 in OTL. Now they have perfected them.
4. America has a new president. In OTL Wilson had a stroke. In this ATL he is overseas and can't be isolated as in OTL. Marshall is now president pending Wilson's recovery.
5. America has a new strategy. America is going to move it's air bases into range of the German cities and bomb them into submission.
The results are that the Germans are attacked by artillary to pin down the edges of the battlefields, aircraft to straff the trench lines, armor to breach the barbed wire, and small groups of infantry continuously infiltrating the trench lines.
Germany is pushed back to the Rhine in a month's worth of battles. A million troops die on each side. German troops are experienced, but armor, aircraft, and artillary is a winning combination. Germany now has lost as much territory as they took from France, and suffered as much damage. And it isn't over.
The American bombers arrive in the fall of 1919. No decent antiaircraft fire, no decent radar, and radio controlled direction finding let the American airforce find the German cities across the Rhine. They can't bomb anything smaller than a square mile or more than a hundred miles from the radio stations they use for direction finding, but there are lots of German cities larger than a square mile within a hundred miles of the Rhine. They take off at night from the airfields, the radio is turned on so they can find their way to the target, they bomb at night so they can't be shot down, and then they fly back to their airfields and land in the daylight, where a CAP deals with any Germans that have followed them home.
This goes on all winter.
In 1920 the Germans surrender on terms.
1. They lose all territory west of the Rhine.
2. They lose all territory in the east where they are not a majority.
3. They lose all their colonies.
4. They lose their navy.
5. They are allowed to keep an army.
6. They do not pay reparations because the damage is so great to the German cities that the French are no longer at an economic disadvantage. Having 10,000 American bombers operating a conveyer belt to your cities is very, very, destructive. A 100 pound bomb will destroy a house worth 100 times as much. Also, there are a lot of dead civilians as they desperately try to keep their economy going and not evacuate their industrial heartland.

So, what do the Americans (and their European allies) do with Eastern Europe and Russia and the 'stans?

 

[Shadow Knight]

It seems like this scenerio is suffering a bit of overthing goes right for one side and everything goes wrong for the other. Well at least up until a point where it reverses.

1) Okay I can see a partial demobilization for AH of poorer quality troops (those not designated to occupy parts of Russia, Romania, etc.), but total demobilization would threaten their front with Italy.
2) No problem there. Additional agricultural goods extracted from Russian occupied territories may help as it drags into 1919, but getting it in sufficient quantities to Germany and AH could be a problem.
3) No problems with that although it may be a staggered release to ensure continued cooperation with whatever authority remains in Russia, etc. so it may not yield a big one time boost but a trickle overtime.
4) That's a long way to go for WWI subs (Did they have the range to do that back then?) especially since most of the territory/waters they are going to have to traverse is patroled heavily by the Allied navies (particularly Gibraltar which yields a natural choke point).
5) Could interfere with point 1, unless these are going to be primarily German troops which I'd argue are more needed on the Western front than AH troops.

Allies
1) That could very well lead to unrest in the colonial portions of their empires (India could very well explode at the mention of drafts, unless maybe independence has been offered in exchange).
2) Ammunition okay, but the rest were either built by the UK or France for American troops. It's possible that the US would have begun to build factories in the US to build additional stuff, but this is the US of WWI not the US of WWII. A point to consider are transportation to get this stuff to the Western front (are additional troops going to have to wait, or that food shipment).
3) Alright now they are up there with the BEF, French, and the German Armies.
4) Hmm, are you saying he had a stroke early or that it happened at such a time where it was not feasible to isolate him (as in during a speech he collapses). Just being overseas does not mean he couldn't be isolated, just inform the world that the President has taken ill with the flu and is confined to bed rest for the foreseable future.
5) Woah, bombers of WWI are not, I repeat NOT, bombers of WWII. Their range was limited, their payload even more so, and the technology to do accurate bomb sites to really do any damage are decades away.

As for the rest well it can be discussed when the issues above are solved.

 

[MrP]

Maybe a figurehead monarch? Will the Czar survive in this ATL?

4) I don't think the Austrians have the basing facilities to operate such a force, When's the Otranto barrage come into being?

 

[Wendell]

Some issues...

The Bolsheviks weren't all that strong in Siberia to start with. If they're pushed west of the Urals, they will have met their end. The war, however, would likely have ended on that front by the time German artillery were in range of Moscow, and Petrograd had fallen. I'd expect a Tsar (or general) to be "restored," on the condition that Russia makes peace and maybe switches sides. Granted, the new government won't like the land concessions to Germany, but frankly, they're tired, and the nation is devastated.

 

[CalBear]

Is there enough food, fuel, fodder and other essentials to keep Germany going until 1919-20?

I've always gotten the impression that the German Home Front was about to fold up or raise the Red Flag because of the privations caused by the British Blockade. This is the reason always given for the October peace feelers.

 

[Wendell]

Is there enough food, fuel, fodder and other essentials to keep Germany going until 1919-20?

I've always gotten the impression that the German Home Front was about to fold up or raise the Red Flag because of the privations caused by the British Blockade. This is the reason always given for the October peace feelers.

I think that if Germany had been in a better situation in the east, they could have kept fighting until 1920.

 

[Max Sinister]

If the Germans capture the Ukraine and Baku, they should have enough food and oil... but that's not the point. The point is: The German troops were exhausted after four years of war and could've beaten maybe the European Allies (who were in similar state), but not the fresh American troops. Unless the ASBs give the Germans several million fresh troops to counter the G.I.s, there's no way this would work. The idea "we knock Russia out, keep only second line troops there, and knock out the Western Allies then" didn't work in OTL either. Besides, after the peace of Brest-Litovsk the Allies could see how the Germans would dismember their empires if they lost the war.

 

[wkwillis]

Shadow Knight
It seems like this scenerio is suffering a bit of overthing goes right for one side and everything goes wrong for the other. Well at least up until a point where it reverses. Germany also lost the war on OTL. This is just how they lose it different.

1) Okay I can see a partial demobilization for AH of poorer quality troops (those not designated to occupy parts of Russia, Romania, etc.), but total demobilization would threaten their front with Italy.

The Italian front folds up. No troops there.

2) No problem there. Additional agricultural goods extracted from Russian occupied territories may help as it drags into 1919, but getting it in sufficient quantities to Germany and AH could be a problem.

In OTL the Bolsheviks had to hand over lots of railroad stock to the Germans, in this ATL they don't. The Germans have to switch the guage (which is relatively easy), and also provide the railroad stock to operate the railroad to extract grain, etc. Horses can walk under their own power.

3) No problems with that although it may be a staggered release to ensure continued cooperation with whatever authority remains in Russia, etc. so it may not yield a big one time boost but a trickle overtime.

Could be the Germans keep holding the officers and only release the enlisted?

4) That's a long way to go for WWI subs (Did they have the range to do that back then?) especially since most of the territory/waters they are going to have to traverse is patroled heavily by the Allied navies (particularly Gibraltar which yields a natural choke point).

Range is speed. The subs could make it by trundling along on the surface and submerging to wait during the day.

5) Could interfere with point 1, unless these are going to be primarily German troops which I'd argue are more needed on the Western front than AH troops.

That's what they did in WWI and WWII. You keep the good troops for the fighting and send the old men and boys to quieter zones.

Allies
1) That could very well lead to unrest in the colonial portions of their empires (India could very well explode at the mention of drafts, unless maybe independence has been offered in exchange).

I figure they can hire them, as in OTL.

2) Ammunition okay, but the rest were either built by the UK or France for American troops. It's possible that the US would have begun to build factories in the US to build additional stuff, but this is the US of WWI not the US of WWII. A point to consider are transportation to get this stuff to the Western front (are additional troops going to have to wait, or that food shipment).

America started building armaments factories in 1917, got some production in 1918, and was really going to ramp up in 1919.

3) Alright now they are up there with the BEF, French, and the German Armies.

Correct. At 2,000,000 troops and more coming, they are equivalent to the British Commonwealth, if not France.

4) Hmm, are you saying he had a stroke early or that it happened at such a time where it was not feasible to isolate him (as in during a speech he collapses). Just being overseas does not mean he couldn't be isolated, just inform the world that the President has taken ill with the flu and is confined to bed rest for the foreseable future.

A public stroke and disability, combined with a war to be fought rather than a responsibility to be dodged.

5) Woah, bombers of WWI are not, I repeat NOT, bombers of WWII. Their range was limited, their payload even more so, and the technology to do accurate bomb sites to really do any damage are decades away.

In WWII the bombers could bomb more than one hundred miles away, and more than cities of over one square mile. This is WWI so you have to use their bombers, their bombloads, and their range.

As for the rest well it can be discussed when the issues above are solved.

I wonder what the peace will be like?

 

[Shadow Knight]

The Italian front folds up. No troops there.

So the French, British, and Italian field armies disappear? Italy folds? You need to do some explaining on why this front folds.

In OTL the Bolsheviks had to hand over lots of railroad stock to the Germans, in this ATL they don't. The Germans have to switch the guage (which is relatively easy), and also provide the railroad stock to operate the railroad to extract grain, etc. Horses can walk under their own power.

Yes but carry less also. Really had Germany and AH just enacted a ration program like the UK they would have mitigated most of the problems of the blockade. I've got no problems with the horses though if that's the route you want to go.

Could be the Germans keep holding the officers and only release the enlisted?

Most certaintly but the new power in Russia proper (the Tsar?) may need those officers to keep his neck then hordes of unemployed, underfed, under-just about everything POW's. Still the problem is not going to solve itself overnight.

Range is speed. The subs could make it by trundling along on the surface and submerging to wait during the day.

Looking up the stats of WWI subs, if you discount the cargo subs and concentrate on the combat subs, only a few of the late model subs would have been able to make that journey. I'm skeptical that all that many would have made it to safe harbour in the Med. given that almost all the way there was unfriendly. They might have ported in Spain but allied spies would just radio in their location at such-and-such port and knock them off once they cleared into international waters.

That's what they did in WWI and WWII. You keep the good troops for the fighting and send the old men and boys to quieter zones.

No arguing there, but it still requires a lot of troops to do that which will create a strain on logistical needs that could be better served on the Western Front. In this case I'd say Germany would garrison some troops in the Baltic states (now independent) and occupied Poland (maybe with some AH troops there also) and loot and scoot from the rest (AH may have some garrison troops in the Ukraine) leaving the Tsar to fend for himself while the Germans deal with the West (at least for now).

I figure they can hire them, as in OTL.

But in the numbers you are talking about is going to stretch the allies already desperate cash problem. More loans from the US?

America started building armaments factories in 1917, got some production in 1918, and was really going to ramp up in 1919.

Certainly plausible but shipping was limited (I don't recall anything like the Liberty ships in WWI but I could be wrong.). The US is going to be shipping all these men (IIRC most of it was on British transports), food and material goods to the Allies to keep their war machines operating (especially if you want them to equip all these new colonial forces), and now things like tanks, artillery, planes, bombers, in addition to mounds of ammo, and supplies for their own troops...seems like a stretch. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but by the time you gave on your TL I just don't see it happening, but I've been wrong before.

Correct. At 2,000,000 troops and more coming, they are equivalent to the British Commonwealth, if not France.

What I meant was as in quality of training/experience not quantity...although certaintly not war weary like all the other participants.

A public stroke and disability, combined with a war to be fought rather than a responsibility to be dodged.

Good I never like him much anyways.

In WWII the bombers could bomb more than one hundred miles away, and more than cities of over one square mile. This is WWI so you have to use their bombers, their bombloads, and their range.

Doing some research on bombers of WWI I came across the Handley Page V-1500, which seems to be the most advanced bomber the Allies had (see attached picture), it's stats from Wikipedia says it was planned to bomb Germany (i.e Berlin, etc.). However they had only 3 in late 1918. I am unsure whether enough of these bombers would have been available to accomplish what you want by late 1919/20...maybe I just don't know how easily they were built, if the support infrastructure was there to maintain hundreds (probably thousands because of their limited payload) of these things, nor does it say how easily AA (fighters or just plain old AAA) could down these things...because they will not have much aircover beyond the borders of Germany.

 

[wkwillis]

So the French, British, and Italian field armies disappear? Italy folds? You need to do some explaining on why this front folds.

Because the Italians get tired of the war and ask everyone to leave.

Yes but carry less also. Really had Germany and AH just enacted a ration program like the UK they would have mitigated most of the problems of the blockade. I've got no problems with the horses though if that's the route you want to go.

The horses don't carry anything. They just are herded to Germany and used by the army to pull wagons. In WWI all the armies were horse drawn.

Most certaintly but the new power in Russia proper (the Tsar?) may need those officers to keep his neck then hordes of unemployed, underfed, under-just about everything POW's. Still the problem is not going to solve itself overnight.

Russia doesn't surrender, it's overrun and pushed back into Siberia.

Looking up the stats of WWI subs, if you discount the cargo subs and concentrate on the combat subs, only a few of the late model subs would have been able to make that journey. I'm skeptical that all that many would have made it to safe harbour in the Med. given that almost all the way there was unfriendly. They might have ported in Spain but allied spies would just radio in their location at such-and-such port and knock them off once they cleared into international waters.

Yes, just the most modern submarines would have made the journey. I'm not sure of regulations for submarines. Only Spain, Portugal, and Italy would have had neutral harbors.

No arguing there, but it still requires a lot of troops to do that which will create a strain on logistical needs that could be better served on the Western Front. In this case I'd say Germany would garrison some troops in the Baltic states (now independent) and occupied Poland (maybe with some AH troops there also) and loot and scoot from the rest (AH may have some garrison troops in the Ukraine) leaving the Tsar to fend for himself while the Germans deal with the West (at least for now).

No Tsar. Just some second line troops in occupation and blocking the Siberian railway.

But in the numbers you are talking about is going to stretch the allies already desperate cash problem. More loans from the US?

Yes.

Certainly plausible but shipping was limited (I don't recall anything like the Liberty ships in WWI but I could be wrong.). The US is going to be shipping all these men (IIRC most of it was on British transports), food and material goods to the Allies to keep their war machines operating (especially if you want them to equip all these new colonial forces), and now things like tanks, artillery, planes, bombers, in addition to mounds of ammo, and supplies for their own troops...seems like a stretch. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but by the time you gave on your TL I just don't see it happening, but I've been wrong before.

The US built a large fleet of covoy ships. They were anchored till the thirties, then sold for scrap.

What I meant was as in quality of training/experience not quantity...although certaintly not war weary like all the other participants.

Well, by then most armies knew how to fight.

Good I never like him much anyways.

Neither do I.

Doing some research on bombers of WWI I came across the Handley Page V-1500, which seems to be the most advanced bomber the Allies had (see attached picture), it's stats from Wikipedia says it was planned to bomb Germany (i.e Berlin, etc.). However they had only 3 in late 1918. I am unsure whether enough of these bombers would have been available to accomplish what you want by late 1919/20...maybe I just don't know how easily they were built, if the support infrastructure was there to maintain hundreds (probably thousands because of their limited payload) of these things, nor does it say how easily AA (fighters or just plain old AAA) could down these things...because they will not have much aircover beyond the borders of Germany.

I don't think the Germans had lots of AA capability above machine gun range, and I know that they didn't have radar in 1919. You are just up there with a fighter trying to find a dark shape in the night before they drop a few hundred pounds of bombs off and trundle home. I didn't know that we could also have bombed Berline, I was figuring that the Ruhr was about the limit. Thanks for the citation.

1234567890

 

[chronos]

There is one slight problem to all of this.

German bombers will appear in the skys over New York. Germany was building very large, very long range bombers for just this purpose.

American bombers had not reached sufficient state of sphistication for area bombing of this type.

No reparations, America goes bust.

 

[Shadow Knight]

There is one slight problem to all of this.

German bombers will appear in the skys over New York. Germany was building very large, very long range bombers for just this purpose.

American bombers had not reached sufficient state of sphistication for area bombing of this type.

No reparations, America goes bust.

Huh? Trans-Atlantic bombers during WWI?!!!!!

I don't even know how to reply to that.

 

[wkwillis]

There is one slight problem to all of this.

German bombers will appear in the skys over New York. Germany was building very large, very long range bombers for just this purpose.

American bombers had not reached sufficient state of sphistication for area bombing of this type.

No reparations, America goes bust.

Well, I can't argue with that. After all, when the Germans ( and French, British, etc) defaulted on their loans from the US, the US did go bust.
As far as long range WWI bombers go, I think they could certainly have made one way trips if the wind was not against them. In 1919 Adcock and Brown made a one way trip the other direction.
It's the navigation thing that will trip them up. Night bombing requires very good navigation. Day bombing leaves you vunerable to getting your vulnerable airplane shot down.

 

[MerryPrankster]

In 1917 or 1918, the Germans sent a large force (including a young Erwin Rommel) to help the Austrians fight the Italians.

The Italians were routed. If the Central Powers had kept pushing, perhaps they could force Italy to make a separate peace (like Russia).

This might be means of eliminating Italy from the war prior to St. Michael.

 

[MrP]

Sadly for the CP, they didn't have the ability to follow up their successes, Offhand, I think the Italians dropped back 80 miles. The CP picked up huge lots of supplies and several hundred thousand POWs, IIRC. But the Italians stabilised their front because the Germans and Austrians couldn't advance in strength before the Italians had established themselves.

I'll have to run the numbers, but I think it's generally agreed that it's a mathematical/logistical impossibility for the CP to keep pushing.

Now, if you mean politically, you might get something if you can fiddle with the Italians' government enough.

 

[Earling]

WW1 Strategic bombing shall not only not work, but will not be able to muster the political support needed to overule all other departments nessasary to get the funds it would need to get anywhere near a thousand bombers. Even then they shall be unreliable, easilly shot down and quite useless in the size of payload they can carry. You might get a greater result from the terror generated than what shall occur 20 years later, but you could easilly not have that. All it shall do is add one more reason for Germany to fight on once their AA makes such bombing raids impossible to continue.

As for a bomber making the atlantic.. it might be able to cross, but not with a payload that shall have any effect at all upon the war.