Consequences of Verdun falling in June 1916?

Deleted member 1487

In late June, the 22nd-25th, the Germans got close to breaking through the French line and finally obtaining the heights overlooking Verdun and with that the defensive line they had been pushing for since February. A combination of factors, including weather, got in the way and prevented the breeches in the French line from being exploited in time, but what if this last major push before the Battle of the Somme started got the Germans through the French line and they took the Fleury-Fort Souville-Fort Tavannes line?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun#Third_phase.2C_16_April_.E2.80.93_1_July
Fort Souville dominated a crest 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) south-east of Fleury and was one of the original objectives of the February offensive. The capture of the fort would give the Germans control of the heights overlooking Verdun and allow the infantry to dig in on commanding ground.[61]

Would the French then launch the suicidal counter offensives that would bleed them white as Falkenhayn had originally planned? I'm reading through Alistair Horne's "The Price of Glory" about the battle and he seems to think so and that late June was the last chance for a German victory. By this point the French were locked into Verdun as a symbol of the nation and its loss would have not only toppled the government, but according to Horne perhaps percipitated a worse mutiny than in 1917 and crushed civilian morale.

There is too the issue of the Somme. Its likely then the French couldn't participate in the Somme due to the needs of the Verdun front, which frees up the Germans on the Somme somewhat, but still locks them into fighting off the French counteroffensives at Verdun.

Might this final necessary victory give Falkenhayn the reprieve he was looking for and prevent his fall?
 

Insider

Banned
I have once contemplated writing a timeline where Verdun ends with German victory. The problem with Fort Souville is that even if Germans capture it, they would be likely evicted quickly, and their overall situation doesn't change.

So my scenario stipulated early interest in tanks by German high command and cessation of constructing battleships as soon as the war starts. To make long story short Germans would just feign attack on Fleury, while they make real punch on Avoncourt and swing by around Montzevile using one hundred early tanks. They manage to take one of the Sartelles forts, but by then the French are counter attacking, the tanks are destroyed or broken down and their cavalry breakout forces routed. Still they got a lot of terrain and have clear shot toward Voie Sacree, denying the French supply for Verdun and armies gathered there. The next few days would be an endurance competition. Who would be more resilient? The French in Verdun, cut off from food and ammunition supply, or the Germans who covering in a makeshift trenches in their shallow salient, attacked from all sides.

However I couldn't make up my mind how the French would react for the fall of Verdun.
 

Deleted member 1487

Supposing it had been properly reinforced Souville wouldn't necessarily been retaken quickly if at all. I'm supposing that happens, the Germans capture it with enough strength to hold it.

The problem with using AFVs at Verdun is the terrain is way too rugged to use it; even in the flat Somme fields the 1916 vintage British tanks broke down and ceased to function. Plus they are no more immune to French artillery and soldiers at this point and even less mobile.

As to French reactions...that is the real wild card.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
... there is something that always puzzles me, when I look at maps of the western front :
the St.Mihiel salient the germans managed to capture late September AND secure it for the rest of the war (until late sommer 1918).

Why was this not used for an advance against Verdun from a south-eastern approach ?
As it looks like they even managed to get their feet on the western bank of the Meuse.
 

Deleted member 1487

... there is something that always puzzles me, when I look at maps of the western front :
the St.Mihiel salient the germans managed to capture late September AND secure it for the rest of the war (until late sommer 1918).

Why was this not used for an advance against Verdun from a south-eastern approach ?
As it looks like they even managed to get their feet on the western bank of the Meuse.
IIRC because while relatively easy to defend it was a hard place to attack out of and due to the nature of supply into the salient it was very observable if it were reinforced, meaning there would be no way to achieve surprise and any attack out of it would have meant running right into French artillery and reserves that were prepared for the attack. The north side of the salient was easy to conceal, St. Mihiel was not.
 

Insider

Banned
Supposing it had been properly reinforced Souville wouldn't necessarily been retaken quickly if at all. I'm supposing that happens, the Germans capture it with enough strength to hold it.

The problem with using AFVs at Verdun is the terrain is way too rugged to use it; even in the flat Somme fields the 1916 vintage British tanks broke down and ceased to function. Plus they are no more immune to French artillery and soldiers at this point and even less mobile.

As to French reactions...that is the real wild card.

You miss the point. With Souville captured French can retreat half a mile or more, and dig in there. They can retreat that way up to the city proper, at least as long as German artillery woudn't destroy the bridge. Only way to defeat the French would be cutting off their supply.

That is the reason I would use AFVs on the gentle hills of western side of Meuse. I checked it out in google maps - a decent tank country. The eastern bank is high and forbiding. And tanks are more immune to artillery. Not much, but enough to validate their use.
 

Deleted member 1487

You miss the point. With Souville captured French can retreat half a mile or more, and dig in there. They can retreat that way up to the city proper, at least as long as German artillery woudn't destroy the bridge. Only way to defeat the French would be cutting off their supply.

That is the reason I would use AFVs on the gentle hills of western side of Meuse. I checked it out in google maps - a decent tank country. The eastern bank is high and forbiding. And tanks are more immune to artillery. Not much, but enough to validate their use.
Right, but if they have the observation point at Souville they can keep their artillery and men hidden behind the hill out of observation of the French while using the point to bombard Verdun, French logistics, and French troops. That's why the French would be forced to attack to try and take it back and in the process get bled out, while the Germans hit French logistics.

The problem with the Western Meuse is that the Mort Homme and other hills were very well sited with French artillery and would have been slaughtered in used en masse.

Below is the area looking down from the North (i.e. the German perspective) on the West Bank of the Meuse.

5206-150-dpi-Verdun-Argonne-Bar-le-Duc.jpg



And from the South. The fort line based on the Bois Bourrus is a major obstacle and artillery concentration that would slaughter anything moving south of Mort Homme.

Verdun-terrain_map_with_forts.jpg


I'm not trying to totally toss your idea, but the entire situation was so rough terrain-wise and biased to the defender in terms of having artillery to plaster anything moving against the West Bank from the North that it is hard to see even 1916 AFVs with artillery being able to do anything infantry couldn't.

Now one point that I thought was really interesting that Alistair Horne brought up was that the Germans had a bomber force at Verdun that was able to deliver 20 tons of bombs on targets per day, but was badly misused by dispersing and squandering the efforts to duplicate what long range artillery was already effectively doing. They could have shut down the Voie Sacree and effectively shut down French logistics, but never made the aerial effort.

Edit:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/voiesacree.htm
Of course this says it was well defended by French fighters, but that wouldn't help against night bombing raids. Or if the Germans opted to mass their fighters to escort the bombers...
 
Night bombing raids are going to hit anything except when there is bright moonlight?

This whole topic is a question of degree. I really don't see von Falkenhayn scoring the grand slam home run he was fantasizing about. Probably he gets on base. Is this enough to keep him running the team? Maybe
 
As far as I can see, it's main effect is to straighten out the front somewhat, so that St.Mihiel is no longer a salient. Less certainly, it might make the Rumanians hesitate a bit about entering the war, which could give Falkenhayn at least a temporary reprieve.
 
Would a loss of Verdun hasten the errosion of French moral that we saw in 1917? I think yes and that coupled with probable offensives could shift the balance in the German thinking. Falkenhayn is kept if the French show signs of problems and that can of worms (namely USW) may never open... not to mention that it would curb H-L from gaining too much power and wreak the German industry.

On the other hand, would a "victory" at Verdun influence the French and British thinking? Also a yes Imo. Because France would be forced to produce a win after the prestigeous loss of Verdun and the British may face a worse Somme in some ways.
 

Deleted member 1487

Night bombing raids are going to hit anything except when there is bright moonlight?

This whole topic is a question of degree. I really don't see von Falkenhayn scoring the grand slam home run he was fantasizing about. Probably he gets on base. Is this enough to keep him running the team? Maybe
Moonlight night and well escorted raids by fighters. Also you can hit cities/towns along the route with bombs by less than full moon nights, as that was what German bombers were already doing, just not against the Voie Sacree.

Of course then there were the Zeppelins that as yet could fly higher than fighters of 1916:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/bombers_gotha_giant.htm

As far as I can see, it's main effect is to straighten out the front somewhat, so that St.Mihiel is no longer a salient. Less certainly, it might make the Rumanians hesitate a bit about entering the war, which could give Falkenhayn at least a temporary reprieve.
It also gives the Germans artillery observation over Verdun and the supply routes over the Meuse. Plus it shields German troops of observation by French artillery except by airplane.

I think perhaps the question regarding Romania is that if Falkenhayn does manage to fulfill his metric for success at Verdun whether that then politically insulates him from Romanian entry into the war. Because after that happens if he manages to hang on he can get credit for Romania's defeat, plus the defeat of Brusilov and later the Russian Revolution, which pumped up Ludendorff's reputation. Being in charge when that happened, even if he takes a hit for continuing to resist USW, would effectively make him immune to attack from H-L. Plus then there isn't the impact of the Hindenburg Program on the economy, not USW impact on US war entry, and a 1917 financial problem for the Entente.
 
Top