Danube Campaign in 1915

Hello, here I want to discuss another controversial aspect of WW1. Everebody discussed about an eventual success of Dardanelles/Gallipoli operation in 1915. Here I want to discuss with you one eventual aftermath: a Danube operation against Austria-Hungary. In case of success, after Dardanelles, this was the idea of ministers Lloyd George and Churchill, emerged during the January 1915 debate (before Dardanelles).
This idea was repeated in Thomas Hankey’s memorandum “After the Dardanelles, the next steps”, drafted on 2 March (16 days before the naval attack on Dardanelles). The plans supposed that Romania and Greece would have joined the Entente after a succesfull Dardanelles campaign.
According to this plan, a British expeditionnary force, supported by a large flotilla (Insect class gunboats and other light ships) would constitute the center of an allied army. Serbians and Greeks, on the left, would move into Bosnia and Hezegovina. On the right, the Romanians (supported by French troops) would held the lines, with the help of Russian forces in Galicia. British forces would turn the flank of forces opposing Romanian army, which would enable the latter to threaten the Austro-Hungarian forces in Galicia.
This plan was revised and studied untill the end of Gallipoli campaign. It was discarded only after the Serbian collapse in autumn 1915.

Against British played several factors; among them:

Distances: the Danube front was very far from London, British navy should have assured a long life-line in the Mediterranean in order to send troops and materiels in the Balkans. On the other side of the hill, German and Austrian’s forces had a very efficient railway net and they could transport all troops and materiel necessary to stop an enemy advance
Local logistics: Serbia had only one railway line from Nis to Belgrade. British had to trasport everything by river, along the Danube. If they didn’t occupy the northern bank (Hungaria and Croatia) this life-line would have been closed.
Order of Battle: Greeks and Romanian troops were very weak. I don’t know how many French and British forces could have sent in the new front. But, considering a success in Dardanelles, Kitchner’s desire to keep all troops in France could be overcome.

Against Central Powers played other factors, like:

Morale: after an eventual defeat of the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria neutrality, Austria-Hungary and Germany would be isolated against a larger Entente’s coalition. In this scenario, they could have lost any hope in victory, especially in Austro-Hungarian empire.
Balance of powers: bring together the forces Russia, Romania, Greece, Serbia, Italy and a large British and French contingent and you can have at your disposal one of the largest army in military history. Austria-Hungary (the weakest of the two Central Powers) supported by German forces, should have to resist to: an Italian push from South-West, an offensive of a large Allied force from the south, an eventual Russian offensive from East.
British flotilla: it could have played a significant role in a Danube’s campaign. British Insect class gunboats surclassed all Austrian ships of Danube’s flotilla. This factor could provide allied forces with superior firepower.

What if the Danube campaign started? Could have been an Entente’s decisive victory in late 1915/early 1916? Or another Entente’s disaster? Discuss :)
 
Its a long extended logistical line, but its definitely interesting

The main problem I see is that the Germans can afford to sit on the defensive everywhere else and concentrate their troops to counter-attack.

I can't see Serbia INVADING Habsburg territory, even with an Allied Greek army and Entente reinforcements

Romania perhaps provides a better chance, since Russia not only guards the flank but can provide massive supporting attacks. The Romanian army itself probably isn't up to much, and it will depend on how many French and British divisions can be sent here. Thrusts into Transylvania are POSSIBLE, but war tends to screw up plans

For example, will Bulgaria remain neutral in the rear ? Her abandonment of neutrality might well NOT be to join the Central Powers, but if she takes the decision to go after Ottoman territory, or to try to bully Greece or Serbia there's problems

What's happening to the Ottomans, is another massive question ? One has to assume they've surrendered, else British and French forces are going to be needed to control the Anatolian coastal plains. But how stable is whatever regime has surrendered ? Is it a palace coup which seems Izzedin in charge, ordering his forces to stand down and arresting Enver etc ? Or is there turmoil and unrest, civil war even ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
When Hankey drew this plan, British War Council considered a defeated Ottoman empire and a neutral/allied Bulgaria. In case of a successful Dardanelles campaign, this could have happened: Sofia considered also an alliance with Entente against the Ottoman Empire. I can't see any possibility for Bulgaria bullying Entente after the deployement of such forces in Serbia and Greece. A worst challenge could be the Ottoman Empire: what if Young Turks did not surrender, or took up arms after an armistice?
In case of Ottoman armistice in 1915, after a victorious Dardanelles campaign, Kitchner could have put in place his accord with Hussein al Hashemi: an Arabian kingdom federated with Egypt and protected by british forces. We could have seen a war between this new kingdom and the Young Turks... maybe... But a long resistence of Young Turks after an eventual defeat in Costantinople is very difficult: all weapon's factories where in the European region of Turkey.
 
Top