Germany goes East first in 1914, results in territorial and attrition terms?

If Germany went east first in 1914, by December...


  • Total voters
    57
Interesting - In an earlier post I focused on the dangers getting into logistical trouble why pursuing *too much*, but your remark points out the danger in not pursuing *enough*

It seems it is a fine balance.

Let us assume that Britain declares war on Germany anyway and conducts a blockade.

If the Germans are trying to crush the Russians first, how far can and should they advance in the 1914 campaign.

If the opt to continue the offensive in the east in 1915 to knock out the remaining Russian army, are territorial objectives like St. Petersburg, Smolensk, Kiev or even Moscow getting in reach?

Well, if the Germans decide to seriously pursue the Russians there's a big question of if they're going for a "Decisive Battle"/crush the forward field armies grand strategy (In hopes of destroying/capturing/rendering ineffective enough Russian formations to cut down on the power of the "steamroller" they're still assuming to be mustered) or are seeking to set up a strong geopolitical position for future campaigns. In the former case, they'll likely try to pursue the Russians as far as is logistically tenable, which depends on just how efficent their pioneers/railroad engineers are at connecting and making compatable the rail systems of the German States and Poland (and just how much the Russians slash and burn on the way back). If its the later, than as others have suggested they probably try to seize full control of the Bug watershed (Warsaw fortresses and rail hub position is key) and into Lithuania, perhaps with Austria trying to make a show of force along Bukovina in hopes of shaking Romania into a pro-CP position

However, Petrograd is hardly a viable target; 1915 would probably see a strong push up the Baltic coast into Livonia/Courland and efforts to concentrate CP firepower/artillery along Russian defensive positions in hopes of creating a "hole" they can exploit and disrupt the Eastern front hoping to trigger yet another round of retreats.
 
1) I am not sure why you think 20 km per day refute my positions. 5-6 weeks is about 40 days, and at 20 km per day, that would be 800 km, not 160 km. Also, the supply lines don't have to be exactly at the front to attack. Also, the British built tracks at these rates in Sinai in WW1. Also, the Germans advance for 90 days in the Spring/Summer of 1915. 90 days straight at a pretty good pace if one looks at starting to finishing position.

2) Also in WW1, one line of single track will feed an army pretty easily.

3) The attack in the east in 1915 was abandoned because the Anglo-French attacks had almost broken the German lines in the west. Falkenhayn had to have the Kaiser order Hindenburg to release 330 battalions. It was not supplies, but lack of troops that stopped the attack.

4) German army did quite well in winter attacks in WW1.

5) Cossacks were not a huge problem for the Germans in WW1. By this time, mounted soldiers without good communication with the their main units facing infantry with machine guns that could be moved by railroad had limited utility.

6)Also, the Germans took a huge amount of ground before B-L was signed. You could hear the German artillery from downtown St. Petersburg. In both WW1 and WW2 it was the Russian army, not logistics that stopped advances. Logistics just forces some pauses.

Just not sure where you are getting your information. It is not correct.

1) If you are regauging the track its useless for supply. The Russian gauge was chosen in part so that you could not use a three rail solution to keep it usable by Russian trains whilst you converted to German gauge. So you don't have 40 days to build up supplies. Speed of laying does depend on many factors, a major one being the amount of supply it is needed to provide.
2) Depends on the size of Army, for an attack on Russia doubtful once you get past Poland
3) Was talking why the Ost plans got shelved OTL. The Russian plan was to defend and trade territory if Germany attacked just like in 1812.
4) Everything still slows down
5) Talking about raids not pitched battles
6) Map I have puts the frontline at ceasefire over 100Km from Petrograd so think they is a bit of exaggeration coming in to accounts.
 
You have a political crisis in Britain that may well bring down the government. No British entry probably balances out less damage and destruction on the French side.

Austria-Hungary won't lose heavily in Galicia, though their invasion of Serbia might not go any better

Trench lines would probably end up slightly inside Germany on the West
 

BlondieBC

Banned
1) If you are regauging the track its useless for supply. The Russian gauge was chosen in part so that you could not use a three rail solution to keep it usable by Russian trains whilst you converted to German gauge. So you don't have 40 days to build up supplies. Speed of laying does depend on many factors, a major one being the amount of supply it is needed to provide.
2) Depends on the size of Army, for an attack on Russia doubtful once you get past Poland
3) Was talking why the Ost plans got shelved OTL. The Russian plan was to defend and trade territory if Germany attacked just like in 1812.
4) Everything still slows down
5) Talking about raids not pitched battles
6) Map I have puts the frontline at ceasefire over 100Km from Petrograd so think they is a bit of exaggeration coming in to accounts.

Even low grade, single track RR will supply an army. You can look at number of RR in east in WW1 and location of armies and clearly see that it worked. And IOTL, they handled the gauging issues. You are taking theoritical issues to claim there is a problem when actual data proves you wrong.

Ost plans got shelved because of the desire for a chance for a quick victory. And once the war started, France was viewed as weaker than Russia. You can read Falkenhayn and other sources to verify.

Bite and Hold: The strategy is built on pauses, so you slow down point is irrelevant.

Raids were still largely ineffective even when the fronts had big gaps between armies.
 
Austria-Hungary won't lose heavily in Galicia, though their invasion of Serbia might not go any better

This, and the Russian ammunition shortage being exacerbated by having to face the cream of the Heer, are what strike me as the biggest differences at work, and why the Central Powers will be significantly better off than they were in OTL.

In this respect, it therefore matters less if the Russian invasion of East Prussia is called off once German deployments become obvious or Samsonov still gets the chop. The Austrians will still be viable and effective allies (albeit junior ones), and the Russians' logistic issues are sure to be worse, not better.

What happens in the West is, of course, fodder for a separate discussion. For the time being, it is not going to affect the Russian plight in December.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I wonder if the French, after spending 1914 bashing against German defenses for only a crappy return on investment, might be tempted in the winter of 2014-2015 to try an "eastern" option for 1915?

If the French are not faced with the mass of German forces & have mobilized more of their own country's industry and population, but are skeptical about successfully using the strength they do have to make progress along the common border with Germany, might the French try to take forces in "surplus" of defensive requirements and throw them against the straits or elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.

Alternatively, if the Ottomans are not participating in this altered WWI, perhaps the French would want to jump in to back the Serbs via Salonika and Macedonia?

This would be to try to shore up the Serbs and then gain the initiative against the weaker of the Central Powers, Austria-Hungary. The French might hope any degree of initiative and success along these lines might encourage Italian and Romanian entry into the war on the Franco-Russian side.

The French could reason that even if it is not super easy or quick to take Austro-Hungarian territory, a Balkan effort would at least divert Austrian and hopefully German forces from the Russian front, and thus keep Russia in the fight and a "Latin-Slavic" cordon of containment against the "Teutons" intact.

If the UK has decided to join the war on the Franco-Russian side, despite the Germans going with an east-first strategy, then an "eastern" option for 1915 might be even more preferred. If the UK is in the war, France benefits from British expeditionary and financial capabilities and UK support in France gives France more spare capacity for its own expeditions or joint ones.
 
Top