Imperial German mobilization

By how much would the imperial German army have been increased in divisions and corps had it followed a French stile mobilization scheme,before ww1, for example I think this would increase the total amount of males mobilized in each age class from about 55% to 80%.

The best I have been able to find to help me answer this was the English translation of the official Bavarian army's history of the battles of alsels and lorane and in its prologue section describing the Bavarian army it clams that if the Bavarian army had followed a French mobilization scheme it would have added a extra active divition and an extra reserve corps, but I doubt this works for the rest of the German army as Bavaria seems to have recuted 62% of each age class compared the the German average of 55% and I don't know how this would factor into the other German nations army's (especaly Baden, wüttanburg, and Saxony) which seem to have much larger army's compared to there size when compared to Prussia. So curious to see if anybody here more or better data on this then I was able to find.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
What about such kind of calculation :
with a population of roughly 41.600.000 France had in 1914 a standing army of 880.00 men => ~2,1 %
with a population of roughly 65.800.000 Germany had in 1914 a standing army of 794.000 men => ~1,2 %

with the french percentage Germany would have a standing army of ~ 1.380.000 men ... almost double compared to OTL
(a number only achievable, if the german army would reduce their rather strict selection criterias to french standards)
That would roughly translate into ~ 39 active army corps. The number of available Reserve Corps ... would to a large degree depend on WHEN such a broad recruiting would begin.

... not to talk of the necessary finances


About the 'popular' arguing with 'lack of noble officers' so often mentioned in our hindsighteering, smart aleck community :

This was a rather rare argument brough about by aging then War Minister v.Einem in need for any kind of argument against an increase of military budget he nevertheless saw himself unable to push through the Reichstag (which's approval was needed in EVERY budgetary affair)
But it also was - if taken serious by anyone - a retreating fight as officers like Groener, Georg Fuchs ('occupier' of Luxemburg) or Hans Gaede (defender of upper Alsac) might prove different, civic offspring reaching highest positions.​
 
They would have to have a direct taxation system. Germany's existing system couldn't handle the economics of such a military increase. Also I've heard that they were reaching limits in how many horses Germany could support for the military, but that relates more to artillery and mechanization than infantry.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
They would have to have a direct taxation system. Germany's existing system couldn't handle the economics of such a military increase.
IMO debatable. ... less and/or smaller battleships, more cruisers than battleships (as Kaiser Bill initially intended until ... you know ... Tirpitz)
Also I've heard that they were reaching limits in how many horses Germany could support for the military,
Interesting, any remembrance where and for which time scale ?
... but that relates more to artillery and mechanization than infantry.
... and here you name the way out of the 'horse-problem' by yourself :biggrin:
 

longsword14

Banned
more cruisers than battleships
But how would cruisers ease the German problem of naval geography ? Germany's longer legged cruiser fleet would have problem with bases and their lighter armament would not help in contesting the North Sea.
 
... and here you name the way out of the 'horse-problem' by yourself :biggrin:
Not entirely. Mechanization with trucks past a certain point is useless if Germany was cut off and had no domestic oil to fuel the extra trucks, but it could grow fodder. Only coal-fired steam-powered vehicles (steam tractors or trench railways) could be relied on until synthetic oil was developed, which was not available before WWI. Those could only replace horses in heavy transport roles. Field artillery, cavalry, and liaison roles requiring speed would still be horse-based.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
But how would cruisers ease the German problem of naval geography ? Germany's longer legged cruiser fleet would have problem with bases and their lighter armament would not help in contesting the North Sea.
The HSF as built didn't solve the geographical problem either.

But a larger colonial fleet would likely lead to an increased development of bases in the colonies, bases from which also the global supply system the germans had established until the Great War (a lesson - supply by merchants - repeated in WW 2) could/would operated even more effective than IOTL. These merchants would also 'booster' colonial development by using all these new harbour installations.
With that also the mitigation of the costs of such developments (budget of the colonial secretary, 'contributions' of the several colonial corporations) would be enabled.

And for the 'domestic' problem :
as 'hindsighteers' we know that 2 or 3 further 'v.Spee-squadrons' worldwide would have had a sufficient potential to distract considerable parts of the british fleet away from the northsea.​
 

Deleted member 94680

The HSF as built didn't solve the geographical problem either.

But a larger colonial fleet would likely lead to an increased development of bases in the colonies, ...

And for the 'domestic' problem :
as 'hindsighteers' we know that 2 or 3 further 'v.Spee-squadrons' worldwide would have had a sufficient potential to distract considerable parts of the british fleet away from the northsea.​

This is the issue. No PoD such as this affects one party in isolation, we should be aware. For a “colonial fleet” to be built by Germany, which might even have changed the naval arms race entirely, would (in a world of Anglo-German antagonism) dictate a British response. Would this mean a “cruiser race” instead?
 
Not entirely. Mechanization with trucks past a certain point is useless if Germany was cut off and had no domestic oil to fuel the extra trucks, but it could grow fodder. Only coal-fired steam-powered vehicles (steam tractors or trench railways) could be relied on until synthetic oil was developed, which was not available before WWI. Those could only replace horses in heavy transport roles. Field artillery, cavalry, and liaison roles requiring speed would still be horse-based.
Actually there is another alternative, besides the fairly mature technology of steamers: alcohol.

Back in the 1890s ethanol/methanol fuelled engines were in common use in farm machinery in Europe, something that made countries almost fuel independent. There was extensive research in Germany and France into alcohol and blended hydrocarbon/alcohol fuels; when the first automobiles were developed those in Europe often operated on alcohol fuels.
In 1899 the German government taxed petroleum imports and subsidized domestic ethanol specifically to promote domestic fuel sources over imported (i.e. Oil Trust) hydrocarbons; Wilhelm II sponsored research into the use of alcohol as a fuel.
This spread to France within a couple of years; in fact Paris had an exposition dedicated entirely to the uses of alcohol as a fuel in 1902 (the Congress des Applications de L'Alcool Denature which ran from 16-23 December and featured cars, farm machinery, lamps, stoves, heaters, clothes irons,and many other appliances fuelled by ethanol). The exposition toured Europe and visited the USA a few years later.Under Teddy Roosevelt, in 1906, the US passed the Free Alcohol Act eliminated most alcohol taxes and exempted far stills from government oversight, specifically to undermine Standard Oil.

It was the discovery of the Texas oil fields from 1901 caused a massive reduction in oil prices and made ethanol less competitive.
  • Possible PoD: Lucas never joins the team at Spindletop Hill and GCOGMC loses interest.
Likewise there was interest in butanol, a heavier alcohol and a superior fuel, which can be produced (along with ethanol and [very usefully] acetone/propanone) by bacterial fermentation. Historically the ABE process wasn't commercialised until WW1 (propanone is used to manufacture smokeless propellants) using Clostridium acetobutylicum (the Weizmann organism).
  • Possible PoD: There was interest in producing butanol and propanone biologically back to Pasteur's experiments in the 1860s. What if someone (Schardinger perhaps) had isolated C. acetobutylicum earlier and developed an analogue to the ABE process?
 

Anderman

Donor
They would have to have a direct taxation system. Germany's existing system couldn't handle the economics of such a military increase. Also I've heard that they were reaching limits in how many horses Germany could support for the military, but that relates more to artillery and mechanization than infantry.

Hart to tell the money for the Army had to come from the states after Article 62 but i am sure if that was changed with later laws

Article 62

For the purpose of defraying the expense of the whole German army, and the institutions connected therewith, the sum of 225 thalers shall be placed at the disposal of the Emperor until the 31st December, 1871, for each man in the army on the peace-footing, according to Article 60.

After the 31st December, 1871, the payment of these contributions of the several States to the Imperial Treasury must be continued. The strength of the army in the time of peace, which have been temporarily fixed in Article 60, shall be taken as a basis for calculating these amounts until it shall be altered by a law of the Empire.

In determining the budget of military expenditure, the lawfully established organisation of the Imperial army, in accordance with this Constitution, shall be taken as a basis.
 
Not entirely. Mechanization with trucks past a certain point is useless if Germany was cut off and had no domestic oil to fuel the extra trucks, but it could grow fodder.

Not quite. IOTL, German WW 1 army and navy vehicles were not driven by fuel derived from crude oil, but by fuels that became available during coal processing. Only aircraft enjoyed the privilege to be supplied with fuel made from crude oil. - German motor vehicles certainly weren't as numerous as those on the side of the enemy, but the limiting factor was the availability of rubber, not necessarily the lack of fuel. - Only in 1918, artificial rubber became available for the first time, but only for small repairs, not for manufacturing whole tyres.
 
What about facilities to train these extra recruits, are the OTL facilities capable of handling such a large increase? Are there enough trains to mobilise them and get them to the frontiers, or would Germany make a similar decision to France and not put Reserve divisions in the front line initially because they couldn't me moved without improvements to rail infrastructure?
 
They would have to have a direct taxation system. Germany's existing system couldn't handle the economics of such a military increase. Also I've heard that they were reaching limits in how many horses Germany could support for the military, but that relates more to artillery and mechanization than infantry.
Actually from what I've read Germany could have afforded both the unrest army and the navy, the man problem was ofcorse entrenched junkers in the Prussians ministry and more importantly there was no political will in the reichstag for the increased taxes but bast on how Germany was able to fund 4+ years of total war this woulnt as hard.
What about facilities to train these extra recruits, are the OTL facilities capable of handling such a large increase? Are there enough trains to mobilise them and get them to the frontiers, or would Germany make a similar decision to France and not put Reserve divisions in the front line initially because they couldn't me moved without improvements to rail infrastructure?
From what I've read the General staff certainly felt they had anuff room for the increase, but the German army was already to large for the attack of France so some of the units are going to Russia thro shere necessaty.
 
The HSF as built didn't solve the geographical problem either.

But a larger colonial fleet would likely lead to an increased development of bases in the colonies, bases from which also the global supply system the germans had established until the Great War (a lesson - supply by merchants - repeated in WW 2) could/would operated even more effective than IOTL. These merchants would also 'booster' colonial development by using all these new harbour installations.
With that also the mitigation of the costs of such developments (budget of the colonial secretary, 'contributions' of the several colonial corporations) would be enabled.

And for the 'domestic' problem :
as 'hindsighteers' we know that 2 or 3 further 'v.Spee-squadrons' worldwide would have had a sufficient potential to distract considerable parts of the british fleet away from the northsea.​

I would imagine the north sea German coast with all the islands about would be the easiest to defend with mines, torpedo boats and coastal submarines without any large ship navy present at all.
 
Somebody on an earlier thread expressed concern that to get to a larger German army size that you have to take in less fit soldiers, making a large forced march across France for example more difficult.

Perhaps you would have to have a grade A divisions for offense and B grade for defense against the Russians, in Alsace etc.
 
I would imagine the north sea German coast with all the islands about would be the easiest to defend with mines, torpedo boats and coastal submarines without any large ship navy present at all.

True, that's how the Germans kept their Flanders position defended. However such a small navy wouldn't be powerful enough to stop the Royal Navy forcing passage into the Baltic and linking up with the Russians.
 
Somebody on an earlier thread expressed concern that to get to a larger German army size that you have to take in less fit soldiers, making a large forced march across France for example more difficult.

Perhaps you would have to have a grade A divisions for offense and B grade for defense against the Russians, in Alsace etc.
Maby but French taratorial divisions, dispute being considered useless in filed combat, moved and fought gust as hard as the active divisions , and German reserve unites also ended up fighting better then anybody figured.
True, that's how the Germans kept their Flanders position defended. However such a small navy wouldn't be powerful enough to stop the Royal Navy forcing passage into the Baltic and linking up with the Russians.
To be completly honest I can't see the royal navy even trying that, they Sweden my don't try in ww2 when the German navy was much weaker. Plus it's not like the Russian navy was considered useful for anything after tusima.
 
To be completly honest I can't see the royal navy even trying that, they Sweden my don't try in ww2 when the German navy was much weaker. Plus it's not like the Russian navy was considered useful for anything after tusima.

In WW2 Germany controlled both Denmark and Norway, thus totally dominating Kattegat/Skagerrak. In WW1 it was a neutral waterway, but in the 'dead zone' of the North Sea where major ships couldn't go without risking major battle.

In 1914 Russia's Baltic Fleet received 4 new dreadnought battleships and had 4 battlecruisers under construction in the Baltic.
 
Is there any reason to think Denmark wouldn’t be efficiently occupied by the Germans in WW1 had they needed to, just like they did in OTL WW2?
 
Top