Military Development After CP Victory in 1915

I orginally asked this question focues strictly on German naval development. But, it has application across the board. So...

Assume for a moment France collapses early on & is forced to ask for peace in 1915. Russia is also in a bad spot then & negotiates as well. Both are set back considerablly, and lose territory - colonies in the case of France. Germany/Britain end in a sort of White Peace.

So, based on what evidence remains of pre 1915 militaryl thinking what are the possible developments for strategy strategy & military construction through the 1920s & beyond?

One factor I see is the pressure to convert the German navy to oil, at least in new construction. A coal fired fleet will have a lot less flexibility & have more problems operating out side of the small seas adjacent to Germany. If the German imperialists think they are going to defend their maritime interests then there is a imperitive to construct a oil fired fleet, at least for global service.

On land the widespread adoption of light MG would not have occured were the cease fire to come in early 1915. Conversely the errors in the doctrine for light artillery in the French & German armies were celarly revealed in the first months of 1914
 

Deleted member 1487

I orginally asked this question focues strictly on German naval development. But, it has application across the board. So...

Assume for a moment France collapses early on & is forced to ask for peace in 1915. Russia is also in a bad spot then & negotiates as well. Both are set back considerablly, and lose territory - colonies in the case of France. Germany/Britain end in a sort of White Peace.

So, based on what evidence remains of pre 1915 militaryl thinking what are the possible developments for strategy strategy & military construction through the 1920s & beyond?

One factor I see is the pressure to convert the German navy to oil, at least in new construction. A coal fired fleet will have a lot less flexibility & have more problems operating out side of the small seas adjacent to Germany. If the German imperialists think they are going to defend their maritime interests then there is a imperitive to construct a oil fired fleet, at least for global service.

On land the widespread adoption of light MG would not have occured were the cease fire to come in early 1915. Conversely the errors in the doctrine for light artillery in the French & German armies were celarly revealed in the first months of 1914

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=354163
I started a thread here based on our discussion of the subject on the other forum, but not about military technology.
 
Ok so the German navy converts to oil.
Fine
Where does it get it?
Russian oil fields in Baku perhaps.
But does a Russian defeat not mean a destabalised Russia?
De stabalised nations are not places you should depend on for strategic resources [though I recognise Germany could do so]
Leaving aside the very real problem I have with the UK overturning centuries of foreign policy and allowing any European nation absolute hegemony then I suggest that coal stations are still the best option and also coaling at sea.
The latter is not a German speciality...but they could learn .
In the event of a French defeat the French empire coaling stations are open for use
 
Ok so the German navy converts to oil.
Fine
Where does it get it? ...

Like the Brits they'd have to develop a distant source. Not much oil in Kent, Wales, or Yorkshire. The Hungarian or Austrian fields may not be large enough. Rumania is a possibility. Not sure what might be available in the colonies, if they are retained.

Oil fired ships would be limited to new construction. The pre1914 designs of the Kreigsmarine were not always very suitable for long range voyages. The main fleet was built to confront their enemies in the near seas. Some for the cruisers could be converted, but otherwise it is going to be two different fleets in terms of fuel, range, & missions. The old fleet would still be ready to pounce on the Brit home fleet, the modern fleet more oriented to distant waters when needed.
 
...
Leaving aside the very real problem I have with the UK overturning centuries of foreign policy and allowing any European nation absolute hegemony ...

If France & Russia give up Britain could continue at war with Germany Does not sound very practical, still it is in theory possible. Odds are they will follow the traditional model & start plotting the next round.
 
On land the widespread adoption of light MG would not have occured were the cease fire to come in early 1915. Conversely the errors in the doctrine for light artillery in the French & German armies were celarly revealed in the first months of 1914
Light MGs might still get some use on airplanes? Might not be too much of a stretch for them to move to the infantry from there, and many LMGs were developed before the war started. Eh, you're probably right though. I can't remember if Germany and the Central Powers, the victors of this war, had anything comparable to the Chauchat or Lewis Gun, so it may not occur to them.

Other things off the top of my head... Cavalry might get a bit more of a life extension, as rapid dismounting infantry. Tanks were around in 1915... but the end of the war means we don't get any field testing so we're stuck with the pre-gen 1 prototypes.

Chemical weapons and gas were avaliable and seeing how the war ends in 1915 they likely retain the cutting edge shock value, and may even be claimed as war winners. Without the next 2 years of countermeasures dulling their effectiveness, they might be perceived as too effective to ban even if they are a tad horrifying. They did have a role in winning the 1915 war after all. Might get ugly when the next war comes around after 20 years of all development being poured into chemical and biological 'war winners'.

Fortification ideas is interesting, since while everyone now knows static defense to be a valid tactic, Germany still blew through Belgium's concrete forts like they were nothing (and then potentially did the same at Verdun in this timeline). No Magniot Line obviously (probably banned by peace treaty anyways), but you might see fortification planners being put off on the idea of seemingly ineffective concrete structures in favor of... not sure what the alternative for it could be.

The big change I think, would be the focus on gas as what people believe is the decisive weapon of 1915.
 
Last edited:
One aspect I can think of right away: Aircraft development would practically halt at 1915 levels, this is before the adoption of the synchronized forward-firing gun and therefore before the rise of the dedicated fighter plane. You'd still have military aircraft and based on the experiences gathered in the short rapid-moving campaign, you would probably see the design and use of airplanes in every nation. However, they would mainly be observation planes with some light bombers and ground attack planes as well. But overall they would all be two-seaters with a machine gun in the back seat. Forward firing guns would be limited to planes with a pusher engine and I doubt if synchronized forward firing guns would be invented before the technological advances of the 1930's (where they probably would be replaced within a year by wing-mounted guns firing outside of the propeller arc or by engine-cannons firing through the propeller shaft.) And the first real fighter-to-fighter dogfights would probably have to wait until WWII.

And as for bombers, they might not even be around by then...
 

Deleted member 1487

I wonder if you'd get a fractured triple airforce situation in the various armies: a naval, army, and independent airforce for strategic operations (offensive and defense).
 
Light MGs might still get some use on airplanes? Might not be too much of a stretch for them to move to the infantry from there, and many LMGs were developed before the war started. Eh, you're probably right though. I can't remember if Germany and the Central Powers, the victors of this war, had anything comparable to the Chauchat or Lewis Gun, so it may not occur to them.

I was reminded in another conversation on this, how there were several LMG & MMG in production or tested pre 1914, & the Germans were experimenting with them. OTL the ratio of MG dropped from two per battalion or 1 per 500 riflemen to one MG/auto rifle per twenty men, in just four years. With a end to the fighting in 1915 the trend is going to slow greatly, but not stop.


Fortification ideas is interesting, since while everyone now knows static defense to be a valid tactic, Germany still blew through Belgium's concrete forts like they were nothing (and then potentially did the same at Verdun in this timeline). No Magniot Line obviously (probably banned by peace treaty anyways), but you might see fortification planners being put off on the idea of seemingly ineffective concrete structures in favor of... not sure what the alternative for it could be.

OTL the French took a close look at how the Belgian and their own fortresses failed. Two conclusions were drawn. One was technical & some designs of the concrete & steel did better than others. The second had to do with the fortresses fire power. Post 1918 design gave more thought to the fortresses providing counter battery fires and mutual coverage. I'd think the trends would be similar post this ATL 1915. However, without the example of four years of trench warfare there will be less attention to the defense. I have to agree with the idea that fortresses would not see the dame degree of attention.
 
I wonder if you'd get a fractured triple airforce situation in the various armies: a naval, army, and independent airforce for strategic operations (offensive and defense).

Two air wings did not hurt the US. Dual development programs in the USN & US Army came up with a wider variety of doctrines & good aircraft designs. Had the Depression not intervened we'd have seen a even greater variety, and not seen engine development slowed. The Brits, and any other nation with a maritime outlook could have benefitted from the same arrignement. The British Fleet Air Arm may be the most obvious example.
 

Deleted member 1487

In terms of a strategic bombing arm, the Germans started Zeppelin raids in January 1915 IOTL, so that probably happens here too. That was done by the German navy though. Later army Zeppelins tried it too. Maybe after the war the Germans would keep working with Zeppelin bombers? Perhaps still run by the navy, but I'm thinking an independent air service would be tasked with perfecting that mission and being in charge of strategic air defense of Germany. There wasn't any real aircraft resistance until 1916, by which time the war ITTL would be over, so I'm not sure if the impetus would be there until the 1920s improved aircraft technology enough to make aircraft preferable to Zeppelins and it obvious that aircraft could intercept and shoot down Zeppelins. Probably the independent strategic air service would take until the 1920s, but would be fielded by Britain and Germany. Not sure if France would be in a position to field any major air units and Russia would probably fall behind due to political/economic issues after the war.

Austria would have its own mess and probably rely on German designs produced by Austrian subsidiaries of German companies like IOTL.
 
Under these circumstances the British Empire would very likely want to maintain a much larger standing army that can compete on the Continent

Despite the Haldane reforms OTL it took almost 3 years to build a continental army capable of matching another Continental army.

A number of development would not be as far forward as before

There would be no Jutland lessons for both Britain and the US to learn from and the weakness of Battle cruisers to 'peer fire power' might not have been discovered.

On the other hand real concern over the German Navy reaching anything near parity with the Royal Navy will force the British to squeeze every advantage they can from their designs.

Mine and Submarine warfare would not be as developed or as appreciated by all sides - again this will stunt their development and application going forward.

Tanks and their applications would still probably be developed (as they were going ahead in 1915) just their effects not as appreciated and certainly the Germans would not have a tribal appreciation of being on the receiving end - this would certainly have implications for the development of "Panzers" in the German Military.

In OTL the Germans did a lot of soul searching and coupled with the which led to the German Military being rebuilt with many of those lessons.

The shoe being on the other foot and having won there would be less need for development and the conservative elements would prove resilient to change.
 
Under these circumstances the British Empire would very likely want to maintain a much larger standing army that can compete on the Continent

Despite the Haldane reforms OTL it took almost 3 years to build a continental army capable of matching another Continental army.

A number of development would not be as far forward as before

There would be no Jutland lessons for both Britain and the US to learn from and the weakness of Battle cruisers to 'peer fire power' might not have been discovered.

On the other hand real concern over the German Navy reaching anything near parity with the Royal Navy will force the British to squeeze every advantage they can from their designs.

Mine and Submarine warfare would not be as developed or as appreciated by all sides - again this will stunt their development and application going forward.

Tanks and their applications would still probably be developed (as they were going ahead in 1915) just their effects not as appreciated and certainly the Germans would not have a tribal appreciation of being on the receiving end - this would certainly have implications for the development of "Panzers" in the German Military.

In OTL the Germans did a lot of soul searching and coupled with the which led to the German Military being rebuilt with many of those lessons.

The shoe being on the other foot and having won there would be less need for development and the conservative elements would prove resilient to change.

In addition there being no Heligoland Bight action the weakness of German battlecruisers due to poor ammunition handling (which was actually the main problem for the RN as well) will not be appreciated.

I would dispute the idea that Germany would be capable of approaching 'near parity' with the RN in terms of of battleship numbers though you are likely to see considerable design leap frogging as both sides upgrade calibres and armour protection and possibly the British with their greater capital resources move to fast battleships in a much more definite way.

On land it is likely that all powers will presume the armoured track layer or whatever it gets called is a subsidiary weapon system. Something fun for assault engineers.

Expect a lot more experimentation in what to do with cavalry...so bicycle mounted soldiers, motorcycle mounted soldiers, motor car mounted solders, massed armoured cars and lots of similar fiddly ideas being actually tried out at great expense (in OTL the first three looked somewhat promising anyway but were recognised as subsidiary to tanks).

Aircraft development will be a lot slower and the idea of the fighting scout/fighter even slower still most likely though minor wars may push the idea up the agenda. Dirigibles may get more of a run as their combat vulnerability will be less appreciated.
 

Deleted member 1487

Aircraft development will be a lot slower and the idea of the fighting scout/fighter even slower still most likely though minor wars may push the idea up the agenda. Dirigibles may get more of a run as their combat vulnerability will be less appreciated.
I don't know about this the first fighter was fielded by the British in February 1915, which would still happen in this war, because it ends after its introduction; plus there is a need to fight Zeppelins.
 
I don't know about this the first fighter was fielded by the British in February 1915, which would still happen in this war, because it ends after its introduction; plus there is a need to fight Zeppelins.

Well since heavier than aircraft really had not demonstrated their ability to shoot down dirigibles by that stage of the war it would be something of a struggle to convince the brass they could do so.

The big push in the development of the fighter from the fighting scout was that it quickly became apparent that their main competition was each other. However without actual combat engagements it will be a lot harder to establish what actually works in terms of aerial tactics and design.

So both factors, that shooting down dirigibles from aircraft is hard until you know how (incendiary rounds) but relatively easy once you do and and the lack of fighter versus fighter engagements would act to slow development in that area.

Scouts and bombers would see more action in colonial wars and thus may benefit from more developmental interest.
 

Deimos

Banned
In addition there being no Heligoland Bight action the weakness of German battlecruisers due to poor ammunition handling (which was actually the main problem for the RN as well) will not be appreciated.

I would dispute the idea that Germany would be capable of approaching 'near parity' with the RN in terms of of battleship numbers though you are likely to see considerable design leap frogging as both sides upgrade calibres and armour protection and possibly the British with their greater capital resources move to fast battleships in a much more definite way.
[...]

If we presume no big naval engagements in this ATL WWI the amour schemes of British warships will be a lot different in the near to medium term.
Another development would be a technological race by the Germans to offset the disparatity of their naval forces. A shorter war means less devastation and more funds available, thus a greater push might allow for radar in the early 20s to improve gunnery directors and could eventually be of use to coordinate the air arms.
 
But, Germany'd still be too stupid to keep attacking Russia and and Belgium and France and the US, alot at the same time. And it was a defensive, trench warfare military era from then to the other side inventing armored tank, and the CP decided the tank was a waste of time.
 
Top