Plan 1919

MacCaulay

Banned
I'm sure this has been done to death, but it hasn't been done to death lately. So...what if this had been able to go forward with the following models:


Plan 1919 originated in a paper written by a junior staff officer in the British Army, J.F.C. Fuller. Fuller argued that, under the new conditions prevailing on the battlefield in late 1918, breaching a defense line or routing and encircling an enemy formation was no longer enough. Weakening the enemy by destroying his manpower and materiel—by attrition— was demonstrably too costly and uncertain. Instead, Fuller proposed, the Allies should try what would later be called a "decapitation" strategy in the Persian Gulf, a war directed at enemy command, control, and communications. With its head cut off, the body of the German army would flounder about spasmodically and ineffectually. Panic would set in, resistance would crumble, and the German war effort would rapidly collapse.

Fuller envisioned a three-phase attack with each phase closely supported by aircraft. First, medium tanks would infiltrate enemy lines on narrow fronts at two separate points, disorganizing German command and control. There would be no preparatory bombardment to alert the defenses. Then a combined force of infantry and heavy tanks would breach the disorganized German lines and reduce any strongpoints that slowed the advance. Finally, medium tanks and cavalry would pour through the gaps created by the assault and would sweep around the slow-moving defenders, destroying supply dumps, cutting telephone and telegraph wires, tearing up rail lines, and overrunning artillery and command posts. For five to seven days, the pursuit would continue, at a rate of 20 miles per day. The speed and power of the armored thrust would, Fuller argued, allow the attack to succeed before the Germans could counterattack the long, exposed flanks of the mobile columns. Mechanization would, in short, supply the speed and fire power that the foot-borne Sturmtruppen had lacked.



Fuller's plan caught the imagination of the Allied supreme commander, Marshal Foch. Foch was anxious for some way of breaking the stalemate in the trenches, without the grotesque waste of life that had all too recently pushed many French units to the brink of mutiny. Embracing Fuller's vision, the general swept aside the objections that had thus far fettered tank-minded officers in the French army. Fuller's work was, in essence, adopted as the basis of the Allied strategy for winning the war. To implement Plan 1919, Foch called for a 1919 Allied tank strength of 10,000 vehicles of two basic types. For an assault on a 90-mile front, Fuller's original plan required 2 heavy, "breakthrough" tanks and 2400 medium, "exploitation tanks." But, with the exception of the excellent Renault FT-17, the existing, 1916-type designs were clearly inadequate for the kind of battle that was now envisioned. They broke down too often for deep penetrations and/or carried too little fuel and ammunition for sustained operations. Habitability was terrible—exhaust fumes, noise, and labor-intensive transmission and steering arrangements quickly left crews exhausted (no tank had so much as a firewall between crew and engine before American automotive engineers added one to the American-built FT-17). As assault vehicles, the early tanks lacked the armor and the trench-crossing ability that were now essential. No one vehicle could fulfill all of these new demands, given the technology of the time. So a new, mixed force of heavy, short-range assault tanks and fast, long-range mediums would be necessary.
medium_c.gif
Tank, Medium C
The first British medium, the Whippet, had proved barely adequate. It was fragile, hard to drive, short-legged, and lacked the trench-crossing ability that the infiltration phase of the plan required. Mediums would have to cross the formidable anti-tank ditches of the Hindenburg Line before they could turn the German flanks and raid the headquarters areas at the rear. Accordingly, the new Medium B, Medium C, and Medium D tanks adopted the rhomboidal form of the British heavies. While they retained the all-machine gun armament and fixed turret of the Whippets, they were much larger, easier to handle, and better protected vehicles. The the main breakthrough tank would be the Anglo-American Mark VIII "Liberty" or "International." This was an enlarged and improved version of the rhomboid-type heavy tank, with better track, greater trench-crossing ability, and a powerful Ricardo or Liberty V-12 engine in a sealed engine compartment. The armor was designed to withstand the German K-patrone and the bullet splash (molten lead) that forced its way through the joints and vision slits of the earlier vehicles. The Mark VIII went into production in the US, but did not see combat. They formed a major part of the US Army's nominal tank strength up until 1940, when they were quietly sent to Canada for use in training. Examples can still be seen at the Aberdeen and Bovington tank museums.
liberty.gif
Tank, Mark VIII, the "Liberty" or "International" as it might have looked in action during 1919.
The French were to produce International tanks for their units. But, typically, they also developed breakthrough tanks of their own. These were rather more ambitious than the Mk. VIII, and none actually appeared prior to the mid-1920s. The furthest advanced was the Char 2C, in effect a greatly enlarged and lengthened, multi-turret FT-17. It had a 75-mm field gun in the rotating, forward turret and a 7.5-mm machine gun in separate, rear-mounted turret. The latter was intended to enfilade trenches as the tank crossed. Additional machine guns fired from ball mounts on the flanks of the vehicle. Ten were eventually built between 1920 and 1925. All were destroyed on their railroad flatcars while being rushed to the front in 1940. The illustration shows how the vehicle might have appeared in action in 1919.
char2c.gif
Char de rupture 2C
Better tanks were not, however, the whole answer to the problems of the late-war battlefield. Plan 1919 thus built on experience gained from the first major tank actions—Cambrai, Amiens, Villers- Bretonneux. In each of these seminal battles, tanks had achieved major breakthroughs and thoroughly disorganized the German defenses. But, just when victory seemed in reach, the offensives had, in each case, faltered. Tanks broke down, got lost, or fell victim to well-sited field guns. The artillery that would normally have neutralized the enemy guns and the flow of orders, supplies, and spare parts that would sustain and guide a conventional advance had been rapidly left behind in the mud of the shattered German defence lines. Poor communications and the inability of artillery to keep up were, by 1918, the main limiting factor on the success of tank offensives.
Fuller addressed these problems by suggesting a greater reliance on aircraft than had hitherto been the norm. Bombers would isolate the battlefield by disorganizing enemy communications, attacking headquarters, and bombing road junctions. Fighters would serve in lieu of field artillery during the advance. They would use their machine guns and 20-lb Cooper bombs to pin down antitank artillery, thus securing the fast and, hopefully, reliable medium tanks against their most dangerous enemy. Fighters would also strafe rolling stock, road transport, and assembling reinforcements in the rear. Most importantly of all, "contact patrol" aircraft would take over for the supply train and the field telephone network that the fast moving assault forces had left behind. These airplanes would locate friendly forces and front lines, pick up messages, and drop orders and supplies to temporarily isolated units.

One other element to the plan put forward by American officer Billy Mitchell was the introduction of a small parachute infantry force to assist in the capture of the Metz bridges ahead of the actual Allied crossing, so speed could be maintained in the advance.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Market Garden? :eek:

That is funny.

So what are the flying circus doing while all this close air support is going on?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Market Garden? :eek:

That is funny.

I always thought that was the most insane part of the plan, and the one that caught my imagination.

The craziest part was that the troops picked for this proto-airborne mission weren't from the 82nd or 101st, they were from the Big Red One.

So what are the flying circus doing while all this close air support is going on?

Well, the Allies by this point had so much more air power to throw at the Germans, it's something to ponder whether or not the German air force could stop the hundreds of air craft over the front at any given place.
 

Hnau

Banned
So maybe... Ludendorff dies before November 1917, and the Spring Offensive never happens, and thus German troops aren't exhausted and demoralized, able to better defend Germany? The Germans demand a conditional peace following the Fourteen Points, but the French want their reparations, so maybe the Germans just keep fighting, hoping the French will exhaust themselves enough to come to terms?
 
Germany was doomed had fighting lasted to 1919. The collapse of Austria-Hungary in late 1918 left her entire southern border vulnerable, all of her other allies were out, which also freed up powerful Allied forces, and on the Western Front she was not only virtually driven from French soil but had to throw away 150,000 men just to allow the rest of the German Army to flee.

1919 would have meant economic collapse, hundreds of thousands of enemy troops threatening Bavaria and Silesis, no more manpower to spare and the loss of defenses built over several years in the west.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Germany was doomed had fighting lasted to 1919. The collapse of Austria-Hungary in late 1918 left her entire southern border vulnerable, all of her other allies were out, which also freed up powerful Allied forces, and on the Western Front she was not only virtually driven from French soil but had to throw away 150,000 men just to allow the rest of the German Army to flee.

1919 would have meant economic collapse, hundreds of thousands of enemy troops threatening Bavaria and Silesis, no more manpower to spare and the loss of defenses built over several years in the west.

I agree.

Pershing always said that ending the war in 1918 was wrong. Even before the war ended, he said the only way to end the thing permanently was to not stop until Berlin, so the German population knew it had been defeated by the Allies.
This probably would've been the recipe.
 
hmmm, could you argue that Monash's highly successful combined arms attack at Villers-Brettoneux was de facto Plan 1919 in microcosm ?
 

Deleted member 1487

I keep hearing about all these allied troops that were magically going to appear in the German rear, destroying them. How are they going to get there? With the fall of the turks and the arrival of the americans in force, there is no doubt that they had the manpower, but what of the logistics?

The Balkans were locked in civil war/revolution. From Italy the rail lines through the Alps were not enough to form a large army; the Austrians discovered that after Caporetto they had a very had time supplying their troops in Italy, and indeed, many were poorly nourish, a factor that had more to do with logistics rather than farming. And going into Austria will mean shipping more trains in and having to help support the starving Austrians. Using their rail will mean less logistics that can get used to feed the people, so a deal is going to have to be cut. Also there was a small civil war going on in Austria, so I'd like to know how advancing allied armies are going to cope with that while fighting the Germans on their home turf. When defending their homeland from soldiers intent on conquering them to enforce a victors peace instead of the 14 points, all while maintaining the blockade, then yes, I do believe the Germans will fight, even the communists who don't want another capitalist force coming in to crush their hopes for a soviet republic (the allies would most certainly fight the communists; they don't want a communist Germany).

Any move around the "exposed" flank of the Germans, including moving through Romania or Poland from the Black sea, means going through Hungary and/or the Russian civil war in the Ukraine. The vast distances involved in moving supplies will be far, far worse than Gallipoli for sustaining an army, and it cannot be very large either. The Germans/anyone whose toes they step on, will be able to handle the long distance force trying to move into eastern Germany from Eastern Europe.

Now, that means only the Italian/former Habsburg empire is the only option for an attack, as the distance and rail net is going to be the best. That said, there is still a long way to go over a busted up rail net that hasn't been maintained and is inadequate for sustaining a large army. Are they going to ship in trains to make up for the lack on the spot? Are the Italians just going to give the Western Allies a major chunk of their rail capacity now that they are trying to set up an empire in Dalmatia? They can't just transfer trains from France because plan 1919 is going to require them. How are the allies going to deal with the Austrian mess? I doubt a thrust from the south is going to be effective before 1920 given these limitations. Also, don't forget, the massive number of Austrians that the Italians have to take care of: over 500,000 that need to be fed/housed and moved out of northern Italy. Are they just going to be shipped back to Austria, exacerbating the supply difficulties and food shortages in cities (again due to logistics rather than actual shortages)?

Now, all that being said, Plan 1919 is going to rip the Germans apart up until the Rhine, that is if they actually stay put and attempt to fight. The Germans might just realize their inferiority and pull back to defensible borders and conserve their troops. But this hinges on the Americans being in the fight. If the Germans state they want the 14 points and won't accept an armistace until the French and British agree to it, the Americans won't participate, as per Pershing's and Wilson's statements of refusing to participate in a war of conquest for the Allies aggrandizement.

Without the American manpower and money, things get much dicier. The allies have the equipment and enough manpower for one campaign season with the end of the middle east campaign. I don't doubt they could reach the Rhine, as the Germans are likely to pull back rather than get ground down, just like in the hundred days. Even during that period, the Germans inflicted nearly 1 million casualties on the Allies, while taking the majority of theirs in prisoners. That actually cleared the ranks of the Germans, leaving the diehards and clearing out the useless mouths that the Germans cannot afford to feed.

Again, the allies maintained their hunger blockade throughout the Versailles negotiations and German society did not implode. Yes there was a civil war, but if there is an outside force that is actually denying the 14 points and aiming to force a Versailles peace on Germany, I think that society would pull together to fight if they needed to. Sure there were elements that would still cause trouble, but even the communists/spartakists didn't really get into the civil war until after the armistace was declared and they had a chance to build a new Germany. If the capitalist were coming to conquer Germany, I think they wouldn't fight against the Reichheer, as they know if the Allies come, they won't have an opportunity to build the state they want.

Also, the allies don't have the ability to occupy Germany without American manpower. The Allies could not sustain the cost in the long term, and without the Russians either. Things get dicier.

Short answer:if the Americans drop out, then a negotiated peace is likely and a 14 points peace is most likely. If the Americans stay on, things get a whole lot worse for Europe, as they are very unlikely to stay in the long term (this ain't WW2 folks, they don't have the will to stay) and when they leave, Germany will be a vengeful basket case and very ripe for the communists/separatists that will make Europe a very unhappy place.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I keep hearing about all these allied troops that were magically going to appear in the German rear, destroying them. How are they going to get there? With the fall of the turks and the arrival of the americans in force, there is no doubt that they had the manpower, but what of the logistics?

I've got no clue...where did you hear this?

Perhaps you're blowing the whole airborne aspect of the operation out of proportion? It was only supposed to be like a battalion to secure 2 bridges.


Now, all that being said, Plan 1919 is going to rip the Germans apart up until the Rhine, that is if they actually stay put and attempt to fight. The Germans might just realize their inferiority and pull back to defensible borders and conserve their troops. But this hinges on the Americans being in the fight. If the Germans state they want the 14 points and won't accept an armistace until the French and British agree to it, the Americans won't participate, as per Pershing's and Wilson's statements of refusing to participate in a war of conquest for the Allies aggrandizement.

Without the American manpower and money, things get much dicier. The allies have the equipment and enough manpower for one campaign season with the end of the middle east campaign. I don't doubt they could reach the Rhine, as the Germans are likely to pull back rather than get ground down, just like in the hundred days. Even during that period, the Germans inflicted nearly 1 million casualties on the Allies, while taking the majority of theirs in prisoners. That actually cleared the ranks of the Germans, leaving the diehards and clearing out the useless mouths that the Germans cannot afford to feed.

Pershing was very clear: He wanted to drive to Berlin. In fact, he was all in favour of keeping it going until the German army had been decisively defeated in the field, more so than the other British and French generals who had been stuck in the meatgrinder for years. And Wilson backed him up.

I honestly wish I could find that issue of Military Heritage that quotes him. He basically said something to the affect that "we'll be here again ending this thing later if we don't end it now."
 

Deleted member 1487

I've got no clue...where did you hear this?

Perhaps you're blowing the whole airborne aspect of the operation out of proportion? It was only supposed to be like a battalion to secure 2 bridges.




Pershing was very clear: He wanted to drive to Berlin. In fact, he was all in favour of keeping it going until the German army had been decisively defeated in the field, more so than the other British and French generals who had been stuck in the meatgrinder for years. And Wilson backed him up.

I honestly wish I could find that issue of Military Heritage that quotes him. He basically said something to the affect that "we'll be here again ending this thing later if we don't end it now."


The magically appearing in the rear comment had to do with the fall of the other Central Powers and many people (I was specifically referring to Grimm's comment) seem to think that a giant war-winning army would appear to invade Bavaria, which is just not feasible due to logistic constraints of the proposed invasion area.

As far as the Pershing comment, that was pre-armistace. Once the Germans agreed to the 14 points, Wilson did a 180 and supported a peace deal. It was the allied demand for a victor's peace that made him change his tone, the same with Pershing.

If the Germans had been less trusting a bit cagier, they should have demanded that the 14 points were the only basis for peace and would only agree to an armistice once all the allied nations agreed. That would take out the support for the war by the Americans, as their goal would be met. If necessary the Americans could have, and frankly should have, strong-armed the Allies into peace by withholding money and demanding loan repayment. The British and especially French efforts collapse pretty quickly, as they owed the Americans over 2 trillion dollars by today's standards.
 
Top