Plausibility Check: WWI delay

DougM

Donor
Actually I disagree. I think it is easy to look at the various wars leading up to WW1 staring with the obvious the American Civil War and the Crimean war but including things like the boar war and start to draw the conclusion that this was going to go ugly and turn into trench warfare. Add in the increase in firepower be it the modern riffle or the machine gun or the fast firing artillery and seeing how lesser improvements in these areas was having huge increases in casualties you could easily make the argument that things were going to be very very bad in the next pier to pier war.

Problem is that no one was learning from the past and projecting it forward, the military was notoriously bad at that (and arguably still is). Add in that many of these wars were fought by “secondary” powers and you add in the traditional ego issues so that the major powers turn Thier collective noses up at learning from the lesser counties wars. And you have a situation we’re historical you will never learn these lessons until two major European powers have a war.
So the lesson WONT be learned (even though the indicators were there to be seen)
Add in without the lessons no one will think there is a need for the new tech. Then don’t forget that the funding for the development of the new tech won’t be available and you just won’t see any noticeable changes.
On top of this you have at best a 5 year window for WW1. Beyond that any war that takes place will be radically different because the political situation will have changed, Most noticeably in the England won’t be as worried about German navel power and colonialism and Germany will not be in a rush to go to war because they won’t have the window to fight France while Russia gets its act together as by that point the changes Russia was starting to implement before the war would mean the could get up an army and get it to the front a LOT faster, it was fear of these changes that at least in part caused Germany to want to go to war. The figured get the war out of the way before Russia got its act together. Postponeing the war means Russia has made these changes so Germany is not going to be in a rush to fight Russia and France.
So the technology will not develop because no one will believe in the need for it and the politics will change the war beyond recognition.

So in short (ok to late for short) you can’t get your desired results
 

BooNZ

Banned
Supposition: The Great War is delayed. For some reason tensions aren't as high in 1914.
The OTL French elections earlier in 1914 had essentially displaced the hawks, so French support for Russian adventurism and even the continuation of the three year law was in doubt. Further, the A-H military started in 1911-12 was scheduled to modernise its medium and heavy artillery 1914-15, which together with further training and indoctrination of recently expanded ranks would have made A-H a far more formidable force.

Question: Can the war be delayed long enough such that technological advancement would rule out trench warfare as it occurred in OTL?
Contrary to what has been said on this thread, the prewar planners were well aware of the potential difficulties of overcoming defensive positions featuring trenches. Almost all military leaders expressed a preference for the battle of maneuver and decisive battle because they recognised the perils of assaulting defensive positions and did not trust the resilience of thier economies/societies to cope with an extended total war. Both Moltke(Jr) and Joffre were on record as intimating the next war would be long and involve entire societies, which suggests neither were confident seizing the initative or offensive doctrines would ultimately prevail against trenches.

The reality was in 1914 the militaries did not have the tools available to overcome well appointed trenches effectively. Before the war almost every new weapon system was examined by the military for how it might assist the attackers, but most simply continued to tilt the battlefield further in favour of the defenders. At the time, the underlying strategy for assaulting defences was to overwhelm the defenders with superior firepower, by a combination of suppressing the defenders and use of overwhelming numbers. In 1914 the militaries did not have the combination of firepower and mobility to overcome static defences and ultimately exploit the breakthrough.

Well they didn’t learn in the various wars in the late 1800s that featured trench warfare. They didn’t learn from the wars that featured new fast firing guns. They didn’t learn from the wars that had the first machine guns and Gatling guns. So basically they learned very little from any give war for the last 50 years but perhaps somehow in the 4 or 5 years you could delay WW1 they would learn something, yeah right.

No they need a HUGE wake up call with tens of thousands killed in battle after battle or it is going to be ignored.
With the tools available, how would you have done things differently in 1914?
 
I am of the opinion that the First World War wouldn't be able to be delayed for long unless the pre-war alliance structure was altered. Germany, as has been mention, was nervous about the swift pace that Russia was able to rearm after 1905 and sought war that would be to Germany's advantage before the calculus swung too far toward Russia and France.
 
Before the war almost every new weapon system was examined by the military for how it might assist the attackers, but most simply continued to tilt the battlefield further in favour of the defenders.

Is that why Tommys were tossing Bully Beef tins filled with black powder and nails into German Trenches with Catapults?

3cfaf6088ac0f0bfa5ca30cca75588ba.jpg

At least the French had real, mass produced grenades, but they had this at first
575ae2a6f91a647324f59c38579ef2a7.jpg

plus the real shortage of indirect firing howitzers
 

BooNZ

Banned
Is that why Tommys were tossing Bully Beef tins filled with black powder and nails into German Trenches with Catapults?
The British were scarcely recognised as a proper continental power...

At least the French had real, mass produced grenades, but they had this at first

plus the real shortage of indirect firing howitzers
The French were obsessed with the offensive and light artillery, but even most the French military leadership before the war recognised the shortage of heavy indirect artillery - Joffre subsequently claimed his earlier statements of satisfaction of existing artillery assets were intended to mask the reality. In any case, while heavy howitzers performed better than alternatives, those alone still lacked the mobility to overcome robust trench networks.
 
Is that why Tommys were tossing Bully Beef tins filled with black powder and nails into German Trenches with Catapults?

3cfaf6088ac0f0bfa5ca30cca75588ba.jpg

I have to say, I love the side eye from the soldier on the right. Too bad any catapult-based after action reports have been lost in the sands of time.
 
Considering how effective a stick with a nail in it would prove at trench warfare I am not sure I can fault them. Heck 10 years ago there were US army troops going into battle with Silly String while waiting for the military issue version.
 
Considering how effective a stick with a nail in it would prove at trench warfare I am not sure I can fault them.

I cannot fault them for trying to extend the range of grenades (in comparison to hand throwing) by field expedients and low-tech devices. But I can fault the decision makers for not fielding enough grenade launchers and rifle grenades (which is the reason why the expedients became necessary). Those did not require any technology that did not already exist in 1914, and the first models had been introduced years before that date. Light mortars also were much rarer than necessary in 1914.

The problem, however, is the same somebody else mentioned upthread. New weapons that would help the offensive, but even more the defensive.
Light HE deliverers in the hands of trained infantry are useful against enemy infantry in trenches, yes. Much more than direct shooting firearms, and much more than hand-thrown grenades, and more than heavy HE if it's inaccurate, slow, and not available in numbers.
But those same light HE deliverers also work well - actually, better - against infantry in the open, for instance, while it is charging towards your trench.
 
Using the British example, 10 years before they were fighting on open plains with long rifles. Mortars and hand grenades aren't going to help there.

The western front is an oddity even in the context of WWI itself. Most of the other fronts retained some element of movement because they couldn't support the troop densities.
 
Top