The differences in warfare with a WW1 right at the start of the 20th century?

LordKalvert

Banned
Finbarr the Fair;11941852 Lots more possible variants as to who was on which side said:
The nut of the riddle- who is fighting whom as that would determine a lot- which side is Britain or Italy fighting on would make a big difference. France might not have a choice- she didn't in 1914 or the French might have felt that Germany's growth was such a long term threat that it was now or never
Up until 1903, the French chances against Germany really aren't that bad after 1905 they're horrible
 
What about the First abalkan War?

Depending on when this is in the early 20th, Serbia could still be an Austrian pseudo client.

Theres also the Haber process not being around, so Germany is boned, to put it bluntly, if there's a blockade. However, British involvement is less likely in this scenario and Italy is likely more on the CP side

Turks and most Balkans power are likely out, but they could have their own sideshow war, no?
 

trajen777

Banned
Lord Kalvart you make some good points -- however in the period 1900 to 1905 The German focus on the Howitzer vs the field gun and the french focus on the 75 (great gun but worthless in trench situations) (http://www.lovettartillery.com/Development_of_German_Heavy_Artillery.html )would have still given the Germans a massive advantage. The population difference (true the increased trained reserves helped the Germans more after 1910) would have told in year 2-3. With a neutral Britain and at this phase Italy would have remained neutral or attacked France. AH (hopeless as you state) would have had most of their army face Russia vs dispersed against Serbia and Italy. Russia would have been in much worse situation with a tottering government and fewer weapons, ammo etc..

German navy and economy would also be able to have massive imports in weapons, food, supplies

Central power victory in 2 years (Agree not sure if France would fight without Britain)
 
Who is fighting who depends on how the war starts. In 1905 the UK is recovering from the Boer War and absent a German attack through Belgium will stay out of the fight at least to begin with. If Britain is not in then Italy may very well come in on the side of the CP, although they may decide to be neutral until they see which way they get a better deal.

The position of the USA may be very different than it was in 1914. TR is president. Also, without the U-boat campaign you potentially have the British (if they are in) blockading traffic to Germany/the continent which will piss off the USA since this is a unilateral move. If the RN is not involved then merchant traffic to Germany, either directly or through intermediaries, moves freely. Another issue of a war without the UK is that the finances of France and Russia are in the toilet very quickly, and they will be scrambling to find someone to finance their war.
 
Would there be more use of steam-engined vehicles then? (though I'm having trouble picturing a steamer-tank - I think the crew would be cooked!)



Steam powered armored cars, maybe armored road locomotives such as UK had in Boer war (possibly tracked).
 
Who is fighting who depends on how the war starts. In 1905 the UK is recovering from the Boer War and absent a German attack through Belgium will stay out of the fight at least to begin with. If Britain is not in then Italy may very well come in on the side of the CP, although they may decide to be neutral until they see which way they get a better deal.

The position of the USA may be very different than it was in 1914. TR is president. Also, without the U-boat campaign you potentially have the British (if they are in) blockading traffic to Germany/the continent which will piss off the USA since this is a unilateral move. If the RN is not involved then merchant traffic to Germany, either directly or through intermediaries, moves freely. Another issue of a war without the UK is that the finances of France and Russia are in the toilet very quickly, and they will be scrambling to find someone to finance their war.

Wasn't TR a big proponent of foreign intervention? IOTL I believe he wanted the US on the UK's side almost from the start of WW1 and didn't he actually volunteer to pretty much re-form and lead the Rough Riders to be sent over to fight?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That's another interesting possible analogue, but it is

What about the First abalkan War?

That's another interesting possible analogue, but it is much later comparitively to 1901-02...

If that's the aim of the OP, then the following conflicts:
  • Spanish-American War (1898);
  • 2nd South African War (1899-1902); and
  • Russo-Japanese War (1904-05)
presumably all come closest in terms of being conflicts involving major powers with similar technology and doctrine.

The Boxer Rebellion and the Casta war in Yucatan were both still going on, of course, but they don't really compare much to how a great power in conflict in Europe would have been waged.

Best,
 
Is a great European war in early 1900s less lethal and long that OTL WW-I?
Is possible that at this war follow a more stable and long peace than in OTL post WW-I?
 
Perhaps a greater emphasis on Zepplins and lighter than air aircraft for war purposes?
By 1/1/1910 only 6 Zeppelins had been produced, and by 1/1/1905 it was exactly 1. If the war starts in 1905, no-one would have any airships right off the bat, As only Germany's built any at all, and that single example was dismantled in 1901.
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
Lord Kalvart you make some good points -- however in the period 1900 to 1905 The German focus on the Howitzer vs the field gun and the french focus on the 75 (great gun but worthless in trench situations) (http://www.lovettartillery.com/Development_of_German_Heavy_Artillery.html )would have still given the Germans a massive advantage. The population difference (true the increased trained reserves helped the Germans more after 1910) would have told in year 2-3. With a neutral Britain and at this phase Italy would have remained neutral or attacked France. AH (hopeless as you state) would have had most of their army face Russia vs dispersed against Serbia and Italy. Russia would have been in much worse situation with a tottering government and fewer weapons, ammo etc..

German navy and economy would also be able to have massive imports in weapons, food, supplies

Central power victory in 2 years (Agree not sure if France would fight without Britain)

the French 75 was not "useless" in trench warfare- if it was why did they make 12000 of them during the war and the Americans were largely equipped with them?

Its true that the 75 could do little to troops in a trench (other than make them keep their heads down) but it was awesome in breaking up an attack or counter attack and keeping their heads down is a great help to an attacker

The Germans may have been developing some of their weapons but the trench mortar isn't introduced until 1910 or the heavy howitizers

Neither Britain's or Italy's position is clear in 1900 especially after the demise of King Umberto. Of course, the Italian army was woefully poorly equipped and would be easily swept aside

Britain's position only becomes important in a long war. A war in 1900 might be long, it might be short we don't know. The Germans had several chances to win early in 1914 and would have had many more without the BEF or Belgians to worry about.

On the other hand, the French also had their chances in 1914 and the French army's relative strength versus Germany is much, much better in 1900 than 1914. The same with Russia's relative position A rapid Franco-Russian victory without Britain is a real possibility
 
Top