US Enters WWI in 1914 - Military Impact

[kingdobbs]

OK, so I'm working on a scenario in which, through earlier diversions, the United States enters World War I at its outset, in 1914, on the side of the Entente/Allies.

Now, I have a good idea how I'm going to have the later portions of the war progress, but I get kinda stuck on what a realistic early entry by the AEF would look like, so I thought I'd bounce it off AH.com and see what kind of information I can mine. For the sake of argument, assume the AEF is identical to that which appeared in 1917 (small, professional army, relatively modern but not as up to speed materially; commanded by Pershing), with the only difference that it is supported by a navy equivalent to what the British and Germans possess.

Now, what I imagine the first year of the war would look like:
1) The US declares war around the same time, but it takes a month to mobilize their troops and have them in France. So, the AEF would be landed in France in September 1914, just in time for the Battle of the Marne.
2) With the strength in place at the time, the US is barely more than another army group of the French; the best place to put them would likely be on the left wing between the last French army group and the sea, probably alongside the French Sixth Army north of Paris, involving them in the flank action at the Ourcq River. However, I remain unsure if this action would have a different result with more men.
3) The Americans, by virtue of placement, are likely better capable of making the "Race to the Sea" earlier, perhaps capturing Lille in late September ahead of the Germans, and getting the British to Ypres earlier, perhaps in time to make a significant impact on the siege of Antwerp. In all likelihood, all this would mean was that the lines would fall a couple of miles further west.
4) As 1915 progresses, the US can put more and more men in the field until August, when they could be at strength equivalent to 1 million men, but that these men would be squandered much the same as the men from Britain and France in the 1915 offensives.

So, good people, critique and offer your opinions!

 

[Max Sinister]

The German attack into France is halted soon, in 1915 they're pushed back, and in 1916 they have to capitulate. If they don't accept peace even sooner.

However, I can't see the US enter the war, as isolationist as they were...

 

[HueyLong]

If they enter the war in 1914, I doubt they'll get an independent army. It was only given because, really, the Entente needed it and they had insisted on it.

Early in the war, they won't have as much weight, and the AEF will end up subordinate to the French High Command. Wouldn't expect Pershing to listen, but thats another matter........

 

[Tom_B]

You can proably get the US into the war before Christmas if you have Teddy as President BUT

1] It will take a while just to get the declaration

2] It will badly divide the American people much more than OTL

3] There will no significant American force in Europe before 1915

4] In OTL the Republicans were quite fond of Gen. Leonard Wood not Pershing

 

[The Mists Of Time]

America was pretty isolationist at that time. It took several provocations like the sinking of the Lusitania to prod the USA into WWI. In 1914 and 1915 it was pretty much considered Europe's war, so I can't see us entering the war in 1914.

If we had entered WWI in 1914 the war would probably not have lasted as long as it did in OTL. Another post on this thread suggested WWI might have been over by 1916.

That brings up another question. If the United States had entered WWI in 1914, and if WWI had ended earlier than in OTL, say in 1916, would that have had an effect on the Russian Revolution and if so how?

 

[stevep]

America was pretty isolationist at that time. It took several provocations like the sinking of the Lusitania to prod the USA into WWI. In 1914 and 1915 it was pretty much considered Europe's war, so I can't see us entering the war in 1914.

If we had entered WWI in 1914 the war would probably not have lasted as long as it did in OTL. Another post on this thread suggested WWI might have been over by 1916.

That brings up another question. If the United States had entered WWI in 1914, and if WWI had ended earlier than in OTL, say in 1916, would that have had an effect on the Russian Revolution and if so how?

What revolution?

However I agree. Given how isolationist the US was at the time you would need major PODs to get it in at the start. They would probably be so great you have a totally different world, butterflying WWI as we know it.

Steve

 

[Fenwick]

Would the AEF be anywhere near like it was in 1917? It does not have a model of how war in the trenches is to follow. Next as already mentioned the USA is not anywhere near as needed to get an independent army. They could push for it, but propably get under the control of France or England.

Planes are bad, and not have effective machine guns yet. grenades are not yet widely used on the field, or in some cases not even considered. The US would not arrive with alot of explosve shells, but sharpnel like the French and British where using. in the long run America would of course win, but with alot more dead.

 

[LordKalvan]

Besides the obvious difficulties in justifying USA in WW1 from the start (which IMO are rather ASBish), and besides the fact that raising and despatching to Europe an EF in one month (which may not be as ASBish but is certainly very ambitious), USA troops would be quite green, not ready for the kind of warfare which is going to happen in France) and under the command of French generals. Expect a blood bath, and newspapers raving against France, and Entente generals.

Is American public ready to accept a slugfest and the associated deaths? In 1914, without major issues against the CP? As a minimum, in 1916 the incumbent will be slaughtered (and elections would be won at the tune of "bring our boys home"). Separate peace in 1917?

If you can reconcile the initial inconsistencies (quite difficult), and refrain from writing an apologetic TL (this is 1914, and Pershing is neither Patton nor Eisenhower; if it is Pershing, btw), it might be a refreshing and novel approach.

 

[CalBear]

The biggest difficulty is that, effectively, there IS no American Army. It is 98,000 Men, roughly half of which are already overseas (mainly in the Philippines) This would leave a force roughly 1/4 the size of the BEF, but with far less overall combat experience. While the standards of the regular force were quite high, the number available makes any meaningful deployment before mid-1915 nearly impossible.

As was the case in 1917, it would have taken 8-9 months to construct a army worthy of the name. By then, the slaughter had established itself as a regular occurance, but none of the engaged forces (except, perhaps, Austria/Hungary) have even begun to bleed themselves out. Intervention at the beginning would simply have added to the number of young men who bled to death in France & Flanders.

In late 1917 & 1918, the sudden influx of the huge number of American troops, green as they were, was decisive against a Germany that was holding on by its fingernails. In 1915? Nowhere near as decisive. It might be the Big Red One that gets wiped out invading Turkey, or at the Somme, but would that change anything?

The Allies still win the war, but probably not until 1919, maybe 1920, and only then because the German Home Front implodes in Revolution.

 

[MarkA]

CalBear is right - there was no effective US army in 1914. If they somehow did declare war in 1914 it would not be until Christmas at least that the first divisions would be ready. So not until January or even February 1915 would they be shipped to Europe.

Perhaps 25 April would be a significant day in US history too. Would their presence have changed anything at Gallipoli?

 

[Wozza]

The Allies still win the war, but probably not until 1919, maybe 1920, and only then because the German Home Front implodes in Revolution.

This is perverse logic, and does not hold.

I agree with you about the poor prospects for US intervention before 1915 or 16, but a major AEF presence in 1916 would have been a major headache for the Germans, possibly decisively so.

Verdun would have been pointless and victory in the west simply impossible.

 

[MrP]

I second Wozza, CalBear. German resource shortages would be more acute, the Grand Fleet would be aided by the USN - which had good battleships if few cruisers. American production would go toward arming Entente forces earlier, and there are more men to use in the Entente's war effort. I can't see an earlier start to American intervention leading to a later end to the war.

Assuming large-scale offensives in '16 by the Entente, the Americans will shoulder some of the casualties, and the impossibility of a '17 offensive (on cash and resource grounds) will vanish. Germany's doomed by at least late '17.

 

[CalBear]

I second Wozza, CalBear. German resource shortages would be more acute, the Grand Fleet would be aided by the USN - which had good battleships if few cruisers. American production would go toward arming Entente forces earlier, and there are more men to use in the Entente's war effort. I can't see an earlier start to American intervention leading to a later end to the war.

Assuming large-scale offensives in '16 by the Entente, the Americans will shoulder some of the casualties, and the impossibility of a '17 offensive (on cash and resource grounds) will vanish. Germany's doomed by at least late '17.

Wozza is correct in that Verdun would pointless. So the German Army stays inside their defenses and slaugther the Allies as they cross No-Man's Land. German losses actually DECREASE. The allies continue to beat themselves against the German Defenses and suffer two or three to one losses as the attacking force.

The U.S. adds it's Battlefleet to the RN, making an overwhelming British advantage more overwhelming. This changes nothing. The High Seas Fleet doesn't come out and Jutland never occurs. This has no impact on the war (many trees do, however, survive as hundreds of titles discussing the battle are never published) and historically the only significance is that the fatal weakness of the British Battlecruiser is never revealed (Oh, and the Battle of Surigao Strait become the largest battle between capital ships during the Dreadnought era.).

Logistally, the biggest difference is that American troops wind up armed with mostly M1903 Springfields instead of M1917 Enfields. The U.S was already supplying the Allies with munitions as quickly as they could be turned out.

The only way that U.S. entry makes a difference is if, for some reason, the U.S. starts to build up a massive Army, with all the modern weapons, including artillery, in 1912 and has a Corps, if not an Army, in England waiting to go with the BEF. You throw another 150-250K troops onto the left flank in August 1914, you can then roll-up the entire German line.

If you wait until the Germans have dug in, which you have to do without a POD of some kind in 1911-12, more troops just don't matter during 1915-17, except to Graves Registration units. German defenses were not going to be broken by direct attack, not in 1915 or 16. In 1917 additional American troops will simply make the French Army's sit down strike less noticeable.

Instead of Germany suddenly facing the Hordes of fresh American troops that effectively crushed whatever hopes the German Army still held in mid-1918 (and whose pending arrival of which forced the Germans into their ruinious 1918 Offensive) You have bled out U.S. forces with bled out European forces all looking for a place to fall down. The Germans hold huge portions of France, they continue on the defensive, the Allies keep pushing, keep dying like flies, until the German Home Front falls apart (This assumes that American Morale does not fold first, American troops are, after all, dying in numbers that make the ACW look like a folk dance, for European ground.)

The biggest after-effect of a 1914 Declaration of War (assuming no POD's prior) is a even greater reluctance by the U.S. to enter WW II in Europe and a much less aggressive American strategic and tactical plan when/if the U.S. does enter the war.

 

[MrP]

Wozza is correct in that Verdun would pointless. So the German Army stays inside their defenses and slaugther the Allies as they cross No-Man's Land. German losses actually DECREASE. The allies continue to beat themselves against the German Defenses and suffer two or three to one losses as the attacking force.

I don't see that happening. If there's no Verdun, then the Entente's Somme attack will be on a greater scale than in OTL.

Final Somme Casualties: British 415,000, French 195,000, Germans perhaps 600,000.

Final Verdun Casualties: The French Army lost about 550,000 men at Verdun. It is estimated that the German Army suffered 434,000 casualties. About half of all casualties at Verdun were killed.

Casualties don't follow a 1:2 or 1:3 formula at the strategic level. Granted, an attacking battalion advancing in full gear over open ground could be cut down by a mere MG platoon. However, strategically speaking, this is attritional warfare. So positing a similar "Somme" offensive conducted with about the same troops as took part in the OTL Somme and Verdun affairs, the casualties would leave the French, British and Germans drained as in OTL. But not if we add in a quarter of a million Americans. Their contribution will cost Germany at least another 150,000 casualties. After the bleeding at the Somme, and the misfire that was Verdun, the German army was greatly weakened. 1/4 of a million Americans could push them over the edge. 1/2 million certainly would.

The U.S. adds it's Battlefleet to the RN, making an overwhelming British advantage more overwhelming. This changes nothing. The High Seas Fleet doesn't come out and Jutland never occurs. This has no impact on the war (many trees do, however, survive as hundreds of titles discussing the battle are never published) and historically the only significance is that the fatal weakness of the British Battlecruiser is never revealed (Oh, and the Battle of Surigao Strait become the largest battle between capital ships during the Dreadnought era.).

Depends - the Germans wanted to snap off bits off the Grand Fleet during the OTL war even though outnumbered, for they knew they could overwhelm fragments of it. I'd expect them to follow a similarly cautious policy as OTL - still bombarding British coastal towns in an effort to destroy the RN in detail. The RN&USN might indeed never meet them in battle, but I still think the Germans would pop out a bit.

Logistally, the biggest difference is that American troops wind up armed with mostly M1903 Springfields instead of M1917 Enfields. The U.S was already supplying the Allies with munitions as quickly as they could be turned out.

The only way that U.S. entry makes a difference is if, for some reason, the U.S. starts to build up a massive Army, with all the modern weapons, including artillery, in 1912 and has a Corps, if not an Army, in England waiting to go with the BEF. You throw another 150-250K troops onto the left flank in August 1914, you can then roll-up the entire German line.

If you wait until the Germans have dug in, which you have to do without a POD of some kind in 1911-12, more troops just don't matter during 1915-17, except to Graves Registration units. German defenses were not going to be broken by direct attack, not in 1915 or 16. In 1917 additional American troops will simply make the French Army's sit down strike less noticeable.

Hm, the French refusal to attack was a result of their heavy casualties, remember, old boy. Even if America can only contribute a few divisions initially - like the UK did - then her subsequent call up of troops will ensure two things. First, that Entente combat exhaustion is lessened. Second, that the Entente can afford to press attack harder and sustain greater losses.

Instead of Germany suddenly facing the Hordes of fresh American troops that effectively crushed whatever hopes the German Army still held in mid-1918 (and whose pending arrival of which forced the Germans into their ruinious 1918 Offensive) You have bled out U.S. forces with bled out European forces all looking for a place to fall down. The Germans hold huge portions of France, they continue on the defensive, the Allies keep pushing, keep dying like flies, until the German Home Front falls apart (This assumes that American Morale does not fold first, American troops are, after all, dying in numbers that make the ACW look like a folk dance, for European ground.)

The biggest after-effect of a 1914 Declaration of War (assuming no POD's prior) is a even greater reluctance by the U.S. to enter WW II in Europe and a much less aggressive American strategic and tactical plan when/if the U.S. does enter the war.

Well, we've got to assume prior PoDs, don't we? After all, an OTL '14 Declaration is unthinkable - I think we're all agreed on that!

I suppose we've got two different assumptions. I'm working on the idea that the USA will fight as hard as she did in OTL, just earlier. Whereas you're going with the indubitable problems of convincing OTL '14 Americans to fight as hard as that.

Actually, going back and rereading the initial post, I realise I'd forgotten that this ATL will see 1 million Americans deployed to France by '15. Given that - however this turnabout in American attitudes is achieved (believe me, I'm as intrigued as anyone by that) I simply don't see how Germany will survive '16 without defeat.

 

[CalBear]

I



Well, we've got to assume prior PoDs, don't we? After all, an OTL '14 Declaration is unthinkable - I think we're all agreed on that!

I suppose we've got two different assumptions. I'm working on the idea that the USA will fight as hard as she did in OTL, just earlier. Whereas you're going with the indubitable problems of convincing OTL '14 Americans to fight as hard as that.

Actually, going back and rereading the initial post, I realise I'd forgotten that this ATL will see 1 million Americans deployed to France by '15. Given that - however this turnabout in American attitudes is achieved (believe me, I'm as intrigued as anyone by that) I simply don't see how Germany will survive '16 without defeat.

Given the assumptions as above, especially that the U.S. has at least a Corps available for August 1914 deployment,and they are landed with or very close to the BEF's original AO (Mostly so they are in position to turn the German right flank) I agree.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I don't see that happening. If there's no Verdun, then the Entente's Somme attack will be on a greater scale than in OTL.

Final Somme Casualties: British 415,000, French 195,000, Germans perhaps 600,000.

Final Verdun Casualties: The French Army lost about 550,000 men at Verdun. It is estimated that the German Army suffered 434,000 casualties. About half of all casualties at Verdun were killed.

Casualties don't follow a 1:2 or 1:3 formula at the strategic level. Granted, an attacking battalion advancing in full gear over open ground could be cut down by a mere MG platoon. However, strategically speaking, this is attritional warfare. So positing a similar "Somme" offensive conducted with about the same troops as took part in the OTL Somme and Verdun affairs, the casualties would leave the French, British and Germans drained as in OTL. But not if we add in a quarter of a million Americans. Their contribution will cost Germany at least another 150,000 casualties. After the bleeding at the Somme, and the misfire that was Verdun, the German army was greatly weakened. 1/4 of a million Americans could push them over the edge. 1/2 million certainly would.

I'm with CalBear in the casualty analysis. Germany stays on the defensive, and the US troops make no difference. The Germans didn't even come close to losing 600,000 men at the Somme, nor nothing close to 400,000 at Verdun.

At Verdun, they lost 71,000 killed and missing, while the French lost 160,000. Those figures come from German medical records, as well as having been recounted by Churchill and Taylor. The French stats come from Abel Ferry.

The Somme was no different. Allied casualties of all types came to roughly 700,000. Again, German internal records from the Reichsarchiv records come to 214,000 casualties of all types.

The US' primary advantage was that they recieved much of their training from the remaining elite of France's forces, which had learned the nature of the German tactics, and thus, the US employed them against the Germans. And with superior numbers and excellent tactics and strategy, the US was able to deliver a series of blows that drove the Germans to the table.

Take those valuable months of training away, and the US never learns how to combat the Germans, as everybody who learns is thrown into the meatgrinder and slaughtered at a ratio of 3-2:1.

In fact, if the US enters in 1914, I think the Germans win outright. It takes longer, but the superiority of German technology, strategy, and tactics is so vast when one takes out the arrival of the AEF in 1917, that the Germans simpy need to bleed one more army dry. And at the rate of casualties the AEF would be suffering, it wouldn't take too long.

 

[MrP]

I'm with CalBear in the casualty analysis. Germany stays on the defensive, and the US troops make no difference. The Germans didn't even come close to losing 600,000 men at the Somme, nor nothing close to 400,000 at Verdun.

At Verdun, they lost 71,000 killed and missing, while the French lost 160,000. Those figures come from German medical records, as well as having been recounted by Churchill and Taylor. The French stats come from Abel Ferry.

The Somme was no different. Allied casualties of all types came to roughly 700,000. Again, German internal records from the Reichsarchiv records come to 214,000 casualties of all types.

I'm intrigued by these Reichsarchiv figures. That said, I think you're right that I didn't look at enough sources first. Wiki suggests the following: 465,000 or above, while noting that the Reichsarchiv gave 164,055, and that a British War Office report suggested they could have been as low as 180,000. This bit of Wiki has a handy reference for total WWI losses and also notes the lack of citation of sources being a common problem for checking.

My WWI Databook tells me 498,000 BEF casualties of all types, 195,000 French and 420,000 German. It gives for Verdun 362,000 French and 336,000 German. I'm leaning towards thinking that the German records may be as much an attempt at revising downward the figures as the figure of 600,000 may be at raising it - in both instances for propagandising purposes.

So the Somme does come close to 2:1 casualties, near as I can tell - but given the proposed million man strength of the American contingent by 1915 in this ATL, I still think the Americans will tip Germany into defeat. And I really can't accept the suggestion that more manpower and money committed earlier to the Entente cause will make Germany more likely to win in the end. Germany was slowly strangled to death in WWI. The final American assistance was very valuable, but it was not militarily invaluable.

 

[Fenwick]

Take those valuable months of training away, and the US never learns how to combat the Germans, as everybody who learns is thrown into the meatgrinder and slaughtered at a ratio of 3-2:1.

In fact, if the US enters in 1914, I think the Germans win outright. It takes longer, but the superiority of German technology, strategy, and tactics is so vast when one takes out the arrival of the AEF in 1917, that the Germans simpy need to bleed one more army dry. And at the rate of casualties the AEF would be suffering, it wouldn't take too long.

I was of the impression Germans did better in battles overall. So Americans in 1914 means more dead bodies then anything else. The OTL AEF had 500,000 soldiers in France. I assume around 10,000 arrive in 1914, but are soon joined by the rest. I still think the largest amount of troops will arrive in 1915 when America has had time to properly train men. That means the Trenches are secure, and the Germans have defensive tactics down. It also means the British will line up its men and march across no mans land, except now with Americans.

So unless human waves work, a stalemate is made larger, and first battle where 100,000 Americans die how quickly will support at the war die? And agreeing with Bulgaroktonos a few battles will wipe out most of the AEF, of course it will be replaced with more troops but the experince shrinks with well trained officers.

Another thing to consider how will America fare down the road when the effects of bttle get to the American troops. When they arrived they had that elan the French always yammered on about by 1916-17 will they have that American fighting spirit? I doubt it.

 

[Dave Howery]

uh... Germany takes on a new foe earlier in the war that will field a pretty large army, and Germany wins?! No.... can't wrap my brain around the logic of that... and the US troops won't learn how to fight the Germans?! Nope to that one too... they'll probably be whupped and embarrassed at first, but they'll learn....

 

[MrP]

I was of the impression Germans did better in battles overall. So Americans in 1914 means more dead bodies then anything else.

There's a study (somewhat disputed, granted) by an American Colonel that analyses combat effectiveness of British and American troops compared to German effectiveness in both wars. 100 Germans are equal to about 120 Americans or British regardless of who's attacking. Like I say, his analysis is contested, but it's largely agreed that the German military had a better handle on such things - though their supply system suffered as all the brains got drained to do the fighting. I can dig out the author, if y'like.