USA doesn't join WW1 but Germany still loses?

[ArtosStark]

Do you have any examples of this? Only as far as I can tell, it was pretty much universal that the front trench of a line was more of a trip wire than a fixed wall defence.

Brett Devereaux goes into the trench system in some detail (here and here),

(Courtesy Brett Devereaux. Aerial view of trench system).

In essence, most attacks in the First World War succeeded in taking the initial front-line objectives. Where they failed was in being able to push on and in being able to hold them.

During the German Spring Offensive the defences in the Arras sector concentrated its forces in the forward line. In this case it was very effective. One of the lessons learned that I have seen from the Spring Offensive on the British side was that the defensive method should fit the terrain. In Arras, with the terrain well suited to defence, a well built defensive line and troops that very much knew what they were doing, a single concentrated line worked better than an attempt to their right to copy the German system.

In a less successful example, the commander of French Sixth Army had refused to implement defence in depth, and the initial German artillery barrage buried and broke up the defenders in many places, allowing the Germans to push through.

 

[David Flin]

During the German Spring Offensive the defences in the Arras sector concentrated its forces in the forward line. In this case it was very effective. One of the lessons learned that I have seen from the Spring Offensive on the British side was that the defensive method should fit the terrain. In Arras, with the terrain well suited to defence, a well built defensive line and troops that very much knew what they were doing, a single concentrated line worked better than an attempt to their right to copy the German system.

Cheers. As a general rule, multiple layers worked better than a single line. One could have predicted that outcome from even a cursory reading of Clausewitz, with the emphasis on creating friction within an enemy's movement.

But yes, defence suiting terrain holds true. I suspect it would take exceptional circumstances for a single line being better than multiple layers.

 

[ArtosStark]

. As a general rule, multiple layers worked better than a single line

Agreed. Upon review, it seems it was not exactly a single line. Though we often call them lines of defense both the German, and the official British system actually used zones o defence. The forward zone was made up of machine gun positions with interlocking fields of fire, to attrite the enemy upon inital advance and was several miles deep. The Battle zone contained the main defences and had successive systems of defence, including echeloned artillery (the picture you posted was likely of this zone) and the rear zone was a fall back position 4-8 miles behind the line in case of trouble.

The problem with these types of defences is that they are very intensive. The BEF had 60 divisions in 1918 to cover the same area where the Germans used 84. This, along with time pressures and the requirement to take over more line from the French (exacerbated by the British chronic lack of work forces in the forward areas) meant that the system was not fully implemented in many areas. In Fifth Army's sector this was a contributing factor to the failure to contain the Germans (though there are others). In Arras's sector Third Army appears to have gone their own way, and instead had a linear defence with multiple lines. They held the first line very lightly, allowing their main defensive and counterattack forces to remain intact in spite of the heavy initial German bombardment. This system was, apparently, more efficient in the use of manpower than the copied German system recommended by GHQ.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Nothing wrong with doing so at all, just shows that the Entente can make find ways to fill the hole left by the AEF, either by redirecting the available troops, changing strategy, or tapping into other nations for soldiers. The truth is the AEF's contribution in 1918 was useful but not critical, If the Entente break the Hindenburg Line in September 1918 the Germans have little choice but to acknowledge they've lost the war.

The AEF's moment of glory (accompanied by a shed load of losses) was scheduled to occur in 1919 when Foch expected them & an increased number of French colonial troops were expected to complete the heavy lifting. Germany's sudden collapse, internal & external, caught everyone out.

 

[Garrison]

The AEF's moment of glory (accompanied by a shed load of losses) was scheduled to occur in 1919 when Foch expected them & an increased number of French colonial troops were expected to complete the heavy lifting. Germany's sudden collapse, internal & external, caught everyone out.

Yeah, its important to understand that saying the Entente could win without the AEF in 1918 is not saying the Americans were somehow useless. Like every other army in the war it had to learn by doing, because everyone's Generals are convinced they have the magic formula to win quick victories with minimum casualties, and they learned pretty quickly. The German High Command knew full well that could no longer win on the battlefield in 1918, that's why they sought an Armistice. Even if they could somehow have held the home front together, which would probably have required imposing something like the Hunger Plan in the Ukraine, an ever more powerful US Army meant they were going to be beaten so badly that even Hindenburg and co. wouldn't be able to shift the blame for the disaster on to anyone else. If it weren't for the human cost involved one could wish that Pershing had gotten to march his army triumphantly into Berlin, no stab in the back myth when the Entente and the US bring the war to the doorstep of the Reichstag.

 

[Catspoke]

Except they can't. Because the Germans will attack somewhere, almost certainly Russia, who will demand counteroffensives.

Maybe, but the Germans may not want to provoke the Russians who are passive into uniting in defence of the country. Perhaps the Germans launch a massive Italian or Moldovan offensive.

If Russia stays in the line, even if the Allies are forced into rescue offensives, the Allies still win.

 

[Mikestone8]

a fourth of Americans were African American and cared not about this white man's fight.

Only about a tenth iirc, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of your argument.

I also str that take up of the First Liberty Loan was por until #creel et al whipped up patriotic fervour and presented subscription as a moral "duty" - something which would be impossible in a neutral US.

If it weren't for the human cost involved one could wish that Pershing had gotten to march his army triumphantly into Berlin, no stab in the back myth when the Entente and the US bring the war to the doorstep of the Reichstag.

Unlikely. The Germans (especially those who had actually *served* on the Western Front) knew perfectly well that they had been defeated. And their letters show their awareness of the endless flood of US troops which was making that defeat inevitable. By September 1918 even German *officers* were surrendering in large numbers, something hitherto exceptional. They could see that it was hopeless and just wanted to survive.

As Ralph Schultz put it in Methuselah's Children, the truth of a proposition has little or nothing to do with its chances of acceptance. If people *want* to believe something, they *will* believe it, even in the face of the evidence. Had Pershing gone on to Berlin, most probably the "November Criminals" would just have been renamed October ones, whose appeal for an armistice had destroyed the morale of the German soldier.

 

[Mikestone8]

Reverting to the OP, might one consequence be a more raid growth of the US Merchant Marine?

During Fe 1917 few ships left US ports due to panic abt USW. Had neutrality continued, might there have been a lot more neutral ships taking refuge in US ports, and perhaps being bought up cheap?

 

[ArtosStark]

During Fe 1917 few ships left US ports due to panic abt USW. Had neutrality continued, might there have been a lot more neutral ships taking refuge in US ports, and perhaps being bought up cheap?

If you mean a world where USW never happened then I assume most of them would go back to their own ports.

If you mean a world with USW but where the US never joins, then maybe. But I expect most such ships would try and find their way home, or wait it out. It seems possible some could be sold at a discount. Did this happen IOTL at all?

 

[TheDeveloper]

My guess is that Europe is even more radical than our own in this TL; my guess is Germany falls into Civil War along with France and Austria Hungary, all of which were at their wits end by the war. Who wins these Civil wars is another question.
U.S might be even better off than OTL given the economic opportunities in devastated nations, but that depends on which types of regimes take power.