What would it have taken for The Spring Offensives to succeed?

ktotwf · Apr 1, 2004

What would it have taken? Most accounts I have read said that it was extremely unlikely to have been successful. However, going by a contingency view of history ( i.e. Nothing is impossible ), what, strategically, tactically, ect. could Germany have done to win this battle and the war?

Would staying on the defensive have worked? Is there anything that could be done after the historical battle, since Germany still had a brief advantage in manpower?

MerryPrankster · Apr 1, 2004

This is WWI, right?

If there're no US troops to hold the trenches and no promise of eventual US support, the Germans would probably have mauled the Brits and French. The Allied armies (esp. the French) were unbelievably demoralized due to their commanders' penchants for suicidal offensives.

Tom_B · Apr 1, 2004

Definition of Success

Is the definition of "success" to be construed as the capture of Paris?

Or is it achieving some other major objectives? The Germans came very close to capturing Amiens and if they had it would've changed the complexion of the war and made the later Entente counteroffensive much more difficult.

Or could success be construed in terms of the Channel Ports with the Germans advancing into St. Omer and then capturing Dunkirk and Calais.

Raymann · Apr 1, 2004

Hell, time it with the French mutiny earlier and France is...well...toast. Ha

ktotwf · Apr 2, 2004

Success is anything, that leads to either the Germans winning the war, or avoiding an Unconditional Peace, maybe something closer to a white peace.

Grey Wolf · Apr 2, 2004

ktotwf said:
What would it have taken? Most accounts I have read said that it was extremely unlikely to have been successful. However, going by a contingency view of history ( i.e. Nothing is impossible ), what, strategically, tactically, ect. could Germany have done to win this battle and the war?

Would staying on the defensive have worked? Is there anything that could be done after the historical battle, since Germany still had a brief advantage in manpower?

IIRC Ludendorff envisaged the Southern offensive as a diversion from his intended main thrust in the North. As the Southern one met with greatest success, but failed largely due to logistical over-stretch, what if the groundwork had been laid for the Southern offensive to be the main thrust from the start? Would the logistical boost have been enough to sustain the advance as far as Paris ?

Grey Wolf

Redbeard · Apr 2, 2004

Matt Quinn said:
This is WWI, right?

If there're no US troops to hold the trenches and no promise of eventual US support, the Germans would probably have mauled the Brits and French. The Allied armies (esp. the French) were unbelievably demoralized due to their commanders' penchants for suicidal offensives.

By the time of the spring offensive there were very few US troops at the front in France, and they played no significant role in stopping the offensive. The offensive was mainly stopped by the British 5th Army, which, although it took extremely big losses, in the end kept the front. By end of April most losses had been replaced -quite remarkable if an collapsing army.

In short it seemed like the British Army had fully overcome it's morale problems of 1917. Some claim that the French hadn't, but I've only heard that from Anglo-Saxon historians, and they had (have) a bad habbit of only superficial knowledge about allies (and enemies). But if it in any way is true that the French were still weakened in 1918, then placing the main attack in the French sector instead of the British perhaps would have had the Entente front collpase.

The later very big US contingent did however play a major role in the Entente autumn offensive and the German collapse in November. Without US participation in the autumn offensive the Germans probably still wouldn't be able to win the war (they were a spent ball after the spring offensive), but it probably wouldn't have been possible to impose a Versailles Treaty on them.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Melvin Loh · Apr 4, 2004

German blitzkrieg 1918 ?

STURMTRUPPEN tactics in order to facilitate a speedy mechanised assault against the British 4th Army lines ? In this manner, Op MICHAEL wouldn't have had to rely so much on pure manpower in the form of their stormtrooper units who after achieving their initial objectives with lightning speed, then became too tired to continue pressing the attack, and allowed the Allies the opportunities to counterattack.

Also, WI there'd been somehow a largescale absence of Dominion combat formations on the sectors assaulted by the Germans ? The ANZAC and Canadian divs were instrumental in stemming and reversing the stormtrooper assaults during such key engagements as Amiens, so what about if say some largescale colonial dissatisfaction along the lines of the 1917 French mutiny had existed, compelling the withdrawal of Dominion troops from frontline trenches ?