Whats wrong with Kuk army?

[Insider]

Whats wrong with K.u.k (Austro-Hungarian) army? It looked good on paper! It should roll over Serbians. They didn't even have shoes for their soldiers! And Russian entry to the war wasn't supprise either.

What would be your choice had you have to improve it?
Explanation of options.
A) "heads, pikes, walls" Fire high command. Rank and file did well, Leutnants led them to victory, it's the top who designed stupid plans.

B) "its called Azimuth" Increase training of junior officer corps. Rank and file did what it could, and plans were good, but the execution was lost in translation.

C) "With right tools my soldiers have talent to get job done". Make helmets,upgrade rifles, back infrantry with more MG's, develop grenades and mortars when the Balkan kettle begins to boilover in 1913

D) "Artillery conquers, infantry occupy" Soldiers had what it took, but it was artillery war. Make better cannons and lots of ammo!

E) "Kaiseliche Wunderwaffen!" It is the special weapons that could make difference! Airplanes, zeppelins (in these years they were experimental weapons), tanks, commando troops to work behind the lines.

Discussion is welcome as well

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Really the biggest thing would be the 2nd army not being withdrawn in August. Let it attack with the 5th and 6th army and the Serbs should be crushed within 2 months. The muddled strategic plan that had 2nd army detrain and then retrain for the Eastern Front was mostly to blame for the failure of 1914 in Serbia.

 

[TRH]

Really the biggest thing would be the 2nd army not being withdrawn in August. Let it attack with the 5th and 6th army and the Serbs should be crushed within 2 months. The muddled strategic plan that had 2nd army detrain and then retrain for the Eastern Front was mostly to blame for the failure of 1914 in Serbia.

That plus winter fighting in the Carpathians really did a number on the army, which still performed well at Gorlice-Tarnow and a few other places.

 

[AJE]

I'm not sure exactly how well or how badly the Austro-Hungarian high command worked during the war, but I do remember that their small officer corps was the only section of the army that was multilingual and could effectively command units that spoke different languages. I'm not sure when, but I read that they lost almost the entirety of their multilingual officer corps at one battle on the Eastern Front early on, and this crippled their army early on. For that reason, I voted for better officer training (and hopefully better officers) so that the army could independently work at a lower level, much like the German system of Mission-type tactics (Auftragstaktik).

Technologically, in terms of equipment, artillery, and special weapons, they were as good if not better than any country during WWI. Germany even used many of their superheavy siege howitzers and artillery both alongside their 42 cm Big Berthas (see Skoda 30.5 cm Morser M.11), and as infantry guns for their own forces (see Skoda 7.5 cm M.15). They were behind in aircraft compared to the Germans, using less aircraft and usually license-producing German designs about a year after they were already obsolete, but this isn't what caused their poor performance during the start of the war (their opponents didn't have the best aircraft either, anyway).

The only exception to this would be the cartridge they used, which is the one thing I would change about their weaponry. Their machine guns and rifles were as modern as anyone's, but they still used blunt-nosed bullets (the 8x50mm R Mannlicher), and didn't switch to spitzer bullets until 1930 with the 8x56mm R cartridge, almost 30 years after everyone else. I would either have them develop the 8x56mm R cartridge before WWI, so that they have effective ammunition, or, more likely, have them forget about producing their own designs for national pride reasons and just adopt the German 8x57mm Mauser cartridge, which would also have big advantages for logistics between Germany and Austria-Hungary during WWI.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

That plus winter fighting in the Carpathians really did a number on the army, which still performed well at Gorlice-Tarnow and a few other places.

Different periods of time. The situation in August-September 1914 was entirely the problem of crap high command and it's decisions. Loses in that period were significant, but manageable and the army did generally preform well, but for these poor decisions. Those cock-ups were compounded by the screwed up late war campaigns, including the failed 3rd invasion of Serbia in November, the Carpathian campaign you mention, and the loss of Przemysl. Come 1915 the army was pretty much a militia. It did not do well in Gorlice-Tarnow, the heavy lifting was done by the Germans. The 'Herbst-sau' in Autumn 1915 showed just how bad the army was, which was compounded by very bad high command.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'm not sure exactly how well or how badly the Austro-Hungarian high command worked during the war, but I do remember that their small officer corps was the only section of the army that was multilingual and could effectively command units that spoke different languages. I'm not sure when, but I read that they lost almost the entirety of their multilingual officer corps at one battle on the Eastern Front early on, and this crippled their army early on. For that reason, I voted for better officer training (and hopefully better officers) so that the army could independently work at a lower level, much like the German system of Mission-type tactics (Auftragstaktik).

That's not so much a problem of poor lower officer training, that was an issue of lack of officers and the small size of the military in general due to the Hungarian parliament refusing to fund the KuK. You'd need to find a way to break the back of the Hungarian nobility controlling the Hungarian parliament so that there wasn't constant efforts to create an independent army and break off Hungary from Austria. Potentially 1905 would have been a good shot if Plan U had gone through and Kaiser FJ used the military to rewrite the constitution so that it was universal male suffrage rather than only a very limited suffrage mostly based on the noble land holdings.

Technologically, in terms of equipment, artillery, and special weapons, they were as good if not better than any country during WWI. Germany even used many of their superheavy siege howitzers and artillery both alongside their 42 cm Big Berthas (see Skoda 30.5 cm Morser M.11), and as infantry guns for their own forces (see Skoda 7.5 cm M.15). They were behind in aircraft compared to the Germans, using less aircraft and usually license-producing German designs about a year after they were already obsolete, but this isn't what caused their poor performance during the start of the war (their opponents didn't have the best aircraft either, anyway).

Better? No, but as good sure...with their modern gear. The problem was most of their artillery park was still bronze guns without recoil mechanisms. Again funding issues thanks to Hungary. 1905 again is a good POD to get a better funded, larger KuK army, though that doesn't necessarily fix the problem of Conrad von Hötzendorff's leadership.

The only exception to this would be the cartridge they used, which is the one thing I would change about their weaponry. Their machine guns and rifles were as modern as anyone's, but they still used blunt-nosed bullets (the 8x50mm R Mannlicher), and didn't switch to spitzer bullets until 1930 with the 8x56mm R cartridge, almost 30 years after everyone else. I would either have them develop the 8x56mm R cartridge before WWI, so that they have effective ammunition, or, more likely, have them forget about producing their own designs for national pride reasons and just adopt the German 8x57mm Mauser cartridge, which would also have big advantages for logistics between Germany and Austria-Hungary during WWI.

that would have helped and having more funding might be reason enough.

 

[Hussar01]

funding, have KuK spend as much as its enemies would solve lots of problems.

 

[RyuDrago]

The Italian army wasn't surely in better shape than the KuK. And yet was necessary the German intervention to force the Italians to retreat almost ruinously and hold on the Piave. I mean, before Caporetto even with their own difficulties the Italians repealed the strafexpedition, and took Gorizia.

I wonder, the KuK should have invested more and better on the strafexpedition, or in the end was a sort of "best shot" which caused damages, but in the end was wasted? In the sense, those troops should have been used elsewhere?

 

[Vladimir Schlagwach]

To change the outcome it is nescessary to change a lot of things.

First, to chose a 18 year old for emperor in 1848 is a bad idea. After crushing the hungarian insurrection it would be time to decapitate the hungarian nobility and install a federal parliamentary system in the whole realm. Support the Frankfurt assembly and reign in the princes of the german bund. Distinct the austrian crown from prussia as a shining beacon of liberality, parliamentary and democracy.

But to do this, id would take a far greater man then FJ. His reign was to long. He was an able administrator but no visionary statesman.

Verry often Austria was not lucky enough to have the right man, at the right time, at the helm.

 

[Cymraeg]

Where do you want me to start? FJ was a reactionary who presided over a ramshackle 'Empire' composed of lots of people who hated each other. The KuK was led by a paranoid functional incompetent who panicked at the wrong moment in 1914 and redeployed an army that should have been sent against the Serbs. After that it was all downhill, including the siege of Przemyśl, which was an utter disaster. When you have umpteen languages for your officer corps to try and learn so that your soldiers can understand you, you have a problem.

 

[Fearless Leader]

That's not so much a problem of poor lower officer training, that was an issue of lack of officers and the small size of the military in general due to the Hungarian parliament refusing to fund the KuK. You'd need to find a way to break the back of the Hungarian nobility controlling the Hungarian parliament so that there wasn't constant efforts to create an independent army and break off Hungary from Austria. Potentially 1905 would have been a good shot if Plan U had gone through and Kaiser FJ used the military to rewrite the constitution so that it was universal male suffrage rather than only a very limited suffrage mostly based on the noble land holdings.


Better? No, but as good sure...with their modern gear. The problem was most of their artillery park was still bronze guns without recoil mechanisms. Again funding issues thanks to Hungary. 1905 again is a good POD to get a better funded, larger KuK army, though that doesn't necessarily fix the problem of Conrad von Hötzendorff's leadership.


that would have helped and having more funding might be reason enough.

I agree completely with the added caveat that FJ and his personal connection to the Settlement of 1867 was also a big part of the problem and a major reason Plan U didn't go through in OTL. You could probably add Franz Ferdinand as well and his obsession with the Navy, every time funding was denied to the Army, FF found some way to funnel part or all of it to the navy, which frankly was a massive waste of resources.

 

[Redbeard]

I actually think the KuK was much better than it is usually acknowledged for. It usually fought badly outnumbered and/or in very difficult terrain and considering that I think it did very well, much better than the contemporary Russian or Italian armies. The top leadership's handling of especially the 2nd Army in the invasion of Serbia certainly wasn't impressive (meaning that most of 2nd Army wasn't engaged anywhere) and considering the campaign was meant to be a quick thing before the Russians had finished mobilisation it was "underfunded" from the start with only 50% superiority in numbers (even less in artillery!) and add to that the general troubles in WWI with gaining territory quickly - and the terrain in Serbia even is quite difficult here and there. The most crushing operational victory of WWI, that of Caporetto is usually credited to the Germans, but it was A-H lead and the large majority of the troops were Austro-Hungarian.

The replacement system worked impressively and huge manpower resources were available but that was probably also was one of the KuK army's biggest handicaps as the leadership IMHO too much resorted to just replacing the troops lost rather than training and equipping the ones being sent to the front. That trend could be found anywhere in WWI and certainly at least as much in Italy and Russia, but A-H was the WWI power that for the most depended on its army staying intact and it is quite saying that when the army collapsed in October 1918 (the Generals simply started by leaving their command posts and the rest followed suit) the Empire collapsed instantly.

Another suggestion would be entirely dropping the expensive battleships built for the navy and resort to costal forces - let the Italians steam all they will in the Adriatic. But the victory at Lissa in 1866 probably wasn't a help here.

The language problems are generally overstated. First a very large proportion of the population spoke and understood some German, but the different language groups were not just mixed in the units but concentrated in "national" regiments. The national tension sure were there but generally not as strong as they were seen as after WWI when the new regimes had to legitemise themselves. What happened was that when the KuK army collapsed in October 1918 a number until then rather marginal national movements utilised the opportunity to declare independence.

As others have already stated the "Hungarian problem" was serious however. Not just for the army but for the Empire in general. The most important prerequisite for the Austro-Hungarian Empire performing better (or even surviving) would thus be deleting the special role the Hungarians gained in 1867 and which they misused to a degree which not only cost the life of the Empire but also in most of the neighbors taking their part of Hungary after the war. In this context the Hungarian nation probably would have fared much better by accepting a federalised Habsburg Empire, but expecting this kind of hind- and foresight in politics probably is too much.

And now to the real reason for me defending the A-H - their uniforms! Those massive blue-gray ranks with the curved pocket flaps and smart caps with a little fir twig in - that's cool! The Skoda works made some of the best artillery in the world but sadly the Hungarians refused to fund. Their Mannlicher rifles were among the first with a straight pull lock and not least important: my first hunting rifle was a Steyr-Mannlicher (a real beauty and hits 0,5 MOA) and my present rifle a modern version of the straight pull (making reloading a little quicker).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I wonder, the KuK should have invested more and better on the strafexpedition, or in the end was a sort of "best shot" which caused damages, but in the end was wasted? In the sense, those troops should have been used elsewhere?

The Expedition created the conditions for Brusilov's success, so investing more just means Brusilov does even better and potentially knocks A-H out of the war. And there was the little problem of the terrain seriously limiting what could be used.

 

[Halagaz]

The high command was stupid alright, but the junior officers were not much better. They kept sacrificing the lives of their soldiers in suicidal bayonet charge after suicidal bayonet charge. The officer corps was largely stuck somewhere between 1848 and 1866. At least the Lieutenants were (usually) not hypocritical or cowardly - while throwing their men into the meat grinder, they often got themselves killed as well. There are few aspects of the Austro-Hungarian army which would not need a major improvement.

Where do you want me to start? FJ was a reactionary who presided over a ramshackle 'Empire' composed of lots of people who hated each other. The KuK was led by a paranoid functional incompetent who panicked at the wrong moment in 1914 and redeployed an army that should have been sent against the Serbs. After that it was all downhill, including the siege of Przemyśl, which was an utter disaster. When you have umpteen languages for your officer corps to try and learn so that your soldiers can understand you, you have a problem.

But that is the root problem, really. If you're in charge of a reactionary dinosaur of an empire ruling over 10+ varyingly discontented nations, the best possible war advice may be "Don't go to war".

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The high command was stupid alright, but the junior officers were not much better. They kept sacrificing the lives of their soldiers in suicidal bayonet charge after suicidal bayonet charge. The officer corps was largely stuck somewhere between 1848 and 1866. At least the Lieutenants were (usually) not hypocritical or cowardly - while throwing their men into the meat grinder, they often got themselves killed as well. There are few aspects of the Austro-Hungarian army which would not need a major improvement.

But that is the root problem, really. If you're in charge of a reactionary dinosaur of an empire ruling over 10+ varyingly discontented nations, the best possible war advice may be "Don't go to war".

The French must have been horribly incompetent then in 1914.

 

[Halagaz]

The French must have been horribly incompetent then in 1914.

The doctrine of elan did turn out to be a huge disaster, didn't it?

 

[Virginia Liberal]

But that is the root problem, really. If you're in charge of a reactionary dinosaur of an empire ruling over 10+ varyingly discontented nations, the best possible war advice may be "Don't go to war".

That sums it up pretty good I also Agree that the system created in 1867 where the Hungarians get special status was not much of a help to the empire either.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The doctrine of elan did turn out to be a huge disaster, didn't it?

Yes and no depending on where and when. The Austrians did have initial success in Galicia and were on the verge of wiping out the Russian 5th army until they were turned back to help the Austrian 3rd. If different decisions were made in 1914 the Austrians could have potentially won the initial engagements despite the flawed tactical doctrine (but nearly everyone had a flawed tactical doctrine but for the Germans and Russians). I did start a paused TL about that idea.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

That sums it up pretty good I also Agree that the system created in 1867 where the Hungarians get special status was not much of a help to the empire either.

That was a necessary evil to avoid the empire collapsing. It would be an interesting what if had the Empire collapsed then or had reformed in a different way.

 

[Redbeard]

That was a necessary evil to avoid the empire collapsing. It would be an interesting what if had the Empire collapsed then or had reformed in a different way.

It indeed was a major crisis but I suppose it isn't entirely impossible to find a PoD where 1867 doesn't happen or one after 1867 where you federalise the Empire. I have often thought about making an ATL about "The Danubian Civil War" which transformed the Austro-Hungarian Empire into the Danubian Empire and which under Kaiser Otto von Habsburg in the 20th century was the core of the Heilige Europäische Reich uniting a number of mainly Catholic nations into a highly succesful economical union and an eternal rival to the Commonwealth-Continent where the British Empire and NW Europe co-operated while trying to underline their individuality. That is quite a bit more far out than reforming the KuK Armee, and anyway haven't had the time yet, but at least I once had a cat named Otto von Habsburg...